[NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

[J N Hiller]

That is interesting. I didn't pay much attention to that when collecting the
info.

After observing some IAC competition I can understand the difference. It can
be difficult for some low powered aircraft to maintain airspeed while
pulling a large 5/8 loop in order to have enough height to exit on the entry
altitude. Where most can preserve enough energy to pull the 45 degree line
allowing plenty of height to complete the 5/8 loop from the top. I don't
know if IAC allows altitude changes or not but having observed several
flights I would find it difficult to judge altitude changes, at least in
lower class competition flown at higher altitudes. Interesting nonetheless.

Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of billglaze
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 9:50 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

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 <mailto:jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
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/20090105/77b26098/attachment.html>