[NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?

[JShulman]

So if FAI pilots, that are flying FAI now, want to fly FAI (P and F), and
Masters pilots, that are flying Masters now, want to fly Masters, what are
we really "discussing"? Are we looking for a middle class to call Masters +
for the guys that want to fly P and not F or Masters? Sounds like the
addition of an Expert class in AMA to give the fliers in Masters, that want
a P type of sequence, a place to go?

 Regards,
Jason
www.jasonshulman.com
www.shulmanaviation.com
www.composite-arf.com


          -------------- Original message --------------
          From: "John Fuqua" <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com>

          I have been following this discussion with some relutance to jump
in.  As a current Masters pilot and old time F3A flyer I to once pushed to
have the Master schedule be the P schedule.  But you guys need to look at
what FAI has done to the P schedule.  Here is link to the F3A rules.
http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/documents/sc4
          FAI has reduced the total maneuvers to 19 including a non scored
takeoff and landing.   AMA Master is 23 including a scored takeoff and
landing.

          Going to FAI would certainly speed things up (which is what FAI
intended for large contests like WC to speed up the prelims and get to the
real contest).

          Not sure this is what AMA/NSRCA membership wants for a destination
class.

          John



----------------------------------------------------------------------
          From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Del Rykert
          Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 7:14 AM
          To: NSRCA Mailing List
          Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?



          Hi Dave..

          I never saw anyone suggesting to do away with the Masters class..
I have thought of another restriction/factor. Some of the FAI maneuvers
require a specific designed plane to do them well. If you don't have such an
aircraft in your stable you can be looking at a prohibitive change to switch
to those type of planes or live with the self imposed handicap. Granted,
some of the best can make a good showing in FAI type maneuvers but when
needing the 1 point advantage in a high K-Factor maneuver it does drive the
contestants to seek the best sled that works for them.

          A good friend pointed out something I had lost sight of once.  He
acquired a newer designed airplane to his stable that performed the
maneuvers he was flying so much easier. The design choice alone was raising
his scores by almost 1 point per maneuver. With only a little bit of
practice with new plane. He never appreciated the handicap he self imposed
until having better equipment. Heck.. I still have coreless servos and not a
digital do I own..  How far behind am I? LOL.

              Del
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Dave Burton
            To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
            Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 7:33 PM
            Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?


            Del, I’ve never advocated doing away with the Master’s class. I
only suggested adopting the most current FAI P maneuver schedule and fly
Master’s as a separate class as we do today. Masters pilots would not be
required to advance to the FAI class unless they chose to do so. Seems to me
like it solves several problems. It allows a CD to have more flexibility in
arranging flight lines, a larger pool of knowledgeable judges, eliminates
the need for NSRCA (or others) to come up with a new schedule periodically
for the Masters Class. I don’t think there is any difference in the
difficulty level of the P schedule and the Masters schedule today and would
not require any greater skill level than Masters does today IMO.

            Dave Burton



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1256 - Release Date: 2/2/2008
1:50 PM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080203/beecafb1/attachment.html