LOL. Someone has to. Unfortunately, the honeymoon will have to wait. 4 kids and paying for the wedding ourselves put a dent in that idea. I've been told it's OK for us to go to the NATS but that WILL NOT be our honeymoon! We'll get it figured out.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Glen Watson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ghwatson@comcast.net">ghwatson@comcast.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">There ya go picking on me again.</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">How was the honeymoon?</font></span></div><br>
<div dir="ltr" align="left" lang="en-us">
<hr>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Scott
McHarg<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 27, 2011 11:04 AM<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br><b>To:</b> General
pattern discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] A question for the
experts<br></div></div></font><br></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<div></div>Mr. Watson,<br> Does this mean you will be flying FAI
soon?<br><br>Warmest Regards,<br> A soon to be Masters guy<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Glen Watson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ghwatson@comcast.net" target="_blank">ghwatson@comcast.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left:#ccc 1px solid;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br><br>Dave, presents a good argument to fly FAI vs.
AMA...AMA is judge more<br>harshly.<br><br><br><br>-----Original
Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>[mailto:<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Dave Lockhart<br>Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 10:12 AM<br>To:
'General pattern discussion'<br>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] A question for
the experts<br><br>Matt,<br><br>If you are judging by the rules, your answer
must be different for FAI -<br><br>5B.8 WIND CORRECTION<br>All manoeuvres are
required to be wind corrected in such a way that the<br>shape of the maneouvre
as described in Annex 5A. is preserved in the model<br>aircraft's
flight. The exceptions to this grading criterion are in the<br>stall
turns, and spins, where the model is in a stalled condition.<br><br>My opinion
is that the AMA book should be updated to be consistent with the<br>FAI book
on this topic, and the FAI book is clearly better suited to the<br>real world
dynamics of stall turns in windy conditions.<br><br>To answer Don's original
question -<br>For AMA, by the book, - the maneuver is downgraded for
drift.<br>For FAI, by the book, - the maneuver is not downgraded for
drift.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Dave Lockhart<br><br><br><br>-----Original
Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>[mailto:<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>]
On Behalf Of<br><a href="mailto:mjfrederick@cox.net" target="_blank">mjfrederick@cox.net</a><br>Sent: Friday, May
27, 2011 8:53 AM<br>To: General pattern discussion<br>Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] A question for the experts<br><br>I'm not sure where the
notion came from that wind drift during a stall turn<br>is not downgraded. In
AMA judging criteria the only maneuver that<br>specifically mentions that no
downgrade is given for wind drift is the spin,<br>and that is only DURING the
stalled portion of the maneuver. In a "stall"<br>turn there is no true stall
of the wing as there is in a spin. If flown with<br>the proper wind
corrections on the up- and down-lines there should be no<br>noticable
deviation in distance. If there is, the maneuver should be<br>downgraded
because the pilot failed to make the proper wind correction. Even<br>if there
was a slight drift during the 180 turn at the apex of the lines,<br>the pilot
should recognize that and incorporate the proper adjustment to the<br>downline
to bring the aircraft back to the original starting distance. To<br>me, it's
no different than turbulence that might cause the aircraft to<br>temporarily
deviate from straight and level flight. Adjustments must be made<br>to return
the airplane to th e original line. I don't feel like pulling up<br>the
FAI rule book, so I just won't go there, but I'm not sure if my
answer<br>would be any different.<br><br>Matt<br><br><br>---- <a href="mailto:tocdon@netscape.net" target="_blank">tocdon@netscape.net</a> wrote:<br><br>A
question for the judging experts.<br><br>Figure M, both Masters and FAI- Yes I
know the bottom line rule the best<br>presentation gets the best score, but a
technical question.<br><br>Maneuver flow in a crosswind. Plane
starts maneuver at 140 meters distance<br>out. During the first stall
turn the plane drifts out (recall this is a<br>stalled maneuver); second stall
turn the plane drifts out again (same). Now<br>the plane wind corrects
in all other aspects of the maneuver but exits<br>approximately 20 meters
further out than the entry and no defects observed,<br>but exit distance is
160 meters. What is the score given for this maneuver?<br><br>Best
Regards,<br><br>Don<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<br><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<br><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<br><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><b style="color:rgb(51,51,255)"><font style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif" size="4">Scott A.
McHarg</font></b><br><br></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><b style="color:rgb(51, 51, 255)"><font style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif" size="4">Scott A. McHarg</font></b><br>
<br>