[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed rule change

[J N Hiller]

Thank you Ed.
Jim
 
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ed Alt
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 5:53 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed rule change
 
Don:
I guess I'm getting on a roll this morning. First, I wish we would stop calling it a stall turn, because the wing never, ever stalls during the execution of what is actually a hammerhead turn, but I'll let that go for now.
 
I prefer to go with a description that accounts for the need to perform wind correction of the line to the maximum extent that is permitted by the conditions being encountered.  I don't think it's particularly hard to determine this either. If the model has a strong enough, direct cross wind, there is certainly a point at which no technique is going to prevent drifting with the wind, and you could objectively determine this if a continuous correction into the wind to an angle as extreme as 90 degrees will not offset wind drift.   However, there is a considerable amount of correction that can be applied with the application of some power and continuously increasing the yaw angle, right up to the point of pivoting over.  I would argue that the criteria should eliminate any mention of performing exactly a 180 degree attitude pivot, but should instead focus on a sharp pivot around the CG, such that the path up and down the line do not diverge by more than X (1/2 a wingspan or whatever).  Same goes for correction in the pitch attitude.  A "stall turn" that is properly wind corrected in both axis is a beautiful thing to observe.  No where near easy to do, and isn't that what this is supposed to be all about, i.e. rewarding the piloting skill that clearly demonstrates the best depiction of maneuver geometry under all conditions?
 
Regards
Ed
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Don Ramsey <mailto:don.ramsey at suddenlink.net>  
To: 'General pattern discussion' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 11:17 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed rule change
 
What do you guys think of this rule change for stall turns?
 
In the Judge’s Guide Page RCA 20 of Regulations under “Stall Turns”: 
Change  1.. Lines must have exactly vertical and horizontal flight paths.  To
1.  Horizontal lines must be wings level and parallel to the flight line.  On entry vertical lines must be wind corrected to establish a vertical track.  The wind corrected attitude of the model must not be changed as the stall is approached and any wind drift is not cause for downgrade unless the model drifts out of the maneuvering area.
 
In the maneuver descriptions under “Figure M with or without Rolls” 
Change downgrade 1 from “Model not vertical at start and finish of rolls and stall turns” to
 
1.  Horizontal and vertical lines must be flown as described under “Stall Turns” in the Judge’s Guide above.
 
In the maneuver descriptions under “Stall Turns with or without Rolls” 
Change downgrade 3 from “Model track not vertical at start and finish of rolls and stall turn”  to
 
3.  Horizontal and vertical lines must be flown as described under “Stall Turns” in the Judge’s Guide above.
 
 
Here’s the logic behind the change:
 
Once a crosswind becomes stronger than the speed of the model the model can no longer maintain a vertical track even if turned 90 degrees into that wind.  Stall turns flown as described in the changes always score better with the majority of judges.  This change brings the stall turn in line with the spin in allowing some wind drift of the model as it slows and provides a much more consistent judging standard.
 
 Don
  _____  

_______________________________________________
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/20091011/793ac380/attachment.html>