[NSRCA-discussion] Correct Geometry on N

[John Pavlick]

Woo hoo! Progress! We've finally reached the next level! We're not arguing about snaps and spins anymore!!! <LOL>
   
  John Pavlick

Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com> wrote:
            Ken,
   
  There is no requirement for the manuever to be square. Vertical lines must be vertical, 45s must be 45s, all radii must be constant and equal. The only way to get a square out of this is to extend the vertical and diagonal lines until they intersect, which is outside the boundary of the manuever. If someone flies low and with large radii, this could actually put the lower intersections below ground level. Do we downgrade the mauever then because part of it was out of the box? :-)
   
  The height (from bottom of lower loop segments to the top of the upper loop segments) will always be less than the width (vertical line to vertical line). Looking for the manuever to be square (or rectangle, for that matter) should not be a judging criteria, IMHO. 

Bob R

--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Ken Velez <kvelez at comcast.net> wrote:

  
Mark,     I think this is consider a square althoug the cad program shows a smaller   leg at the ends due to the rdii but the foot print is a square. I know you   said the fundamental shape is a square  I think calling it a rectangle will   create confusion. As a Judge Iwill be looking for a Square shape>    Ken      
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080708/957ca3fa/attachment.html>