[NSRCA-discussion] Judging question for the experts

[Astropattern]

I agree with previous posters about being able to show the judges a start and finish to the radius. I spent time watching that very thing at the Worlds last year...all the top flyers had very clear transitions without any jerks. On the other hand, the flyers who were so smooth as to almost make the transition to a radius disappear didn't score as well. 
It is hard to describe, but it almost looks as if the pilot is adding just enough pitch input so the plane looks like it is starting something, but not enough pitch to actually change the trajectory of the CG in that fraction of a second. Between those two actions they hit the ideal mix between "jerk" and "nothing".

John

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 25, 2013, at 12:22 PM, Chuck Hochhalter <cahochhalter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I feel many of the new "guidelines" for judging try and fix issues we don't have and make it even harder to give an accurate score. Now we have included a percentage value of my impression on my opinion as to wether it was smooth and graceful. I feel that to fly the maneuver properly and score a geometric perfect score it inherently will be smooth, thusly graceful.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Feb 25, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Ronald Van Putte <vanputter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, and you can see competitors, as they improve, go from "jerking" the radii, to "oozing" in and out of radii and, finally, getting constant radii.
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>> On Feb 25, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>> 
>>> One of my observations from watching the top competitors is their ability to "hit" a line after radius.  I'm not sure how to describe it, but you know when the radius ends and the line starts.
>>>  
>>> 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: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:52 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging question for the experts
>>> 
>>> As long as thin is an open discussion, where do we draw the line between easing into and out of a radius? While appearing very smooth, may in fact be a variation from constant radius. Slow flight also tends to mask the start and stop of radiuses, which need to be at least noticeable to define geometry.
>>> Jim
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of flyintexan at att.net
>>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:24 AM
>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging question for the experts
>>>  
>>> How soon before we hire figure skating judges?
>>> 
>>> -Mark
>>> Sent from my phone.
>>> ----- Reply message -----
>>> From: "Andre Bouchard" <txf3a at entouch.net>
>>> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging question for the experts
>>> Date: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 11:14 PM
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Don,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This question of course relates to the Annex 5B – F3 R/C Aerobatic Power Model Aircraft Manoeuvre Execution Guide, Section 5B.9...
>>> 5B.9 SMOOTHNESS AND GRACEFULNESS OF THE MANOEUVRE
>>> "Concerns the harmonic appearance of an entire manoeuvre. Ie maintaining a constant flight speed throughout the various manoeuvre components, like in climbing and descending sections contributes significantly to smoothness and gracefulness. Radii performed very tight or very loose, though being of equal size within one manoeuvre may be subject for downgrading Smoothness and Gracefulness."
>>> If the radii are very abrupt the maneuver would not be "smooth and graceful."  Similarly, if the radii are very loose the maneuver elements would likely not be well defined (not graceful?).  I think "very" is the key word - beyond expectation, not normally seen, etc.  Extending that thought, I think this would be a uncommon downgrade.
>>> Stating the obvious here...there are no technical criteria for what constitutes "very tight or very loose" radii.  The criteria are subjective.
>>> Regards,
>>> Andre Bouchard
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>> On Feb 24, 2013, at 9:13 PM, tocdon at netscape.net wrote:
>>> A question on radius judging.  Tight radius (or loose radius) manevuer segments are subject to downgrade in FAI.  What constitutes a tight radius?  Physically tight (in feet, for example), or tight (fast speed through the radius giving the impression that the plane is pulling excessive g's, however that is interpreted).   A slow flying radius could be extremely tight, for example the last radius at the bottom of the triangle loop (135 degree pull) or figure Z.
>>> Best regards,
>>> 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 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/20130225/c52811eb/attachment.html>