[NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure"M"question-verticalsegments

Thu Oct 19 09:32:04 AKDT 2006

Hmmmm,............Astounding !!! That same identical pilot informed me of 
the same technique. What a small world.
G.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean Pappas" <d.pappas at kodeos.com>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 
Figure"M"question-verticalsegments

Hi George,
I screw up lots of times. I also appreciate how terribly difficult it is to 
write loophole-proof rules.
I have an old Drag Racing acquaintance who worked in Trenton in a 
word-smithing team for a legislative caucus.
Even tougher than writing loophole-free laws is lovingly-hand crafting 
loopholes!
How do some people sleep ...

If you are looking for examples of vague rules writing, just look at FAI's 
judging guide under snap rolls.
In this last revision, someone took the adjective "pitch" out from in front 
of the word "break",
probably just to save typing the word yet again.
I actually had one pilot tell me that this wording should allow him to 
perform his break entirely in yaw without downgrade.
It fails the horse-sense test: it is a stalled maneuver.

Dean Pappas
Sr. Design Engineer
Kodeos Communications
111 Corporate Blvd.
South Plainfield, N.J. 07080
(908) 222-7817 phone
(908) 222-2392 fax
d.pappas at kodeos.com

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of george w.
kennie
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 12:49 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure
"M"question-verticalsegments

Hey Dean,
I know that this will probably go to your head, but sometimes you are soooo
smart. I have some difficulty understanding the inalbility of individuals
experiencing trouble grasping the obvious and the logical. Often stuff gets
away from me too, so I'm not a stand alone here, but it seems to me that if
you think about the execution of a particular maneuver performed with
unequal line segments, it certainly isn't going to present a pretty or
symmetrical image. It should be pretty simple; IF IT LOOKS BAD, IT IS BAD!
All the rulebook does is to elaborate on this basic concept and no amount of
parsing will alter the end conclusion.
Additionally, I hear guys still asking for clarification regarding roll
direction after the book has been quoted stating that there is no mandate
and  they appear unable to recognize a preference as an individual
presentation bias, NOT A REQUIREMENT. NO guys, you don't have to show the
canopy to the judges on both stalls in the M, but you may be indicating to
casual observers that you have a roll direction that you are less
comfortable with (and no, that's not a reason for a downgrade). Sheeeeesh
!!!!!!!.....................( sorry guys, a little frustration coming out
here. I still love everybody and it's O.K. if you don't love me back).
G.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean Pappas" <d.pappas at kodeos.com>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M"
question-verticalsegments

Sorry Ron, but I disagree with you.
The Figure M must be symmetric. It's that simple.
Even 9 out of 10 non-trained casual observers will eventually, correctly
figure out that both sides should be of equal height.

If the maneuver description is lacking, then we must fix it,
but we must not fall into the trap of carefully parsing imperfectly written
rules
and, producing silly interpretations. This isn't court, and loopholes should
not decide who wins!

Dean

Dean Pappas
Sr. Design Engineer
Kodeos Communications
111 Corporate Blvd.
South Plainfield, N.J. 07080
(908) 222-7817 phone
(908) 222-2392 fax
d.pappas at kodeos.com

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ron Van
Putte
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:54 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question
-verticalsegments

On Oct 18, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Stuart Chale wrote:

> I think that this would fall under the general rules of all radii
> being
> equal and all line segments being equal.  If line segments were of
> different
> lengths then the top of the maneuver and perhaps the bottom would be
> different in different parts of the maneuver.  That would call for a
> downgrade.

I don't agree that the line segments in different parts of a maneuver
necessarily must be the same.  We can use the Stall Turns W/ Half
Rolls to make an altitude adjustment, so the two line would be of
different length and no penalty should be assessed.  The Square Loop
must have line segments of equal length to preserve the geometry of
the loop.

Ron Van Putte

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> Keith Black
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 1:13 AM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question -
> verticalsegments
>
> Now that we're breaking this down, I'd like some clarification on the
> section of the rule below that states:
>
> "The length of the vertical segments is not a judging criteria."
>
> In the strictest translation of this sentence I would say that this
> means
> that the two stall turns do not need to be the same height,
> however, this
> seems inconsistent will all other centered maneuvers where two
> halves of an
> object do have to match in size.
>
> A looser translation could be that the intention of this verbiage
> is to
> point out that a shorter 'M' should score as well as a taller 'M', but
> assumes that both sides should be the same height (which isn't stated
> anywhere).
>
> Unless otherwise clarified, I'd have to deduce that indeed the two
> stall
> turns don't have to be the same height.
>
> Keith Black
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glen Watson" <gwatson11 at houston.rr.com>
> To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question
>
>
> Below is the Figure M description from page 79-80 of the current
> AMA rule
> book...Note the statement regarding rolls and stall turn direction are
> pilot's option...I then found this statement "Edit page 79-80
> Figure M with
> ¼ or ½ rolls" to include ¾ roll options" on the NSRCA page under:
> http://nsrca.org/competition/judging/Patterns2007
>
> Figure M with 1/4 or 1/2 Rolls: Model pulls up into one-quarter
> (1/4) loop
> to a vertical track, hesitates then performs prescribed roll,
> hesitates then
> executes a stall turn through 180 degrees, hesitates, performs
> prescribed roll, hesitates then executes one-half (1/2) outside
> loop to
> vertical track, hesitates, performs prescribed roll, hesitates,
> executes a
> stall turn through 180 degrees, hesitates, performs prescribed roll,
> hesitates then recovers with another one-quarter (1/4) loop to
> level flight.
> Direction of rolls and stall turns are pilot's option. The length
> of the
> vertical segments is not a judging criteria.
>
> Downgrades:
> 1. Model not vertical at start and finish of rolls
> and stall turns.
> 2. Stall turns not exactly 180 degrees.
> 3. Model does not execute prescribed rolls.
> 4. Rolls not centered in vertical lines.
> 5. Bottom of outside half loop not at same altitude
> as entry and exit.
>
> Regards,
>
> Glen
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> Jerry Budd
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:20 AM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Unless the maneuver has changed from 15 years ago all the rolls have
> to be in the same direction, resulting in one stall turn being
> canopy-facing you and the other being belly-facing you (your choice
> as to which comes first).  It's a tough maneuver, especially when the
> wind is blowing other than down the runway.
>
> Jerry
>
>
>> Bob
>>  My memory crutch is,when flying from left to right, the 1st 2 roll
>> directions are left-left and 2nd 2 roll directions are right-right.
>> When flying from the right to left,the 1st 2 roll directions are
> right-right
>> and 2nd 2 roll directions are left-left.
>> Like Arch said the center half  loop is inverted in both cases.
>> Lotsa a upside down.
>>
>> Jim Ivey
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Archie Stafford" <rcpattern at stx.rr.com>
>> To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:11 AM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question
>>
>>
>>>  Bob,
>>>
>>>  It has to be inverted.  The direction of roll must be the same
>>> on every
>> 3/4
>>>  roll therefore you end up inverted across the middle.
>>>
>>>  Arch
>>>
>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>>  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Bob Kane
>>>  Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:53 AM
>>>  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question
>>>
>>>  OK, I'm finally try to fly this thing with a
>>> pencil . . . . . .    one
>>>  question I have (so far) is the 1/2 loop between the two stall
>>> turns in
>> the
>>>  figure M: Does it matter if it is an inside or outside half
>>> loop?  The
>>>  aresti diagram posted on Flying Giants shows it as an outside
>>> half loop
>> with
>>>  no option.  Thanks.
>>>
>>>  Bob Kane
>>>  getterflash at yahoo.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> -- 
> ___________
> Jerry Budd
> Budd Engineering
> (661) 722-5669 Voice/Fax
> (661) 435-0358 Cell Phone
> mailto:jerry at buddengineering.com
> http://www.buddengineering.com
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> ----
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 