Bob Hunt's articles in Model Aviation.

[Jared Hays]

So I was reading the article where Bob was talking about doing your loops in the stunt pattern.  He says a bad habit is doing the Insides not directly down wind but slightly going past down wind so that way you can use the wind in your favor to slow the plane down to hit a 5 foot bottom, vise versa for outside loops.  But to instead do your loops directly downwind so not to lose points from the judges.  I disagree with this,  No where in the rule book does it say I have to do my maneuvers directly down wind.  If the judges are going to downgrade for that, then they shouldn't be judges in my opinion.  I'd rather have nice uniform circles using the wind to aid rather than to wind my stunt ship up to 90 mph doing loops directly downwind.  What are your guys thoughts?

[Ted Fancher]

So I was reading the article where Bob was talking about doing your loops in the stunt pattern.  He says a bad habit is doing the Insides not directly down wind but slightly going past down wind so that way you can use the wind in your favor to slow the plane down to hit a 5 foot bottom, vise versa for outside loops.  But to instead do your loops directly downwind so not to lose points from the judges.  I disagree with this,  No where in the rule book does it say I have to do my maneuvers directly down wind.  If the judges are going to downgrade for that, then they shouldn't be judges in my opinion.  I'd rather have nice uniform circles using the wind to aid rather than to wind my stunt ship up to 90 mph doing loops directly downwind.  What are your guys thoughts?

Jared, 

I agree with you.  One of the things that I've repeatedly stated hasn't always been universally accepted.  As you suggest, I, too, have all I can do to try and fly the maneuvers as well and as precisely as possible.  I have always used what Mother Nature provided to the best of my advantage to do so.  In addition, I've never believed that the judges would do anything other than their very best to evaluate the flights of both my competitors and myself to the very best of their ability.  Finally, I've never wasted a second of my life questioning the decision of the judges without regard to my eventual placing.  If a flyer is of the opinion that judges are out to get him/her they might as well take up bowling where they can count the results for themselves.

I've frequently expressed my feelings in this regard with the following: It's the pilot's job to fly and the judges' job to evaluate how well the pilot has done that job.  For the event to remain successful that statement needs to be respected and believed by all participants whether inside or outside the pilot's circle.

Others feel differently.

Ted 

[Bob Hunt]

Hi Jared:

Well, you are correct that there is nothing in the rule book about doing the loops (or any other maneuver..) dead down wind. But, if you move them right or left of downwind to slow the model as it nears the bottom of the maneuver, don't be surprised if your score reflects it in a negative way. Judges are human, and no matter what they are "supposed" to do, they will naturally reward a maneuver that appears correct in shape from their perspective more than one that is skewed from their perspective. They will not be able to adjust their position relative to the center of your offset maneuver quick enough to get a square on view of it. I never wrote that it was against the rules to offset maneuvers, I just indicated that IN MY OPINION maneuvers should be flown directly down wind for maximum scoring effect. I stand by that opinion here...

Later - Bob Hunt

[Scott Richlen]

I agree completely with what Bob says.

However.....

One of the challenges that Beginner and Intermediate (and yes, sometimes Advanced) fliers have is a sense of the wind and the ability to not only keep the wind from compromising their pattern, but even using it to their advantage.  If a flier will go past direct downwind to start their inside loops, many times the shape of the loop (even from the judges perspective) will actually be better than when done directly downwind.  This is true particularly when the wind gets stronger.  A flier needs to fine tune their "wind sensing" ability to be able to improve their pattern flying.  And how many times have you gone to a contest and had that nice, soft, steady breeze that allowed you to fly directly down wind?  Not often!  So, developing a strong sensitivity to the wind direction and learning to fly to accommodate and benefit by it are critical to flying improvement.

For guys at the top of their game like Bob, yes - fly directly down wind and give the judges the best possible look at your maneuver.  For the rest of us: present the best possible maneuver to the judges that you can (and that they can reasonably see) by flying to accommodate the wind.

So, I agree with both Bob and Ted (but also Carol  and Alice ....  )

Scott

[Derek Barry]

While I complete agree with Ted on using Mother Nature to your advantage, I fly my pattern as Bob does. I have found that biasing the maneuvers causes me more problems than benefits, (always seeming to push my plane towards direct down wind, thus making my maneuvers "walk" ever so slightly) I have flown directly down wind for many years because It just feels more natural to me. That being said, do what works for you!

In regards to the judging; I think you can go either direction, only one judge could possibly have the perfect perspective to any given maneuver at any given time, (directly up wind) therefore, every judge will have a different view and opinion every time.

Derek

[peabody]

John Miske copied an article by a famous early flier (Southwick?....really not sure) that said that a competitor should do maneuvers that he does well downwind from the judges, but the maneuvers that weren't as good should be done directly in front of the judges, that it confuses them....

[Ted Fancher]

I agree completely with what Bob says.

snip

For guys at the top of their game like Bob, yes - fly directly down wind and give the judges the best possible look at your maneuver.  For the rest of us: present the best possible maneuver to the judges that you can (and that they can reasonably see) by flying to accommodate the wind.

So, I agree with both Bob and Ted (but also Carol  and Alice ....   )

Scott

Good one, Scott!!!!

As to flying downwind from the judges; in the Walker flyoff which judge do you use to determine where to fly the maneuver?  With a bunch of them they can easily be spread at least as far apart as an eighth of a circle which is about the extent of how much a maneuver should be biased.  What if they just sit in a chair and judge rather than try to guess where the next maneuver is going to be flown?

I've done a lot of judging and "always" attempt to place myself in a position which I believe will be the optimum to view the next maneuver to be flown.  I'm pretty experienced at placement with respect to the wind but, nonetheless, find my position "imperfect" with respect to where the pilot opts to place the maneuver at least 30% of the time.  Oh, and by the way, I generally have to position myself by passing behind other judges who opt not to move with the wind, thus suggesting to the pilot that, since they're still in the same place he/she should fly the maneuver in the same place.  Good decision?  Bad decision?

When I flew competitively years ago I paid little or no attention to the judges as I'd no idea what causes them to move/not move/consider moving.  Instead, I concentrated on flying my airplane as well as I could and took the professionalism of the judges for granted assuming they were doing their very best at their job as well.

By the way, IMO the proper amount of bias is enough to balance the speed up and slow down of the plane during the maneuver, thus allowing Mother Nature's input to balance those speed changes and, thus, keep the maneuver in pretty much the same place.  Again, IMO, having to adjust handle input to compensate for the variations caused by Mother Nature can be at least as detrimental to the value of a maneuver as any remotely reasonable/necessary bias utilized by the pilot.

On the other hand, these other guys certainly beat me at least as frequently as I beat them so who am I to question success??

Ted

[Trostle]

John Miske copied an article by a famous early flier (Southwick?....really not sure) that said that a competitor should do maneuvers that he does well downwind from the judges, but the maneuvers that weren't as good should be done directly in front of the judges, that it confuses them....

Oh my goodness!!  I am quoting something from Peabody, but not really.  I am using his quote that he attributes to Ed Southwick.

I too am not sure the Ed Southwick suggested to do maneuvers that a pilot cannot fly well should be done directly in front of the judges (which suggests placing the maneuver in a location where the judges cannot observe critically.

In all due respect to Ed Southwick or whoever came up with this idea, I have the following comments.

I have judged Ed Southwick on several occasions.  I cannot remember all of the details of l the patterns he flew in front of me, but one thing stands out.  On several occasions, I saw him fly the reverse wing over and the overhead eights cross wind, almost 90^o from the direction shown in the rulebook relative to where the judges were positioned.  I thought it strange each time I saw this but suspected that he was trying to not show how well or how poorly he was following the correct path on the wingovers as well as how well or how poorly he was doing the intersections of the overhead eights.  It was virtually impossible to judge the track across the top of the circle on his wingovers and equally impossible to judge his path through the intersections of the overhead eights.  A judge cannot give points for something that cannot be seen.  I reduced his scores significantly each time I saw this.

I do not intend to be critical of Ed Southwick.  He was an accomplished pilot and an asset to the CLPA community.  He is profoundly missed.

Keith

Keith

[FLOYD CARTER]

So, bowling it is!

Floyd

[phil c]

Biasing loops, square or round, can help but don't let the plane fly too far into the wind.  More than 10 feet or so into the wind can make the plane do a very visible jerk about 270deg around the loop.

I don't find it particularly difficult to spot if the plane is vertical over the flyers head for either the OH eights or the reverse wingover from the attitude of the plane.  Watch Keith Renecle's flight simulator to see what to look for.

I've seen many Expert flyers put a slight wiggle in the downward portions of the RWO, loading the controls for the outside corner,  without getting downgraded.  Other glow flyers leave a trail of smoke and get downgraded for putting a kink in the smoke trail without changing the flight path.  Add points for electric on that one.

[john e. holliday]

It is amazing to see the glaring mistakes that some pilots make on some maneuvers and the sheet doesn't show it.  That is why  I guess I don't judge too much as I call it as I see it.

[Jared Hays]

Thanks for all the input guys.  I have seen judges that sit in the lawn chair and never move and I have seen judges that run around with the wind.  There are some judges that I know of that shouldn't be judging and others that are terrific judges,  but at the same time no one wants to be the judge and hang out in the sun all day and not fly so I commend them and thank them.  Have to take the good with the bad.  My biggest thing is, I want to be judged by what the rule book says.  So in some cases I guess bowling would be the ticket!  But flying is just in my blood.  I have the luxury/hindrance of flying in front of my dad Gary almost every flight.  He has been an expert class judge for about 25 years or so and he goes strictly by the book.  So that's just what I am accustomed to.  Stern but honest and un-biased judging.

[Scientifiction .]

looks untidy if the manouvres are missplaced .

Kiwi Judges sitting in their lawn chairs , holding a Ball Point Pen vertical
gives them a perspective on intersections and symitry , etc .

Theyd have to Shift the Ball pen all the time , if Ea Manouvre wasnt centered on the same spot .

Having a marker point helps the pilot . Unless it shifts . Read a thing on Daytona where the pace car went into the photograpers
as someone'd removed his braKE MARKER POINT CONE. ( OOPS ) . M'Cycle racing , a spectator as a brake marker point is inadvisabe.
( t might go to the toilet , then where would you be   .

ANYWAy , the point I would think would be CONSISTANCY  gives the best impresion of Control & Mastery .
( having last flown in a club comp trying to pick the wind shifts to keep the sucker out & just about brushing the deck in the O. H. 8's
 to keep the speed - for line tension .

Poisonally , I fink the Judges Need to be BACK from the circle & have good eyesight . At one Nats , up at the canteen 500 ft off
you could pick intersections in O.H. 8s being six or twelve foot out and a general impresion of ' fluidity ' or otherwise .

A circle width ( 150 ft. ? upwind ) I think'd be about right . Though this is digressing. Obviously .

ANOTHER POINT is that one can observe a static point and observe the aircrafts track reletive ( about ) that . WHEREAS
to let ones eyesight follow the Aircraft gives no fixed ( half hight ) referance point as a datum. usually . Unless theres
say an enormous lap stand or sumsuch directly in line , for defining crossovers ( intersections ) etc .

A state of the art aircraft , one would think , should have no difficulties tracking true slightly ( or more ) of wind , due to wind shift ??

Back to the First Point ! Consistancy in placement looks tidier , more professional , exacting & masterly .

This was once defined as AIRMANSHIP . Cool Calm Collected Proficancy .

"Airmanship is the consistent use of good judgment and well-developed skills to accomplish flight objectives. This consistency is founded on a cornerstone of uncompromising flight discipline and is developed through systematic skill acquisition and proficiency.

[peabody]

The "pen trick" is as stupid and inaccurate as the Carrier judges holding a triangle.

[Dave_Trible]

The "pen trick" is as stupid and inaccurate as the Carrier judges holding a triangle.

And banned from Nats level judging.  Don't ask me how I know...

Dave

[john e. holliday]

The "pen trick" is as stupid and inaccurate as the Carrier judges holding a triangle.

I've been the center judge for carrier several times.  It is what we used to try and keep pilots honest.  If you've never done it you shouldn't complain.  It was so much easier when all we had to worry about was stoppage of forward motion.  Once in a while I still see some hold up a pen/pencil while judging stunt.  I didn't know it was banned for use at the NATS.

[Scott Richlen]

Wait!  I always thought that the "pen trick" meant that this was serious-level stunt ... that was what they were doing in "Wired for Excitement."  Gosh!  How could that be wrong?   

Maybe we should use a triangle in stunt judging to make sure they are flying at the correct level at the top of their horizontal maneuvers?  Uhhh, wait, uhh..

[Howard Rush]

I thought the local judges were holding up pens when I flew.  Turns out it was something else. 

[Shug Emery]

I thought the local judges were holding up pens when I flew.  Turns out it was something else. 

Now that is a right goodie)))))))
Shug

[Mel Gray]

"I thought the local judges were holding up pens when I flew.  Turns out it was something else."

Could be that they were simply indicating that you're number one.....................

Mel

 

[john e. holliday]

Maybe showing their IQ.   

[Scott Richlen]

Future proctologists??

[Scientifiction .]

The Russians use a Pencil. 

[Linda Brainard]

Sorry for joining the conversation so late, but I have a question.

When you do a horizontal 8 directly downwind, aren't the loops biased to the left & right? If a judge can correctly judge the horizontal 8 then wouldn't they be able to judge inside or outside loops being biased?

Also, holding a pencil ( or finger) to judge an intersection, I would think is not a good idea because your body/hand could move, but also you only see the intersection & not the rest of the maneuver.

Linda

[Scott Richlen]

Very good points Linda!

....... But by now, all seriousness has been lost on this topic.  I think it's Howard's fault....

[Ted Fancher]

Sorry for joining the conversation so late, but I have a question.

When you do a horizontal 8 directly downwind, aren't the loops biased to the left & right? If a judge can correctly judge the horizontal 8 then wouldn't they be able to judge inside or outside loops being biased?

Also, holding a pencil ( or finger) to judge an intersection, I would think is not a good idea because your body/hand could move, but also you only see the intersection & not the rest of the maneuver.

Linda

G\Bingo, Linda.  Great observations.

My very good--alas, late--friend Bill Fitzgerald was among the first to utilize the vertical/horizontal pencil/pen for intersections and I never approved of the concept for exactly the reasons you stated.  Tunnel vision on a single facet of a maneuver stifles observation of the shapes and sizes and, as my late, curmudgenly, outstanding competitor Bob Baron was wont to say at the least provocation: "Without shapes there is no maneuver" and-more or less accurately-"size is more important than anything other than the shapes as it is easy to fly large and hard to fly rule book."

IMO, a keen eye following the track and noting the plane's elevations at the appropriate time as it traces trace the flight path that define what we're attempting to replicate should be the primary data source for the judges' assessment. If the shapes and sizes are correct the secondary factors, intersections in particular, etc. will simply become part of the overall assessment; far outweighing whether the airplane flies up and down a pencil that may or may not have moved relative to the potentially moving head that holds the eyes providing the data upon which the final number is determined. Ouch, I know, rotten sentence but the concept is hopefully clear.

Closely assessing the shapes and sizes relative to what we learned about circles, squares and triangles in elementary school provides the judge with the requisite information to believe in good conscience that the intersections were necessarily as correct as the the perfection with which the shapes were flown: Round/square, equilateral triangles, etc. will automatically result in equally accurate intersections. Precise intersections on a telephone pole or a pencil held in your hand will only tell a judges wheter the pilot has managed to get the plane back in the same spot when flying the intersection but nothing about the other, more important factors.

Ted fancher

[Tom Niebuhr]

Holding a pencil in front of you to judge intersections is EXTREMELY INACCURATE!

The only accurate reference is a fixed object beyond the downwind side of the circle.

You can prove this  to yourself  with a very simple demonstration.

Hold the pencil in front of you. Close one eye, then repeat and close the other eye.. The point will move!!!!

Also move your head very slightly and the point will move!!!

That is why I cringe when I see a judge hold a pencil in front of him!

[Steve Helmick]

I went to a contest once as an observer. I watched the two judges, one in the upwind position, the other very close to 90 degrees to the right (I was downwind). I observed this through at least one Expert round. What would you do, if you were flying in the event?

Personally, I would signal for where I wanted the judges to be prior to starting my engine/motor, and if he/she/it didn't respond immediately, I'd walk over to the ED and tell them I wanted my money back. That's why I don't go to one "local" contest anymore, JL & JT, FYI.  I would hope others would react similarly, and tell the ED/CD the reason. Don't put up with that ineptness!    Steve

[Tim Wescott]

I thought the local judges were holding up pens when I flew.  Turns out it was something else. 

It's the special "Hi, Howard" gesture.

[Doug Burright]

Our club, The Wichihawks, is holding a Judge's Clinic on May 7th, prior to the contest to be held during Memorial Day Weekend, in Wichita. We are fortunate to be allowed this date for the contest, due to the City of Topeka having a problem with a C/L flying site. That's another story- Not the Topeka Club's fault!

The Judge's Clinic is for teaching new people how to properly judge stunt maneuvers. I think I'm correct in saying that traditionally, judges for each class were selected from other flyers at an event, that were not flying in that particular class. At our clinic, we hope to create a new panel of people that can judge for any level of stunt, and be consistent and accurate.

How though, can we teach new judges where a maneuver begins, and ends, while showing them what the correct shape is, and the number of loops, or squares, and in what position of the C/L hemisphere- in one day?

Well, we can give them a good idea... There will be a very good pilot to fly for the new people, to show them the maneuvers, and lots of discussion to describe what they have witnessed. Anyone is welcome to attend, to learn about stunt judging, and perhaps even to fly for them, also, if our pilot gets wrung-out. I hope the weather on May 7th is great, and also for the contest on May 28th and 29th! All of the events for this contest are listed in the contest calendar, in the AMA magazine.