[NSRCA-discussion] New FAI rule changes

Fri Apr 7 17:55:00 AKDT 2023

Hi Jason,

Take off and landings will be judged in all AMA classes.  It is included in
the schedules published in the last K-Factor.

Vince

On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 8:36 PM Jas S via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-- 
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
*NSRCA 1140.  Be Proud to show your NSRCA #*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20230408/7f58062d/attachment.html>