[NSRCA-discussion] New FAI rule changes

Fri Apr 7 17:36:23 AKDT 2023

PLEASE continue to have take-offs and landings judged. It got scary at times when pilots were just launching into the air cause it didn’t matter.

Jas iP

> On Apr 7, 2023, at 9:19 PM, Daniel Underkofler via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Good points Dave.  But given the new FAI rules, I have the following questions to the pattern community:
> ( I am on the contest board and want to vote to represent members rather than my own opinion)
> 
> 1)  Should the US/AMA follow suit and increase the weight limit?  (I think we are too late in this rules cycle)
> 
> 2) There are 2 proposals we will soon be voting on to adopt FAI judging criteria.  The community seemed to be generally in favor of this.  Now the FAI criteria will include the geometry clarification.  Are you still in favor?
> 
> 3)  What about takeoffs and landings next year?   We could end up with judging criteria that don't address takeoffs and landings.  Does this mean the new sequences can't, shouldn't, or won't have these as scored maneuvers?  (probably a question for the NSRCA BOD)
> 
> Dan Underkofler
> 
>> On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 6:55 AM davel322--- via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> 100% spot on.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I have been making the argument for years that 12S and/or increased weight limits will be detrimental to pattern.  Anyone that does not see how 5.5kg and 12S will accelerate the diminishing numbers in pattern is either dismissive (or unaware) of history and is not considering the opportunities for escalation from the viewpoint of a competitor (who will easily find ways to exploit 12S and 5.5kg for a competitive advantage).  In time, the average cost of a pattern airplane will increase, and we will still have the exact same people complaining that 6kg is needed to accommodate overweight models.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I most certainly hope incredible work from Andrew (and others) will convince FAI to abandon the foolishness of the “geometry clarification”, and I most certainly hope the USA AMA pattern community does not adopt the “geometry clarification”.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> 
>> Dave
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> On Behalf Of Andrew Palmer via NSRCA-discussion
>> Sent: Friday, April 7, 2023 4:09 AM
>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] New FAI rule changes
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I think others are now seeing the difficulty and problems with some of the (now passed) rule changes for F3A.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The weight limit increase:
>> 
>> I think few people would argue that nitro and electric models are not currently evenly matched for power – in fact most would say the electrics have an advantage both for usable power and constant speed.
>> 
>> The weight change increase will mean electrics will become proportionally bigger (more bulky) than the nitro models will be able to. Why? Because weighing the nitro models with fuel will mean they can only ‘grow’ by say 150g, whereas an electric model can ‘grow’ by the full 500g. Historically F3A model specification changes have only ever lead to cost increase and a decrease in participation. Unfortunately I don’t really see a hundred (or even ten) people with models just over 5kg that will suddenly come out and fly F3A. Most countries don’t weigh models anyway, except maybe at a National Championships. In a couple of years we will all be trying to make it under the 5.5kg mark – and so the cycle will repeat. And all our current models will be outdate and not worth much… everyone will be looking for the new 5.5kg model to be competitive. And of course our 10s setups will be a bit exposed by the added power required – so another cost round if we go 12s….
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The geometry ‘clarification’:
>> 
>> This was described as a ‘clarification’, as it was (is) assumed this is how we are all flying and judging anyway. Which clearly we are not! America (like New Zealand and many other countries) has a long history of flying true geometry from the point of view of the aircraft. We innately understand how a loop flown at the end of the box will look (just like looking at a round circle on te wall from an angle). We are taught what a ‘true’ 45 degree line looks like at the end of the box….
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Do I think anything will change with this clarification? Not really…. I think ‘everyone’ flies true geometry from the point of view of the model… and that will continue. The judges wont change what they are looking for. All that will happen is the rule book makes even less sense…. If a loop at the end of the box needs to look round from the point of view of the judges (BTW, see my demo video here: https://youtu.be/TDM0p_sWEGs  - lets see you do that at ‘constant 3D velocity) then what about a rolling circle? Oh hang on, of course a rolling circle does not need to look round from the point of view of the judges – they understand it will look like an ellipse… (just like they understand the shape of a true geometrically correct loop at the end of the box!). Lets see anyone fly a ½ 8 sided loop at the end of the box that is ‘geometrically correct from the point of view of the judges’ – it is impossible…..
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Some of you may be aware of our autonomous aerobatic project (some info here: https://discuss.ardupilot.org/t/ardupilot-autonomous-aerobatics-update/99051 ) - the idea is for pilot and judge training. These manoeuvres are flown geometrically correct – and the schedule looks ‘right’. Over the next while we will work on flying manoeuvres that fit with the “judging criteria” – which will be a great demonstration as to why the rule is not workable 😊
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Unfortunately I don’t have any good video, but for those interested here is a scale schedule example (all autonomous except take off and landing) flown in a howling gale 😊 https://youtu.be/dD6QmfTw4gM
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Andrew
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20230408/6c38c1cb/attachment.html>