[SPAM] Re: Re: Take Off & Landing "Reality of a Contest"

[Ed Alt]

Bob:
To be perfectly candid, I haven't really noticed any particular issues in 
ground handling anything that's commonly flown for Scale Aerobatics (IMAC). 
If anything, my perception is that the large models are less susceptible to 
ground handling problems (bigger wheels less affected by runway bumps, much 
more ground clearance etc).  In fact, the only time I ever had a problem of 
my own was last year with a wheel that grabbed inside the wheel pant on my 
Focus II.  Thought I fixed it after the first time, had it happen again at 
the Nats of all places.  It was ugly, not unsafe, but very embarrasing to 
have the model change track like that.  Regardless, I wasn't prepared and 
deserved the downgrade.  Needless to say I took care of the problem for good 
after that showing.

Ed

>From: Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com>
>Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org
>To: discussion at nsrca.org
>Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: Re: Take Off & Landing "Reality of a Contest"
>Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 06:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Ed,
>
>That is an excellent point, and I must say it is the
>only one I have heard that I would consider valid
>enough to sway my opinion in that direction.
>
>Having said that, comparing the ground handling
>characteristics between pattern planes and IMAC planes
>is sorta like comparing apples and oranges. Most (not
>all) scale planes are notorious for gear placement,
>force arrangements, tail moments and control throws
>that make ground handling very dicey. OTOH, I have not
>seen a pattern plane that I would consider to be any
>more difficult to takeoff or land than any good
>trainer.
>
>Will trying to force an IMAC pilot to keep the plane
>in the center of the runway for a scored takeoff
>naturally make him perform a safer takeoff? Instead of
>letting the plane drift a little off center before it
>lifts off, he might decide to kick rudder to force it
>back, and that could cause more problems. I guess the
>long-term effect would be to improve the takeoffs,
>since getting bad scores would tend to make them
>practice takeoffs more.
>
>OTOH, I have seen a seasoned pattern pilot fly into
>the pits and hit someone at full throttle, all because
>the plane first started to drift AWAY from the pits
>and he over-corrected. His biggest mistake was that he
>never got off the throttle, he was trying to save his
>takeoff score until it was too late.
>
>If they drift over the flightline, zero the whole
>flight, not just the takeoff or landing. And let the
>judges on EITHER flight line be able to make that
>call! If you scare the judges on either flightline -
>no flight score at all!!!
>
>It would not bother me to not score takeoffs/landings
>AT ALL. The 0 or 10 is ok -- IF the rules are simple
>and clear (which apparently they are not).
>
>Just my humble opinion, FWIW.
>
>Bob R.
>
>--- Ed  Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Derek:
> > Actually, there is a legion of IMAC pilots who can't
> > takeoff or land without
> > threatening the safety of of others, mainly the guys
> > at the other
> > pilot/judging station.  I have regularly seen close
> > calls and dangerous
> > displays of model operation at IMAC contests during
> > TO/landing.  You have to
> > recognize something about the hobby these days.
> > There is a alot of sex
> > appeal to IMAC because of the big'n'loud gas
> > airplanes.  Everyone wants to
> > do it and is is quite often the case that the pilots
> > wallet far outweighs
> > his skill and sometimes his common sense.  Guys now
> > get into the hobby with
> > ease because of ARFs and easy to use equipment, but
> > they don't always learn
> > the right way and frequently can't be told how to do
> > it with right or with
> > safety in mind.  At IMAC contests that I have CD'ed,
> > I made the explicit
> > point about the runway environment and how it was
> > required that pilots
> > observe the deadline, including the fact that we
> > would disqualify them if
> > they violated  it.  Why?  It has proven to be
> > necessary based on
> > observations of close scrapes at the many dozens of
> > contests I had attended
> > in the past.  It was the minimum thing I felt that I
> > had to do to be
> > responsible as a CD.
> >
> > I would say that Pattern is better off keeping the
> > takeoff/landing score in
> > some form.  It is in fact a measure of pilot skill
> > to be able to safely
> > control a model at low airspeed in various wind
> > conditions, while in close
> > proximity to the ground, obstacles and people.
> > Although it's not an
> > aerobatic flight mode, neither is a straight line
> > between figures, but we
> > also measure that.  Should we extend the argument to
> > allow banking left or
> > right to fix earlier mistakes and just worry about
> > the figures alone, or
> > should we measure the skill of the pilots to control
> > the model throughout?
> > By having some objective way of measuring it and
> > assigning a score as an
> > incentive to try to do it right, you can only make
> > the situation easier to
> > manage.  Removing it can only heighten the risk of
> > achieving what IMAC has
> > currently has bred, i.e., a free-for-all mentality
> > by many pilots.
> >
> > Ed
> >
>
>=================================================
>To access the email archives for this list, go to
>http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
>To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
>and follow the instructions.
>
>List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.
>


=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.

List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.