[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My thoughts - Long
Frackowiak Tony
frackowiak at sbcglobal.net
Fri Jul 7 14:14:10 AKDT 2017
I disagree with doing the 2 1/2 turn spin downwind.
Tony Frackowiak
On Jul 7, 2017, at 2:58 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
> 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> 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> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Administrator
>>>
>>> Please remove this email from the discussion list
>>> 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> 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] 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> 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> 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> 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
>>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman /listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o rg
>>> 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.nsrcaorg
>>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/af638ec3/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list