[NSRCA-discussion] Masters2007Figure"M"question-verticalsegments

Thu Oct 19 12:27:40 AKDT 2006

I know my vote for Grumpy . . .

>From: "Ed Miller" <edbon85 at charter.net>
>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 
>Masters2007Figure"M"question-verticalsegments
>Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:38:00 -0400
>
>I feel like I'm at Disney World.  Certainly enough characters
>around...........
>Ed M.
>----- 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]
>Masters2007Figure"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

_________________________________________________________________
Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash with 
Live Search! 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline