[NSRCA-discussion] Correct Geometry on N

[mjfrederick at cox.net]

I'm glad someone finally pointed that out... Ken is exactly correct in the point that the only way to see the square would be to extend the lines until they intersect. I think if a judge is concentrating too much on that aspect, they're going to miss a lot more. Focus on the elements: are the verticals equal length w/ same entry/exit altitudes, are the radii all equal, are the diagonals 45 degrees w/ equal lengths, are the rolls centered on the 45's? Answering yes to all these questions would result in being able to superimpose a square loop over the hourglass, but I don't think that should be a litmus test as to what score will be given.

Matt

---- 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
> 
>