(snip)
>I would like to disagree with everyone who suggest the POINT
>at the level flight and flat at the top. With my reasons as
>follows.
>
>1: It is harder to fly a flat at 45 and maintain shape due
>to the hemispher arch just look at the squares and how they
>are flown by everyone and the mistakes in making that top
>leg straight.
>
>2: You are asking the plane to turn against its flight and
>almost BUNT, for those who would have to do the pattern who
>arent' as skilled as some of the others, this would mean
>really rounding the manouver and flying almost a loop.
>
>3: We want to give the judges something to be able to judge,
>at the present one aspect they look at is pullouts and
>holding that level flight, any bobble's or deviations at
>level flight is more noticable than at 45. So it makes the
>judges task easier to pick an error. If the flat is at the
>bottom. Also, they have the triangle in there head as far as
>what it should look like so its easier for everyone to adapt
>than make a NEW triangle shape for them to look at.
>
>4: I saw alot of people at the worlds and US nats flying
>outside triangles and everyone I saw flew flat at the
>BOTTOM. Most noticable being David Fitzgerald, You know 2003
>/ 2004 US Nats winner Expert
>
>5: I believe If the base is flat at the top is at 45 It
>gives everyone a fair go and those who are new to trying the
>outside loop have it fixed in there mind what it looks like
>due to already flying the Inside Triangle.
(snip)
>Obviously this is for FAI and AMA is another story. What are
>some constructive thoughts??
>
>P.J
I agree with you, P.J. let's keep this constructive and make it a diaglogue of positive thinking. I am not opposed to rules changes. I am opposed to those that are just for the sake of change. I would not like free style for this reason as all it does is introduce change for the sake of change. The inclusion of outside triangles would balance what is not now a fully balanced pattern. Wingovers are done as one inside and one "reverse". Figure eights and hour glass do not need reverse as they already have the inside and outside portion of the maneuver built in. The same can be said of the clover (two inside loops, two outside loops). But the triangles remain as two inside and no outside. And we remain with two or three twists in our lines (depending on how we enter or exit the overhead eight). For the above reasons I would be in favor of adding the outside triangles to the pattern. (And I am not heart broken if the proposal is never adopted. I am willing to live with majority rule.) So, that said, I am still torn as to whether the point should be upright or inverted.
You make a vailid point at point 3 about the level portion being easier to judge at 5 feet AND in point 5 about people already have a "point up" triangle in their head. However (always agree with someone before you disagree) how David or anyone else has been "practicing" these maneuvers in the past is not relevant. And, as to the others, let me suggest this:
a) With the hourglass we have already introduced an inside triangle with the point up and an outside triangle with the point down. To separate the elements and to keep them in this perspective would, to me, seem equally logical.
b) If it is harder to fly a flat at 45 degrees and maintain a shape with the hemisphere, so be it. Isn't this what we are now doing with the outside square? We are attempting to place the airplane at level flight at 45 degrees at the start of this maneuver. Then we bring it back to that height to complete the level portion of the square at that height once again. I see no difference with the outside triangle and would see this as maintaining consistency in the way that the maneuvers are flown. We do an inside square from the bottom. An outside square from the top. We do an inside triangle from the bottom, we do an outside triangle from the top.
c) Agreeing with Keith that we really are not flying 60 degree turns in these triangles, but still using this number as it "seems right", we do fly these 60 degree (or whatever) turns in both the triangles and hourglass now. But there are no 120 degree angular turns in any maneuver in the pattern as it is presently flown. So to begin at the apex of the triangle with the point upright and begin with this 120 (or whatever) degree turn goes counter to what we already have. To begin at the top (as in the outside square) and fly the flat at the top (as in the outside square--the outside square is "inverted", is it not?) Would then have us go immediately to the same degree of turn as when entering the inside triangle. It would have the flyer perform it in the same manner, only with the maneuver inverted (again, as in the outside square).
I have flown the outside triangles both ways, and personally feel that the outside triangle, flown point down, is more elegant--and for those learning it far less intimidating. I would suggest that those who would argue for either side try it flown both ways and see what you think.
As to the judgment of heights, again granting your assessment that it is easier to judge the flat when it is flown at 5 feet, it is equally easier to judge the point when doen at 5 feet. The most difficult portin of the inside triangle to place is the top point. People can start from a point at level flight to make the turn, and they cam aim for a point to make the bottom turn again (thus making the placement of the bottom relatively easy) but there is a tendency to turn sharper or less sharp on the first turn of the upward climb, thus changing the angle and location of the point at the top, as well as the tendency to travel farther or less far causing the point to jump up and down in repeated trangle maneuvers. This would become far more evident when the point is placed at the bottom. Or maybe the height of the point would now remain more constant and the height of the flat would move (as it does now with the square eight. Many square eights find the second flat (or top) higher than the first.
Again, I offer these comments, not as criticism of your views, but as a counter argument, which, to me, makes the iverted triangle (point down) the more logical choice in a balanced pattern.
Constructive arguments. Let's keep them that way and not argue personalities.
Thanks, PJ.
).
