<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2627" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Good explanation, and is clearly the way we all
HAVE been judging it through the years.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My original concern was correction of the Rule book
terminology.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Does that need just some RCP to the AMA ? Or
via the Survey? Or individual, or what?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The misuse of those terms is pretty gross for the
newbie who has only the rule book to try and figure out this deal.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>Bob Pastorello<BR><A
href="http://www.rcaerobats.net">www.rcaerobats.net</A><BR><A
href="mailto:rcaerobob@cox.net">rcaerobob@cox.net</A></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
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=don.ramsey@cox.net href="mailto:don.ramsey@cox.net">Don Ramsey</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">Discussion NSRCA</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, June 06, 2005 5:52 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Track v.s. Heading</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>OK, here's my thoughts on heading and track. They are
very different terms. Track is the path of the model over the
ground. Heading is the direction the nose is pointed. With no
wind, heading and track are the same. The downgrades for some turnaround
maneuvers are absolutely incorrect when there is the statement, "Model heading
does not finish exactly opposite direction of entry." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Let's take an example:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Say the course parallel to the flight line is north-south
(360 or 180 degrees). Assume the 180 degree heading is from left to
right. With no wind, if the model is flying parallel to the flight line
the heading and track will be 180 degrees from left to right. Now assume an in
blowing wind that requires a 15 degree correction to maintain a path parallel
to the flightline. Remember the track of the model must be wind
corrected to track parallel to the judges. The heading is now 165
degrees but the track is 180 degrees. The model is crabbed into the wind
15 degrees with the wings level as required by our regs and the nose is
pointed away from the pilot. Now assume you do a half loop as a
turnaround. The opposite heading to 165 degrees is 345
degrees. And that heading points the model into the flightline not away
as would be required for wind correction. How many judges would award a
perfect score if the model was pointed into the flightline when an opposite
correction was required? These mis-stated downgrades in the regulations
have been ignored for years (at least I hope they have). Substitute
track for heading and the model is now required to exit the half loop on an
exact opposite track. In other words, parallel to the flightline
entering the maneuver and parallel to the flightline on exit.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Don</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>PS: On all modern jetliners the NAV display has pointers for
both heading and track and they are seldom the same in the air.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>