[NSRCA-discussion] Judging question for the experts

[Dave Lockhart]

+1 (again, just for you RVP)

 

I have long advocated that ANY criteria that can not be OBJECTIVELY defined should not be a criteria.  Obviously enough, the majority (or ruling class at least) do not agree, as the number of subjective elements have grown, and in FAI are now a percentage of the maneuver even though specific downgrades are still not quantified.

 

RVP –

+1 is shorthand for “I agree”….or another agrees….if you want to pick up the cool kids lingo…..and you agree to a “+1”……you say “+2”.  Being an engineer, I’m sure you know what is next J

 

Regards,

 

Dave

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:25 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging question for the experts

 

Hey, at least they get to deal in tenth's of points. We deal only in whole points judging FAI.  

 

But I agree, geometry seems to have gotten lost in the quest for constant speed, smoothness and gracefulness.   I can't define a too tight or too loose radius.  I can define heading changes, radii changes, 1 point per 15 degrees, perecnt out of the box, etc.  It seems FAI is heading into the subjective rather than objective criteria for judging, ie "impression" judging.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Lockhart <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tue, Feb 26, 2013 7:16 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging question for the experts

+1

 

From: 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 flyintexan at att.net
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 8:24 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20130227/c16791bd/attachment.html>