<div>And it would have laser alignment as well.</div> <div> </div> <div>Bob R.</div> <div><BR><BR><B><I>Dean Pappas <d.pappas@kodeos.com></I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Well I for one know that it would be a beautifully sharpened pencil: the job done with a sharpener of his own design.<BR>Dean<BR><BR>-----Original Message----- <BR>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org on behalf of Verne Koester <BR>Sent: Tue 10/17/2006 9:32 PM <BR>To: NSRCA Mailing List <BR>Cc: <BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure"M" question -- nowjudgeing the M<BR><BR><BR><BR>No, the pen would've flown into me.....<BR><BR>Verne<BR><BR><BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From: "Archie Stafford" <RCPATTERN@STX.RR.COM><BR>To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:20 PM<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007
Figure "M" question -- <BR>nowjudgeing the M<BR><BR><BR>>I can't help but wonder if Verne had the pencil if it would've already<BR>>flown<BR>> into a pen by now?<BR>><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Verne<BR>> Koester<BR>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 4:15 PM<BR>> To: NSRCA Mailing List<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question --<BR>> nowjudgeing the M<BR>><BR>> I can't help but wonder if Kane broke the damned pencil yet.....<BR>><BR>> Verne<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 4:35 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question --<BR>> nowjudgeing the
M<BR>><BR>><BR>>> Mark,<BR>>><BR>>> The majority of the names I recognize responding to this thread are<BR>>> Masters<BR>>> pilots. Great discussion by the way. However I am hopeful the<BR>>> individuals<BR>>> from other classes who judge Masters get this information as well.<BR>>><BR>>> Continued awareness and education is what I am after. I take personal<BR>>> pride<BR>>> in understanding the appropriate criteria and application there of when<BR>>> it's<BR>>> my turn to judge no matter who the pilot is or the class flown.<BR>>><BR>>> Glen<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> -----Original Message-----<BR>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood,<BR>>> Mark<BR>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:53 PM<BR>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List<BR>>> Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question --<BR>>> nowjudgeing the M<BR>>><BR>>> Hey Glen,<BR>>><BR>>> On this maneuver, I have a hard time believing that anyone would<BR>>> downgrade a good M based on which side of the canopy they see. Of<BR>>> course...I've never really understood the "show the canopy first" idea<BR>>> to begin with, but especially here, there are SOOOOOO many things to go<BR>>> wrong, that a good M is a good M...period. Draw the lines, wind<BR>>> correct, hit the radius...and BHAM!! Good maneuver. There's so much to<BR>>> screw up that showing the wrong side is irrelevant.<BR>>><BR>>> Now...like I said...stalling the opposite way...short of a dead<BR>>> calm...is more likely to get you a downgrade. Be it right or wrong...<BR>>><BR>>> -----Original Message-----<BR>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>>>
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Glen<BR>>> Watson<BR>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:38 PM<BR>>> To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'<BR>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question --<BR>>> nowjudgeing the M<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<BR>>> 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<BR>>> 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<BR>>> the<BR>>> canopy first, or last, which ever 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<BR>>>> 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<BR>>> 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<BR>>> 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>>>>> 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<BR>>> the<BR>>>> same<BR>>>>>>
direction.This makes it lt-lt and lt-lt coming from the left and<BR>>> rt-rt<BR>>>> and<BR>>>>>> rt-rt coming from the right.Like Jerry said look at top of plane<BR>>> 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<BR>>> 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,<BR>>> 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>>>>>> 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 rolls in the same direction.That would let you see the<BR>>> 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>>> 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>> 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>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</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>