<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=US-ASCII http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">
<DIV>
<DIV>Absolutely Jimbo. Your assessment is on the mark. In a fair amount of cross wind, any departure in pitch from wind-corrected straight and level flight will require some small roll command. The masters do that seamlessly.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If roll correction is done throughout the pitching element to achieve wings level, less rolling would be required overall and would be less obvious. We called that a "Maneuver Smoother" back in the heyday of Pattern. Still applies today and will always apply.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In regard to wing bobbles and such caused by the maneuver corrections, in the FAI regs it is stated that (I am paraphrasing) extremely small deviations are not to be counted. The problem is a real definition for what "extremely small" means. To me, it means a couple degress (less than five). Definitely not enough for a whole point deduction. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I don't recall reading such verbiage in the AMA regs. In the AMA schedules, I judge a couple such bobbles as a half point off IF I see them. That's what it's supposed to be anyway. In reality, it's much harder to judge that correctly, having to keep a count for each and every maneuver, etc, etc.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Remember having a conversation on same subject with Earl Haury at the 2003 TEAM Selection Tournament. I believe we were discussing when to penalize the whole point downgrade (1pt/15 degrees), and we pretty much concluded that at least two small 5-10 degree bobbles had to be seen in the same F3A maneuver to penalize the whole point. That these are additive as they should be. If only one is observed, then no downgrade is to be assessed.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That's my take. As always, open to differing or opposing points of view</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Matt</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><BR><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>Hi All,</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT size=2>I want to bring up a discussion point about wind correction. This may seem obvious to some but I want to ensure I have the right picture in my mind (started thinking about this since Don S. posted his comments about Q.S. flying wind correction in finals, and confirmed during some practice yesterday). </FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>1. Wind correction is supposed to be done while maintaining wings level.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>2. You are supposed to use the yaw angle to correct for the wind. </FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>Situation: Pilot is flying a square loop ( at center). Wind is blowing 90 degree out 20 mph. Pilot fly's past center at a some yaw angle in to compensate for the wind blowing out. The pilot pulls a 90 degree radius to a vertical upline. The fuselage is canted in to the wind to compensate for the wind blowing out. *Point of discussion: If the pilot were to pull another 90 degree radius, the wings would become "unlevel" as the plane reaches the top leg of the square loop. *Point of discussion: So, if the pilot is using the correct technique for wind correction (wind correcting force being yaw angle), then every time the pilot creates a radius, you should definitely "see" the ailerons moving the wings through the radius to ensure that as the radius is finished, the wings are level for the next line and the fuselage is yawed for wind correction. Same thing next radiu s; The pilot adds pitch, moves the wings, and adds the correct rudder to transform the top of the box line to the next downline (wings level, yawed into the wind), etc. </FONT> <BR><BR><FONT size=2>*Point of discussion: We spend a lot of time concentrating on wings level for normal pattern flying and usually "any" type of aileron or wing movement is a visual key for a downgrade using the 1 pt / 15 degree rule. However, this is false to accurately judge flying on a windy day. In order to fly in a crosswind, nearly EVERY radius will have some amount of roll induced (and necessary) to ensure that the "lines" can be flown with wings level and in order to utilize yaw as the wind-correcting force. </FONT> <BR><BR><FONT size=2>That said/ when and how much roll should be used? I would guess that you would want to seamlessly input the pitch, aileron, and rudder so that the plane just appears to go from one wind corrected line to the other magically. What is the judging criteria for inputting a roll function in the radius to ensure the wings stay level & fuselage stays canted (yawed) into the wind from one wind corrected line to another? Should the amount of aileron needed to go from one wind corrected line to another line start and finish corresponding to the actual duration of the radius? What if the pilot only correct s the wing as the plane is nearing the end of the radius, is this some downgrade because the correction was placed near the end of the radius instead of "evenly-througout" the radius?</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT size=2>I'm sure I'm exaggerating this situation and I am purposefully, to stimulate some talk on the subject. Again, my contention is that for some wind conditions, in order to maintain the overall geometry of the maneuver that there MUST be roll correction during radii to seamlessly move from one wind corrected line to another, and this roll correction should not be downgraded. </FONT> <BR><BR><FONT size=2>Any takers?</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>Jim W.</FONT> </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>