[NSRCA-discussion] Wind correction scoring

Mon Oct 2 12:43:08 AKDT 2006

“Overly-tight” and “non-survivable” radii?  Your kidding right?  I don’t
know – but maybe we should bring those words back so that the little “pivot”
radius used by a lot of electric fliers could be downgraded :-)   Although
done at a lower speed, I think the “pivot” or “dink” radius is definitely
down gradable when flown as an entry into, lets say:  1.  entry in the Cuban
8 with 2/4 and 2/8 from the top, ½ reverse Cuban 8, goldfish, etc. – meaning
where the pilot does a “pivot” in the pitch access, then even a small sized
¾ loop is still near infinitely larger than the “pivot” entry into the
maneuver..  

Just a bone of mine with a lot of the electric flying styles I’ve seen.
When flying slow, they in many instances, are not “carving” entry radius
into maneuvers (or when “exiting”’ maneuvers), that match the actual looping
segment of the entire maneuver.  

Jim W.

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dean Pappas
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:50 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Wind correction scoring

In my heart, I agree, but ...

Do you know how long it took us to get the original wording, regarding
overly-tight radii and non-survivable "G" levels, out of the rule book?

Would scaled-down people survive greater "G" levels, like ants and
cockroaches seem to be able to survive almost anything?

Still it took eons to get rid of that language.

The bear is that the smoothness and gracefulness criteria is more deeply
buried in the rules/ Judges' Guide.

When the four basic criteria were ordered in rank of importance, the
"positioning is #2 and S&G should be #3" crowd lost the argument! Oh well
...

It's an argument worth having again, but look at how broad the consensus
would have to be!

I'm afraid that the best we can do is to educate our judges, then water and
rest them often enough that their attention and energy

is sufficient that they don't have to fall back on overall impression, in
order to keep up with the unending "next maneuver" assault.

later,

    Dean

Dean Pappas 
Sr. Design Engineer 
Kodeos Communications 
111 Corporate Blvd. 
South Plainfield, N.J. 07080 
(908) 222-7817 phone 
(908) 222-2392 fax 
d.pappas at kodeos.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of
DaveL322 at comcast.net
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 2:56 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Wind correction scoring

John,

I couldn't agree more, and I'd like to see "smoothness and gracefullness"
completely removed as a judging criteria as no one has ever been able to
quantify what the downgrade should  be, or how a geometrically perfect
maneuver can be outscored by a more "graceful" maneuver.

Standing by with a bucket of water...

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

DaveL322 at comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "John Ferrell" <johnferrell at earthlink.net> 

For that reason I believe the word "Graceful" should be removed from the
rule book in every instance. Even dictionaries have trouble defining
"Graceful". 

That ought to draw a little fire.

John Ferrell    W8CCW
"My Competition is not my enemy"
http://DixieNC.US <http://dixienc.us/> 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: DaveL322 at comcast.net 

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 10:57 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Wind correction scoring

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 <mailto:divesplat at yahoo.com>  

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

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 <mailto:divesplat at yahoo.com>  

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

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

  _____  

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061002/9186b50f/attachment-0001.html 