<html><body>
<DIV>"I can see the downgrade due to lack of S&G due to picking a bad direction <BR>for the stall turns (and the probably downgrade for it looking like a <BR>wingover would potentially be severe) a slight fuselage angle into the wind <BR>is typical of a stall turn, and ttrying to go the other way is ASKING for <BR>the turn to flop if you don't turn early, which rotates around the wingtip <BR>(or some distance further from the fuselage than the wingtip) instead of <BR>near/on the CG."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Absolutely no need for an S+G downgrade for a wingover or a flop - the book provides downgrades (on technical merit) for both.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Dave<BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber@clearwire.net> <BR><BR>> To downgrade a technically correct manuever due to a pilot's option <BR>> choice.... not appropriate. So the question is basicly asking who's going <BR>> to ignore the rules. <BR>> <BR>> I can see the downgrade due to lack of S&G due to picking a bad direction <BR>> for the stall turns (and the probably downgrade for it looking like a <BR>> wingover would potentially be severe) a slight fuselage angle into the wind <BR>> is typical of a stall turn, and ttrying to go the other way is ASKING for <BR>> the turn to flop if you don't turn early, which rotates around the wingtip <BR>> (or some distance further from the fuselage than the wingtip) instead of <BR>> near/on the CG. <BR>> <BR>> S&G usually goes hand in hand with doing the maneuvers wel
l.... and choosing <BR>> your optional directions appropriately. <BR>> <BR>> I find it easier FOR ME to compare roll rate if all the rolls are the same <BR>> direction... thus the presentation of canopy one time and belly the other <BR>> would make it easier for me to judge. (If I get to doing any judging at that <BR>> level...) <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "Glen Watson" <GWATSON11@HOUSTON.RR.COM><BR>> To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:38 PM <BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question -- <BR>> nowjudgeing the M <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > Understood subjectivity will always be part pattern... <BR>> > <BR>> > Let's see a show of hands of those who would apply a downgrade to an M <BR>> > flown <BR>> > technically correct according to the AMA judging criteria although the <BR>> > belly <B
R>> > was seen during 1 or both of the stall turns. <BR>> > <BR>> > Glen <BR>> > <BR>> > -----Original Message----- <BR>> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Mark Atwood <BR>> > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:19 PM <BR>> > To: NSRCA Mailing List <BR>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question <BR>> > <BR>> > I would disagree...it IS defined. Figure M with 3/4 rolls. Roll <BR>> > direction <BR>> > is optional, stall direction is optional. That's always been the case <BR>> > unless it's specified otherwise. There's no "implied" roll direction, <BR>> > just <BR>> > one that some think looks better. That will always be the case. <BR>> > <BR>> > Some people do their four points in different directions so as to show the <BR>> > canopy first, or last, which eve
r they feel presents better...Not sure I <BR>> > personally care, but for those that do...go for it. I know I'll catch <BR>> > flack for say this, but this IS a subjective sport. Presentation DOES <BR>> > matter... Always will. It's shouldn't outweigh the objective criteria, <BR>> > but <BR>> > it's not worthless either. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > On 10/17/06 3:11 PM, "jivey61@bellsouth.net" <JIVEY61@BELLSOUTH.NET><BR>> > wrote: <BR>> > <BR>> >> G <BR>> >> Yes you agree ..but you also see we have to define it now or everybody <BR>> > will <BR>> >> be flying and judging it differently. What a mess that will be. <BR>> >> <BR>> >> Jim Ivey <BR>> >> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> >> From: "george w. kennie" <GEOBET@GIS.NET><BR>> >> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:50 PM <B
R>> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> Jim, <BR>> >>> It certainly will work this way, but your original method will present <BR>> >>> better. With the roll direction being pilots option your original <BR>> >>> ll/rr-rr/ll is a much prettier maneuver. There's something to be said <BR>> >>> for <BR>> >>> presenting the canopy to the judges on rolling maneuvers. I apply this <BR>> >>> technique on all maneuvers with rolling elements unless the specified <BR>> >>> requirement forces otherwise, like reverse K.E.'s. IMHO, you had it <BR>> > right <BR>> >>> the first time! <BR>> >>> G. <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> >>> From: <JIVEY61@BELLSOUTH.NET><BR>&
gt; >>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:17 PM <BR>> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>>> Bob <BR>> >>>> If I read the Aresti correct the rolls on both vertical lines are the <BR>> >> same <BR>> >>>> direction.This makes it lt-lt and lt-lt coming from the left and rt-rt <BR>> >> and <BR>> >>>> rt-rt coming from the right.Like Jerry said look at top of plane one <BR>> >> time <BR>> >>>> and bottom of the plane next time. <BR>> >>>> <BR>> >>>> Jim Ivey <BR>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> >>>> From: "Bob Kane" <GETTERFLASH@YAHOO.COM><BR>> >>>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>> >
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:01 PM <BR>> >>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question <BR>> >>>> <BR>> >>>> <BR>> >>>>> Wow, this is more complicated than I anticipated. Do you have to roll <BR>> >> the <BR>> >>>> same way for each stall turn? Or can you reverse directions to show <BR>> >>>> the <BR>> >>>> canopy during each stall? <BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >>>>> For example, flying left to right as shown on the aresti, pull 1/4 <BR>> >> loop, <BR>> >>>> short line, roll 3/4 left (canopy toward flightline), short line, stall <BR>> >>>> toward the right, short line, roll 3/4 left, short line, push 1/2 <BR>> >> outside <BR>> >>>> loop, short line, roll 3/4 right (canopy faces flight line), short <BR>> >>>> line, <BR>> &
gt;>>> stall towerd the right, short line, 3/4 roll right, short line, pull <BR>> >>>> 1/4 <BR>> >>>> loop. <BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >>>>> Bob Kane <BR>> >>>>> getterflash@yahoo.com <BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ---- <BR>> >>>>> From: "jivey61@bellsouth.net" <JIVEY61@BELLSOUTH.NET><BR>> >>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:45:56 PM <BR>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question <BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >>>>> Jerry <BR>> >>>>> I looked again at the aresti and I think you are right.The aresti <BR>> >>>>> shows <BR>> >>>>> both upline r
olls in the same direction.That would let you see the top <BR>> >>>>> one <BR>> >>>>> time and bottom the other time. <BR>> >>>>> My mistake Bob so much for crutches. <BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ <BR>> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> >>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>> >>>> <BR>> >>>> _______________________________________________ <BR>> >>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> >>>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> >>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>> >>>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> _____________________________
__________________ <BR>> >>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> >>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> >>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>> >> <BR>> >> _______________________________________________ <BR>> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> >> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>> > <BR>> > _______________________________________________ <BR>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>> > <BR>> > _______________________________________________ <BR>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > -
- <BR>> > No virus found in this incoming message. <BR>> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. <BR>> > Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/478 - Release Date: 10/17/2006 <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________ <BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion </BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>