[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: A question for the experts

Fri May 27 12:20:23 AKDT 2011

That will be any day now, Ron.

Emory

On May 27, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Ronald Van Putte wrote:

> I promise to "move up" as soon as I get into the top 25% at the Nats.
>
> BTW, I have no problem with poor pilots moving up to the Master  
> class; I need somebody I can beat.
>
> Ron
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com>
>> Date: May 27, 2011 2:23:29 PM CDT
>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] A question for the experts
>> Reply-To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
>> >
>>
>> Dear Mr. Van Putte, You have my utmost respect but, maybe the (and  
>> I quote) "$#@! Master class guys" should move up??  Makes room for  
>> us poor nobody pee-on Advanced guys that HAVE to move up.  Just  
>> sayin......    :)
>>
>> PS - This is a joke.  Please do not come banging on my door wanting  
>> to have a word with me without a Bud Light in hand and another to  
>> share.  Thank you for your continued support.
>>
>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Ronald Van Putte  
>> <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:
>> We don't need no more $#@! Master class guys!
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> On May 27, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Scott McHarg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Warmest Regards,
>>>   A soon to be Masters guy
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Glen Watson  
>>> <ghwatson at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave, presents a good argument to fly FAI vs. AMA...AMA is judge  
>>> more
>>> harshly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of  
>>> Dave Lockhart
>>> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 10:12 AM
>>> To: 'General pattern discussion'
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] A question for the experts
>>>
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> If you are judging by the rules, your answer must be different for  
>>> FAI -
>>>
>>> 5B.8 WIND CORRECTION
>>> All manoeuvres are required to be wind corrected in such a way  
>>> that the
>>> shape of the maneouvre as described in Annex 5A.  is preserved in  
>>> the model
>>> aircraft's flight.  The exceptions to this grading criterion are  
>>> in the
>>> stall turns, and spins, where the model is in a stalled condition.
>>>
>>> My opinion is that the AMA book should be updated to be consistent  
>>> with the
>>> FAI book on this topic, and the FAI book is clearly better suited  
>>> to the
>>> real world dynamics of stall turns in windy conditions.
>>>
>>> To answer Don's original question -
>>> For AMA, by the book, - the maneuver is downgraded for drift.
>>> For FAI, by the book, - the maneuver is not downgraded for drift.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Dave Lockhart
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
>>> mjfrederick at cox.net
>>> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 8:53 AM
>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] A question for the experts
>>>
>>> I'm not sure where the notion came from that wind drift during a  
>>> stall turn
>>> is not downgraded. In AMA judging criteria the only maneuver that
>>> specifically mentions that no downgrade is given for wind drift is  
>>> the spin,
>>> and that is only DURING the stalled portion of the maneuver. In a  
>>> "stall"
>>> turn there is no true stall of the wing as there is in a spin. If  
>>> flown with
>>> the proper wind corrections on the up- and down-lines there should  
>>> be no
>>> noticable deviation in distance. If there is, the maneuver should be
>>> downgraded because the pilot failed to make the proper wind  
>>> correction. Even
>>> if there was a slight drift during the 180 turn at the apex of the  
>>> lines,
>>> the pilot should recognize that and incorporate the proper  
>>> adjustment to the
>>> downline to bring the aircraft back to the original starting  
>>> distance. To
>>> me, it's no different than turbulence that might cause the  
>>> aircraft to
>>> temporarily deviate from straight and level flight. Adjustments  
>>> must be made
>>> to return the airplane to th  e original line. I don't feel like  
>>> pulling up
>>> the FAI rule book, so I just won't go there, but I'm not sure if  
>>> my answer
>>> would be any different.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>> ---- tocdon at netscape.net wrote:
>>>
>>> A question for the judging experts.
>>>
>>> Figure M, both Masters and FAI- Yes I know the bottom line rule  
>>> the best
>>> presentation gets the best score, but a technical question.
>>>
>>> Maneuver flow  in a crosswind.  Plane starts maneuver at 140  
>>> meters distance
>>> out.  During the first stall turn the plane drifts out (recall  
>>> this is a
>>> stalled maneuver); second stall turn the plane drifts out again  
>>> (same).  Now
>>> the plane wind corrects in all other aspects of the maneuver but  
>>> exits
>>> approximately 20 meters further out than the entry and no defects  
>>> observed,
>>> but exit distance is 160 meters.  What is the score given for this  
>>> maneuver?
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Scott A. McHarg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Scott A. McHarg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20110527/cb0f4db3/attachment.html>