Proper Distance

[Dean Pappas]

Hi Earl,
You've laid out even more good stuff for us to chew on.
 
I have to say, that I share Tony's concern about an insufficient number of distance judges. 
More importantly, I feel like certain carefully maintained areas of doubt and uncertainty are good for promoting a healthy variation of style. You put your finger on it in the 3rd paragraph, below. There is a "distance police" approach, and then there is the "give me, the judge, the best seat in the movie theater" approach. This approach is "not too ..." (You remember the commercial, don't you?) What is it "not too"? Well, it's not too far to see the details (failing eyesight not withstanding). It's not too close that maneuvers get rushed or crowded. It's not so close that the top of the box is violated. It's not so close that the apparent geometry is horribly keystoned. This one is my favorite, though ... it's not fake close. What's fake close? It's the practice of angling in to put the center maneuvers on the 150M pole, and then angling out to make room at the end poles. I figure that a small downgrade for each entry and exit heading discourages that quickly.
 
While there is no place on the scoresheet for either disgression or intelligence, if the wind is blowing, like at the Nats, then disgression or intelligence will have the better-scoring pilot out at 175 or so, and using the extral 5 MPH, that such a distance allows, to minimize the crab angles. Also, the rules we have were first written for little 60-ships. The fat 2-M stuff generally presents well at 170 M.
 
What's really curious is your observation about fashions in distance. We have all seen the race to the bottom, when one flyer moves things in to the point of pain: a hurried pace (no lines between maneuvers) and geometric compromises.  It always amazed me when a whole bunch of flyers would then follow suit: flying in a place and style they hadn't prepared for. Hunters used to stampede buffalo off cliffs that way. Of course, it wouldn't have happened if judges concentrated on good presentation and geometry as opposed to some slavish attention to a number (or the notion that closer is harder and therefor better). Do you remember that the book originally said 100 meters? The Japanese showed up in Flevehoff in '85 flying at 100 meters and 80 degrees wide! Back then, the book used to say about 60 degrees, as well.
 
The rolling circle issue is another, altogether. Since, as Earl correctly points out, the book makes no exception for these maneuvers, we have a nearly impossible situation. What happened, is that everyone accepted that "fact" and almost no one judges distance for the rollers. What's needed is a spec, that is still tough, but doable. Let's say 250 meters. If you start at 150 m, and hit 250 at the apex, that's a 1030 foot circumference. At 75 MPH (110 feet/second) that's 9.3 seconds for the lap. That's plenty of time for 3 or 4 rolls. Even so, it will be tight and very tough to make them look smooth. 
 
We have some holes in the rule book, and a lot of problems could be helped by evaluating maneuvers with respect to Precision, Smoothness, and Placement in that order. Oh yes, the fourth item in that list (general section of the Judges' Guide) is Size relative to the entire flight and other maneuvers. What does that even mean, any more?
 
Regards to All,
    Dean P

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Earl Haury
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 9:56 AM
To: Discussion List, NSRCA
Subject: Proper Distance


Distance in pattern has been (and still is) one of the great unknowns. (Spins & snaps are the others.) There are varied individual definitions of what is proper, regardless of how much clarity or definition is inserted into the rules.  
 
I've been around long enough to see the trend move in and out several times, often the out times are well outside of the rules. Then there are times when others decide that there are more points in really tight! Unfortunately, distance out is hard for the both the pilot and the judge to discern with accuracy. 
 
A pilot can practice with spotters to establish a good feel for distance. That "feel" comes both with visible size recognition and time from box line to box line at the "comfort" speed. In too close and one is rushed or must slow below the "sweet spot" speed, too far out and the opposite occurs. So the pilot has the opportunity to tune for his / her chosen distance
 
It seems that, on the judges side, there are distance police. Anything that might be approaching the limit is downgraded by them. Then there are others that don't downgrade if they can see (or hear) something out there! More evidence that distance evaluation is difficult, especially when viewing airplanes of different size, visibility, and speed. Maybe the only was to achieve judging accuracy regarding distance is to use a "distance judge" at 175 & 200m and let them assign distance downgrades? Seems that the variable application (with good intentions) of distance downgrades presently experienced dictate consideration of an alternative method. 
 
>From the judges chair I find very few close in flights accurate or smooth. There are usually inaccuracies brought on by lack of time, box violations, and errors forced by wind. The good thing about these is that they are over quickly. Out flights often have better maneuvers as the pilot has more time, box violations are few, and wind effect is better handled (and/or less noticeable). But they do take forever and the distance downgrades offset the advantages. So what to do? Take a clue from the rules "for a large, highly visible model aircraft a line of flight approximately 175m in front of the competitor may be appropriate". Judges take note of the "in front of the competitor" statement, as the judges are 7 to 10m behind the competitor. This moves the acceptable flight line 7 to 10m further away, so 185m (from the judges) is not to be downgraded for the large models (anybody seen small models lately). Even the rolling circle distance issues can then be handled by rolling in then. A 100 to 125m roller in would still leave a 50+m buffer between the pilot and airplane.
 
So - consider that the rules are OK. Big airplanes are best flown at the outer range of the rules. Some judges may need help in accurately assessing distance. Maybe a distance judge would help. There are no benefits and more risks to flying too close if to only appease "inaccurate" distance police. Hmmm - imagine that, flying within the rules gets the best score..
 
Earl
 
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040729/1323eb3d/attachment.html