[NSRCA-discussion] Small World (was Re: Masters2007Figure"M"question-verticalsegments)

Thu Oct 19 11:51:34 AKDT 2006

LOL Fred.. I meant I have the musical notes memorized..  words I'm rusty 
on..  Very rusty on.. lol..  small mind from living in small world to long..

    Del

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber at clearwire.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:21 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Small World (was Re: 
Masters2007Figure"M"question-verticalsegments)

it's a world of laughter, a world or tears
its a world of hopes, its a world of fear
theres so much that we share
that its time we're aware
its a small world after all

CHORUS:
its a small world after all
its a small world after all
its a small world after all
its a small, small world

There is just one moon and one golden sun
And a smile means friendship to everyone.
Though the mountains divide
And the oceans are wide
It's a small small world

(CHORUS)

Repeat ad-infinitum
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Del K. Rykert" <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]Masters
2007Figure"M"question-verticalsegments

>I can do the instrumental part..  Have it committed to memory when I used
>to
> play it for my kids..  Will help keep everyone in key and on tempo.. ; )
>
>    Del
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dean Pappas" <d.pappas at kodeos.com>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters
> 2007Figure"M"question-verticalsegments
>
>
> "It's a small World, after all" ... Everybody sing along!
>
> 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: Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:32 PM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters
> 2007Figure"M"question-verticalsegments
>
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.6/487 - Release Date: 10/19/2006
>

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