[NSRCA-discussion] Aresti takes precedence
J N Hiller
jnhiller at earthlink.net
Mon Jan 5 17:07:22 AKST 2009
Ouch. I probably still have about a hundred e-mails from last time. Neither
my airplane or I like them. Nothing very precision about a truly out of
control maneuver. I still remember some of Rick Alison's comments when the
45 down snap was added about 20 years ago.Yes it was tough then as well.
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 5:00 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Aresti takes precedence
Snap Roll vs. Spin? Downwind turn? Ready?
----- Original Message -----
From: J N Hiller
To: General pattern discussion
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Aresti takes precedence
I can't find any documentation that requires that an exit or entry line
be included as part of the maneuver. We are not talking about the maneuver
separation line here although it cirtinaly could be the same stretch of S&L
flight. If the maneuver actually included an exit line I would think the
maneuver separation line would need to be in addition to it. I believe the
judge training manual is pretty clear on how we should be flying and
judging.
I think we have just about beat this issue into submission.
I'm finished.
Next subject!
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Scott Smith
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 3:38 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Aresti takes precedence
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 Hochhalter
To: General pattern discussion
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
listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20090106/47317052/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/20090106/47317052/attachment.jpe>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list