[NSRCA-discussion] New FAI rule changes

Fri Apr 7 18:31:15 AKDT 2023

Just add take off and landings with the usual maneuver description we have
been using.

On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 9:19 PM Steve Hannah <shannah1806 at gmail.com> wrote:

> We only included the takeoffs and landings in the new sequences because
> the decision to adopt FAI criteria had not yet been adopted. I hope we
> adopt the FAI judging criteria but if everyone wants to keep takeoff and
> landing then there is nothing stopping us
>
> On Apr 7, 2023, at 18:55, Vicente Bortone via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> 
>
> 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 #*
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230408/75184c0f/attachment.html>