[NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
Del Rykert
drykert2 at rochester.rr.com
Mon Feb 4 04:25:22 AKST 2008
Only that some assumed that master class was purely taking FAI sequences to make up the masters class maneuvers.
Del
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Burton" <burtona at atmc.net>
To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
> Dang, I missed something. I thought we were only talking about what maneuver
> schedule Masters Class would fly!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JShulman [mailto:jshulman at cfl.rr.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 1:40 PM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
>
> 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: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Joe Lachowski
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 1:22 PM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
>
>
>
> Del, something I totally agree with you on<g>. If that is the gist of the
> question you ask of which the answer in my mind is no.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: drykert2 at rochester.rr.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us
> Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 11:59:12 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
>
>
> Is catering to the professional pilots what will draw more people into
> the NSRCA and flying pattern?
>
> Del
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: vicenterc at comcast.net
> To: johnfuqua at embarqmail.com ; NSRCA Mailing List ; 'NSRCA Mailing
> List'
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 11:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
>
>
> I think the idea is that the destination class (if we changed to
> FAI-F3A) will fly the F-Schedule also. I see very strong advantages from
> judging point of view. Both classes Masters and FAI-F3A will know the P
> schedule really well since both are flying the same maneuvers. I expect
> that the judging level is going to be improved. Yes, the Masters pilots
> will need to learn the F-Schedule. Finally, I think more professional
> pilots will be willing to participate in local contests because we will have
> more competition at the FAI-F3A level. I think if we do this could be fun
> that is the general agreement.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
> -------------- 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
>
>
>
> From: Del Rykert [mailto:drykert2 at rochester.rr.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 7:09 PM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?
>
>
>
> Hi Dave
>
>
>
> I'm not trying to imply that I have the correct answer to that
> question. Not all people that advance through the AMA classes have the
> desire or deep pockets to handle being competitive at the FAI level. Some
> Master fliers in the past have told me the time commitment is high to be
> competitive in FAI class. Higher than they can accept. That may be the
> biggest reason. Not certain. But they do enjoy the difficulty and challenge
> of flying masters and if told they had to move to FAI or if pointed out and
> made to move up to FAI some would choose to leave. I see it as part of the
> dues some are willing to commit to play. Some drop out after making it to
> intermediate. Others after reaching advanced. Some have stayed and still fly
> those classes but real! ize the y don't have the time, desire, money, to
> move up and be challenging or at least make a decent showing they can accept
> for themselves. I believe the competitive factor varies with us all and what
> we are willing to commit to fly pattern.
>
>
>
> I'm even suspect their are other issues that escape us and why
> they are happy to fly Masters.
>
>
>
> Del
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Dave Burton
>
> To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
>
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 6:10 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?
>
>
>
> Del, what's the difference between " FAI type" schedules and
> "Masters schedules"? You are correct about previous proposals not being
> accepted. I have submitted a rules change twice for Masters to fly the P
> schedule and it was defeated both times. Won't do that again, but I never
> understood the opposition to it.
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Del Rykert
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 3:24 PM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?
>
>
>
> So it would be acceptable to you to drive some away from pattern
> as it has been clearly stated that some Master fliers by choice do not want
> to fly FAI type schedules. It has been voted on with surveys and discussed
> on this list in the past to not use that approach.
>
>
>
> Del
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: vicenterc at comcast.net
>
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 11:48 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?
>
>
>
> I believe that FAI rules states that it is required more than
> 2 days event to fly F schedule. I am sure that someone out there is going
> to be able to find if I am correct or not. Of course, we can use the AMA
> rules and the CD can override this if he announces the change with time.
>
>
>
> I agree that in Masters we should fly the current P schedule.
> This will make a natural transition when moving Masters to F3A. The rules
> should be changed to make the F3A class the final destination of AMA
> classes. In other worlds, Masters should not be the final destination as
> it is now.
>
>
>
> --
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
>
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "Tony" <tony at radiosouthrc.com>
>
> Those are the very reasons that I stopped flying FAI. The
> FAI rules state that the F patterns are for Regional, National and
> International events, and are not designed to be flown at a local contest=
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> cussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080204/8ef8863c/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list