F2B World Championships

[RandySmith]

In the FAI pattern it states that the manoeuvres have to look correct to the pilot and therefore look "wrong" to the judges, is it the same for the AMA pattern or do the manoeuvres have to look correct to the judges?
The FAI changed about 10 years ago for some reason which now makes judging harder.

THe AMa guide  states  the  maneuvers are described to be the view of the  PILOT , This is straight out of the  Judge guide,  So  Yes it is the same,  as it should be


14.3.1.
In all of the following maneuver marking instructions, the
descriptions have been written from the viewing point of the pilot
and not of the judges; and all the following descriptions use “twodimensional”
terms on the basis that while it is known that model
aircraft actually fly hemispherical arcs, the real judging task is to
mark maneuvers such as Square Loops (for example) on the basis
of what can be most easily and clearly described in writing as
“straight line” flight paths. Rather than using terms which are
geometrically accurate but which may create confusion, all the
maneuver descriptions in this document therefore use terms which
express the meaning of the AMA Rules and explain the judges’
marking tasks as clearly and as simply as possible.
Regards
Randy

[Howard Rush]

Yes, I agree. However, is there a difference between FAI and AMA in regards to how the pattern is flown?
Meaning, in FAI it states that the pattern has to look correct to the pilot but about 10 years ago it said the pattern had to look correct to the judges. What does the AMA pattern say?
If the AMA states that it should look correct to the judges, that means the US pilots have to modify their pattern to suit FAI. (at the Worlds)

Russell, I think you should come to the next US Nationals and see for yourself.  You will have your choice of former world champions to molest, as is your wont. 

[Brett Buck]

Yes, I agree. However, is there a difference between FAI and AMA in regards to how the pattern is flown?
Meaning, in FAI it states that the pattern has to look correct to the pilot but about 10 years ago it said the pattern had to look correct to the judges. What does the AMA pattern say?
If the AMA states that it should look correct to the judges, that means the US pilots have to modify their pattern to suit FAI. (at the Worlds)

   There is no consequential difference. These "perspective" issues, even if it is still different, are moot in practice.
Differences:

AMA: must do 2+laps between hourglass and overhead 8
FAI: 1.5 laps is OK

AMA: landing is smooth descent to touchdown
FAI: landing is smooth descent to touchdown over 1 entire lap (this is an absurd detail that should be removed).

AMA: flight time is 8 minutes from hand signal to wheel stop
FAI: flight time is 7 minutes from engine start to wheel stop (hand signal not required)

AMA: Flight is official when turning inverted on the reverse wingover
FAI: Flight is official when model takes off

AMA: Corner radius is "tight" (effectively 0)
FAI: Corner radius is "5 feet" with a metric conversion mistake/roundoff.

Another difference is K-factor, which is a mistake the FAI made, but makes no practical difference, if anything, its makes FAI easier since you are not dead if your blow the takeoff or landing, etc. which you definitely ARE in AMA.

Brett

[Russell Bond]

Howard, you are a very bad man!!!!!!

I'm a good boy, I don't do those kind of things, especially to World Champions!!! 

It's all FAKE NEWS!!!!

[Ted Fancher]

THE "WHAT SHOULD A ROUND, SQUARE OR UNILATERAL TRIANGLE LOOK LIKE CONUNDRUM?  WELL, DUH!

The only sane thing a pilot can do is fly the maneuvers so they look like their names to him/her. Any "circumferential arc" will look to the pilot as a straight line (take level flight for a perfect example of the breed).  A 45 degree loop will look the same to the pilot no matter where he places it on the sphere (a sphere which to him looks exactly the same everywhere).  Fly 'em as you'd draw them on a black board and trust the judges to figure them out.


THE "CORNER" CONUNDRUM!

Let's get rid of the canard about 1.5 to 2.1 meter radii corner once and for all.  At 55MPH (82 feet per second) a 90degree corner on a 1.5-2.1M (4.93-6.9 feet) radius traverses 7.72 to 10.29 feet and takes 0.096 to 0.128 seconds (try blinking your eye 10 times in one second to get an idea of how quick the F2B code requires "all" corners to be flown).  Nobody is flying corners that tight and, per the FAI F2B sporting code "all fliers" are failing to comply with the requirement that "all corners" "should (SHOULD!!!)" comply with the requirement.  Ergo, each "square" corner in the pattern (34 of them by my count) are verifiable errors and "triangular" corners  (10 of them) are equally deficient. 

Judges must, to comply with the F2B code, fault each of those errors inasmuch as the acceptable radii are codified in the document should (SHOULD! What exactly does "SHOULD" mean) result in deductions if not complied with. 

How judges are to do so (44 undeniable errors in just five maneuvers; wingover, inside and outside squares, triangles and hourglass) when they are given only 50 possible options (1 thru 10 for 5 maneuvers; ergo a maximum remaining six total points remaining for the five) is not addressed in the sporting code.

The above factual demonstration (unless my math is wrong...in which case show me) should unequivocally require the code to eliminate the cut and paste "corners should" requirement rubber stamped into each cornered maneuver.


Now, an alternative requirement that judges reward "tighter" corners (note: "tighter" a relative term reflecting a comparison of observable differentiation) combined with a reasonable range of allowable scores with which to include "comparative" corners along with the apparently less important factors such as shapes and...reasonably observable...maneuver sizes in determining an appropriate reward for the quality of the entire maneuver would seem to have great merit and be a logical and valuable replacement for the one currently in use.  The F2B code could go one step better than the AMA CLPA rules and allow a full 40 points for such adjudication.

Ted Fancher

[RandySmith]

THE "WHAT SHOULD A ROUND, SQUARE OR UNILATERAL TRIANGLE LOOK LIKE CONUNDRUM?  WELL, DUH!

The only sane thing a pilot can do is fly the maneuvers so they look like their names to him/her. Any "circumferential arc" will look to the pilot as a straight line (take level flight for a perfect example of the breed).  A 45 degree loop will look the same to the pilot no matter where he places it on the sphere (a sphere which to him looks exactly the same everywhere).  Fly 'em as you'd draw them on a black board and trust the judges to figure them out.


THE "CORNER" CONUNDRUM!

Let's get rid of the canard about 1.5 to 2.1 meter radii corner once and for all.  At 55MPH (82 feet per second) a 90degree corner on a 1.5-2.1M (4.93-6.9 feet) radius traverses 7.72 to 10.29 feet and takes 0.096 to 0.128 seconds (try blinking your eye 10 times in one second to get an idea of how quick the F2B code requires "all" corners to be flown).  Nobody is flying corners that tight and, per the FAI F2B sporting code "all fliers" are failing to comply with the requirement that "all corners" "should (SHOULD!!!)" comply with the requirement.  Ergo, each "square" corner in the pattern (34 of them by my count) are verifiable errors and "triangular" corners  (10 of them) are equally deficient. 

Judges must, to comply with the F2B code, fault each of those errors inasmuch as the acceptable radii are codified in the document should (SHOULD! What exactly does "SHOULD" mean) result in deductions if not complied with. 

How judges are to do so (44 undeniable errors in just five maneuvers; wingover, inside and outside squares, triangles and hourglass) when they are given only 50 possible options (1 thru 10 for 5 maneuvers; ergo a maximum remaining six total points remaining for the five) is not addressed in the sporting code.

The above factual demonstration (unless my math is wrong...in which case show me) should unequivocally require the code to eliminate the cut and paste "corners should" requirement rubber stamped into each cornered maneuver.


Now, an alternative requirement that judges reward "tighter" corners (note: "tighter" a relative term reflecting a comparison of observable differentiation) combined with a reasonable range of allowable scores with which to include "comparative" corners along with the apparently less important factors such as shapes and...reasonably observable...maneuver sizes in determining an appropriate reward for the quality of the entire maneuver would seem to have great merit and be a logical and valuable replacement for the one currently in use.  The F2B code could go one step better than the AMA CLPA rules and allow a full 40 points for such adjudication.

Ted Fancher

Hi Ted

The FAI scoring  allows for  1/10th  points, so you could think of that as  near  100 scores they could give ..  ie  8.7  6.9   , and so on,
But you are  dead  on about the  radius part of the  FAI scoring, No one  is doing it period ,  I think I said that in an earlier post when I suggested that verbiage  be  changed

Randy

[Paul Walker]

Howard, you are a very bad man!!!!!!

I'm a good boy, I don't do those kind of things, especially to World Champions!!! 

It's all FAKE NEWS!!!!

Russell, if you come to our Nat's, you are the one who should be watching their back!!
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[SteveMoon]

My quick take: K-factor sucks. It turns the pattern into a three maneuver contest. At that point
no competitor is actually flying a complete pattern, but rather just trying to nail a few high k-factor
maneuvers. This ruins the overall perception of a flight.

I don't care for the FAI rule for landings. If you have to whip your plane around the circle
to ensure you fly one full lap after the end of the flight, then that isn't necessarily a smooth
descent to landing. Whether the 'smooth descent' takes half a lap, a full lap or 46 laps it shouldn't
really matter.

If the USA, or any team for that matter, wants to do well at the WCs then said team should know
the FAI rulebook inside out and compete to those guidelines. Whether or not those guidelines or
rules agree with common practice in the USA (or wherever) is irrelevant. Whatever the rules are
for flying the pattern at the time when the contest is conducted is how the pattern must be
flown to perform well.

Also, I think what Doug said is really funny!!

Steve

[Russell Bond]

No Lauri, I don't mind the FAI landing rule as well, I don't have any trouble whipping (gently) to land the plane.
I also like K factors as you can't tell me that takeoff, inverted and landing etc. are worth the same points as the H/eight, sq/eight, V/eight, triangles and hourglass etc.
No way!
Long live FAI.   

[Derek Barry]

No Lauri, I don't mind the FAI landing rule as well, I don't have any trouble whipping (gently) to land the plane.
I also like K factors as you can't tell me that takeoff, inverted and landing etc. are worth the same points as the H/eight, sq/eight, V/eight, triangles and hourglass etc.
No way!
Long live FAI.   

Try to do a perfect takeoff. 15 foot roll out, gradual accent to 5 foot, and two more laps without moving up or down an inch.

[RandySmith]

No Lauri, I don't mind the FAI landing rule as well, I don't have any trouble whipping (gently) to land the plane.
I also like K factors as you can't tell me that takeoff, inverted and landing etc. are worth the same points as the H/eight, sq/eight, V/eight, triangles and hourglass etc.
No way!
Long live FAI.   

No I do not think so, the round 8s  are  5 times as much score as the takeoff and 2 laps level flight??
The 2 squares  are  6 times  the value   NO  they are  not  6 times harder to do
The landing worth more??   uhmm  NO , the  1 lap spot landing is also a  silly rule, this  kills off  light airplanes, and contest with higher winds, the landing  should be able to be varied in length  with different airplanes, as  with some it is  IMPOSSIBLE  to go one  lap when hi winds are involved.  This also tends to give  electric planes a way to cheat, as they can be  setup where the computerized component inside can be set to greatly speed up the plane for the last few seconds of flight, to  assist the pilot in making  the landing, this should  not be the case.   The  pilot should do ALL of the manoeuvre without  computer help

Randy   

[Keith Renecle]

Keith,

you should have explained that the "dihdral" was not intentional but poor Dan lost the lower bolt/screw of his outboard wing. So it was a Shark, not an SBach what this photo shows.

The impressive  part of this was however that Andreij Yatsenko, jumped immediately after Dan's landing to his plane, examined it, picked a reserve bolt from his car and repaired Dan's plane within 5 minutes after his landing.

No one asked Andreij to do that, it was his understanding of sportsmanship to help his costumers. What nice sportsmen the Yatsenkos are and maybe that is another reason why so many fly their plans.

Christoph

Thanks Christoph, I knew that it was broken somehow and that's why I put "dihedral" in inverted comma's. I did not look closely enough to see that it was a Shark and as you say good back-up from Andrej.

[RandySmith]

By the way, these are  the   K factors

The sequence of manoeuvres with their corresponding K factor is :
1. Starting 0
2. Take-off 2
3. Reverse wing-over 8
4. Three consecutive inside loops 6
5. Two consecutive laps of inverted level flight 2
6. Three consecutive outside loops 6
7. Two consecutive inside square loops 12
8. Two consecutive outside square loops 12
9. Two consecutive inside triangular loops 14
10. Two consecutive horizontal eights 7
11. Two consecutive square horizontal eight 18
12. Two consecutive vertical eight 10
13 Hourglass 10
14. Two consecutive overhead figure eight 10
15. Four-leaf clover 8
16. Landing 5

[RandySmith]

"Christoph

Thanks Christoph, I knew that it was broken somehow and that's why I put "dihedral" in inverted comma's. I did not look closely enough to see that it was a Shark and as you say good back-up from Andrej."

Yuriy  and Andrey Yatsenko  are  World Class competitors and  more important, are true sportsmen  and gentlemen , that will go out of their way  to help fellow pilots, That is the way so many are in this  sport, It is  also one of the things I like most  about model aviation

Regards
Randy

[Ted Fancher]

Hi Ted

The FAI scoring  allows for  1/10th  points, so you could think of that as  near  100 scores they could give ..  ie  8.7  6.9   , and so on,
But you are  dead  on about the  radius part of the  FAI scoring, No one  is doing it period ,  I think I said that in an earlier post when I suggested that verbiage  be  changed

Randy

Hi Randy,

Alas, my experience with FAI is dated.  If accurate I  regret that part of my comments. 

On the other hand, if they're going to use a 100 point system why don't they just do so and eliminate a few bazillion decimal key pushes at the WCs (plus a couple hundred re-adds for "perhaps" having missed the decimal point).  Oh, and for God's sake, don't forget to multiply by the K factors. 

The good new is that if the decimal points are removed we could have scores approaching a hundred thousand or so.  That "would" be cool!

Ted

[Mike Palko]

I would love to hear first hand what the USA team members have to say about their trip, competition, competitors airplanes, judging and comments in this thread. I know several of them post on StuntHanger so maybe we will hear from them.

Mike

[RandySmith]

Hi Randy,

Alas, my experience with FAI is dated.  If accurate I  regret that part of my comments. 

On the other hand, if they're going to use a 100 point system why don't they just do so and eliminate a few bazillion decimal key pushes at the WCs (plus a couple hundred re-adds for "perhaps" having missed the decimal point).  Oh, and for God's sake, don't forget to multiply by the K factors. 

The good new is that if the decimal points are removed we could have scores approaching a hundred thousand or so.  That "would" be cool!

Ted

Ted
I agree completely,  I believe the  Canadian guys, hosted a contest  that  used  FAI scoring, but  did  NOT use  any of the  K factors, and  They thought it was  really a good way to score the contest.  I could get to like that, plus  as  you , and I have stated before, just use 1 to 100 , drop the decimal points. And drop the  silly  spot landing where  whipping is a must

Randy

[Howard Rush]

Instead of complaining about the FAI landing, why not figure out how to do it well? 

[Dave_Trible]

Last time, that was the standard. They might be looking for shape and 45 degrees next time. Maybe they will like black and red planes, or just electric in two years.

Derek

You are surely right.  But I will say the last few world champs fly this way-watch Orestes-that's how he flies and Paul too to a great extent. I've not seen Igor fly in person (yet) but I'd bet it's pretty close in style.  Hiki_you bet cha! Howard has been there and seen it and certainly shows those traits, especially in corners.  In any event I have red and black dope-electric...not too likely :-)). 

Dave

[Doug Moon]

No Lauri, I don't mind the FAI landing rule as well, I don't have any trouble whipping (gently) to land the plane.
I also like K factors as you can't tell me that takeoff, inverted and landing etc. are worth the same points as the H/eight, sq/eight, V/eight, triangles and hourglass etc.
No way!
Long live FAI.   

To me it is not that it is harder it is that it is just as important.  That is how I view it.  K Factors reduce the importance of some over others.  Bounce ther landing when competing for the USA national championship and see what happens.  It matters and it will cost you dearly.  It makes the maneuver that much harder and that much more concentation is required for the duration of the flight. 

In the AMA pattern ALL of the maneuvers are important.  In the FAI K factor scoring that is not the case.  The landing spot is not that big a deal if you miss it.  The cost is minimal and if you had a good triangle it doesn’t matter.  That is the easy way out. Make ALL of the maneuvers count and you will find flying the pattern becomes way more difficult.
 

[Ken Culbertson]

To me it is not that it is harder it is that it is just as important.  That is how I view it.  K Factors reduce the importance of some over others.  Bounce ther landing when competing for the USA national championship and see what happens.  It matters and it will cost you dearly.  It makes the maneuver that much harder and that much more concentation is required for the duration of the flight. 

In the AMA pattern ALL of the maneuvers are important.  In the FAI K factor scoring that is not the case.  The landing spot is not that big a deal if you miss it.  The cost is minimal and if you had a good triangle it doesn’t matter.  That is the easy way out. Make ALL of the maneuvers count and you will find flying the pattern becomes way more difficult.

AMEN
My daughter was a national level figure skater when skating went through the dropping of figures and changing to the international "K" factor judging.  The sport is just now recovering and we have had very few world champions since that change.  The kids can jump like rabbits but they don't know how to "slate".  I don't want to see that happen to us.  When you go for the points you lose the artistry.  If you have to pay attention to the little things it ultimately makes everything better.

Ken

[Doug Moon]

I'm sorry but I don't get your logic. It's quite ridiculous to say that at this level pilots don't put full focus on every single maneuvre. Judges are good and scoring system is same for all. Just look at the point differences in top. It can also be just that bouncy landing.
I missed top 15 with 30-something points. Nothing particular, just a mistake here and some others there. Those behind me were even worse.
I completely agree with Keith & Igor, quality of flying was very high, maybe US did not have their best to offer. L

I never ever said the quality was not high.

But it is pretty obvious when one manuever score is multiplied by a number and another is not that the one with the multiplier is worth more in the end and therefore is more important.  I am not trying to say the top level FAI guys dont focus all the way through.  I am certain they do.  But you can overcome a bad landing if you had a really good high K factor maneuver earlier.  Since we dont have that option mistakes on the perceived easier maneuvers will have more of an impact against the score. 

In the end it all evens out in the wash and the best pilot wins anyway.

[Russell Bond]

Every two years after the World's we have the same complaints mainly from AMA pilots.
The rest of the World flys FAI.....................get over it and live with it.
The rest of the World is NOT going to do what The US wants....................sounds familiar??

[Randy Cuberly]

Yeah,  Well remember that attitude the next time a country in Europe needs to be "bailed out" from some would be world takeover dictatator!

In person I would say something entirely different to you but Forum rules say I have to be nice!  Just make sure to stay in Europe or wherever you are, and you can always have it your way!

Really glad I've never had any interest in competing in FAI even though I spent a lot of time in Europe!  There are some very nice people there I just don't think you're one of them!  Since you're Australian you must have the some attitude as the Froggy French.  No one does anything as well as you HuH?

[Brett Buck]

Every two years after the World's we have the same complaints mainly from AMA pilots.
The rest of the World flys FAI.....................get over it and live with it.
The rest of the World is NOT going to do what The US wants....................sounds familiar??

   Right. Most of the people participating in the "international" F2B working group are willing to actually address various issues, people with your bigoted "Ugly American" stereotypes ignore most of it, reject it based on who proposed it instead of the merits, and prevent any progress from being made. That is *exactly* what seems to happen at Derek's mystery committee.

    We know all that. But we are still plugging away, dumb fat lazy types as we are, because we are still stupid enough to figure that you might actually want to listen to someone who has 10x more experience. It's just as much *our* event as it is yours or anyone else's - not to mention *we invented it and perfected it*, at which point "the world" just copied the 1959 AMA rule book and slapped "FAI" on it and later claimed to be the experts on it. Also not to mention (and *just exactly like world affairs) it appears that AMA members pay lion's share of the dues for the FAI to exist at all.

    But no, just accept the status quo, because the "leaders" figure it all out, what can we do, throw up our hands?  We don't accept this, it is culturally repellent to settle for a lesser solution just because it seems too hard. Fortunately, not many of your fellow countrymen take this tack, nor do stunt fliers in general (no matter where they are).

   By the way, have you ever considered the *reason* people such as yourself dismiss us all out of hand? Because there's a very good and fairly obvious answer to that question, and it has far more to do with you than it does with us.

   This is all OT, start a thread entitled "People from the USA are whiners/stupid/pushy" and we will have a lively debate. But that's probably too hard, and you might not win, so don't even try.

     Brett

[Randy Cuberly]

   Right. Most of the people participating in the "international" F2B working group are willing to actually address various issues, people with your bigoted "Ugly American" stereotypes ignore most of it, reject it based on who proposed it instead of the merits, and prevent any progress from being made. That is *exactly* what seems to happen at Derek's mystery committee.

    We know all that. But we are still plugging away, dumb fat lazy types as we are, because we are still stupid enough to figure that you might actually want to listen to someone who has 10x more experience. It's just as much *our* event as it is yours or anyone else's - not to mention *we invented it and perfected it*, at which point "the world" just copied the 1959 AMA rule book and slapped "FAI" on it and later claimed to be the experts on it. Also not to mention (and *just exactly like world affairs) it appears that AMA members pay lion's share of the dues for the FAI to exist at all.

    But no, just accept the status quo, because the "leaders" figure it all out, what can we do, throw up our hands?  We don't accept this, it is culturally repellent to settle for a lesser solution just because it seems too hard. Fortunately, not many of your fellow countrymen take this tack, nor do stunt fliers in general (no matter where they are).

   By the way, have you ever considered the *reason* people such as yourself dismiss us all out of hand? Because there's a very good and fairly obvious answer to that question, and it has far more to do with you than it does with us.

   This is all OT, start a thread entitled "People from the USA are whiners/stupid/pushy" and we will have a lively debate. But that's probably too hard, and you might not win, so don't even try.

     Brett

Not much to add to what Brett said except your attitude is why we kicked most of YOUR ancestors out of our country over 200 years ago!

[Ken Culbertson]

Every two years after the World's we have the same complaints mainly from AMA pilots.
The rest of the World flys FAI.....................get over it and live with it.
The rest of the World is NOT going to do what The US wants....................sounds familiar??

Flew 6 times this morning and on every flight I made a perfect landing 1/2 lap after the engine quit and it felt GOOD!

Ken

[RandySmith]

Flew 6 times this morning and on every flight I made a perfect landing 1/2 lap after the engine quit and it felt GOOD!

Ken

Hi Ken

But for  FAI  it is  not when the  engine  quits, it does not start, until and  when you  reach 1.5 meters  of  elevation

Regards
Randy

[Ken Culbertson]

Hi Ken

But for  FAI  it is  not when the  engine  quits, it does not start, until and  when you  reach 1.5 meters  of  elevation

Regards
Randy

So that is why you never see a plane named for a dead horse!

Ken

[RandySmith]

Derek I don’t take it that way at all.  It’s not better or worse- just different.  We can’t square dance at a ballet contest and expect to finish well.   FAI isn’t pretty- it’s sort of harsh flying by our standards (at present) and if we want to whoop ‘em we’ll have to play their game.

Dave

I do not  see where you and others are getting that from, I just watched several WC  patterns, and  the current World Champion's  pattern  and  i do NOT  see corners that are  harder  than many I see at the  US NATs.
And   "IF"  they are  giving extra points for  4 ft bottoms, as stated, Then they are  WRONG, the rules  state  5 ft ( 1.5 M)
I also see Chris has  45 degree  tricks  that look  as  good in size as the  other  top flyers

I also saw that the  current  WC  is  an excellent flyer !

Randy

[RandySmith]

So that is why you never see a plane named for a dead horse!

Ken

Are you talking about  Whipped or  Stinky ?  :-)

[Brett Buck]

But for  FAI  it is  not when the  engine  quits, it does not start, until and  when you  reach 1.5 meters  of  elevation

   Which provides a good solution, fly the high-overhead flight cutoff loop, then dive while whipping, until you are going about 80 mph when you hit 5 feet. Why that is in any way better than just letting the engine quit and doing a smooth landing, is beyond me.

    Brett
   

[RandySmith]

   Which provides a good solution, fly the high-overhead flight cutoff loop, then dive while whipping, until you are going about 80 mph when you hit 5 feet. Why that is in any way better than just letting the engine quit and doing a smooth landing, is beyond me.

    Brett
   

That is  about  exactly what I did  the past couple times I flew in our Team Selection contest, it  was  the   only way  i could make the plane go 1 lap, looks  weird, and  the  abrupt change as I entered 5 ft  didn't look right, but it the way to do it

as a side note  I see  many did not make the one lap  at the  WCs  either

Randy

[Ken Culbertson]

Are you talking about  Whipped or  Stinky ?  :-)

Old saying from my parents list of old sayings - "You Can't Whip A Dead Horse"

[roy cherry]

hello every body i have been following these post as i was an observer at the recent worlds at landres the guy that won was the best flyer there  also  the argument about k facters i think that these should be taken away from f a i on these grounds if you fly well  but get a thermal come through  on your square eight and get blown out and loose tension you will get a low score and then loose the hole flight you will not be able to get it together  to score well in the rest off the flight to recover  this is particuler bad at landres where all the trees are  turbulant this also works the other way  as you can get a good bonus if you get agood bit of air in the latter part of the flight   the  fai landing is a farce as if you try to whip the model for a lap you will get a bit off lift some where this always makes an up down bouncy landing it is better in my view to do a short smooth  landing that isent a whole lap  this should score higher but dosent always   that my two pennyworth       roy cherry 

[Keith Renecle]

I do not  see where you and others are getting that from, I just watched several WC  patterns, and  the current World Champion's  pattern  and  i do NOT  see corners that are  harder  than many I see at the  US NATs.
And   "IF"  they are  giving extra points for  4 ft bottoms, as stated, Then they are  WRONG, the rules  state  5 ft ( 1.5 M)
I also see Chris has  45 degree  tricks  that look  as  good in size as the  other  top flyers

I also saw that the  current  WC  is  an excellent flyer !

Randy

Good point Randy! I get to speak to many judges and most of them agree that 4 foot pull-outs are hard to repeat because most of the time the pilot will get it wrong and go under that minimum tolerance. The rules state 5 ft. with a tolerance of 1 foot either way. Those marker boards show 4 to 6 feet with the black line at 5 ft. So flying just under that 4 ft. level should be scored the same as flying over 6 ft. One of Orestes flights on the grass circle had many pull-outs under 4 ft. and his score showed it. He scored 988.7 instead of his usual 1000+ points. I have some video footage from Spain in 2006 and Yuriy Yatsenko hit a 2 foot bottom in his reverse wingover with a dead flat pull-out and he stayed right there. I was willing to bet that he could not go back the other way and still hit another 2 ft. pull-out...........he did! It was amazing to watch but it did not score well. Such reflexes!!

I can see from the posts above that discussing K-factors could be worse than politics and religion, so I'll tread lightly here.  I have yet to meet an F2B judge or pilot that considers K-factors when judging or flying. The judges just give their scores and the tabulators or computers worry about K-Factors. For pilots, it is just what it is, and again I have yet to meet a pilot that tries harder on the high K-factor maneuvers. I have done a lot of training through the years with judges and pilots and I have never stressed adding any emphasis on the K-factors. It is just part of the FAI F2B system and we are stuck with it. It has been voted on a few times that I can remember and the vast majority of pilots voted to keep it. The argument as to whether it actually does the desired job is debatable but until the majority vote to get rid of it, we just have to use the system as it is. The same pilots will still go to the top with or without it!

Keith R

[Igor Burger]

Russell, I think you should come to the next US Nationals and see for yourself.  You will have your choice of former world champions to molest, as is your wont.

I think Russell does not concentrate only on former world champions.

... you never know where he travels all days ...

[Randy Cuberly]

HHmmmmmmmm>>>

Personally I think she should come to the US Nationals also!

Randy Cuberly

[Lauri Malila]

Now the 4 feet bottom is ok?

[Randy Cuberly]

HUH?
Everything looks OK to me.  Guess when you get to be my age you're less choosy and more appreciative!   

Randy Cuberly

[RandySmith]

I think Russell does not concentrate only on former world champions.

... you never know where he travels all days ...

I hope this fashion statement  is  more  about  poking  FUN at the  "pants below the crack" crowd , and  NOT promoting  it !!

BUT  she is a moron some times 

Randy

[Igor Burger]

This is not fashion statement, this is evidence that Russell was there around somewhere (before she was depanted) 

[Russell Bond]

Igor, I don't know WHAT you mean??!! 

[Ted Fancher]

Without the high heels her bottoms would only be 3.5 feet.

On the other hand, without the high heels her K-factor would only be six instead of 10. 

Decisions, decisions.  It ain't easy bein' a gurl, I guess.

Ted

[Brian Hampton]

   Which provides a good solution, fly the high-overhead flight cutoff loop, then dive while whipping, until you are going about 80 mph when you hit 5 feet. Why that is in any way better than just letting the engine quit and doing a smooth landing, is beyond me.

My solution for the FAI landing (which is all I've ever flown by) is to have a 6 minute engine run and knowing that on the last few seconds as the tank empties the engine would speed up to a full 2 stroke (more speed). After the clover I'd then fly level at 5 foot until the engine stopped which then allowed me to judge my touchdown point and also give the judges the same observation. The level 5 foot laps before engine stop removes any judgement as to the actual point (and height) where landing begins and ends. With that all said I'd prefer that the one lap glide be gotten rid of and just use whatever descent rate is preferred by the individual.