What should square maneuvers look like?

[Tim Wescott]

Anyone who's been flying for a long time is going to go all "well, duh" on me, I just know it.  Non-engineers are going to get turned off by the mathematical detail -- I apologize in advance, feel free to ignore anything after the real question about how things should look to me when I'm flying.

From an anal-retentive engineering perspective, the rule book leaves a lot to be desired as far as specifying the ideal flight paths of the various square and triangular maneuvers in the pattern.  Mostly because there just isn't any such thing as a "square" sitting on the surface of a sphere.  I toyed with the notion of trying to turn the rules into mathematical descriptions of the flight paths, and I realized that I just couldn't -- things are not specified well enough.

Since I'm getting to the point where, about four times out of five, my square maneuvers don't have any of those sudden kinks or bends that let you know that the pilot will be visiting the porta-potty immediately after his flight, I want to make sure that the maneuvers that I'm aiming for in practice are the maneuvers that are going to reap me maximum points.  Basically, I realize that it's too soon for such details to make a difference to my score, but I don't want to develop any bad habits that I'll have to work myself out of later.

I want to know what the maneuvers should look like to me so that they will look best to the judges.  Because the descriptions use language that is appropriate for planar shapes and I am inscribing figures on a hemisphere, I know that what I see and what the judges see will be different.  And it is not clear to me from the way that the rules are written exactly how the maneuvers should look to the judges, or to me, or to anyone else.

Reading the rules I see several different ways that I can interpret what's written.

The best way that I can think about drawing these distinctions is to imagine that I've made little models of the flight paths of the various maneuvers out of wire, and I'm looking at the shadow cast by the figure onto a wall with light sources at various places.  Turn this around, and it's more or less the flight path as seen by an individual standing at that place.

Take a square loop.  It's supposed to be "square".  I think the rules explicitly state that it's not supposed to have four equal angles and four equal-length sides.  Yet that's the closest thing to a "square" that you could have on a sphere.  If you inscribed such a figure on a sphere, then looked at its shadow as cast from the sun onto a flat screen angled 22.5 degrees in from "vertical" (assuming the sun could shine through dirt) you would see a square.  With the same screen and a light source at the pilot's position, you would see a square.  But with the screen vertical and the light source at the pilot's position, you would see a figure with curved sides, and a longer top than bottom.  Ditto with a vertical screen and the light source at the judges position.

So -- if I'm standing at the judge's position, imagining that I'm seeing the flight path projected onto a vertical wall, should I see a square with rounded corners?  Or if I'm standing at the judge's position should I see a square if the wall is angled in at 22.5 degrees?  Or if I'm standing at the judges position should I imagine that I'm standing right behind the pilot, and look for something that would look like a square to the pilot?

Ditto square eights, triangle, hourglass.

If you've gotten this far, thanks for your patience.

[Bill Little]

Hi Tim,

From a pilot's perspective "I" believe that the square should "look" as follows:

From a height of 4-6 feet, an abrupt turn to vertical into a vertical climb

At 45* another abrupt turn to an inverted  "horizontal" flight path the same length as the climb

Another abrupt turn to a vertical dive

Another abrupt turn to horizontal at a 4-6 feet height

No bobbles, hops, etc., should be present at any of the turns.

I am sure other, more qualified pilots will give other, maybe more accurate descriptions.

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

[Tim Wescott]

Thanks Bill.  That's the level that I'm rapidly approaching, which is why I want to set my eyes up higher on the mountain as I practice.

I was more wanting to know things like angles and distances: should the square present itself as "square" to the judges or should it be a bit trapezoidal to them and square to me, ditto with the square eights, should the three angles of the triangle all be equal (which will make it look squat to the judges) or should the top one be more pointy, etc.

[dirty dan]

Tim,

This will sound harsh, although it is not meant to be, but at your level of flying the discussion you want to have will be nothing more than mental masturbation.

1. Review past discussions on this if you must.

2. Get in a lot more flying. If the squares are confusing concentrate elsewhere.

3. If you truly want to see what a competent flyer sees, pick someone and get permission to stand directly behind them while flying squares.

4. Take off your engineering hat before we blow it off for you. I know you think you are bringing up good material. You are wrong; a great many of us have been though this numerous times.

5. Replace hat with something more suited to an artistic approach. In my view, flying the pattern is more art than science.

6. At the very least, recognize that the printed word is woefully inadequate when discussing this topic.

Dan

[Mike Haverly]

Tim, put your engineer hat away and get and get a reliable coach to tell you what "looks" right.  These numbers have been crunched to death.  A coach or judge will let you know what is right or wrong.  The pilots "view" and the judges "perspective" is certainly different.  Mostly my opinion, but if you go to a big time contest I'm sure the top guy's are worrying about what looks right to the judges instead any math.

[Mike Haverly]

I didn't see Dan's post, we kinda said the same thing.

[Tim Wescott]

I'm only concerned with the math to the extent that it helps me describe the problem.  Ultimately, all I really need to know is what the judges are expecting to see.  Given that and time to think, I can figure out what I need to see from where I'm flying.

I would love to be in a position to get coaching.  The impediments that I have to this are that no one has offered to coach me, I don't know who to ask, I work during the week and it seems that everyone in the Fireballs flies on weekdays, and the only competitive stunt flyer that I've been able to lure to my local field (where I can sneak out on the occasional weekday and fly short sessions) is a beginner.

I may ask for his input in any case, but I'd rather have some expert opinion to base things on first.  Besides, if he helps me then I'll have to help him, and I'm jealous of how much faster he's improving compared to me at that stage in my flying.

So rather than pining away for lack of something I can't have, I'm trying to do my best with what I do have, which is me and all the helpful folks on Stunthanger.  If anyone can point to any of the illuminating threads that Dan alluded to, or some particularly good videos, I'll check them out.  I think I've flogged those resources to death, but one never knows.

[Mark Scarborough]

Tim,

3. If you truly want to see what a competent flyer sees, pick someone and get permission to stand directly behind them while flying squares.

4. Take off your engineering hat before we blow it off for you. I know you think you are bringing up good material. You are wrong; a great many of us have been though this numerous times.

5. Replace hat with something more suited to an artistic approach. In my view, flying the pattern is more art than science.

6. At the very least, recognize that the printed word is woefully inadequate when discussing this topic.

Dan

Tim,
Having been down the same,, exact same,, thought process, item two in Dans post is the most relevant,,( for the record dont satnd behind me LOL)
a Lesson learned long ago from an archery instructor,, " once you can put all five arrows in the same place,, then we can move that place wherever we need to"
In other words,, focus on making things repeatable,, make the squares the same size,, same shape, consistantly,, time after time,, THEN you can tweak the size and shape as needed.
Your comment about not learning mistakes is valid,, however, I think repeatability is the first step, get things the same size and shape, time after time, then make adjustments to make them right....

but before that, you really need to get a well trimmed airframe, until your airframe AND POWER system are refined, most of the rest is white noise,, it matters,, My Gee Bee profile was probably the single biggest tool for growth I had. It flew well, the LA46 was repeatable flight after flight,, and I was able to focus on making my maneuvers consistent,,
That said, I too still have LOTS of room for improvement,,

[Mark Scarborough]

I'm only concerned with the math to the extent that it helps me describe the problem.  Ultimately, all I really need to know is what the judges are expecting to see.  Given that and time to think, I can figure out what I need to see from where I'm flying.

I would love to be in a position to get coaching.  The impediments that I have to this are that no one has offered to coach me, I don't know who to ask, I work during the week and it seems that everyone in the Fireballs flies on weekdays, and the only competitive stunt flyer that I've been able to lure to my local field (where I can sneak out on the occasional weekday and fly short sessions) is a beginner.

I may ask for his input in any case, but I'd rather have some expert opinion to base things on first.  Besides, if he helps me then I'll have to help him, and I'm jealous of how much faster he's improving compared to me at that stage in my flying.

So rather than pining away for lack of something I can't have, I'm trying to do my best with what I do have, which is me and all the helpful folks on Stunthanger.  If anyone can point to any of the illuminating threads that Dan alluded to, or some particularly good videos, I'll check them out.  I think I've flogged those resources to death, but one never knows.

part of the reason others may advance faster,,
#1 could be talent ( or abstract vision to see the problem clearly)
#2  over analyzing a problem is a huge stumbling block,, trust me I KNOW
#3  consistency,, in habits, in engine run, in mental approach
#4  coaching
#5  consistency,, in habits, in engine run, in mental approach
#6  a well trimmed honest flying airplane like the KISS
#7  a well trimmed honest flying airplane like the KISS
#8  a well trimmed honest flying airplane like the KISS
#9  a well trimmed honest flying airplane like the KISS
call Scott Reise,, he may need a ride since he is without a car at the moment,, but he tolerated my "engineering" approach and once you get to know him, he is willing to help, available most of the time, and loves the sport,, and he does know what he is doing,

[dirty dan]

I didn't see Dan's post, we kinda said the same thing.

Mike,

Yes, but you were more polite. Which is what we expect of you.

Still, I am predicting that Tim's approach here will be a lot like learning to hammer nails with one's forehead and that until he actually understands my comments--harsh though they may be--and then acts on them there is little we can do to help via our keyboards.

Dan

[Claudio Chacon]

Hello,
I think this is a good example of how the square maneuvers should look like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=GXFelZaO9LI

[Brett Buck]

Anyone who's been flying for a long time is going to go all "well, duh" on me, I just know it.  Non-engineers are going to get turned off by the mathematical detail -- I apologize in advance, feel free to ignore anything after the real question about how things should look to me when I'm flying.

From an anal-retentive engineering perspective, the rule book leaves a lot to be desired as far as specifying the ideal flight paths of the various square and triangular maneuvers in the pattern.  Mostly because there just isn't any such thing as a "square" sitting on the surface of a sphere.  I toyed with the notion of trying to turn the rules into mathematical descriptions of the flight paths, and I realized that I just couldn't -- things are not specified well enough.

  It's supposed to look like a square (with rounded corners). Consider a vector projected from your eye to the intended center of the maneuver (22.5 degrees elevation and your chosen azimuth). Project a plane perpendicular to that vector. It's a square inscribed on that plane, with the bottom at 0 degrees elevation. All four sides will be straight lines on your reference plane, and the angles will all be 90 degrees on your reference plane.

   If you don't like that one, Ted had an example. Make a cone out of paper. Mark the circumference of the cone with marks spaced 90 degrees apart on the big end. Fold corners from the marks to the point, and make them all the same angle. End of cone is now a square.

    We have had ever-more-bizarre interpretations using everything from counting on one's fingers to conformal mapping in mu-infinity space. It's supposed to look like the square your teacher drew in chalk on a chalkboard in the 3rd grade. Same with the other maneuvers.

   Brett

[Russell Bond]

This explains it for you.

[Jim Thomerson]

Good for Brett.

[Tim Wescott]

 It's supposed to look like a square (with rounded corners).

To whom?  Me, or the judges?  Either one -- great, tell me and I'll figure out the rest.

What really got me going was rule 13.10 on the square eights, which states in part:

Correct eights are judged when the model starts a
vertical climb and makes a modified inside square
loop followed by a modified outside square loop
ending with a vertical climb at the same point. The
loops are modified so their climbing sides are
vertical, and the loops are tangent to each other along
these sides, and the turns starting and ending the
climbs are 90 degrees. The top sides are slightly
shorter than the remaining sides which are of equal
length.

[Igor Burger]

Tim, 2 comments:

1/ Keith Renecle did perfect animation in Blender allowing to show it from any point, means also from pilot and also for judges view

2/ Figures are defined in details, you cannot "fly so it looks good for judges" ... judges must be trained to see it from any point, because they cannot stay on perfect place all the time, so simply if rules say that you have to make 90 degrees turn, you have simply do 90 degrees turn, if you have to fly at 45 deg elevation, you have simply fly at 45 degrees and judge must be able to see it, and does not matter if he stays exactly on edge of the circle upwind or few meters further or left or right, so he does not see it 22.5 (or whtever angle) ... he shoud recognize 45 deg elevation, no anything else, do not expect some complex projections, views, tricks etc.

[Brett Buck]

To whom?  Me, or the judges?  Either one -- great, tell me and I'll figure out the rest.

  To you (it's inherent in the description). the "I'll figure out the rest" part is disturbing. There's nothing else to figure out, everybody from Paul and David on down need only concern themselves with making it come out right to them.

      All the business about flying along lines of latitude and longitude, "cupping" the top of the squares to distort it to "look right". making the top "convex" to make it look straight for the judges, is just to be ignored. Even if you did want to do all that, no one can - all the other errors are much more massive even on simple maneuvers. People are deluding themselves if they think they can modify the shapes on the fly to "look right".

  There was a whole school of thought for a while about "it has to look wrong to be right" but that was highly counter-productive.

 In practice, it will look more or less like a square to the judges, too, and that's what the scores will be based on unless they have fallen into the mystical incantation and sacred geometry world. Everybody has far more than enough trouble getting it symmetrical and the right size twice in a row, there's no need to concern yourself with anything else.

     Brett

[Tim Wescott]

 The "I'll figure out the rest" part is disturbing.

Nah.  It just means I need to multiply everything by one and then add zero.

[Steve Helmick]

Tim, Since the rulebook says the maneuvers are to be as viewed by the pilot, you can practice all the maneuvers by "Dry Flying" at home. Point your finger at first, then you might use a handle (or not).  Steve

[Mike Keville]

They should look square.  'nuff said.  Let's move on....

[Tim Wescott]

Tim, Since the rulebook says the maneuvers are to be as viewed by the pilot, you can practice all the maneuvers by "Dry Flying" at home. Point your finger at first, then you might use a handle (or not).  Steve

D'oh.  I missed that statement completely.  That's the root of all my misapprehensions.

[Brett Buck]

D'oh.  I missed that statement completely.  That's the root of all my misapprehensions.

All?

   Brett

[the original Steve Smith]

Tim,

Read my article in the upcoming Stunt News.  I think it will give you some idea of what judges are looking for.

Thanks!

Steve

[Tim Wescott]

All?

   Brett

Yes.  Once I realized that the maneuver shapes in the rule book were specified from the pilot's perspective the entire universe slid into order.  I understand everything now.

(Well, everything except for women -- some things are not meant to be known).

[Mark Scarborough]

Yes.  Once I realized that the maneuver shapes in the rule book were specified from the pilot's perspective the entire universe slid into order.  I understand everything now.

(Well, everything except for women -- some things are not meant to be known).

andddd
for the win   ^^^

[john e. holliday]

Before you worry about the sqaures and triangle shapes, have you mastered the easiet points that are usually given up by most pilots like myself.   It is the take off,   reverse wingover,   round maneuvers,  level laps and landing.   The other shapes will come easy after that.   And you also have to remember that what one set of judges sees the next set will see something different.   Don't ask me how I know.

[Joseph Patterson]

      I like your reply Mike K.!
      Doug

[Brett Buck]

      I like your reply Mike K.!
      Doug

  It does seem odd that this needs to be discussed, but in fact it has been a source of debate for 40+ years.

    Brett

[Randy Powell]

Agreed. They need to be square, though there is a pronounced tendancy toward rectangles.

[Mike Griffin]

It's supposed to look like a square (with rounded corners)  Brett


This is the best explanation I have seen on this post.  Everyone has a different aptitude for performing this maneuver or any other maneuver right.  Some get it sooner than others.

Mike

[Mike Keville]

Speaking as a former judge (30+ years - including three Finals at the Nats), I can tell you it's a lot easier to judge Squares than it is to score Rounds....some of which often tend to "walk" or become "egg-shaped".

Said this before, but the worst infractions I see are on the Triangles and Hourglass, when MANY fliers (including some of the Top Dawgs) fly the rear segment NEARLY STRAIGHT DOWN hoping for a smoother pullout.

I downgrade those severely....and so should you if you're judging!!!