<div>Thanx everyone. this is the discussion I was hoping for. </div> <div>There actually isn't a correct answer, just opinions to my original question.</div> <div>Ed<BR><BR><B><I>Earl Haury <ehaury@houston.rr.com></I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It seems that crosswind conditions are of most concern to many, they shouldn't be. Keep the nose into the wind a "nearly appropriate" amount provides a "show" of wind compensation, while a little drift off plane is difficult for the judge to detect. Probably the need to apply the nose to the wind attitude during rolls creates problems for some.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The real difficult wind is that strong and parallel to the runway - this will really mess
with geometry, ground speed, and airspeed. The speed issues have an effect control effectiveness, making it difficult to maintain radii / roll rates / etc. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A view of Ed's issue might look like this: At a recent meet the wind was strong and mostly parallel to the runway, let me tell you about the "squares" I judged in Masters and Advanced. Those starting at the bottom were generally entered with proper windage and attitude (to the wind) increased as the aircraft slowed (vertical track), then the radius to the next "horizontal" leg was 90 deg <STRONG>in attitude - </STRONG>leaving the radius track short several degrees and the "horizontal line" climbing (a point or two gone), the radius to the downline varied from enough to get vertical with no wind compensation in attitude (more than 90 deg radius) to another 90 deg attitude radius (now the downline attitude is
downwind) - really bad for the track (and another point or two gone) - very rarely did anyone compensate for the wind <STRONG>at all </STRONG>on the downline, finally the radius to a level horizontal line (most got level) required a more than 90 deg track radius (another point gone) - so depending on severity of wind compensation errors this thing is 4 - 7 before any consideration of other factors. A rarer version was flown fast with no wind compensation on the upline - track off a little ( 1/2 - 1 point gone), top radius OK and top line horizontal - likewise radius to downline, downline flown fast with no wind compensation - track is off (another point gone), bottom radius is 90+ deg to get to horizontal (another point) and this thing scores maybe 7 to 71/2 before other factors.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now the guy with the 4 compares his score with the guy with the 71/2 - gee, <STRONG>wind
correction doesn't pay</STRONG>! Be <STRONG>very aware</STRONG> of the fact that both have significant downgrades before any other errors might be downgraded - not many squares are really square, rolls often aren't centered or the same rate, etc. and all drive the score lower. Compensate for the wind properly and the maneuver score goes <STRONG>up 2 1/2 to 6 points</STRONG> in this example! </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The point is that properly executed wind compensation pays big rewards! (Note also that I use the term "compensation" instead of "correction", the latter infers an error is already made and fixed (gotta be a downgrade there somewhere), while compensation infers the wind forces are accommodated to ensure proper geometry!</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Earl</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=drykert2@rochester.rr.com href="mailto:drykert2@rochester.rr.com">Del K. Rykert</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, September 30, 2006 9:18 AM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt
arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Wind correction</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ed...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The correct answer by my definition is depends on the judge unfortunately.. If you are flying in front of me I subtract from 10 depending on the severity of flaws I catch. Ugly versus pretty are not primary judging factors on the judging priorities. So when you choose to fly your maneuver pretty and your elbow competitor fly's it by the book don't ask me why you received the lower score.. grin..</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Del <BR> nsrca - 473</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT:
#000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=divesplat@yahoo.com href="mailto:divesplat@yahoo.com">Ed Deaver</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, September 29, 2006 9:13 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [NSRCA-discussion] Wind correction</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV>Hey everyone. While the season is winding down, Don Ramsey and I had an interesting discussion this past weekend. Am wondering what the general consensus is.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>First, let me state, judges are human and I understand that. Also, many judges don't know the exact wording of many rules, I understant that
also.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Soooo</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Will a pilot score higher if they follow the letter of the law and wind correct perfectly, but fly an ugly manuever, or wind correct a little and let the plane look "prettier" in a manuever?????</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Lets use the first maneuver in the Master's sequence after entering the box. Stall turn 1 1/4 rolls up, 3/4 rolls down exit inverted. On a strong wind day, not pulling to vertical to maintain the line doesn't look to bad (we expect that) the 1 1/4 rolls in centered, looking good, appropriate rudder is given to maintain a straight vertical line (again expected and usually doesn't require much as we are at full throttle), the stall goes off without a hitch, but do to lack of airspeed we cant the fuse and hold rudder into the wind letting the fuse lean at a 45degree angle to maintain a straight line (this is the part I'm curious about) until the 3/4 roll and using a
little down elevator to hold the line after the roll (again expected but not ugly)</DIV> <DIV>Everything about this manuever is done and doesn't detract from the overall appearance of the manuever except the down line after the stall, which is simply "UGLY"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just curious what everyone says. Again, I know what the rules say, and am not interested in a rule book interpretation, but what do you think about scoring better vs worse???</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thanx</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>ed</DIV> <div> <HR> <div></div>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE> <div> <HR> <div></div>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>