[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My thoughts - Long
John Gayer
west.engineering at comcast.net
Fri Jul 7 13:59:01 AKDT 2017
Taking into account some of the comments and adding a few thoughts of my
own, I came up with the following changes, shown to the right of the
original.
Maneuver KF Exit
Change maneuver to: New K new exit
1 Takeoff 1
2 Double Immelman with Knife Edge Flight inside 1/2 loop then
outside1/2loop 5 Upright U
3 1/2 Loop with Integrated 1/2 Roll
3 Upright TA 1/2 loop, 1/2 roll in, 1/2 rolls opposite exit 3 upright
4 Triangle Loop from top, 1/2 rolls on 45's, 1 1/2 snap on top leg
5 inverted D
5 1/2 Square Loop with Snap Roll in down track
4 Upright TA 2 1/2 turn inverted spin 2 inverted
6 Six-sided Loop, 2 of 4 Rolls in leg 2, two 1/4 Rolls opposite in leg
4 4 inverted U Six-sided Loop, 2 of 4 Rolls in leg 2 and 4 4 inverted
7 Humpty Bump with Roll Options, 2 of 2 Roll up, Full Roll down; or 3/4
Roll up and down
3 Upright TA Humpty Bump with Roll Options, 1/2 Roll up and down; or
1/4 Roll up and down 2 upright
8 Knife Edge Flight with 1 ¼ Roll in and out, - rolls same direction 4
inverted D
9 Stall Turn with two 1/4 Rolls opposite up, 1/2 Roll down
3 Upright TA Stall Turn with two 1/4 Rolls down 2 upright
10 Vertical Cuban 8 with 1/2 Roll, Full Roll
4 Inverted U
11 Trombone with Roll
2 Upright TA reverse shark snap on 45,1/2 roll down 4 inverted
12 Golf Ball with 3/4 Rolls and Knife Edge Loop
4 Upright D Golf Ball with 1/4 Rolls and Knife Edge Loop 4 inverted
13 Top Hat, 3 of 4 Roll up, 3/4 Roll down
2 Upright TA Guide should be changed to K3
14 Figure Z with 4 of 8 Roll in 45
4 Inverted U
15 Inverted 2-turn Spin (TA) 2 Upright TA 1/2 square loop with full
roll 2 upright
16 Two Slow Rolls opposite, no hesitation 4 Upright D
17 Stall turn with half rolls up and down
2 Upright TA
18 Loop with Integrated Roll in top 180 5 Upright U
19 Landing 1
Total K-factor 62 60
I tried to keep the flavor and intent of the original. Hopefully this is
a bit easier, addresses the missing room for the slow roll, the lack of
space before the golf ball and eases up a bit on the fiddly turnaround
maneuvers. I removed the 1/2 loop integrated 1/2 roll. The maneuver is
not difficult but making it LARGE is. Will try to fly this tomorrow.
Also I believe the guide KFactor for the top hat is too low. Should be a
three.
John
On 7/7/2017 10:19 AM, Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
> I have to agree with Tony on the Spin followed by the Slow Rolls. The
> Slow Rolls will require room and with a blowing in crosswind or a
> decent headwind, this is going to be an issue. Personally, I'm very
> pleased with the other class sequences.
>
> *Scott A. McHarg*
> VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
> Texas A&M University
> PPL - ASEL
> Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>
> The Intermediate and Advanced patterns look OK, but I don't think
> Intermediate should be changed as it is only on it's 2nd year.
>
> The Masters pattern is much more difficult then the current. 14 of
> the 19 maneuvers have to be written in to the Guide. The assigned
> K-Factors are pulled out of thin air for many of the maneuvers.
> They are whatever they needed to be to stay under the K limit.
>
> Look at this pattern as an Advanced flier entering Masters. You
> now have two integrated rolling maneuvers. The full roll over the
> top 1/2 of a loop is much more difficult then the 1/2 roll over
> the top 1/4. Then the turnaround 1/2 loop with 1/2 roll will be
> much more difficult as you start low and have to end up quite high
> for the next maneuver. It will be a lengthy, difficult maneuver.
>
> The two maneuvers with snaps are right after each other. I would
> think you would want separation between snap maneuvers. And they
> will both be inside snaps.
>
> The vertical cuban 8 will be huge demanding lots of power.
>
> There is no chance to correct your box positioning after the spin.
> You have to go right in to the opposite slow rolls which have to
> start early. And you will be blown back in to the rolls from the spin.
>
> The trombone is a poor choice in between the vertical cuban and
> the golf ball. There will be very little distance in between the
> maneuvers. And it will only be able to be flown one way. No real
> choice here.
>
> The golf ball will be much more difficult then the current ke
> humpty. Since it is starting downwind with the ke starting on a 45
> degree line you will be at ke for a very long time.
>
> The addition of instant roll reversal will make it much more
> difficult for the incoming advanced flier.
>
> As far as I know, you guys did nothing to address the improper
> make-up of the Sequence Committee. You cannot expect a proper
> Masters pattern without difficulty creep from a Committee made up
> of mostly Masters pilots.
>
> This pattern will keep Advanced fliers from moving up, which in
> most cases will have them quitting pattern.
>
> Since the make-up of the Sequence Committee does not follow the
> charter, with very little representation amongst the classes, this
> is a top heavy schedule. From my own personal standpoint, make
> Masters as hard as you want to. I have plenty of time to practice.
> But it will be a smaller group of Masters fliers.
>
> Tony
>
> On Jul 7, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Joe Walker via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
>> Hey guys! Be sure to go to the main site now to take a look at
>> the proposed sequences for Intermediate, Advanced and Masters.
>> Remember that we are in the commenting stage and all feedback is
>> welcome. My only request is that you be specific in your
>> thoughts so the feedback can be productive in making the
>> sequences the best they can be. I really like them personally
>> and look forward to diving in and practicing up!
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Joe Walker
>> NSRCA President
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 10:02 AM, Whodaddy Whodaddy via
>> NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Administrator
>>
>> Please remove this email from the discussion list
>> Whodaddy10 at gmail.com <mailto:Whodaddy10 at gmail.com>
>>
>> Thx
>> Gary Courtney
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2017, at 8:50 AM, Don Ramsey via NSRCA-discussion
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>>
>> John,
>> NSRCA had a meeting at the end of the pilots meeting at last
>> year’s NATS and all pilots that were paying attention knew about
>> it. About 5 of the contestants stayed for that meeting.
>> Don
>> *From:*NSRCA-discussion
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] *On Behalf Of
>> *John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2017 5:35 PM
>> *To:* Joe Walker; Scott McHarg; NSRCA Mailing List
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New
>> Sequences - My thoughts - Long
>> Joe,
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> One suggestion I have is to reinstitute the physical board
>> meeting at the Nats or perhaps a meeting with beer and whatever.
>> It's a great opportunity to meet your fellow board members and
>> discuss the future of pattern. Just keep it informal and fun. The
>> idea is more to form connections then to discuss normal board
>> business.
>>
>> Concerning the list, set up a local folder for the list and use a
>> filter to dump into it. Then you have no additional inbox clutter
>> and its easy to tell when there is a hot topic.
>>
>> John
>> On 6/20/2017 2:43 PM, Joe Walker wrote:
>>
>> Good afternoon John,
>> I'm not certain that the entirety of the board subscribes to
>> the list, but I'm here now and it is a voluntary discussion
>> list. It's also not the only way to communicate, so if there
>> is a hot topic you would like to see immediate action on,
>> please send an email to the person you are desiring to
>> connect with. Or better yet, a phone call. I can tell you
>> now from experience that it sure does fill up your inbox in a
>> hurry! My preference would be to change to a platform that
>> is a bit more in line with the rest of the world, but I'm
>> certain that will stir up another thread, thus contributing
>> more to the inbox influx, so I'll save that for another time
>> ;-). I can also say definitively that engaging every post is
>> an */enormous/* time commitment. People like to type!
>> I think there have been many great suggestions on a variety
>> of topics. I'm certainly on board with several great ideas
>> and have been, and will continue to be an advocate for
>> reasonable discussion with suggestions to make what we do
>> more fun for everyone.
>> Best,
>> Joe Walker
>> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 4:09 PM, John Gayer via
>> NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> Scott,
>>
>> I can only ask why the board is not subscribed to this list?
>> That is how you keep a finger on the pulse of the membership
>> (or at least the vocal parts of it). Not the only way, of course.
>>
>> There is no requirement to respond or take action on anything
>> the board or committee members read here but the threads
>> exist to be pursued and ideas presented that may strike a chord.
>>
>> Not everything here has been negative. Many positive
>> suggestions have been made.
>>
>> I'm sure the board could issue a waiver to the two year rule
>> for Masters if they want to. Or just change one maneuver, or
>> two. I have candidates. :=) Probably need to do that for
>> Sportsman as well.
>>
>> John
>> On 6/20/2017 7:51 AM, Scott McHarg wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I would like to rephrase my last sentence. I'd
>> like to blame auto-correct but, I don't think that'll
>> work in this case. Sorry people.
>> "Truly, great comments all around but if it's not being
>> recognized or seen by those that can change it, what's
>> the point?"
>>
>> *Scott A. McHarg*
>> VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
>> Texas A&M University
>> PPL - ASEL
>> Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Scott McHarg
>> <scmcharg at gmail.com <mailto:scmcharg at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> It's one thing for us to debate a proposed sequence that
>> hasn't even been approved by the board for public comment
>> that got out by accident and quite another thing to break
>> the AMA Rules stipulating that we do change Masters at
>> least once every 2 years. I'm all in favor of this
>> discussion but wouldn't it make sense that we make sure
>> our board was picking up what we're putting down? Truly,
>> great comments all around but if it's being ignored by
>> those that can change it, what's the point?
>>
>> *Scott A. McHarg*
>> VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
>> Texas A&M University
>> PPL - ASEL
>> Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Frackowiak Tony via
>> NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca. org
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>> The Sequence Committee and the entire Sequence
>> Development Guide was established for the NSRCA to create
>> the schedules used in the AMA Pattern event. I believe
>> the establishment of that process was key in getting the
>> rules changed to where the NSRCA had control of the
>> patterns, not the AMA R/C Aerobatics Contest Board. Are
>> we supposed to just forget all that because the ball was
>> dropped this cycle? I think the better option since we
>> can no longer follow the established schedule is to not
>> change the patterns for this cycle. What's the worst that
>> could happen? Everyone gets better at flying them and
>> newcomers to a class get a break?
>>
>> I don't understand your idea of forming another
>> committee. Don't we already have a Sequence Committee and
>> a Rules Committee? Seems like they are there to do what
>> you are talking about. Of course it also seems like not
>> much was done about submitting rules proposals from the
>> NSRCA this cycle. But maybe I am not aware of why that
>> happened.
>>
>> All in favor of eliminating the weight rule and allowing
>> 12S. But that really is another story.
>>
>> Tony Frackowiak
>>
>> On Jun 19, 2017, at 9:31 PM, John Gayer via
>> NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I find it interesting that when we discuss using
>> sequences developed and used internationally there is
>> substantial resistance and a lot of not invented here,
>> loss of control, etc. We can certainly overcome the loss
>> of control by keeping a modification capability when we
>> encounter something undesirable in a sequence we want to
>> use. Not invented here can save us a lot of work,
>> >
>> > On the other hand, when we talking about rewriting
>> rules for using 12S batteries or eliminating/reducing
>> weight restrictions for AMA classes, there is a hue and
>> cry that we have to stay in lockstep with FAI or the sky
>> will fall.
>> >
>> > I don't understand either position. We should take
>> advantage of work done around the world but not be bound
>> to it. If we can build a better mousetrap for less money,
>> that's great. If we can't, then take advantage of
>> published and available work wherever it comes from. P19
>> is not terribly exciting but it is easier than either the
>> current or the new Masters sequence.
>> >
>> > Keeping that in mind, I suggest we accept P19 as the
>> Masters schedule for next year only on a trial basis.
>> > In the meantime, a committee should be formed to
>> formulate a plan for future sequences. The three sequence
>> rotation makes a lot of sense to me for Sportsman and
>> Intermediate. Advanced could go that way too but probably
>> should adapt to whatever longterm plan is adopted for
>> Masters. I would suggest having forms available at
>> contest to survey contestants throughout the year about
>> their sequences.
>> > At the end of the year, the committee would publish
>> recommendations for how to generate sequences for all
>> classes. A recommendation I could make right now is that
>> the board ensures the committee adheres to the guidelines
>> and charter. The committee could make changes to the
>> documents but would need board approval for those changes
>> prior to implementation or ask for a waiver.
>> >
>> > John
>> > ______________________________ _________________
>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o rg
>> <mailto: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
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o rg
>> <mailto: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
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> <mailto: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
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrcaorg
>>> <mailto: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
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> <mailto: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
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> <mailto: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
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto: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
> 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/20170707/808e58ac/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list