[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relatingtonewFAIrules

Sun Feb 5 16:11:13 AKST 2012

I heard there was interest in allowing electrics, but that option was dropped. Is that true? I would love SPA, but I have sworn off anything glow.

Bob R.

--- On Thu, 2/2/12, Jim Quinn <jaqfly at prodigy.net> wrote:

From: Jim Quinn <jaqfly at prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relatingtonewFAIrules
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, February 2, 2012, 6:21 PM

Classis Patern Association and the Vintage R/C Society both are currently flyng those patterns.
We even included one on an AMA sanctioned contest in CA this fall.
I've been flying in Rudder only (Junior Falcon and Charger) up to full house (Banshee and Kaos) for the past several years.
 Jim Quinn 

From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thu, February 2, 2012 4:55:13 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relatingtonewFAIrules

Are some folks trying to revitalize the pre-turnaround pattern. Classic Pattern! I'm waiting, still have two OS VF's and can scratch build another Arrow. Can't make 105 db any more at my primary field but that’s OK the airplane flue better with a 12-9 or 10 anyway.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Del
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 12:51 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relatingtonewFAIrules

Your right Peter.. The beauty of that period of flying anyone with an Ugly stick or under powered kadet could enter and fly pattern. Attendance at meets was amazing at most parts of country. That style did get some heat as blamed for loss of fields from over flights of homes etc. but if the full truth were to be looked at all flying endeavors loud and noisy aircraft flying near and over homes was the bigger culprit. Pattern was at the forefront of addressing that and mandating a reasonable sound level at the nats especially but bonus points could be award for quiet aircraft and penalties for noisy planes.  

The other big advantage was as recently petitioned people would come out and enjoy themselves flying after only practicing the weekend before if at all and do fairly well sometimes. The changes have hurt overall mass attendance but the quality of the flying by competitors has improved dramatically. Some like that tradeoff. Others not so much. Partially because of increased expenses to compete means they can't participate and still feel they made a reasonable showing. 

    Del

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Peter Vogel 
To: General pattern discussion 
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating tonewFAIrules

OK.  Looking at some of the old rule books, I'm confused.  Take for example the novice sequence from 86-87: 
Takeoff
Straight flight out (U)
Procedure turn
Straight flight back (D)
Stall Turn (U)
Immelmann Turn (U)
3 inside loops (U)
One horizontal roll (D)
Landing

The procedure turn, stall turn, and Immelmann sure seem like turnarounds to me, granted to meet the mandatory directions relative to wind you would need to have a free turnaround between the straight flight back and the stall turn, and another free turnaround between the stall and the Immelmann, etc.  So were all the "stunt" turns intended to be executed at show center with a free turnaround outside the box between each maneuver?  

I'm amazed at the amount of "heat" (aka: passion) there seems to have been in the K-factor around the change to turnaround schedules.  I admit I like my 2 "free" turnarounds outside the box in Sportsman between maneuvers 6+7 and 11+12 but I could muddle through without them if I had to, and I honestly can't imagine flying such a disjoint sequence as the ones I'm seeing in the old rulebooks.  Hardly feels like a "sequence".

Peter+

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:43 AM, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

The sequences flown were published in the old rule books. Be aware that over the years some of the class names changed. 
Some time back I applied K-factors to those non-turnaround schedules to try to understand the migration of increasing difficulty, concluding that the K-factor alone is a poor indicator of actual difficulty. But we all step up to the challenge regardless of the difficulty.
Jim 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Peter Vogel
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:23 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Cc: NSRCA Discussion List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating tonew FAIrules

I was reading some of the archived K-factors and it got me curious, is there an archive of the sequences pre-turnaround?

Peter+

Sent from my iPhone4S

On Jan 31, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com> wrote:

You can log on at the NSRCA website and then proceed to the judges section and click on archived documents. Thanks to Jim Hiller who provided me a lot of these, I was able to scan them in and put them into the PDF Format. Anyone who has anything older than whats up there, send a hard copy to me to scan and I'll have Derek put them up.

Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:45:38 -0800
From: derekkoopowitz at gmail.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating to new FAIrules

We have a pretty good collection of AMA and FAI rule books on the website if anyone wants to see what rules were like, or how much they have changed over the years... 

Click on the link below:

http://nsrca.us/index.php/archiveddocuments 

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com> wrote:
It would appear that the FAI is going down the same road as IMAC, with IMAC's subjective "airspace control" factor.  The smoothness and gracefulness 25% gives a judge a non-objective way to give a downgrade of 2 to 3 points.  Since there is no scoring criteria for it that I could find, other than Michael Ramel's instructions to the judges at the WC, I'm not sure what we do with it.  I would think that his instructions would have been protestable, if anyone had wanted to go down that path, since I'm unaware of any official FAI rule interpretation saying, for example, that constant speed is a part of smoothness and gracefulness.  I'm sure he was just trying to give meaning to a poorly writen criteria.

Very sorry to see the FAI going this way.
Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Atwood <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 9:49 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating to new FAIrules
Dave, the answer, by your own math, is that a geometrically perfect maneuver can't be beaten purely by other criteria.   With geometry making up 50% of the score, no amount of smoothness can be valued MORE than precision.   

I could also argue that a geometrically "perfect" maneuver would always have at least some level of gracefulness based on that perfect geometry.  They're not completely independent.  

Unfortunately S&G is completely subjective, and as analytical people, we're not too keen on subjectivity.  But that's the nature of the sport.  It's perceived precision, not measured.    Vertical lines at the end of the box don't need to BE vertical, they need to LOOK vertical, etc.   

If we want purely objective scoring... look to racing.  Go fast, bank left, pull.   

Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124 
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com  |  www.paragon-inc.com

On Jan 31, 2012, at 10:37 AM, DaveL322 at comcast.net wrote:

There has never been guidance for s+g downgrades in AMA or FAI.....which is why I have always advocated s+g should be eliminated from the judging criteria.  Of course if I am mistaken about the goal of pattern being precision aerobatics, then maybe s+g should be the only criteria.

I've never gotten an answer to this question.  How can a geometrically perfect maneuver be outscored by a geometrically flawed maneuver?  Of course with the new FAI scoring.....it would seem that geometrically perfect maneuver might only be scored a 5.

Regards,

Dave

Sent from my HTC on the Now Network from Sprint!
----- Reply message -----
From: "Ronald Van Putte" <vanputte at cox.net>
Date: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 09:49
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating to new FAIrules
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
After thinking about this further, I wonder how the change in  ranking affects anything.  Positioning has specific downgrades (2 point downgrade for each 1/4 of the maneuver off center).  However, I am unaware of any specific downgrades for smoothness and gracefulness. 

Ron Van Putte

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ronald Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
Date: January 31, 2012 8:24:56 AM CST
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Another discussion topic relating to new FAIrules
Reply-To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

That's interesting.  I know #2. and #3. were in reverse order before.  I don't remember a rules change vote on this. 

Ron Van Putte

On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:19 AM, Bob Kane wrote:

FWIW, this is identical to to the ranking in the AMA Competition regulations:

>From the current AMA document (RCA-12):

1. Precision of the maneuver.
2. Smoothness and gracefulness of the maneuver. 
3. Positioning or display of the maneuver.
4. Size or dimensions of the maneuver relative to the maneuvering area, distance from the judges, and other maneuvers in the flight. 

The above criteria are listed in order of importance; however, all of them must be met for a maneuver to be rated perfect. 

Bob Kane getterflash at yahoo.com

From:
J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:51 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Another discussion topic relating to new FAIrules 

I would have thought positioning rated a higher precision aerobatics. Smoothness and gracefulness is polish.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of tocdon at netscape.net
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 6:06 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Another discussion topic relating to new FAIrules

This will keep the list going (and the discussions too).  I recall Michael Ramel clearly discussing the future of the rules during the judges training at the World Championships at Muncie.  This was relating to smoothness and gracefulness being directly related to constant speed.  The following reflects what he discussed, as cited on page 35, and effect the way a score is awarded:

Geometry:  50%
Smoothness and Gracefulness: 25%
Position of maneuver: 12.5%
Size of maneuver: 12.5%
Proportion of the maneuver outside the (box) in addition to above.

The specific, objective criteria used to judge smoothness and gracefulness includes, "maintaining constant speed throughout various maneuver components, like climbing and decending sections..."

Also the sentence about radii being very loose or very tight, even if equal size within a maneuver, are grounds for downgrade of smoothness and gracefulness.

Cheers,
Don

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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

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

-- 
Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/20120206/92548dd9/attachment.html>