[NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

Mon Jan 5 08:50:33 AKST 2009

Interesting if one takes the verbatim descriptions.  It would seem that on the Half Cuban an altitude change on finishing is permitted, because it is specifically mentioned.  Such mention is missing on the Reverse Cuban.
Any significance?
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: J N Hiller 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 9:28 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

  George I'm back.

  I was hoping someone would advance the discussion regarding the finish point of the reverse cuban eight being equal to it's start. Since no one has I can't sit back and watch. Sorry but I disagree. 

  Somebody please correct me if I am wrong but as I remember from previous judging seminars 'all maneuvers start from and finish with straight and level flight' (upright or inverted). This leads me to believe maneuvers start and stop when they deviate from S&L flight in either roll or pitch and do not include either a lead in or exit line segment.

  As you know, Aresti figures are a universal / international language used by IAC competitors. They are often displayed on their instrument panels as a sequence quick reference guide. If we were to try to fly each figure as drawn most turnarounds would need an altitude change with some having strange angles. If all turnaround maneuvers finished or started with their widest part, either entering or exiting something like the reverse humpty which is 3 radiuses wide, if flown on line, would need to include an exit line equal to 2 radiuses in length. I don't think so!

  The attached word document contains figure descriptions from the IAC and AMA web sites. They all describe the maneuver as starting or ending with the looping segments with no mention of a lead-in or exit line. It appears to me that the Aresti drawings are for reference only and not to be used as a required flight path.

  I expect this will come up in our judging seminar and I will fly and judge it however Gary says.

  Jim

  -----Original Message-----
  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of J N Hiller
  Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 10:30 AM
  To: General pattern discussion
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

  George don't worry about me being ostracized I spent the bulk of my working life pointing out details to coworkers, managers and consultants who were generally unaware or disinterested. The consultants were fun, it didn't take long to overload them and I outlasted most of the managers. 

  The devil is always in a seemingly unending string of details. During my years in management, writing 'How It Works' documents filled with detail, I found most folks were overwhelmed if exposed to all of it but it was necessary reference material. 

  Most management meetings were filled with discussions exposing details and the relative importance to the individuals concerned. It was always enlightening. 

  I guess what I am trying to say is that highly detailed rule books like highly detailed SOP manuals can become so overwhelming that they become dust collectors. Kind of like the snap roll discussions where too much equals nothing. Yes it's time to dump a lot of old e-mail. 

  I'm one of those strange individuals that fly pattern or IMAC for the challenge and self-satisfaction and yes I judge my flying but I don't question the scores awarded. We all see it a little differently and there is always room for improvement but before the NSRCA judging clarification guidelines and training, score sheets could be 'interesting'. 

  Anyway thanks for enlightening me regarding the finishing point of the half reverse cuban. I thought the maneuver separation line started upon completion of the partial loop. Something else to watch for when judging! 

  Yes I read all your postings and responses.

  Jim

  -----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: Friday, January 02, 2009 6:50 AM
  To: General pattern discussion
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

  Jim,

  I'M A NOBODY !!!!!!!!!!!!   If you fall into the trap of taking anything I say as Gospel you may be opening yourself up to opposition and ostricism, so be forewarned.

  My reason for dealing with the clover was to establish some sense of what size to make the loops. As you can see, when you clearly understand the geometry, the required size becomes a dictate.    It's all in the details, Jim. Some people feel that I'm over detail oriented, but unless you understand the details you can't effectively perform OR judge the maneuver accurately.  I inadvertently abdicated my own mantra by loosely referring to the looping portion of the clover as loops, when they're 3/4 loops. My bad.  You sound like you have a good handle on the clover. I would add that you further concentrate on making sure the vertical up and down lines are dead-on superimpositionally.

  I also agree with the floor to ceiling approach as I'm constantly telling new guys that I work with to "make it bigger."  Adding to that the requirement to maintain maneuver to maneuver relative size relationships, which addresses your question regarding the Sportsman's Cobra.  Ya can't have a mini-Reverse and a gigandi Cobra. I'm glad you referenced that problem as it's a prime example of what I was talking about in my discussion on "maneuver end-points."  I think I remember a lot of agreement in previous discussions about the problem resulting in the conclusion that maneuver # 3 and # 8 needed to be switched to alleviate the cramping issue. I even thought this to be a viable solution at the time, that is, 'til you brought it up  and then I realized that I was missing my own point. There is no size difference between the 1/2 Cuban and the 1/2 Reverse Cuban. That Reverse doesn't end until you get all the way back to the beginning of the ENTRY line.  CHECK THE ARESTI !  So, you see there is no advantage either way. What was probably needed was something like a Humpty.

  Regarding the roll rate issue. I'm glad that Matt referenced that as I was going to offer the three rolls in 5 seconds, but refrained as it's too vague and would be quickly challenged.  The 3 second rule on the Slow is a minimum value with no maximum indicated. It should be pretty obvious that there should be a visually discernable differential between the two and becomes somewhat subjective. This 1.67 second interval for the standard roll being established as a maximum value would quickly come under attack I'm sure. I don't know how the legislative process could be achieved on that one.

  My feeling, and it's only a feeling on the Cuban with 2 of 4 is similar to my stand on the triangle with the roll across the top i.e. presentable centering. I like to see a clearly defined line before and after the rolling element and would prefer to see the roll consume less of the overall downline area than the two straight-line segments, but that's just ME. I confess that I would not like to see a standard rate that's so fast that I can't keep up to the required corrections.

  I'd also like to thank you for your feedback.  I wasn't sure anyone would read the whole diatribe.

  Georgie     

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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/20090105/b80f3cf1/attachment.html>