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

Thu Sep 23 08:08:20 AKDT 2010

Ha, ha, ha....True enough. My 1.8 cu.in gassie doesn't have the power shape of the YS 170 or the power shape of the best electrics but it's close enough. 11 ozs (less than 8 ounces) gasoline lasts two whole Masters flights, and Joe really gets antsy waiting for 15 minutes. Sorry dude, just had to rub it in.

On the other hand, I haven't been showing up lately so that frees you up. hehehehehe

ragards

MattK

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Lachowski &lt;jlachow at hotmail.com&gt;
To: NSRCA Discussion List &lt;nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org&gt;
Sent: Thu, Sep 23, 2010 11:41 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

Ah, but ya can't get the extra couple of practice maneuvers in with electric with the current sequence as you could with the glow.

Shorter sequence means a comfortable extra  3 practice maneuvers. Kinda evens the field of play a little if you don't have the time to get equivalent practice in a given short time span and are competing for airtime with your fellow pattern pilots (right Matt?&lt;g&gt;) at the field. Guarantee I could use little extra practice on the 3 rolls opposite&lt;g&gt; 
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:23:44 -0400
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

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
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 &lt;js.smith at verizon.net&gt;
To: 'General pattern discussion' &lt;nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org&gt;
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: 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: 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 &lt;burtona at atmc.net&gt; 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: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto: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

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

  _______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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 

_______________________________________________ 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 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100923/97cc769e/attachment.html>