[NSRCA-discussion] Aresti takes precedence

Mon Jan 5 14:38:03 AKST 2009

How can that be?  The word Aresti doesn't even appear in the regulations
(which by the way has been updated for 2009 and is available at
http://www.modelaircraft.org/UserFiles/RC%20Aerobatics.pdf) 

Hey, I just found ARESTI on pg RCA-13.what's wrong with the PDF search??
Anyway, if Aresti takes precedent, I need some more elevator throw for those
bottom radii on the humpty!

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of george w.
kennie
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 5:41 PM
To: cahochhalter at yahoo.com; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

Chuck, Jim,

The maneuver under consideration is the 1/2 Reverse Cuban, not the Cuban and
the question that Jim seems to be wrestling with is the end point of the
maneuver. Aresti drawings of all maneuvers are drawn with a circle on the
line of flight indicating the starting point of the maneuver and a vertical
bar indicating the ending point of the maneuver. If you look at RCA-09 in
the rulebook you will find an Aresti outline of the Sportsman sequence. You
will also note that the 1/2 Reverse Cuban displays the end point of the
maneuver as being in line with the entry point ( minus the straight entry
line ). The originator of the drawing appears to have gotten the Aresti's
correct, but has been remiss in displaying the exit lines on most maneuvers.
If the maneuver was complete when the 5/8 looping segment was complete then
the vertical Aresti END BAR would have occurred at that point. All the
Aresti figures I can find display all turn-around maneuvers as having their
end-points coincidental with their starting points.

As pointed out by Vicente in RCA-19 there is a requirement for all maneuvers
to start and end with a straight horizontal line. In the absence of a line,
in either case, there is a 2 point deduction. While it's true that the
length is not delineated, that wasn't always the case. Just another example
of the dillution of long established protocols by well meaning individuals
intent on making things better.

The judging committee has informed me on more than one occasion that "ARESTI
TAKES PRECEDENCE !!!"  I would counter, "the implementation of the axiom
should be paramount !"

G.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Charles <mailto:cahochhalter at yahoo.com>  Hochhalter 

To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 1:01 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

George,

I am going to have to agree with Jim on this one, the maneuver is complete
in regards to the cuban eight when the plane returns to level flight.  There
is no line segment required to complete the maneuver.

Chuck

--- On Mon, 1/5/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 2:28 AM

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

  _____  

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

  _____  

I am using the Free version of  <http://www.spamfighter.com/len> SPAMfighter
We are a community of 5.8 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 24309 of my spam emails to date.
The Professional version does not have this message

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090105/ee16d6f0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2623 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090105/ee16d6f0/attachment.jpe>