<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=MailContainerBody
style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 15px; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Lucida Sans; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TEXT-DECORATION: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"
leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 acc_role="text" CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area"><!--[gte IE 5]><?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->
<DIV>
<DIV>Dave</DIV>
<DIV>It seems to me that 'smoothness' and 'gracefullness' in pattern pretty much
goes hand and foot... It takes smoothness to make a geometrically perfect
maneuver in the first place. If you fly a pretty much perfect
maneuver, it is gracefull just by it's own virtue!</DIV>
<DIV>The problem with things like this being written in a rules book is that
someone is going to take issue simply because it's there and not fully
explained. There's no room in competition for undefined terms that can
come under scrutiny.... I agree that if it can't be defined it
should be removed... </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> I've got some extra matches if you run short!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Rex Lesher</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B> <A
title=mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net
href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, October 02, 2006 11:56
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Wind
correction scoring</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>John,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I couldn't agree more, and I'd like to see "smoothness and gracefullness"
completely removed as a judging criteria as no one has ever been able to
quantify what the downgrade should be, or how a geometrically perfect
maneuver can be outscored by a more "graceful" maneuver.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Standing by with a bucket of water...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Dave Lockhart</DIV>
<DIV><A title=mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net
href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">--------------
Original message -------------- <BR>From: "John Ferrell"
<johnferrell@earthlink.net> <BR>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>For that reason I believe the word "Graceful"
should be removed from the rule book in every instance. Even dictionaries
have trouble defining "Graceful". </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>That ought to draw a little fire.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>John Ferrell W8CCW<BR>"My Competition is not my
enemy"<BR><A title=http://dixienc.us/
href="http://dixienc.us/">http://DixieNC.US</A><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net
href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, October 02, 2006 10:57
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Wind
correction scoring</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Many good points already made, and good technical discussions
presented.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The distinction between textbook technical judging and non-textbook
"impression" judging will always exist, and I think (as most if not all)
we should strive to eliminate the impression judging whenever
possible. For that reason, I would opposed to an "artistic" or
"overall" flight score which could be an opening for a very subjective
score which is markedly contrasting to the objective scoring/goal on which
pattern is based. It takes a lot of effort make a well designed
schedule which is technically well executed look unappealing.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Dave Lockhart</DIV>
<DIV><A title=mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net
href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">--------------
Original message -------------- <BR>From: Rcmaster199@aol.com <BR>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR>
<DIV>
<DIV>To Ed's point, If the model flies a technically correct maneuver in
heavy wind, few judges are desciplined enough to really judge only the
technical merit, as per the book. Most will also see the strange
attitudes the model must endure even if track was correct, particularly
when properly compensating for said wind, and take off points for
smoothness and grace. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Throw in slower flight which is the present norm especially with
e-flight, and the issue can get exacerbated. Faster flight regime in
heavy wind will tend to mask wind compensation.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There have been many superb flights that were wind corrected
extremely well to deserved high scores. The Nats is often the place
since it is usually so windy and demands some superb performances.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>However, two stick out in my mind, performed in
relatively obscure local contests.... Ivan Kristensen in
Jacksonville a bunch of years ago, and Pete Collinson in Ocala just a
couple years ago. Both contests were held early in the season and anyone
who has spent any time in Florida will know how windy the early season
can be there. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Both explained that they essentially "flew the wind". Ivan added
that he flew "b..ls to the wall...". Pete did also except his model was
set-up for only moderately fast speed, which caused the
perennial F3A winner in FLA at the time to exclaim
"...well, if you're gonna get beat, might as well be by the
best.."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Judging Pattern fairly and consistently is tough needless to say,
particularly in difficult conditions. To Earl's point, Technical Merit
and Artistic Merit are combined in our present mode of judging. Perhaps
we may want to separate them, as done in other similar
sports.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Matt</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 9/30/2006 7:04:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ehaury@houston.rr.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ed</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'll always score the technically correct
higher!! </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As a judge I just am amazed at the folks
that will wind correct properly on uplines and simply disregard it on
downlines - totally destroying a good score. Unfortunately - some
judges still can't get past the ugly, the only sure way around this is
to score with some sort of machine. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It takes a lot of practice to develop a
"feel" for the wind so as to recognize just what / how much to
compensate. Often the pilot requires several maneuvers to get this
feel in a competition flight - the judges instantly see the results.
The latter may be why some feel wind corrected maneuvers don't score
well - it's easy for the judge to see and hard to fly
correctly.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>How about some technical discussion of
wind correcting - we're drawing maneuvers in a moving medium (air)
that affects the trajectory of our machine (airplane). Does speed
really help - other than shortening the time exposure? Is slower
better - gives more time to correctly apply thrust vector "against"
the wind? Uplines take some (x) power in calm, additional power is
needed for the wind vector (y), how much y to maintain x in calm?
Steve's point - downlines are affected by the same wind as uplines,
gravity usually is used for x - won't y thrust (adding power) improve
downline attitude in wind? Can power be added for y without helping
gravity too much (downline speed)?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Earl</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=mailto:divesplat@yahoo.com
href="mailto:divesplat@yahoo.com">Ed Deaver</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing
List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, September 29,
2006 9:48 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Wind correction</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Thanx Ken, but which would you score
higher?? I know what we are supposed to do, but that is the
jist of my post. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Ed<BR><BR><B><I>Ken Thompson <<A
title=mailto:mrandmrst@comcast.net
href="mailto:mrandmrst@comcast.net">mrandmrst@comcast.net</A>></I></B>
wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hard to ignore "ugly", but you need
to judge the "track"</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
</DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=mailto:divesplat@yahoo.com
href="mailto:divesplat@yahoo.com">Ed Deaver</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing
List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, September 29,
2006 9:13 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [NSRCA-discussion]
Wind correction</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Hey everyone. While the season is
winding down, Don Ramsey and I had an interesting discussion
this past weekend. Am wondering what the general consensus
is.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>First, let me state, judges are human and
I understand that. Also, many judges don't know the exact
wording of many rules, I understant that also.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Soooo</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Will a pilot score higher if they follow
the letter of the law and wind correct perfectly, but fly an
ugly manuever, or wind correct a little and let the plane look
"prettier" in a manuever?????</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Lets use the first maneuver in the
Master's sequence after entering the box. Stall turn 1 1/4
rolls up, 3/4 rolls down exit inverted. On a strong wind
day, not pulling to vertical to maintain the line doesn't look
to bad (we expect that) the 1 1/4 rolls in centered, looking
good, appropriate rudder is given to maintain a straight
vertical line (again expected and usually doesn't require much
as we are at full throttle), the stall goes off without a hitch,
but do to lack of airspeed we cant the fuse and hold rudder into
the wind letting the fuse lean at a 45degree angle to maintain a
straight line (this is the part I'm curious about) until the 3/4
roll and using a little down elevator to hold the line after the
roll (again expected but not ugly)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Everything about this manuever is done and
doesn't detract from the overall appearance of the manuever
except the down line after the stall, which is simply
"UGLY"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Just curious what everyone says.
Again, I know what the rules say, and am not interested in a
rule book interpretation, but what do you think about scoring
better vs worse???</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Thanx</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT
face=Arial>ed</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BODY></HTML>