[NSRCA-discussion] New K Factors

Stuart Chale schale1 at outlook.com
Sun Oct 21 06:37:48 AKDT 2018


I don't think I have seen any discussion on the list about the new 
system for K factor designation so I thought I would start it off.

First before any questions or criticism this was a big job and I like 
it, so thank you to the group that put this together.  The new K factors 
run from 1-11 and are based on a basic maneuver with additional K's 
added for added elements.  Using the old system there was always 
questions when new maneuvers were added, Some if the K factor some seems 
okay some high some low based on prior maneuvers. Sometimes it seems 
arbitrary.

If you have not looked at the new documents, as I read it, the new K 
factor is determined by adding a base K factor for the basic maneuver 
and then looking at the added elements each with an assigned K addition. 
The element with the highest K is added to the basic maneuver K factor 
and then the rest of the element K factors are added up and divided by 
two and added on.

For the most part this seems like it works, however I do not think that 
all of the maneuvers are computed properly in the catalog maneuvers. If 
I am reading correctly, the double I with knife edge flight did not half 
the elements before adding them on.

Also when adding a basic knife edge element K factors are added for the 
quarter roll in and the quarter roll out. Maneuvers with simple knife 
edge flight in them would seem to get inflated K factors due to this. 
The double I with knife edge flight is listed as a K of 10.  I think it 
should be a K of 8 based on the intended calculation (I don't think the 
dividing by 2 was done) .

A slow roll only has a K factor of 2. A four-point roll a K factor of 
three.  In the current advanced sequence we have reduced the K factors 
for these two maneuvers and increase the K factor total for the entire 
sequence. This markedly reduces the importance of these two basic 
maneuvers that often help to distinguish the better flyers.

No system is ever going to be perfect and I think this is a step in the 
right direction. Just bringing these few points up to start a conversation.

Stuart Chale






More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list