[NSRCA-discussion] New sequences

Tue Jul 18 09:48:35 AKDT 2017

Scott,

There has been more than one  solution for that.  We all know those.  In
any case, per FAI rules F cannot been flown in a two day contest.  I could
be wrong on this conclusion.  We need to check the rule book.  I remember
reading this few years back.  There was already a similar comment on this.
  However,  this is easy one to take care.

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:32 PM Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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-bounces 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
>>
> --
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170718/3f628386/attachment.html>