equilateral triangles getting boring!

[Ted Fancher]

All right, all right.  Some old stuff over and over on the triangle thread.  Booooorrrrrriiiiinnnnng!!!

Time for some innovative thinking and I don't mean asking the JCT.

So, we take the infamous KT (Keith Trostle) 90 degree triangle with the 90 degree corners that look like 120/60 degrees to the pilot with exceptional peripheral vision. 

Now, we cut that section out of the surface of our hemisphere and toss it in the bin of stale old business. 

The remainder of the hemisphere (most of it) will now have three equal angles and three equal sides.  Is it a triangle?  If not, what is it.  How would you fly it?  How would the rule book describe it.

I think the answer is akin to making a case for astrology as a science but, what the heck, go for it!

Ted Fancher

[Randy Cuberly]

All right, all right.  Some old stuff over and over on the triangle thread.  Booooorrrrrriiiiinnnnng!!!

Time for some innovative thinking and I don't mean asking the JCT.

So, we take the infamous KT (Keith Trostle) 90 degree triangle with the 90 degree corners that look like 120/60 degrees to the pilot with exceptional peripheral vision. 

Now, we cut that section out of the surface of our hemisphere and toss it in the bin of stale old business. 

The remainder of the hemisphere (most of it) will now have three equal angles and three equal sides.  Is it a triangle?  If not, what is it.  How would you fly it?  How would the rule book describe it.

I think the answer is akin to making a case for astrology as a science but, what the heck, go for it!

Ted Fancher

I'm not crazy enough to get sucked into that...some probably are...triangles are triangles are triangles...worth up to 40 points...and mine usually suck, and some National Champion had a habit of leaving them out completely,    What more is there to know?

Randy Cuberly

[Dave Hull]

Keep the triangles. Just turn them upside down.

McDivot

[Steve Helmick]

Ted, would you please attach a drawing of this new proposed triangle with two 90 deg. corners? I are confused.

FWIW, when I first did triangles (during modern times), I was flying my Humongus at a club Fun Fly in Kent (not far from Smith Brother's Farm), and went into a wingover, did a 90 deg. at the top (or there abouts), and did another 90 deg. at level flight. Oh, the last two corners were outsides. Anyway, I did a bunch of these, making them smaller and smaller and eventually equilateral (outside) triangles. Got them too small, which ruined me for life, I suppose, but I liked them a lot, and still do. Wishing the rules allowed either inside or outside triangles. Even both would be cool, but I reckon it wouldn't be fair to the guys flying electronic airplanes. <sigh> Steve 

[RC Storick]

Humm we are going to turn triangles into what loops have become? You can't fly level and turn a square corner and expect it to look like a loop, it looks like a egg. Many top flyers get big points for eggs. Subjective? Who's your buddy?

If you doubt my word there are a 100 your tube videos of top fliers with eggs as round maneuvers including eights. You can bet they got big numbers.

[Howard Rush]

You can't fly level and turn a square corner and expect it to look like a loop, it looks like a egg.

Are you talking about the abrupt transition from level flight to the loop?  It's gotta be there for the loop to be round.  There is a step change in curvature, hence a step change in lift.  It takes an instantaneous change in handle position.

[RC Storick]

sure and it make loops look like eggs. Taller than wide

[Jim Thomerson]

A square corner entering the first loop is a common mistake. The result is that the climb in the first loop is in the middle of the second loop.

[Randy Ryan]

Keep the triangles. Just turn them upside down.

McDivot

Or, right and left right triangles. maybe even outside versions.

[ptg]

All right, all right.  Some old stuff over and over on the triangle thread.  Booooorrrrrriiiiinnnnng!!!

Time for some innovative thinking and I don't mean asking the JCT.

So, we take the infamous KT (Keith Trostle) 90 degree triangle with the 90 degree corners that look like 120/60 degrees to the pilot with exceptional peripheral vision. 

Now, we cut that section out of the surface of our hemisphere and toss it in the bin of stale old business. 

The remainder of the hemisphere (most of it) will now have three equal angles and three equal sides.  Is it a triangle?  If not, what is it.  How would you fly it?  How would the rule book describe it.

I think the answer is akin to making a case for astrology as a science but, what the heck, go for it!

Ted Fancher

Ahhh, the cycle of life.  When you’re young everything is new and exciting.  Then you become responsible and things get serious and…wait for it….boring.  Finally you become a ‘Senior’ and you have the occasional ‘Aha” moment to wit you think “why not”?

As the late R.F. Stevenson would say, “What a Crock”.  I have done this triangle maneuver many times only to have points deducted!  Your veil attempt to discredit the JCT is exposed. 

“Booooorrrrrriiiiinnnnng!!!”…long the JCT mantra!  I must admit, after all these years of flying the ‘IMPROVED PATTERN’ to finally have recognition is a bit anticlimactic but while we’re on the subject of improvement why not increase the appearance score to 30 point max. and add in our forgotten friend ‘Originality’ to account for the other 10 points. 

Meanwhile I’ll continue sport flying and check in annually to see what ‘improvements’ have been made to the Modern Stunt Pattern.

[Douglas Ames]

Maybe we all could put in for a rule change and rename them - "Doritos".

They are triangle-like with round corners and curved like the hemisphere. 

[Howard Rush]

sure and it make loops look like eggs. Taller than wide

No, it makes them look round, and it's necessary to make them round.  Overdoing it, as Jim says, gives you the wrong shape, but done correctly, the loop entry has a discontinuity in curvature.  An accusation that the top fliers fly wrong and their judge buddies let them get away with it should come with something to back it up.  If you have some alternative idea of geometry, let's see the math. 

[Trostle]

If you have some alternative idea of geometry, let's see the math. 

Or one even better, let's see the spherical geometry. 

(There are not very many text books readily available on the subject.)

And I vowed I was not going to get into this "rather unnecessary" thread.

Keith

[Randy Cuberly]

No, it makes them look round, and it's necessary to make them round.  Overdoing it, as Jim says, gives you the wrong shape, but done correctly, the loop entry has a discontinuity in curvature.  An accusation that the top fliers fly wrong and their judge buddies let them get away with it should come with something to back it up.  If you have some alternative idea of geometry, let's see the math.  

As much as I hate to get into this I do know what Robert is talking about.  I've seen a number of top fliers ( no not the National Champion top fliers) local contests here and in CA, fly slightly football shaped loops with the rounded points at the top and bottom.  I believe it's a result of searching for bottoms and 45 degrees.  Also som airplanes that are trimmed to fly blazing corners don't track very well in the rounds and and tend to fly either footballs or flat bottom round loops as a result of searching for bottoms.  I believe some judges downgrade for inconsistent or high bottoms more than irregularity in round shape.  bottoms are easier to see than round shapes.
I not saying I think this is common practice among judges or that the real top guys do this but I've definitely seen is as a common practice in some top 20 class and even top 10 class fliers.  I've even been called on it a couple of times when judging (after the contest) for fairly severe down grades on round loops...it usually goes something like this..."You only gave me 28 points for the round loops, and the other judge gave me 37, Why?"  My answer of course was I'm not the other judge and your loops are not round and that's a major shape violation and deserves a serious downgrade...All 4 or 5 of these folks went away shaking their heads.
I'm a fairly experienced judge and a reasonably experienced flier...but I don't like to judge because of these incidents with round loops.  I'm an engineer of vast experience and I know round when I see it...I played football a long time ago and I know what footballs look like also!

I know I'm gonna regret this but I finally had to say it...it's what it is and I don't intend to defend it for the rest of the day!

Randy Cuberly

[Howard Rush]

Or one even better, let's see the spherical geometry.

A loop is actually in a plane.  So you're abruptly transitioning from a circle in one plane (level flight) to a circle in another plane (the loop).

I agree that most of this thread is rather unnecessary, but I'm sensitive to intimations of impropriety in stunt after going to a heap of rather unnecessary work a few years ago to make the Nats transparent.

[Howard Rush]

I beliebe it's a result of searching for bottoms and 45 degrees.

Sounds like you're onto me.

[Randy Cuberly]

Hey Howard,
You could have at least corrected my typo in the quote!  Naw...I don't think I've ever judged you!

If I do have the occasion I'll be looking for it! 

Randy Cuberly

[Bob Whitely]

I have tried mightely to follow this convoluted and mostly nonsensical thread and
have apparently have lost my way.

The correct triangle shape is the one that consistantly gets 40 points. Anything else
is incorrect. This is a hard fact and cannot be disputed.  Therefore I obviously don't
understand what all the bruhaha is about. RJ

[Randy Cuberly]

I have tried mightely to follow this convoluted and mostly nonsensical thread and
have apparently have lost my way.

The correct triangle shape is the one that consistantly gets 40 points. Anything else
is incorrect. This is a hard fact and cannot be disputed.  Therefore I obviously don't
understand what all the bruhaha is about. RJ

It take a courageous man to try to inject common sense into a thread like this.

Enter my friend RJ Whitely!!!   

Randy Cuberly

[Ted Fancher]

Well, harruuummph!

The thread might be "rather unnecessary" and "nonsensical" but it shut down the other necessary and sensible thread like hot stuff spilled between snapping  fingers!!!! and garnered a plethora of witty responses from famous stunt guys.  I'm not only proud of the thread but thrilled that the original question has yet to be answered.  Inquiring minds want to know!

Re tall loops.  Yup, I've seen what Sparky is talking about and he is right in stating that loops that start with an excessively abrupt pitch change and then reduce it will NOT be round.  The right thing "overdone" is no more correct than the right thing underdone.  As Howie tries to point out, however, a loop can only be round if it starts with the correct radius and maintains it throughout three consecutive 360 degree rotations.  A correct loop cannot be started "smoothly" it must go as instantaneously as possible from level flight to the "correct" radius and then maintain the correct radius for the complete maneuver.  Nailing the "correct" radius is not easy.  Not trying to nail it is easy but inherently wrong.

FWIW, I 've watched a whole lot more loops destroyed by gradually decreasing radius entries than from too abrupt ones.  If Sparky or anyone else wants to win they'll pay attention to rapidly achieving the correct radius for rule book size loops and will be rewarded for doing so by the same judges that are picking the winners right now.

Ted