[NSRCA-discussion] New sequences

[Scott McHarg]

Because even at local contest, FAI flies both P and F.

On Jul 18, 2017 11:33 AM, "Verne Koester via NSRCA-discussion" <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> And the masters pilots aren't simply
> flying fai now because?
>
> Verne Koester
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 18, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Vicente Bortone <vincebrc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Verne,
>
> I am sure that all Masters pilots that usually come to my contest still
> will come.  They just love this stuff too much.  We already discussed.  I
> am also sure more FAI pilots will attend if they see more participation in
> their class.  Yes, I have been collecting a lot of FAI trophies.  We will
> be able to flip flop more easily between Masters and FAI.  Then judging
> becomes easier and a lot more precise since we will be judging similar
> schedule.  In any event, when I see the proposed new Master schedule many
> of those manuevers were already in old FAI-P so it is not really a big
> deal.  I understand that we want to revise it and change the elements that
> do not meet the Masters (sometimes we will need to make it more
> stringent) requirements and fix the flow is required.  Furthermore, will
> make the life of the committe in charge a lot easier.
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:38 AM Verne Koester <verne at mi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Or perhaps then you won't have any masters pilots at your contests
>> either.
>>
>> Verne Koester
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Vicente Bortone via NSRCA-discussion <
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>
>> Her my humble opinion:
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the best solution is to adopt the FAI-P modified to meet Master
>> requirements.  Here the reasons:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.      We are overloading the lower classes judging Masters in local
>> contest.  As time pass we have seen less FAI pilots in local contest.  Clearly
>> the norm is to have 46-8 Masters, 0-2 FAI, 0-3 Advanced, 0-3 Intermediate
>> and 0-3 Sportsman.  This is a reality that has been happening in the
>> last few years.  There are some cases different but this has become
>> normal.
>>
>> 2.      Is we used modified P in Masters the Masters pilots will be more
>> willing to fly FAI and slit the class.  This will make the contest more
>> balanced and avoid overloading the lower classes pilots.
>>
>> 3.      This will help Master pilots to try FAI and try to practice F.  Top
>> FAI pilots will be more willing to go to local contest since they will have
>> more competition.
>>
>> 4.      In my contest one traditional FAI pilot call me to ask me how
>> many pilots were flying FAI.  I told him you will be the only one.  He
>> turned around and went home.  This is a reality that we need to take
>> into account.  It is happening.
>>
>> 5.      If I were and Advanced or Intermediate pilot and I go to a
>> contest to judge 4-5 times a bunch of Masters pilots I will try to do
>> something else in my weekend.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I know that there are other reasons but I need to go back to work.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Curt Oberg via NSRCA-discussion <
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 60 aged?  YGTBKM.  My son is almost that old.
>>>
>>> Curt
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounc
>>> es at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion
>>> *Sent:* Monday, July 17, 2017 4:07 PM
>>> *To:* Derek Koopowitz; General pattern discussion
>>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] New sequences
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To that I have to respond. A vast majority of Masters pilots are in the
>>> same category if you think 59 going on 60 is aged. LOL.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From:* Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, July 17, 2017 1:59 PM
>>> *To:* Joe Lachowski; General pattern discussion
>>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] New sequences
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Age!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion <
>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> There are two more things we need to seriously consider with these
>>> sequences. Judgeability of course and something no one ever talks about,
>>> ability to memorize a sequence and retain it. Not all of us have a caller
>>> readily available when practicing. The current sequence bit me twice so far
>>> this contest season. I actually started to swap  two maneuvers out of
>>> sequence even with a caller. Took my 0's and throw away round. I now make
>>> sure my caller reinforces that part of the sequence when calling for me.
>>>  In all my years of flying pattern this has never ever happened to me
>>> before. My memory isn't bad. I usually have  a new sequence or previous
>>> seasons sequence down in less than two practice sessions at the beginning
>>> of every season.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From:* Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, July 17, 2017 11:43 AM
>>> *To:* Joe Lachowski
>>> *Cc:* General pattern discussion
>>> *Subject:* Re: New sequences
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In reply I’ll admit I did not evaluate it against any guideline
>>> criteria.  I only flew it for “feel” and admittedly, I’m somewhat proud to
>>> say I’ve flown enough F and Unknown sequences now that it didn’t seem very
>>> unusual.   So your critique there is likely valid.  Given that all the
>>> maneuvers were flyable with little more than calling the primary maneuver
>>> name along with the individual elements, real time, I’m hard pressed to
>>> call them “fabricated garbage”, as I think that needlessly insults the
>>> people that worked hard, with good intent, to put these together.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do fly a fairly low drag, power efficient setup, so that point is
>>> valid.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I will also agree that our constant evolution and increasing difficulty
>>> of sequences has generally stagnated class advancement.  When I was moving
>>> up, the classes never changed.  So once you were proficient in a class, the
>>> only new challenge was to move up.  Now, with new classes every 2 years,
>>> even if the difficulty is the same, you can stay put and still feel
>>> challenged learning something new.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -M
>>>
>>> *MARK **ATWOOD*
>>>
>>> o.  (440) 229-2502
>>>
>>> c.  (216) 316-2489
>>>
>>> e.  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Paragon Consulting, Inc.*
>>>
>>> 5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
>>>
>>> www.paragon-inc.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
>>>
>>> *Powering The Digital Experience*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are still too many new maneuvers introduced to the eligible
>>> maneuvers list. Only a couple should be introduced each rules cycle if
>>> necessary. That was part of the intent of the guide. Battery
>>> consumption is too high with the low drag plane and motor combination that
>>> you use Mark in comparison to others. I'm assuming this is the sequence
>>> that is on the NSRCA site.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A few of the maneuvers are just fabricated garbage. When the guide was
>>> put together it was done to keep getting carried away with this stuff and
>>> adding a boat load of  "Oh, this would be cool to do" type maneuvers which
>>> have already infiltrated FAI. There is a lot of stupidity designed into the
>>> sequence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A fellow Masters pilot tried to fly  some of this this weekend and
>>> concluded it was a bunch of crap, ripped it up and threw it into the
>>> garbage.
>>>
>>>
>>> I had an Advanced pilot fly the new sequence for Advanced this weekend
>>> also. The Cobra with snap may be an issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are also a lot of 3/4 rolls in the sequence that an Advanced pilot
>>> will have to figure out which way to roll. This may be an information
>>> overload requirement that might be overcome by a lot more practice than
>>> typically required. You only have some much time available to practice. The
>>> designers did not do a thorough analysis of the roll elements.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I firmly believe we need to dumb down on Masters. The current one is
>>> already difficult and requires  more practice time than I would care to put
>>> into flying pattern. The fun is starting to dissipate for this flyer and
>>> I'm retired.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not everyone can get out several evenings during the week and the
>>> weekend to practice. I'm thinking of the 95% not the top 5% and I'm a
>>> middle of the road Masters pilot. I have also seen decline in Masters
>>> attendance on the local level. Based on what I see so far, I will either
>>> pack it in or reluctantly drop to Advanced which has crept ever
>>> closer towards being a Masters sequence. This is the first time I have seen
>>> so much controversy over one sequence.  Start fresh. There is still time to
>>> form a new committee hopefully with some people who previously served and
>>> get this thing right. There is still plenty of time to get it right by
>>> December 31st. Heck I could do it all on my own and come up with something
>>> more sane that what has been proposed or thrown out in this discussion list!
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From:* NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on
>>> behalf of Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion <
>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, July 17, 2017 8:09 AM
>>> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] New sequences
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was able to fly both the proposed Masters and Advanced sequences this
>>> weekend with Chuck Edwards.  All in all good, with a few thoughts.
>>>
>>> *Masters* -
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I like it. Flows reasonably well.  Some fun challenges, but nothing
>>> daunting.  The two rolls opposite is easily the prettiest maneuver in the
>>> schedule, and it will separate anyone not comfortable rolling both ways.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *One concern* - The only sticky maneuver I thought is the 1 1/4, KE
>>> flight, 1 1/4.   It’s simply too long to make look pretty, and if it’s a
>>> strong head wind, will really look like crap.  You’re basically trying to
>>> fit 2 1/2 rolls AND sustained KE flight on a downwind leg and stay in the
>>> box, thus forcing somewhat rapid rolls which simply look rushed.
>>>
>>> I would strongly suggest changing it to 3/4 roll, KE, 3/4 roll.   Same
>>> difficulty really, but a full roll shorter and thus allows for a more
>>> graceful, controlled roll rate.
>>>
>>> Total Mah draw in modest wind (7-9kt cross) was 3580mah  without paying
>>> particular attention to throttle management, given that it was the first
>>> time through the sequence.  Quite a bit less time and power than the
>>> current schedule.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Advanced*.
>>>
>>> It’s also nice, with one *major* concern.  The Cobra.  It’s not as
>>> conventional as I think is expected, and I feel it’s too much for an
>>> advanced flyer just learning to snap their airplane (my opinion).  You’re
>>> already a bit rushed going into is, and you’re pushing in from Inverted.
>>> No biggie.  Half roll up, over the top and back down on a 45.  THEN you
>>> have a single snap on the 45 deg DOWN line.
>>>
>>> I can tell you from personal experience and a re-kitted Spark (St.
>>> Clairsville flying F-11 with a 1 1/2 snap down on the cobra) that a snap
>>> like this *WILL *crash an airplane.  You’re heading down, not all that
>>> high to begin with, and if you badly miss the snap and lose your
>>> orientation, you’re likely on low throttle and low airspeed and will
>>> proceed to stall/snap it into the ground in your attempt to recover.    I’d
>>> much rather see a snap on the UP leg of the cobra.  It would still be
>>> rushed, but FAR more airplane and pilot friendly.
>>>
>>> Other than that, is has all the traditional challenges.     Power was
>>> very low as I flew the schedule with only 2800mah (also a 7-9kt crosswind).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My $0.02 worth with 1 time through Advanced and twice through Masters.
>>> So limited testing.  Your mileage may vary.
>>>
>>> Hope to see a bunch of you in Arkansas!
>>>
>>> -Mark
>>> *MARK **ATWOOD*
>>> o.  (440) 229-2502
>>> c.  (216) 316-2489
>>> e.  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
>>>
>>> *Paragon Consulting, Inc.*
>>> 5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
>>> www.paragon-inc.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>> --
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170718/82ad0bba/attachment.html>