[NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
rcmaster199 at aol.com
rcmaster199 at aol.com
Mon Jan 5 18:53:44 AKST 2009
Hmmmm... I think I wrote that wrong. What I wanted to say is that exit
may be different in altitude than entry on any TA maneuvers. And BTW, it
doesn't have to be different....
As written, one could interpret the verbiage as allowing an altitude
delta on entry from the previous horizontal line... something akin to a
gallop on entry. That's clearly wrong.
Jim, thanks for pointing that out
MattK
-----Original Message-----
From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 4:04 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
Where
do you find that. Here is what it says in the Sportsman Judge
training presentation for both the half cuban and half reverse cuban
eights
(401-15).
NOTE:
In a TAmaneuver, entry and exit altitude changes are allowed. To change
altitude
in thismaneuver, the 45 degree line may be extended or truncated. All
loop radii
must remain equal.
http://nsrca.us/documents/judging/currentamaschedules/PPT_Sportsman2007.p
df
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 12:42 PM
To:
General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New
Year
One maneuver in Sportsman, goes counter to all other
turnaround figures of which I know.C2 The Half Reverse Cuban should be
entered/exited at the same altitude. I know it's IMHO silly to have
different criteria for the same maneuver, but there it is.
Particularly
to have that requirement in sportsman, but there it is. I can quote
the
"authority" of the day, if necessary.
----- Original Message -----
From:
Rex
To: NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 3:04
PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy
New Year
You are correct, Jim.... for both AMA and
FAI.
From: jnhiller at earthlink.net
To: cahochhalter at yahoo.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date:
Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:23:51 -0800
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New
Year
With
respect to pattern it's my understand that all turnaround maneuvers
except
the sportsman, straight flight out / stall turn / straight flight
back, can
be used to adjust altitude.
Jim
-----Original
Message-----
From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of
Charles
Hochhalter
Sent: Monday,
January 05, 2009 9:59 AM
To: General pattern
discussion
Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
If I read
it correctly about any turnaround maneuver is considered as an
altitude adjusting maneuver.
Love these
discussions... sometimes nervous to speak up and prove you are
wrong
rather than participate and learn... hehhehe
Chuck
---
On Mon, 1/5/09, billglaze <billglaze at bellsouth.net>
wrote:
From:
billglaze <billglaze at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
To: "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, January 5,
2009, 5:50 PM
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
20 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
panels0D
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 conc
erned. 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
0A 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=2
0# 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 a20maximum
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
=2
0 list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________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_________________
______________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list