[NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression
Ken Thompson
mrandmrst at comcast.net
Tue Aug 14 16:46:45 AKDT 2007
Everything you state is correct except for one thing, a double immelman can only have horizontal lines as long as the diameter of the half loops. To have the inverted section run the length of the box would make some seriously tall half loops.
----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Huber
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression
I think that Sportsman DOES have scored turnarounds... the half Cuban... half reverse... stall turn... Split S... double-immelman without rolls (Essentially can be a half loop at each end of the box with a long inverted ... )
Just because there are 2 UNJUDGED turn around manevers of the pilot's choice... does not make it "no turn around"
----- Original Message -----
From: Koenig, Tom
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression
Claude and all,
We have four classes:
Sportsman ( no turn around) entry level
Advanced ( turnaround)
Expert ( feeder to FAI)
FAI
We probably have quite a jump from Advanced to Expert as expert is a watered down FAI. Our National average is derived from FAI class only. The promotional values for the relevant classes are simply a percentage value of that National average.
Sportsman is aimed at the 'club' flyer, and even a decent trainer will fly it no problem. Presently, I could not really say wether it is more challenging or not than what you fly in the US. We too have our organisational, cultural challenges!
As I stated yesterday, we are currently sorting out the new schedules for 09. We are dropping the judging of landing and takeoffs in all classes-as it no longer bears relevance to the FAI schedules.
I guess, we have a Global outlook and do what we can to play with, and remain relevant with what the rest of the world is doing?
Its a tough one!!
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Fred Huber
Sent: Wednesday, 15 August 2007 9:52 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression
make the lower classes too chanllenging... and you don't get new competitors.
Don't go there...
----- Original Message -----
From: Claude Weimer
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression
Tom, what are the lower classes like in Australia? Some time ago I saw schedules from another country and I thought they were more challenging that what we fly in the US. I personally think our lower classes do not challenge our newer flyers.
Thanks, Claude.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Koenig, Tom
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 5:59 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression
Interesting point Dave,
During recent times in Australia, we have undergone some 'robust' discussion, with reference to the flying of only the P schedule at local contests.
Until recently, we have always flown the P on Saturdays and finished with two F's on Sunday ( FAI class). But the fact remained, that at world champs, we never managed to get an Aussie into the finals. We got close ( I think Peter Goldsmith just missed the cut once). The fact remains we need to get to finals first! Its not that we cant fly the finals, infact, once there, our top pilots could easily mix it with the best. But at a worlds, the competition in the pre-lims is so tight , that you really have to be on the top of your game. Being well known, is also a major factor at these international events,and lets face it, Aussie pattern fliers don't really get much press!!
The funny thing is, and it remains unexplainable to me, is that it appears that the top fliers just barely do 'enough' to get over the line during the pre-lims at a Worlds. It seems, the competition really only starts after the cut?? Freaks???? Possibly.....maybe I should take up R/C Submarines and not bother!!!????
So..... our national interest is getting the team into the finals at a W/C first-this is why we have now adopted to fly only the P schedule at local contests. The aim being to improve our overall 'P' performance. ( or should I say the three P's?? <G>)
Granted in the US you do not suffer the same problems as we do. You guys have the 'Star' fliers and an enormous depth of field. But be aware that you could possibly dilute the quality of flying for the P schedule, by doing to much F at the local level. My national pride hopes that you guys do, because then we might have a chance<VBG>
Maybe none of this is an issue in the US? Certainly to us mere mortals down here, the top fliers you fellows have in the US , you included :), are more or less freaks who could fly anything, anytime!!!
As I recall, the whole intent of the F schedule was to sort out the sheep from the goats at the W/C's only-it was never intended for use at local levels( but nothing stops you from doing so)
Good luck with it chaps...but yes, our whole National focus is to do well at the W/C. It seems the only real way to get our hands into the cookie jar!
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave Lockhart
Sent: Wednesday, 15 August 2007 7:59 AM
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression
Earl,
I think we'd agree that the survey needs to be completed more frequently? I can't remember exactly when the last one was completed - I do know it is a lot of work assembling it, compiling the results, and evaluating the results.
For F3A - is the fallacy that needs to be debunked -
a) Most will never be able to competently fly F3A?
b) Most will never be competitive in F3A?
I don't think they are the same thing. I do believe that there is a substantial number of guys that do not want to fly F3A because they do not want to (or have the time to) be competent flying 2 schedules. Competently flying 2 schedules (at the current Masters/PO7 level) is far more difficult task than being competent at one schedule - especially looking at F09 and F11 - I bring this up because there has also been a recent trend for more "F" being flown at local contests (and the last 2 years at the NATs for rounds 5 and 6 in the prelims).
Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl Haury
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:32 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression
Dave
You make a very good point in that the NSRCA survey is a very good tool for taking the pulse of the pattern community. Certainly the majority should prevail, but it's also good to explore new ideas and rethink old ones with the goal of increasing the satisfied majority. I think that's what Tim and I've tried to input to this thread. I have no desire to dictate the direction of Masters, any changes should be generated from within. I do find a perception that F3A is somehow unattainable for most and feel that's just a self fulfilling fallacy that could stand some debunking.
Earl
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Lockhart
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression
Tim,
I think you've made a lot of good points. I think some of the answers to your questions regarding the current/future status of Masters can be taken from the last NSRCA survey - the direction of Masters has pretty closely followed the survey results - in that it is distinct from F3A and the difficulty level is slightly less than F3A (which fluctuates, granted) in that some maneuvers are found in Masters (ie, integrated loop/roll figures).
The gap between classes will always remain a constant debate - and I think a point that has been posted on this list many times (and seemingly gets forgotten) is that pilots can practice for a new class by flying the new class prior to entering a contest in that new class. If we had 10 classes between Sportsman and Intermediate, the gaps between the classes would be very small. I think the driving factor for the number of classes currently is the current participant level will not consistently sustain more classes. Yes, reintroduction of Expert might allow Masters to be a more difficult class, but if pilots really wanted a more difficult class (or higher level of competition), they have the option now of flying F3A. I think Masters is the largest class across the country because a lot of guys are happy with it exactly as it is.
Regards,
Dave Lockhart
DaveL322 at comcast.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of twtaylor
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:15 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression
In an effort to break apart the two subjects we've been talking about the last few days I offer the following.
Since the dawn of man we've had a competitive side (At least that's what RVP told me he was there after all). Some are more competitive than others and that's fine. Since our sport has developed over the years we've made major changes along with many minor ones. Given man's thirst for ever increasing challenge we've come from old school pattern through what seemed like a decade fight over going to turn around. We lost a fair amount of pilots during that time yet the sport survived. We picked up some new pilots and that's a good thing. Then the TOC came along to decide the best of the best. It started with Pattern planes, and then someone decided to add a 10% bonus for using a scale airplane. From that day forward Pattern was divided and IMAC was born. Many of our former pattern fliers joined the IMAC ranks. I don't pretend to know why, they just did. That diluted Pattern and no longer did we see contests with 50+ contestants. I for one am glad we don't get 50 plus pilots anymore as that creates a nightmare contest.
I returned to Pattern after a decade lay off and can honestly say the level of competition, airframes, engines, and radios has increased at an exponential rate. I think the current fliers are more dedicated to the sport than ever. The flying skills across the board have come up in every class by an order of magnitude larger than I ever thought possible. I asked myself why this was.
After thinking for a year or more and talking with those that have been in the trenches since going to turn around I've formed an opinion about why. Right or wrong here it is.
FAI drives everything we do. Don't think so? Let me explain.
The guys at the top of the game have nowhere to go, FAI is it. To keep those guys interested and to separate the players from the wannabe's they had to make the sequence progressively harder. Those that won all the time can easily become bored and move on to something else. For a case in point, one only needs to look at the amount of top pattern fliers that jumped ship to IMAC.
Let's look at our sport from top to bottom. We've made FAI so difficult to keep the top guys happy we've out stripped the ability, or perceived ability, of masses to fly that class. Some might say this is a good thing. Harder keeps the numbers low and from top to bottom a better overall flier.
Masters became the top class for guys that didn't think they could, or just didn't want to fly FAI, yet masters flew the old FAI schedule for a time. So now we had to make Masters hard enough to keep those pilots happy and interested. Seems we did the exact same thing for Masters that we did for FAI.
Now were on the classes that we hope will lead fliers into the upper classes through a natural progression. Let's look back a few years and see what we really did. We've made every class with the exception of the lowest class harder. I don't see any real problem with that. If we look back at what FAI flew the first year, that schedule isn't any harder than the current Advance schedule.
So what does that tell us? It tells me the level of flying has moved up by leaps and bounds. I think it's a good thing.
The question I have is this. Are we to continue to develop two distinct top classes when they should or could be channeled into one? Are we so afraid of what FAI flies that many master pilots are just happy to remain in Masters and never try FAI? If so then this discussion is a moot one. Is the jump from Advance to Masters not as hard? Does it not require the same level of dedication to join the ranks of the cream of the crop? If you're not willing to put forth the effort to try to crawl your way to the top, then like me, you'll end up being just a guy out having fun. Nothing wrong with that either. A zero in FAI is the same as a Zero in Masters.
Tim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.19/953 - Release Date: 8/14/2007 5:19 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.19/953 - Release Date: 8/14/2007 5:19 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20070815/9500765e/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list