[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My thoughts - Long
John Gayer
west.engineering at comcast.net
Fri Jul 7 14:39:53 AKDT 2017
Sorry about that. No. I didn't mean it.
On 7/7/2017 4:13 PM, Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
> 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
>>> <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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170707/34264434/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list