[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

Thu Sep 23 07:26:00 AKDT 2010

Regarding batteries..

I started flying electric pattern in 2006, after 3 years of learning
electric on smaller foamies and 40 sized sport planes.

I had a small number of 5000 mah packs not make 100 flights..and they were
replaced or upgraded very cheap by the manufacturer.  I experimented with
some lower capacity 3800 - 4300 mah packs, and they absolutely did not have
the longevity as the 5000-5300 mah packs, so I quit using them.

The last few years, I've flown the Masters schedule occasionally for
fun...it is always very close to the same mah used as an FAI P flight.
Today, I see many setups out there that can be easily copied and are easily
capable of 100+ flights with zero issues for the long Masters or the FAI P.

Making Masters shorter might decrease cost for electrics...but that assumes
the batteries stay at 5000-5300 mah...and no extra practice is done at the
end of the flight.

Electric certainly has a learning curve to it..and making the event less
demanding could make the learning curve less steep...but we've never allowed
glow newbies restarts when they set the needle badly and flamed out...so why
should electrics be catered to?  Doesn't make sense to me, and I don't think
it is needed - it is very rare that I see an experienced electric pilot
destroying equipment because of the length of the Masters sequence, and it
is all to easy for an electric newbie to copy an existing setup that is
competitive and durable.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

 <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net> DaveL322 at comcast.net

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:51 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

Masters is the most advanced class we have in AMA, with arguably the most
skilled group of pilots collectively, flying it. It always has been longer
for purposes of differentiation of that group. The progressive nature of
Pattern classes should make that fact obvious but apparently some folks
continue to argue that Masters gets preferential treatment by getting a
disproportionate amount of time at any event.  Well, in a manner of
speaking, yes, Masters does get preferential treatment, out of necessity. So
does F3A. It always has been so and will continue as long as the sport is
flown.

 The number of pilots in Masters is what makes the class take so long to
complete a round...not so much the length of the schedule

A couple decades ago in pre TurnAround times, Intermediate (called Sportsman
then) was by far the largest class and took hours to get through a round,
eventhough it had only 10-11 maneuvers in it.. Masters, in contrast was the
smallest/shortest eventhough the schedule was just as long as today.

I appreciate Scott's honesty regarding batteries. If flying a 20% shorter
Masters schedule helps preserve equipment, I am all for it.  To me, it would
help also preserve our numbers and participation in the long term. Who wants
to blow up his equipment? I certainly don't. How long will someone that
loses batteries regularly, stick with it? I would argue not long. Of course
we have powerplant options but many just love the plug and play nature of
electric. It helps participation in and preservation of the sport and, to
me, that's a good thing

regards

MattK

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Smith <js.smith at verizon.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thu, Sep 23, 2010 6:49 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

The short sequence is not about fair share of contestant time.it's about the
torture FAI pilots must endure while judging local contests (FAI pilots in
my area  judge twice as many rounds as other classes and spend twice as long
per round in the chair.)

Some say 19 maneuvers versus 23 only shaves a minute of flight time so
what's the point?  I view it as 18% fewer maneuvers that have to be judged
and 18% less time in the chair.  I think that's worth considering.

I favor the short sequence out of consideration for those that must judge
it.  Flying electric, I also like being able to repeat any sequence of four
maneuvers during practice without fear of damaging the batteries.

Scott

D1 Masters

From:  <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?>
mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Matthew
Frederick
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 1:25 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

Who decided that there should be a fair "share" of contest time? That's the
most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. Masters takes longer not just
because the number of maneuvers in the sequence but also because Masters
pilots probably fly half the speed of any class below them. Who cares?
Should we do a survey to see the average number of people in each class
nationwide and make the sequences long enough that all classes have equal
air time? Sportsman (or Novice as I call it) would end up with a 30 maneuver
sequence. The amount of time to fly a sequence should have NOTHING to do
with this. Neither should powerplant choices, average number of contestants,
or anything else anyone wants to throw out there. Simply put, the Masters
sequence needs to be sufficient in difficulty to keep it competitive year
after year for those who have made it a destination, and also difficult
enough (and appropriate) for those who want to be able to move up to F3A
eventually.

Matt

From:  <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?>
mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Gayer
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 5:54 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

Derek,

When it comes to the pattern length we should all have a say. Why should the
Masters pattern have more maneuvers and take longer than any other pattern?
You cannot say there is no impact on other flyers and their judging duties
when Masters is often the largest class and use more than their share of the
contest time as well. You could say that the "content" of each class pattern
should be up to those with "skin" in the game.

There was nothing in the survey that stated "Vote only for the patterns in
the class you are flying or may fly next year". Nor do I believe that such a
statement should be added.

John

On 9/22/2010 4:30 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote: 

Dave, 

After writing my reply to you I got to thinking again and I don't agree with
your assessment.  This is about selecting a sequence that matter to the
people that fly it not to the people that judge it or to the people that may
have to wait around to fly again because of a large Masters turnout.

Flame away...

-Derek

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Dave Burton < <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>
burtona at atmc.net> wrote:

Derek,

I really object to your definition of who has "Skin in the game" -  We all
do if we pay our dues and attend contest.

The "skin" is the impact of a long vs. short sequence for every Masters
flyer, Flyer who will be flying Masters in the next two years, every
flyer/non flyer who judges at a contest, and every other flyer in all the
other class who have to wait until the typically large Masters class
finishes whatever sequence they fly.

So, whether I fly Masters in the next two years or not, I intend to let my
opinion be known to my district VP and I expect him to give my view the same
weight of any other opinion from "Masters" flyers or others. 

This is an issue that should not be decided by only "Masters" flyers.

Dave Burton

From:  <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Derek Koopowitz
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 5:31 PM
To: General pattern discussion

Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

Over 10 months ago the NSRCA Sequence Committee completed its work on the
new sequences.  These were posted on the NSRCA website for review and
comment - see below:

 <http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html>
http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html

Included in all this material was a draft document that outlined the process
on how sequences are developed, tested and approved and the makeup/content
of the sequences based on the class it is meant to serve.  This document is
titled "NSRCA Procedures, Standards and Guidelines for AMA R/C Precision
Aerobatics Sequence Development".  A mouthful, but it does outline a lot of
information.  It details the charter for the Sequence Committee, sequence
development standards and guidelines for all classes, catalog of maneuvers
for all classes and the process that the NSRCA will follow in designing,
testing and approving changes to sequences, or for proposed sequences.
These sequence development standards and guidelines have been in place for
about 4 years now and have been used very successfully to build the current
set of sequences that everyone is flying today, in addition to the prior
Masters sequence (and the new one as well).

Overall we received positive comments on the proposed sequences from
Sportsman through Masters.  As you know, there were two sequences developed
for Masters, a long sequence using the standard 23 maneuver count and a
short sequence using 19 maneuvers.  In the time since we posted the
sequences, some informal surveys were also made on the NSRCA website as well
as on RCU asking for a preference of either the short or long Masters
schedule.  The overwhelming majority of respondents chose the short
sequence.  However, these surveys were a little flawed in that we didn't
really know who was voting for them - were they all judges/pilots who voted
because they didn't want to judge a long sequence, or were they really
current and/or future Masters pilots that really did want to fly a shorter
sequence.

Since the release of the proposed schedules, and some post Nats comments,
the sequence committee has been hard at work making some tweaks to the short
schedule with a view to increasing the difficulty level of the short Masters
sequence to bring it into line with the long Masters sequence and also to
ensure that we weren't lowering the bar in difficulty by introducing a
shorter sequence.  Bear in mind that the short sequence is only 19 maneuvers
(17 of them flyable) so raising the difficulty level is a challenge if one
is to avoid using some existing F3A type maneuvers, or "airplane killers",
and to only use maneuvers that match the philosophy that we've embraced for
a number of years.  Since we've never developed a short Masters sequence, we
need to make sure we get it right and that it not only provides a challenge
to those that fly it but that it still provides a somewhat relatively higher
jump for those pilots that are moving up from Advanced.  We realize that
creating a perfect schedule is not going to happen - we won't be able to
please every pilot that moves up from Advanced, nor will we be able to
please some former F3A pilots that think the schedule is too easy and isn't
enough of a challenge.  There has to be a balance.  The Sequence Committee
came up with some good positive changes and these are being vetted/tested as
I write this.  They've received extremely positive feedback from everyone
that has either flown the newer short sequence on a simulator or using their
pattern plane at the field.  By the end of this weekend we'll know for sure
whether it is a keeper or not.

When we do post the revised sequence I would like all of you that have "skin
in this game", meaning you are a current Masters pilot or will be moving to
Masters in the next year or two, to please contact your NSRCA District VP
and let them know what your preference is - short or long sequence.  The
reason they need to know is that the NSRCA board will vote in the next
couple of weeks to approve all the proposed sequences and also to select
which sequence the Masters class will be flying in 2011/2012.

The Sequence Committee is comprised of Joe Lachowski, Dave Lockhart, Verne
Koester, Bill Glaze, Archie Stafford, and Richard Lewis.  They've put in an
extraordinary amount of work on these sequences and documentation and
deserve huge kudos from everyone!  Thanks guys - your work is very much
appreciated!

We've also created a Sequence Committee section on the NSRCA website which
will have more information soon.  It will contain the updated draft
documentation and all the proposed sequences in one location.  You can get
to the new section from the main menu - just look for Sequence Committee -
it is near the bottom of the menu.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -  <http://www.avg.com/> www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3152 - Release Date: 09/22/10
02:34:00

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

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
 <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing
list  <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100923/b458cc81/attachment.html>