[NSRCA-discussion] new rules proposals

Fri Jan 18 15:32:01 AKST 2019

Right.  The intent should be to equalize the differences that are a result
of a smaller plane -- it's much more susceptible to wind, etc. and
"squirrelier". You would still be expected to fly correct geometry, etc.
I'd apply a 2% bonus to any plane with wingspan 71" or smaller, possibly
double it to 4% for anything with a wingspan < 50"

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 4:19 PM Monte Richard via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> We had a pilot at the Cajun Nats finish second place with a PHOENIX 7
> against at least 5 other 2 meter planes. With the 10% no one could even
> have a chance against him.
>
> It certainly isn’t right to give a lesser pilot the win over a better
> pilot like John suggested, just because he flies a smaller plane. That
> certainly isn’t what our sport or competition is about.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 18, 2019, at 6:07 PM, tim pritchett via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Keep in mind, for analysis below, no consideration is being given to
> whether pilot 1 and pilot 2's planes were different.  What we don't know is
> how much 'better' a pilot flies a 2M vs. a 1.75 or smaller airplane to
> critique the 10%.  We'd be hard pressed, I think, to get a firm, accurate
> number to represent that difference.  We'd have to have a single pilot fly
> both sized planes in front of a set of judges, probably multiple times, to
> know if there was any real difference at all.
> That said, it's a penalty - something a pilot must choose to work with or
> around.  If we want to discourage 2M, then pick a high number.  If it's to
> level the field, pick a lower one.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Underkofler via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> To: John Fuqua <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com>; General pattern discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Fri, Jan 18, 2019 5:38 pm
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] new rules proposals
>
> I was thinking that 10% was a bit high.  Could also do a lower % or Int
> than Sportsman.
>
> John, I hope the idea of any of these rules proposals is NOT to allow the
> lesser pilot to win!
> We just are talking about leveling the playing field to account for
> equipment.
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 3:32 PM John Fuqua via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Monte
> I sort of arbitrarily picked 10%.    Do the math and suggest a better
> number.   Although I think the idea is that the newcomer should have a good
> chance of placing/winning even though he/she may not be the best pilot.
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Monte Richard via NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Friday, January 18, 2019 3:18 PM
> *To:* Monte Richard; General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] new rules proposals
>
> I just went into one of last years contests in intermediate. Pilot one’s
> first round scored a raw score of 350 and 331, his average raw score was
> 340.5 (he won the round). Pilot two’s raw score for round one was 338 and
> 324.5, his average raw score was 331.25, add in the 10% handicap and it
> becomes 364.375. This moves him to first place in the round by a high
> margin. Totally changes the results. Add to that the normalizing and it
> becomes almost insurmountable, considering pilot one outflew pilot two.
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 18, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Monte Richard <
> mrichard at compassengineering.com> wrote:
>
> Add in the Kfactors and in Sportsman the total raw score can be 250 making
> the 10% handicap 25 points.
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 18, 2019, at 2:28 PM, Monte Richard via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> 10% is a lot. sportsman has 18 maneuvers so a perfect flight has a
> possibility of 180 points in raw score, 10% of that is 18 points. A flight
> with all 9’s would be a raw score of 162, 10% is 16.2 points. That pretty
> much means a pilot without the 10% advantage has to beat the pilot with the
> advantage by 1 point per maneuver on all the maneuvers to beat him, if they
> tie more than 2 maneuvers, then the handicap beats him. 10% is a high
> factor to overcome.
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 18, 2019, at 2:15 PM, Daniel Underkofler via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> John,
>  I think you've got a wording problem in your -05 proposal.
> You say: 10% when "length/width DOES exceed 71in"
> I think you meant: 10% when" length AND width DO NOT exceed 71in"
>
> Dan
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 6:46 AM John Fuqua via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> FYI for all.
>
> There are 3 new rules proposals on the AMA website.    Suggest folks take
> a look.
>
> John Fuqua
> cell 850-974-6655
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (c) 2019 Compass Engineering & Consultants, LLC. All rights reserved. This
> electronic transmission, and any attachments hereto, is intended only for
> the use of each individual recipient named above and may contain
> information belonging to the sender that is confidential, proprietary, is
> subject to copyright, constitutes a trade secret or is legally privileged.
> If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance
> on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this transmission in error, please immediately (i) notify the
> sender, (ii) permanently delete the original and all copies of this
> electronic transmission and all attachments hereto, and (iii) destroy all
> printouts of this electronic transmission and all attachments hereto.
> Please note that electronic transmissions to and from the sender may be
> monitored by the sender's employer. Thank you for your cooperation.  
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> (c) 2019 Compass Engineering & Consultants, LLC. All rights reserved. This
> electronic transmission, and any attachments hereto, is intended only for
> the use of each individual recipient named above and may contain
> information belonging to the sender that is confidential, proprietary, is
> subject to copyright, constitutes a trade secret or is legally privileged.
> If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance
> on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this transmission in error, please immediately (i) notify the
> sender, (ii) permanently delete the original and all copies of this
> electronic transmission and all attachments hereto, and (iii) destroy all
> printouts of this electronic transmission and all attachments hereto.
> Please note that electronic transmissions to and from the sender may be
> monitored by the sender's employer. Thank you for your cooperation.  
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (c) 2019 Compass Engineering & Consultants, LLC. All rights reserved. This
> electronic transmission, and any attachments hereto, is intended only for
> the use of each individual recipient named above and may contain
> information belonging to the sender that is confidential, proprietary, is
> subject to copyright, constitutes a trade secret or is legally privileged.
> If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance
> on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this transmission in error, please immediately (i) notify the
> sender, (ii) permanently delete the original and all copies of this
> electronic transmission and all attachments hereto, and (iii) destroy all
> printouts of this electronic transmission and all attachments hereto.
> Please note that electronic transmissions to and from the sender may be
> monitored by the sender's employer. Thank you for your cooperation.  
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-- 
Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
Associate Vice President, Academy of Model Aeronautics District X
Treasurer, National Society of Radio Control Aerobatics (NSRCA)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20190119/d63e71ab/attachment.html>