[NSRCA-discussion] Aresti takes precedence

Mon Jan 5 18:41:25 AKST 2009

Indeed!! To make those radii that sharp you need a pivoting wing

2 points downgrade only in AMA....FAI regs require 1 pt off on 
preceding and 1 point off on succeeding maneuvers.
 regards,
MattK

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Smith <js.smith at verizon.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 6:37 pm
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 im
plementation 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 &lt;jnhiller at earthlink.net&gt;
  wrote:

  From: J N Hiller &lt;jnhiller at earthlink.net&gt;

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

  To: "General pattern discussion"
  &lt;nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org&gt;

  Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 2:28 AM

  George
  I'm back.

  I
   was hoping someone would advance the discussion regarding the finish20
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 lea
d-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
0A   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'M20A 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.
0A   
  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/listin
fo/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 lis
t
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion