[NSRCA-discussion] Wind correction scoring

Mon Oct 2 08:22:48 AKDT 2006

I agree 100% with Dave re. opposing an artistic or impression score.  IMAC 
did this with their so-called Presentation Score and it's so abstract and 
arbitrary, that now they don't even use their own rule that they pushed 
through.  They have never succeeded in coming up with any kind of meaningful 
definition or guidelines to help you in piloting or judging it.  They could 
also not give a true answer to "what problem are you trying to solve and how 
does this help solve it?".

Ed

>From: DaveL322 at comcast.net
>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Wind correction scoring
>Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:57:52 +0000
>
>Many good points already made, and good technical discussions presented.
>
>The distinction between textbook technical judging and non-textbook 
>"impression" judging will always exist, and I think (as most if not all) we 
>should strive to eliminate the impression judging whenever possible.  For 
>that reason, I would opposed to an "artistic" or "overall" flight score 
>which could be an opening for a very subjective score which is markedly 
>contrasting to the objective scoring/goal on which pattern is based.  It 
>takes a lot of effort make a well designed schedule which is technically 
>well executed look unappealing.
>
>Regards,
>
>Dave Lockhart
>DaveL322 at comcast.net
>
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com
>
>To Ed's point, If the model flies a technically correct maneuver in heavy 
>wind, few judges are desciplined enough to really judge only the technical 
>merit, as per the book. Most will also see the strange attitudes the model 
>must endure even if track was correct, particularly when properly 
>compensating for said wind, and take off points for smoothness and grace.
>
>Throw in slower flight which is the present norm especially with e-flight, 
>and the issue can get exacerbated. Faster flight regime in heavy wind will 
>tend to mask wind compensation.
>
>There have been many superb flights that were wind corrected extremely well 
>to deserved high scores. The Nats is often the place since it is usually so 
>windy and demands some superb performances.
>
>However, two stick out in my mind, performed in relatively obscure local 
>contests.... Ivan Kristensen in Jacksonville a bunch of years ago, and Pete 
>Collinson in Ocala just a couple years ago. Both contests were held early 
>in the season and anyone who has spent any time in Florida will know how 
>windy the early season can be there.
>
>Both explained that they essentially "flew the wind". Ivan added that he 
>flew "b..ls to the wall...". Pete did also except his model was set-up for 
>only moderately fast speed, which caused the perennial F3A winner in FLA at 
>the time to exclaim "...well, if you're gonna get beat, might as well be by 
>the best.."
>
>Judging Pattern fairly and consistently is tough needless to say, 
>particularly in difficult conditions. To Earl's point, Technical Merit and 
>Artistic Merit are combined in our present mode of judging. Perhaps we may 
>want to separate them, as done in other similar sports.
>
>Matt
>
>
>
>In a message dated 9/30/2006 7:04:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
>ehaury at houston.rr.com writes:
>Ed
>
>I'll always score the technically correct higher!!
>
>As a judge I just am amazed at the folks that will wind correct properly on 
>uplines and simply disregard it on downlines - totally destroying a good 
>score. Unfortunately - some judges still can't get past the ugly, the only 
>sure way around this is to score with some sort of machine.
>
>It takes a lot of practice to develop a "feel" for the wind so as to 
>recognize just what / how much to compensate. Often the pilot requires 
>several maneuvers to get this feel in a competition flight - the judges 
>instantly see the results. The latter may be why some feel wind corrected 
>maneuvers don't score well - it's easy for the judge to see and hard to fly 
>correctly.
>
>How about some technical discussion of wind correcting - we're drawing 
>maneuvers in a moving medium (air) that affects the trajectory of our 
>machine (airplane). Does speed really help - other than shortening the time 
>exposure? Is slower better - gives more time to correctly apply thrust 
>vector "against" the wind? Uplines take some (x) power in calm, additional 
>power is needed for the wind vector (y), how much y to maintain x in calm? 
>Steve's point - downlines are affected by the same wind as uplines, gravity 
>usually is used for x - won't y thrust (adding power) improve downline 
>attitude in wind? Can power be added for y without helping gravity too much 
>(downline speed)?
>
>Earl
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Ed Deaver
>To: NSRCA Mailing List
>Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 9:48 PM
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Wind correction
>
>
>Thanx Ken, but which would you score higher??  I know what we are supposed 
>to do, but that is the jist of my post.
>
>Ed
>
>Ken Thompson <mrandmrst at comcast.net> wrote:
>Hard to ignore "ugly", but you need to judge the "track"
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Ed Deaver
>To: NSRCA Mailing List
>Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 9:13 PM
>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Wind correction
>
>
>Hey everyone.  While the season is winding down, Don Ramsey and I had an 
>interesting discussion this past weekend.  Am wondering what the general 
>consensus is.
>
>First, let me state, judges are human and I understand that.  Also, many 
>judges don't know the exact wording of many rules, I understant that also.
>
>Soooo
>
>Will a pilot score higher if they follow the letter of the law and wind 
>correct perfectly, but fly an ugly manuever, or wind correct a little and 
>let the plane look "prettier" in a manuever?????
>
>Lets use the first maneuver in the Master's sequence after entering the 
>box.  Stall turn 1 1/4 rolls up, 3/4 rolls down exit inverted.  On a strong 
>wind day, not pulling to vertical to maintain the line doesn't look to bad 
>(we expect that) the 1 1/4 rolls in centered, looking good, appropriate 
>rudder is given to maintain a straight vertical line (again expected and 
>usually doesn't require much as we are at full throttle), the stall goes 
>off without a hitch, but do to lack of airspeed we cant the fuse and hold 
>rudder into the wind letting the fuse lean at a 45degree angle to maintain 
>a straight line (this is the part I'm curious about) until the 3/4 roll and 
>using a little down elevator to hold the line after the roll (again 
>expected but not ugly)
>Everything about this manuever is done and doesn't detract from the overall 
>appearance of the manuever except the down line after the stall, which is 
>simply "UGLY"
>
>Just curious what everyone says.  Again, I know what the rules say, and am 
>not interested in a rule book interpretation, but what do you think about 
>scoring better vs worse???
>
>Thanx
>
>ed

>From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com
>To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Wind correction scoring
>Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:52:10 +0000
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion