F2B World Championships

[Keith Renecle]

Hi Doug,

Apart from all of these conspiracy things above, I would suggest that you give the world champs at least one go. It is a hellavu experience. I have not yet emailed Rich Oliver since returning home but besides his engine issues with fuel and things, I reckon that he will still say that it was a great experience. Joe Gilbert would also agree I'm sure. You are a top-class pilot and will do very well at world champs level, so think about it.

Regards,
Keith R

[Dave_Trible]

Might be some hope for the events future , anyway . Theyre not all grumpy olde fartes .

If she's still Jnr Eligable at the Next W/C , somebody'd better supply her with a hot @#$% high tech top line snot mobile ,
that should cut the ice , being not B.o.M. Requirement . Cant go to a gunfight with a pocket knife .   

Comeone , put some SUPPORT behind them . More than one Jnr. in the U.S. ??

Matt you make a good point,  but that is exactly what my point is about requiring BOM for (and only for) the WC in FAI.   I can tell you it took a fund raising campaign just to get her there.  Some of those airplanes and equipment those KIDS are flying cost more than her trip, and say nothing about whether they know what a tube of glue is.  Not many wealthy benefactors over here in our sport. I am starting to see that the problem is too much money has already been invested 'over there' on RTF that it would be suicide to tell these people they can't use them now.  Your point taken though-the slab sided fuse airplane lacks luster next to the full-bodied airplanes.  That will be the new 'trend' this side of the pond.
They don't fly better-just look more impressive doing so.


Dave

[Keith Renecle]

Dave said "They don't fly better-just look more impressive doing so." Hmmmm..... Dave, they do fly a hellavu lot better than most of the home built models, especially if the junior's build them. I've flown loads of other people's models through the years that were built from kits, and plans of the world's best stunt planes, and most of these RTF models are way better. I've flown Impacts, SV-11's, Trivial Pursuit's, Thunder Gazer's etc. built by modelers that build very well, but I'll put money on it and state that they don't usually fly like Paul's Impact, Randy's SV-11, Ted's Trivial Pursuit, or Dave's Thunder Gazer. If you have access to one of the great stunt folks and they can help to sort out your model then it's possible to duplicate such good performance, but if that is not possible then you build the kit or the scratch-built good design and you just don't really know how good it should be. In most cases it will have a very average performance.

So now these Yatsenko models come built and trimmed close to perfection. Each one will be flown and trimmed by Yuriy or Andrey and they are very competitive right out of the box. I can't talk for the other RTF composite models because I've never flown one. This is why these junior's and many seniors score so well in a short space of time. For us here in South Africa we have to multiply the Euro by 15 for our currency so the price is out of the vast majority's budget. I would love to own one of Yuriy's Yak 55's complete with that growling Discovery Retro .68 engine but this would cost 45 grand in our money. Our money previously around the time of President Carter was 1:1 to US$. Just a dream..............

I agree totally with the downside to all of this, and also agree in principle with the BOM rule because it does help to produce more people with special skills. I'm just saying that it is not easy to build a really good stunter with everything all working together to make a great high performance model that can compete with these RTF models.

Keith R

[jose modesto]

In the photo of the juniors there are only 3 ready to fly models. The rest are Russo’s and wood.
Jose modesto

[Dave_Trible]

Keith your point taken but I am of a mind that is more about trimming the airplane to fly well.  It's true that is done for you in these merchandise airplanes.  I also think the learning curve including the trimming process should be a part of being called "World Champ".  There is nothing really in aerodynamics making these machines superior and in fact slogging that chunk around in the wind may be more problematic.  This assumes the homebuilt airplane is built straight without major flaws.  It is also true that no two fly exactly alike.  If there is a quantum leap here, it's that you can hand one of these to just about anyone and it will accelerate their flight training greatly and allow more time to simply practice the pattern and 'show' more impressively.  Not taking anything away from the great fliers you've mentioned there are many other good airplanes out there too.  I would hazard that most anything flying in our Top 20 would be capable of flying in this category on any given day.  Notice I said FLYING-not always catching your eye like some of these new molded machines.

Dave

[Keith Renecle]

I totally agree Dave. Once you can build a really good, straight model then it's down to trimming, but man that takes many years to figure out.....even with PW's amazing trimming chart. The obvious shortcut is to hang around one of the hotshots and get loads of help. I've also heard most of the top guys state that they had models that just would not perform to their high standard, so for the up and coming pilots, they just have very little chance to get that good to actually feel that their creation that took many months to build is actually not trimmed well enough to take them any further.

In 2000 at the world champs in Landres just btw, I sat with Yuriy and Andrey and I asked Yuriy what the secret is with his Classic that tracks on rails and turns like lightning. He replied....."ahhh, the answer is simple.........everything!" Then he went on to say that everything has to work together at the same time to fly such a good pattern.........including the pilot! It is only a small minority that will attain that level of building, trimming and flying. This is what makes them true champions.

Keith R

[Igor Burger]

In the photo of the juniors there are only 3 ready to fly models. The rest are Russo’s and wood.
Jose modesto

Jose, depends what you call "RTF". There are also wood RTFs given to kids to fly WCh ... and trimmed already. I know, because it was also case of our junior (missing on the picture). It is simply so, model given by sponsor, daddy, team mate etc will fly better than model built and trimmed by the kid (yes I count with help of experienced coach). That and plus fact that RTF users not need spent time by trimming etc was reason why we wanted +10 points for BOM models, unfortunately torpedoed. Well, that is the way, kids will get models, they will fly it and when pocket or guys around will "outfly" all available models, kids will disappear. That is that "encouraging" new flyers by RTF models.

[Derek Barry]

Jose, depends what you call "RTF". There are also wood RTFs given to kids to fly WCh ... and trimmed already. I know, because it was also case of our junior (missing on the picture). It is simply so, model given by sponsor, daddy, team mate etc will fly better than model built and trimmed by the kid (yes I count with help of experienced coach). That and plus fact that RTF users not need spent time by trimming etc was reason why we wanted +10 points for BOM models, unfortunately torpedoed. Well, that is the way, kids will get models, they will fly it and when pocket or guys around will "outfly" all available models, kids will disappear. That is that "encouraging" new flyers by RTF models.

Yes it is unfortunate. 10 points is not a big deal in FAI. Not as much as AMA anyways.

You really need to come to our Nat's Igor, we would love to have you here.

Derek

[Trostle]

Yes it is unfortunate. 10 points is not a big deal in FAI. Not as much as AMA anyways.

You really need to come to our Nat's Igor, we would love to have you here.

Derek

Igor was here in 2004 and flew at our Nats.

[Trostle]

(Clip)
I would hazard that most anything flying in our Top 20 would be capable of flying in this category on any given day. 

(Clip)

Dave

Dave,

I might not understand the context of your statement.  If you are talking about models/pilots flying in our top 20, I have the following observations to offer.

Over the years, I have been a judge at 5 of our Nats and 7 of our Team trials as well as the ED at 5 other Team Trials.  When I was a judge at the World Championships in 78, 82 and 84, my feelings were that anyone in our top 10 could be in the top 15 of the World Championships at that time.  I have attended 5 other World Championships since that time.  The rest of the world has caught up.  Now, our top 5 would have a hard time to consistently make it to the top 15.  Furthermore, with the electrics and their ability to turn with the premium to do so amplified by the FAI K factors, what we saw in Landres this year was jaw dropping and eye opining.

Keith

[Norvaldo]

I took some photos.
Posted here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/146237914@N08/albums/72157699341811365

[Dave_Trible]

Dave,

I might not understand the context of your statement.  If you are talking about models/pilots flying in our top 20, I have the following observations to offer.

Over the years, I have been a judge at 5 of our Nats and 7 of our Team trials as well as the ED at 5 other Team Trials.  When I was a judge at the World Championships in 78, 82 and 84, my feelings were that anyone in our top 10 could be in the top 15 of the World Championships at that time.  I have attended 5 other World Championships since that time.  The rest of the world has caught up.  Now, our top 5 would have a hard time to consistently make it to the top 15.  Furthermore, with the electrics and their ability to turn with the premium to do so amplified by the FAI K factors, what we saw in Landres this year was jaw dropping and eye opining.

Keith

Hi Keith.  I was more speaking to the airplanes themselves than what the pilots were doing.  Some of our stuff may need to be re-trimmed to fly hard corners etc., but are capable in most cases.  Yes our pilots may need some re-trimming too!  That will start here at home with an understanding of what we are aiming for.  If we keep doing it 'our way' and the judges at the Worlds aren't buying that then we shouldn't expect THEM to change.  We must adapt.  I for one am still not convinced you need an electric to do that.  Save for the engine I am using I might concede the point.  More so than ever, we may need to train separately and in a different way than for the Nats and might have to choose which you are going to concentrate on since you may need a different style here to get to the top.  This older dog can learn new tricks-slowly.  BTW new fuselage molds are under construction in my shop as I write this.

Dave

[Derek Barry]

Igor was here in 2004 and flew at our Nats.

I was there too. I was just inviting him back.

Derek

[Abi]

So now these Yatsenko models come built and trimmed close to perfection. Each one will be flown and trimmed by Yuriy or Andrey and they are very competitive right out of the box.

Not a single model on the photo is made by Yatsenko's. Not one.
The Ukranian kid flew Solomianikov's old model. It was a present from Mr. Solomianikov and cost nothing to kid.
Russian kid flew model built by Russian national champion and cost nothing to kid.
Chinese Junior flew model built by top Chinese fliers who copied Yatsenko design but is 100% Chinese.
The only model that was bought on that picture is the Bulgarian girl who flew a model produced by Mr. Leonidov. The entire Bulgarian national team contributed to buy the model.

There is a tradition in the world of top fliers presenting their models to Juniors who will represent their country.

[Keith Renecle]

Hi Abi, thanks for that info. My statement was not directed to that photo. It was just a general statement about how good these RTF Yatsenko models are. I sure did not know that the Chinese junior's Gee Bee was actually built by the Chinese guys. That's impressive!

Keith R

[Keith Renecle]

I took some photos.
Posted here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/146237914@N08/albums/72157699341811365

Thanks Norvald, nice photo's. The action shot of the SBach with the "dihedral" is impressive!

[Christoph Holtermann]

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

[Andre Ming]

"non non non, Américains stupides..."

Unfortunately, it seems that perception is becoming more and more frequent (and vocal) among the nations.

Also, unfortunately, we (Americans) as a society, are giving such perceptions heavy ammunition for use at will, thus we are a "target rich" environment in which to go "stupid" hunting. Armed with such ammunition, it doesn't take much of a hunt, and it's guaranteed you'll easily bag your limit of "stupid" among the ranks in our beloved America.

 

This has been an interesting thread. IMHO, any event that depends upon subjectivity (the eyes of judges and conformance to many tech rules), are tough nuts to crack. Some, more so than others. Amazing our US fliers can do as well as they do given the odds against them I'm beginning see via this thread.

Andre

[Dave_Trible]

Just thrown out as a thought- if we are concerned about our competition in world events perhaps a few FAI contests flown here instead of JUST the Team Trials would:
1. Expose more to it and help train/recruit more to jump in.
2.  Allow for now the (dare I say) non-BOM airplanes and fliers to compete.
3. Provide a training opportunity for FAI judges.

Here I simply don’t have a suitable facility or I’d do it.  Maybe elsewhere.

Dave

[jose modesto]

Dave. In the late 1980’s to early 1990’s the US nationals were dominated by 3 flyers Walker,Casale and ted  Fancher the other top pilot was Bob Baron
These men flew hard corner patterns and were rewarded with high scores. The smooth guys could make top 5 but generally could not win.
The judges of that time valued a hard tight pattern.
The FAI judging as currently practiced values hard corners with low bottoms.
Our nationally trained judging values smooth with moderate corners over hard 4’ pattern.
You don’t get additional points for tight flying.
There was a thread recently that discussed this topic of hard corners not being valued as equal to softer smoother flying.
If you run an FAI contest with AMA judges it will not help you prepare for an FAI contest.
1) judges must value hard corners with great flat exits and 4’ bottoms
You must recruit Paul Walker as FAI team,chief trainer of judging,flyers etc. he is the closes we have to the way they fly at the worlds. Orestes would be #2 on my list.
If you want to dominate AMA David Fitz is your guy. Flauless flyers with good corner, Hard to beat in AMA.
This is my observation of AMA vs FAI
Jose modesto

[Brett Buck]

"non non non, Américains stupides..."

Unfortunately, it seems that perception is becoming more and more frequent (and vocal) among the nations.

   Also unfortuntately, there is an entire segment of the US population who thinks it's the height of fashion to do the same. Everything we have done or do, its because of all those "stupid" or "deplorable" Americans, that are so dumb they don't even know enough to feel guilty for being American. And the news media is leading the way.

     American and the founding precepts of the USA has been the greatest advance in human civilization since the agricultural revolution. Most the remaining issues we have are being intentionally stoked, because if they were resolved, what would people have to be aggrieved about?

   That's a different thread, of course.

     Brett

[Igor Burger]

Chinese Junior flew model built by top Chinese fliers who copied Yatsenko design but is 100% Chinese.

As far as I know Letong flew Yatsenko model (Gee Bee) with colors designed by his daddy. They tried to build their composite model, but it failed, so few days before W. champ they got model from Yatsenko.

[Igor Burger]

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.

Probably he knew exactly what is going on, because exactly the same thing happened to him in Hungaria few years later :- )))

[Igor Burger]

Over the years, I have been a judge at 5 of our Nats and 7 of our Team trials as well as the ED at 5 other Team Trials.  When I was a judge at the World Championships in 78, 82 and 84, my feelings were that anyone in our top 10 could be in the top 15 of the World Championships at that time.  I have attended 5 other World Championships since that time.  The rest of the world has caught up.  Now, our top 5 would have a hard time to consistently make it to the top 15.

This is funny ... EXACTLY same feeling I have after return home, looks like I did not move forward last years and rest of the world is slowly running around me and I must think how get them again :- ))))))))))

... or just go retirement :- ))))))))))))))))

... we will see what can winter bring, either surprise (and I will try to make it surprise) or nothing, it will tell me if I am flyer or coach in Wloclawek 2020 :- )))

[frank williams]

"There is a tradition in the world of top fliers presenting their models to Juniors who will represent their country."

Interesting ..... I think I witnessed a transfer of a former WC's plane to a junior at this years Nats.  Maybe there's hope for the US.

[Dave_Trible]

Dave. In the late 1980’s to early 1990’s the US nationals were dominated by 3 flyers Walker,Casale and ted  Fancher the other top pilot was Bob Baron
These men flew hard corner patterns and were rewarded with high scores. The smooth guys could make top 5 but generally could not win.
The judges of that time valued a hard tight pattern.
The FAI judging as currently practiced values hard corners with low bottoms.
Our nationally trained judging values smooth with moderate corners over hard 4’ pattern.
You don’t get additional points for tight flying.
There was a thread recently that discussed this topic of hard corners not being valued as equal to softer smoother flying.
If you run an FAI contest with AMA judges it will not help you prepare for an FAI contest.
1) judges must value hard corners with great flat exits and 4’ bottoms
You must recruit Paul Walker as FAI team,chief trainer of judging,flyers etc. he is the closes we have to the way they fly at the worlds. Orestes would be #2 on my list.
If you want to dominate AMA David Fitz is your guy. Flauless flyers with good corner, Hard to beat in AMA.
This is my observation of AMA vs FAI
Jose modesto

Yes Jose that’s what I was getting at about training FAI style judges.  Not sure the same people could or would want to do both.  Our guys do a super job at AMA judging.  Apparently we need a few who will be as good at judging the way they are ‘yonder’.  How else will our flight crew learn to fly that way.

Dave

[jose modesto]

Dave. One way is for AMA judges to return to our past were the corner has an appropriate value.
The pattern is not different in AMA compared to FAI.
A square maneuver does not have radious corners it has a sharp 90 degree transition
He  who flys closer to that ideal should be rewarded. In AMA it is not valued the same.
We have changed
We have a rich history of corner men Schaffer,Cassale,Walker, 1970’sHunt, Fancher,1990’s Dave Fitz,windy, and many more.
Let’s reclaim that history.
It starts with judging trining to value the corner again.
We are in the Dave Fitz era now, he will dominate as Walker did in the 90’s

 Davis has a very good corner now. He will be hard to beat no matter what the judging changes are.
Watch for Rudd if he gets a plane. He can fly AMA.
Jose modesto
Jose modesto

[Derek Barry]

Now, our top 5 would have a hard time to consistently make it to the top 15.

Keith

I strongly disagree with this statement.

Derek

[Derek Barry]

I'm just blown away with where this conversation has gone. I guess all of us USA/AMA hacks should just pack it up and find a new hobby. Chris made the top five for the first time last year, then went to the world's and did extremely well for a first time senior competitor, but we are supposed to believe that our AMA pattern is obsolete? If you want to do well at the Nat's, a soft pattern isn't going to cut it, but if you read this thread you would think we are all beginners flying ringmaster's.

Derek

[Dave_Trible]

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

[Doug Moon]

After reading all of this I have the solution.
Those in the USA who want to fork out the dough to travel around he world to fly the WCs-100 fliers on 2 circles- all you have to do is video your self doing a climb and dive. Send it to Randy and he will choose the team according to who has the sharpest corner. Sounds pretty simple to me.

 

[Derek Barry]

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

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

[Ken Culbertson]

After reading all of this I have the solution.
Those in the USA who want to fork out the dough to travel around he world to fly the WCs-100 fliers on 2 circles- all you have to do is video your self doing a climb and dive. Send it to Randy and he will choose the team accordingly. Sounds pretty simple to me.

I like it.  Then we could spend a year of endless criticizing and debate over his choices. Just think of the bandwidth we could waste - Priceless.

Ken

[RandySmith]

Our guys do a super job at AMA judging.  Apparently we need a few who will be as good at judging the way they are ‘yonder’.  How else will our flight crew learn to fly that way.

Dave

Simple  , just read the rule book and  try to fly as close to it as you can, this is the  way  I have  always  tried to coach my guys, and  everyone should try to fly, as close to a rule book pattern as possible. It  WILL  pay off.  NO matter  where you are, Worlds, or  AMA NATs .
I will also say anyone who goes  to fly the  US NATs  or  the  Worlds, better  fly a tight 45 degree pattern with sharp corners
The  WCs  judges , and  ALL others should  also  go by the  rules, not change what they want to see  every cycle
and  may i add  1.5 meters  is  5 ft elevation      DEAD in the middle of our 4 to 6 ft range, again this is where  I train to fly bottoms

Randy

[Doug Moon]

Simple  , just read the rule book and  try to fly as close to it as you can, this is the  way  I have  always  tried to coach my guys, and  everyone should try to fly, as close to a rule book pattern as possible. It  WILL  pay off.  NO matter  where you are, Worlds, or  AMA NATs .
I will also say anyone who goes  to fly the  US NATs  or  the  Worlds, better  fly a tight 45 degree pattern with sharp corners
The  WCs  judges , and  ALL others should  also  go by the  rules, not change what they want to see  every cycle
and  may i add  1.5 meters  is  5 ft elevation      DEAD in the middle of our 4 to 6 ft range, again this is where  I train to fly bottoms

Randy

That is right on the money!! 

But...as some have pointed out that once the judges have looked at 60 patterns in a day they are naturally going to start looking at 1 aspect and that will rule the day.

But there are some who feel the system is fine as is and this type of work load is fine no need for a change so we are good.

100 fliers 2 circles...... smh

[Russell Bond]

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.

[Trostle]

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.

A bit off topic here, but a judge is never in the optimum position to view a maneuver except for take off, level flight, inverted flight, and if the judge is in direct alignment of the paths of the wingover, and the landing.  It is the responsibility of the judge to recognize the parallax problems from whatever his viewpoint and assign a score accordingly.  Now, we can get into the subject of what some top pilots can do to make a maneuver look better to the judges while not exactly following the the description for that maneuver, but that is sort of beyond the scope of this thread.

Keith

[Russell Bond]

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)

[Dave_Trible]

Russell its been a very great while since I had a rule book but I don't recall our AMA rule book saying anything in that regard either way.  Maybe newer versions do.  I only recall maneuver descriptions as the pilot would see it.  I would think it could be found on the AMA website.

Dave

[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