Trouble with consecutive inside square loops.

I have trouble with the third and fourth corners of the consecutive inside square loop (2 required) maneuver. I can make the first two corners(turning into a vertical climb, and turning into inverted) OK, but the last two corners just end up being like the last part of a loop; very curved. I just can't get my hand to allow the plane to dive vertically.

The weird thing about this is that I can do outside square loops fairly well if they are the back side of a lazy "8".

Any ideas in how to approach this maneuver?

Maybe if you try it with a plane that can take some punishment without injury? I've been trying out one of Mike Ogren's Plastic Fantastic's the past couple of weeks, and we haven't been able to damage it, even with straight-down powered landings! There are several different sizes available, not just the little half-A thing I have. Last evening during one of my two flights I tried inverted flight just for kicks. Plowed it in after only half a lap, but just went right back to flying. No damage, no fear! I feel like I can try just about any manoever with this plane, and not have to worry about it.

Tim

Tim

MAKE THEM BIGGER.......Fly the tops way out you'll get used to the fast dives and hard corner. 8 out 10 people don't fly the flats. Some plane don't have the HP to do this stunt so people make them smaller. Let the plane fly out on the tops and bottoms. Remember YOUR the center of the manouver. Also look at the trim chart. I may help. SPEED, HP, and timming are important.

I'll second the advice of Scott--being in the same boat myself with the squares. I have found if I make them quite large, I can concentrate on the flats alot better. Also, I kept telling myself that the last corner is nothing different than a good wingover end.

Pretty good flying this weekend huh?

>I'll second the advice of Scott--being
>in the same boat myself
>with the squares. I
>have found if I make
>them quite large, I can
>concentrate on the flats alot
>better. Also, I kept
>telling myself that the last
>corner is nothing different than
>a good wingover end.
>
>Pretty good flying this weekend huh?
>
>
>Curt

THANK YOU CURT. You got it.... simple

Currell,

I know exactly what you are going through, because I've just been there myself. I was able to do a 40 POINT letter "P", unfortunately, that's not in the pattern. I struggled with the 3d and 4th corners of the inside square loop for about 6 months before I realized what the problem was.

It's really quite simple. After giving the 'up command' for the third corner, you are not making a clearly defined *neutral* command for the vertical dive, but are holding on to the up input to complete a very nice looking letter "P".

Here's the thought to consider.....the *neutral* command must be just as DELIBERATE as the *up* command. Think about that for a minute....that concept is critical.

What finally helped me, was to set up a cadence or sequence in my mind that says "..up...NEUTRAL...up...NEUTRAL...up...NEUTRAL...up...NEUTRAL". Notice that I'm putting the emphasis on the neutral command, because the "up" command is kind of natural and doesn't require too much thought. Making a *deliberate neutral* does require a bit of thought.

Of course, keep the top leg of the square loop high, and initially, make the vertical dive relatively short. Keep working on it, and it will come to you eventually, and then you'll find yourself saying...."hmmmm....this isn't that hard after all". <g>

Good luck..I hope this helps.

Warren --

Thanks! I suspect most folks who are comfortable inverted are not comfortable with neutral inverted. We not-quite-ready-for prime-time guys are always a little too careful inverted, and round out a little too safely.

Well said, and gives me some focus.

...and then you'll find yourself saying...."hmmmm....this isn't that hard after all".

My main flying buddy, David Hoover, recently remarked to me that when you get more experience, it's amazing the kind of things that no longer seem scary. His example was getting too close to the ground on a manoever, a loop for instance. He mentioned that in times gone by, if the bottom of his loop was within 2 feet of the ground, it'd upset him - a real butt-clenching feeling (I can identify!), but now, if he comes too close to the ground, his reaction is more like "oh - I came sort of close that time..." (correct me if I'm mis-quoting you, David...)

I guess his point is that there's no substitute for experience to get you comfortable with something. I was thinking about that this morning on the way home from church - how when I was first learning, driving was a real big deal, but now I don't think twice about it. Same sort of thing - earlier this season, every time I got a plane out and prepared to fly it, I got this sort of sick feeling in the pit of the stomach (is this the time I plow it straight in and destroy it?), but lately I've begun to notice that the feeling as I prepare is more fun - more just anticipation and excitement. I'm learning!

This is very long-winded...yes, I have half of a double martini in front of me as I type this.

On a different note, last week I heard that Konstantin Baijakine (another person who flies at my circle), when he was learning (he lived in Siberia at the time), used to practice thusly:

The snow was, like, 8 feet deep, and he'd practice his manoevers so that the tail of the plane would make trails in the snow at the bottoms...

Currell, I know that doesn't help you, but there it is, anyway...

Tim

Tim

MAAC 65703

"My main flying buddy, David Hoover, recently remarked to me that when you get more experience, it's amazing the kind of things that no longer seem scary."

Yep...
Motorcycles are like that too. Hit a VW ('67) broadside head-first at about 30 MPH sometime, and compress your spine all the way from the base of your skull to your tailbone, and nothing else after that (assuming that you live through it) in the sport is really scary...

Grins

JAK

I think one reason you find the inside squares easier to do in square 8's is that they are less scarey to fly than the outside squares, so you are not as hyper about them, as the worst is yet to come.

"Eat a live frog for breakfast. Nothing worse will happen to you all day!"

Tim

Tim

I'm finding the same thing, and it wasn't that hard 30 years ago. My thought is that I don't have a clear view of the model/ground as it dives, because my fist/handle is obscuring my view. I am going to try to observe my own flying and will try to get the handle closer to me and down some, to give me a better view. We have a contest coming up in a couple of weeks, and I will try to watch the better fliers hand/arm positions. I'm sure it will be difficult to change an old habit. One thing I am a nut about is to learn/teach GOOD habits because BAD ones are so difficult to break. Come to think of it, I'm just a nut. Steve

I thought Warren's explanation was very good. Getting the neutral input between corners is very important. Getting the airplane flying level inverted after the second turn is also important. Many people have a tendency to overturn the second corner, & from that point on the third corner is doomed. Get the thing pointed straight up after the first turn, get it flying level inverted after the second turn, (even if it takes half a lap at first), then, starting from 60-70 degrees (at first), point the nose straight down & try to hold it there for an instant before the last turn. That's how I learned. Now if I can just learn to do them a l i t t l e better....

>Get the thing pointed straight up after
>the first turn, get it flying level
>inverted after the second turn, ....
>
>Nils

Just a comment here. "Pointed straight up" does NOT mean straight up overhead. You need to place the maneuver straight in front of you and visualize two circles through the hemisphere perpendicular to the maneuver, one to your right and one to your left. The "straight up" legs then follow the path of these circles in order to keep the maneuver square. Too many flyers try flying straight up towards the overhead center and straight down from the overhead center and end up with the bottom half of a triangle (or trapezoid). We are trying to do a square and flying in a sphere, and this adds to the complexity of the situation.

Leonard Neumann

It's worse than that, we are trying to fly a maneuver that appears to be a square to the judge, when our perspective is much different from that of the judge.

Currell I get to TRY and help the other stunt flyers in our
club almost every weekend so I see a lot of flying as you described. The one thing most new flyers don't do is fly from the
wrist.It's just a guick snap and the plane turns easy with out a loss of power.I believe the key is very little control movement because of the quick wrist movement.If you are getting the round
backside that means that you plane is never getting vertical,you
never gave it a good quick snap into the dive. All the above advice above is good and maybe doing the loop larger will help.
Learning to fly with just a wrist snap takes a long time for some
and others never can get it mastered.I read about this many
years ago in a Bob Hunt article and it took me a long time to lear it.
Ed Ruane

Leonard --

Interesting point! I had always assumed that ideal squares were hemispherical cutouts, which are certainly trapeziodal when laid out flat. Are you sure you are right about that? You are saying on the up part, point left of the "north pole" of the hemisphere to make it truly square? Is that the way judges are taught, or is that just your opinion?

Not that it matters to most of us, as we great unwashed think anything with four distinct corners is pretty darned square, and only mildly different from triangles and rounds.

Larry: Len is correct. Just look at the picture of the maneuver in the AMA book, or Brodak's catalog.

Dave Gardner (who has judged at the NATS) said he ran a computer simulation of the squares/hemisphere puzzle and found that the flier has to compensate about 5 degrees on each corner to make it correct to the judge's perspective. As I understood his explaination, it means that the top corners are about 95 degrees and the bottom ones 85 degrees. Steve

In other words, forget all the "BLEEP"; pick a fixed reference point in space, and focus on it, and fly the airplane around it, come hell or high water, ignnore all else. The judges,(if any), the audience (see above), the background, the ground itself, your own personal thoughts and feelings about yourself, the airplane, and the failings (if any) of both.
FLY the airplane, don't let it fly you. If you go in, you go in, better luck next time; pick up the pieces and go on. Above all, YOU must be master, YOU must fly the airplane at all times, win or lose, the only thing that matters is YOU maintain control of yourself, the ship, and the situation.This is what I learned from one of the great masters of Stunt.

JAK

WHOOOOOOOOOOO. That's so BS. If so Paul Walker and ALL the rest ARNT doing the manuvor corect? The rule book say's 5r coners Flat bottoms square sides. I'm Tired that flyers can get away with there own interapation of the ruel book, AND Judges making their own set of rules. Sorry got to go and have a blood letting.

Scott, look at my response to Paul Van Dorf a little farther down. Because we are attempting a flat plane described maneuver and putting it onto a sphere, there will always have to be some "fudging" of "flats" and "verticals" and so forth. And what in reality may be 85 degrees in order to get the upper segment to equal the lower segment will still come out to appear to be "vertical" and "perpendicular" to the judges which is all we are trying to do.

Leonard Neumann

Currell,
One thing that has helped me with my squares is using a cadence
while flying the square. 1,,,2,,,3,,,4,,,1,,,2,,,3,,,4. A cadence
takes some of the guessing when to turn out of the equation.

In F2B, there exist judging instructions.
Please check it out and pay attention to de definition of
the squares, and the meaning of 'vertical'.

http://www.plasma.kth.se/~olsson/f2bjgv2.html

Very interesting stuff. But remember: FAI is not AMA

Regards,
Paul

FAI or AMA doesn't change a thing. We are still flying the same maneuvers described on a flat plane but trying to put them into a sphere, and herein lies our problem. The square loop is placed by definition into precisely 1/8 of a circle. The top segment is to equal the bottom segment is size (equal in size to 1/8 of the circumferance of the sphere--1/8 of a level lap). The sides are to equal the top half and the bottom half in size.

Now the lap distance of an airplane flying in level flight is much larger than the lap distance of an airplane flying at 45 degree elevation. So at the top of the square loop we are no longer flying a distance of 1/8 of a lap, but a much larger distance. So now everything becomes a matter of perspective. In order to keep the top sides of the same length, the square corners must be "fudged". And the term "vertical" and "perpendicular" become a matter of perspective just as the square corner (which is the only thing really defined--nowhere is vertical definied as 90 degrees) is judged by perspective, not by measured fact.

The whole point of this is that you cannot put a flat square onto a round sphere, with the sides of that square defined as 1/8 of the circumferance, without the sides bulging and the angles changing. But you can make some assimulation of a maneuver that will appear to be flat and square and that is what we are trying to do. Whether it is done from the flyer's point of view or from the observer's (judge's) point of view, there will be a slight deviation of fact in order to make it appear to be a reality.

Leonard Neumann

Leonard,

I read your post several times. You are correct if you are talking % of a lap traveled to create the same length of the square. The % on the top will be much larger than the % on the bottom. If you are talking feet traveled then the distance will be the same.(35feet traveled across the bottom would still be 35feet traveled across the top) Some say if you travel the same distance then it will look distorted because the top portion if the loop is closer to the judges than the bottom. Remember the judges are standing on the ground also. The top of the loop is actually only a very tiny bit closer than the bottom. beside half the time they are at the side of the manuver anyway. I have heard this argument many different times about how you should actually over or under steer the plane to make it look correct to the judges. Then I watch these people fly and 9 times out of ten they get it looking wrong due to the fact there is no referance point for 85 or 95 degrees.

The fact that many are flying very small these days will help hide the "sphere factor" this gives the airplane the look of being on a flat plane.

The real trick to getting squares square and rounds round is a coach. You will need to work with person on a regular basis. What happens is when you both see the same mistake being made then you can work on your pattern. If you see the wrong angle and your coach saw the very same wrong angle from outside the circle then things can be corrected easily. If he sees an angle that you dont see then you both need to work together more. When you can see what he sees then you can fly from the judges view because it is your view also(in your mind anyways)

Doug Moon

I am still simply trying to get through the pattern without forgetting anything or crashing so can't add much to this discussion.. But I did want to congratulate you on your win in Dallas..

Thanks Bob. I had a great time the wheather was nice and the flying was good and the BBQ was great.

>I have trouble with the third
>and fourth corners of the
>consecutive inside square loop (2
>required) maneuver. I can make
>the first two corners(turning into
>a vertical climb, and turning
>into inverted) OK, but the
>last two corners just end
>up being like the last
>part of a loop; very
>curved. I just can't get
>my hand to allow the
>plane to dive vertically.
>
>The weird thing about this is
>that I can do outside
>square loops fairly well if
>they are the back side
>of a lazy "8".
>
>Any ideas in how to approach
>this maneuver?

I have a different take on this. I think it's likely to be a trim or power issue (probably both). What's probably happening is the airplane doesn't feel right, which triggers reflexive actiuons on your part. I still have a tendency to do something very similar on the outside squares due to an engine run issue I used to have.

When you're learning the maneuvers, it's very easy to blame yourself when if fact it's almost always some airplane problem. Usually these problems go away with proper trim and power.

What is the airplane/engine combination, and in particular, when does the power "come on"?

I think it is more my own problem, because I have this tendency to round the last two corners on any number of aircraft. Granted, some of the models may not be trimmed optimally. I'm talking Magicians, Streaks, Giant Stuntmaster, Super Ringmaster, Noblers, Smoothies, T Bird II ,some scratch builts, including bipes, Shoestrings, Busters, much more. No full boat contemporary stunters, so you have a point there. It's probably a pilot brain/plane combination some of the time, with emphasis on gray (Sig Polar Gray?) matter. One of the Streaks and one of the Magicians is capable of flying pretty close to its capabilities, however. And one of the Noblers. Maybe the Bird, too, although it could use a bit more motor than the Fox. Smoothies are Smoothies. Motors include Foxes (as you know), Len's OS 40 FPs on some, OS 35-Ss, and the odd Johnson S and Redhead, even. And other planes/motors I won't bore you with.

I won't talk about the Yaks. Definitely it's the airplane there. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. But after a pushrod transplant, who knows?

I have one more suggestion for you Currell. Pick out ONE AIRPLANE you have that flys well & that you are comfortable with, & fly it, just that ONE AIRPLANE, 40 or 50 times in however many flying sessions that takes. Fly the pattern with it as best you can each time. Get used to it. Get used to what it takes to turn it smoothly & what it takes to make it stop turning where you want it to. By the time you get 50 flights on it I'll bet your squares (along with everything else) look MUCH better. Jumping from one airplane to the other, to the other, is a bad idea if you're trying to improve your pattern. Just my opinion.
Nils

I am sure that you are correct here. I was thinking of a foamie. I have a long wing Gotcha that needs to be completed.

I have to totally agree with what Brett and Nils had to say here. I know that you like to collect and fly different airplanes, but if your goal is to improve as a flyer, then you need to get a plane that flies better than you and learn to fly it up to its full potential. By switching from one plane/engine to another, you never develop a rhythm or confidence as to what that plane or you can do.

Matt elected to fly his year-old plane this year just so he wouldn't have to trim out a new one. He put something like 550 to 600 flights on just one plane that was ready to fly from the "get-go", and it made a difference. But even that wasn't static. We were making slight trim changes on it right up to the end (I hate that word, "end", but it will fly again with a new wing).

Pick one of your airplanes that flies the best, and then work at trimming both it and the engine to their full potential. Work on your rhythm. If the plane jumps or darts, it will throw you off. You will need to correct that. But even if it is a good plane, if it is a different plane, it will throw you off.

Maybe someone like Ted or Brett can switch planes and fly reasonably well, but even they will take a few flights to get used to it. I remember Ted mentioning a year or two ago at the Nats, after flying a different plane in Classic earlier in the week, that he figured he could "schwaffel" (spelling?) his way in qualifying to make the top 20, and by that time hoped to have it down again to fly well enough to make the top 5. By "top 20" day he probably had 20 or so flights on the plane. And for him that was enough. For you or me it might take 50.

So, if all you want to do is fly your collection, that is fine. But if you really want to improve your pattern--and especially those maneuvers that bother you--you will need to settle on one good plane/engine combination and work with it until you get better than it. And then it is time to move on to something even better.

Leonard Neumann

Leonard is making good sense as ususal. To add to that after you have really become comfortable with one plane and you can fly a pretty good pattern with it you will be amazed at how well you can fly your other planes. You might want to try just one plane for a while. It really will improve your flying as a whole.

I'd like to thank everyone here. I'm trying the deliberate movement to neutral, the counting, and the bigger patterns, and some of the other advice.

I'm already a bit better, although I don't believe the present Precision Aerobatics World Champ is worried quite yet.