stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Richard Oliver on August 03, 2018, 08:58:10 PM
-
will post more as I get time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieZMfDfgJOA&feature=youtu.be
-
The tracking in the rounds comment seems spot-on. I have been curious about the corner of the IC Sharks, what with their large diameter propellers. Even I have noticed reduced corner from larger diameters. Yes, I know this one was electron powered.
The V8 and Clover (1st loop was a monster!) were maybe worthy of Advanced or even Intermediate flier. I'm used to seeing better here in the NW, well down in the results. I was impressed with the safety fence and immediately thought how very useful it could be to the judges, if they used it for the tracking. If not, shame on them. H^^ Steve
-
The V8 and Clover (1st loop was a monster!) were maybe worthy of Advanced or even Intermediate flier. I'm used to seeing better here in the NW, well down in the results. I was impressed with the safety fence and immediately thought how very useful it could be to the judges, if they used it for the tracking. If not, shame on them. H^^ Steve
Note that this doesn't count for as much in FAI. But - yikes!
Brett
-
Brett, could you 'splain what it is that doesn't count for as much in FAI....similar loop sizes (aka shapes), intersections, or tracking? In 2001, it was said to be bottoms and intersections, according to PW. Is it now ALL about the corners in F2B and nothing else?
Or did they just not want to see anymore B-17's...and Stukas? I know these are scary and would make some folks want to find a safe place to smoke some weed. ;) Steve
-
Chris Rudd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pnZV0XQP6Q
-
Brett, could you 'splain what it is that doesn't count for as much in FAI....similar loop sizes (aka shapes), intersections, or tracking? In 2001, it was said to be bottoms and intersections, according to PW. Is it now ALL about the corners in F2B and nothing else?
K-factor.
This looks very similar to what I (and everyone else) saw in 2004, the very knowledgable crowd was going apesh*t when they saw some particular, highly experienced with very good contest records FAI fliers who did some maneuvers with what I can only describe as questionable concentration and attention. When Derek says that only 3 maneuver matter, that's only partly true, but when a 4-time World Champion does 3 bounces on a takeoff, and then comes out with a very high score, it leads to some, well, negative opinions being expressed.
I am sure any of these guys *could* do it, they just don't because it doesn't matter very much. Having buried myself in it for a few months ahead of time, in support of Ted's effort, I could see how you would look at it their way. But lots of very knowledgable and experienced fliers showed up looking to be blown away, and left shaking their heads.
As an side, many of the other FAI pilots did excellent flights throughout that would have scored well in AMA, too, the Yatsenkos in particular looking like they could make the flyoff in normal circumstances. But a lot of these guys would have done great in a NATs, but finished way down at the WC.
Brett
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-s5Y_fezVo
-
I know that there were more flights to consider than just those and I also know that the camera can distort certain things a little but personally I think the results were positively ridiculous based on those flights! There were at least 5 glaring errors in the Chimaman's pattern and not just small ones. The difference in scoring of the FAI pattern rules can't be that different! His square corners were somewhat impressive but I've seen much better here in Tucson with a couple of Classic airplanes and some much better ones flown by the likes of Bob Whitely here and a much better overall pattern flown here by many people who are not world Champions!
I'm sorry if I offend anyone by this next comment but I think (understand...just my opinion based on what I saw on the video) there was some serious "Fiddle-Faddle" in the scoring that had to be deliberately prejudicial. I was not there obviously but It's impossible for me to believe that the difference in the scores could only be because of the corners on three maneuvers...
Chris Rudd's corners were also excellent and his pattern in general was outstanding His maneuvers were all well placed and the shapes nearly perfect.
In fact for my money Richards pattern was far better than the Chinamans and his corners were pretty good also.
It's ridiculous to take a performance of a complicate pattern and base the entire performance on how tight the corners were on three maneuvers, when the intersections on the round eights were at least three feet apart!
I'm very happy to not have been at all interested in International competition. In my humble opinion if that's the way it is; it's a SHAM! No there is not supposed to be an E on the end of that word.. IT'S SHAM...or maybe it's a SCAM!!! Ether could be correct in this case! R%%%%
I will say that this is NOT Sour Grapes, on my part. I'm an experienced Judge and it's simply my honest opinion! The Americans got shafted!
Randy Cuberly
-
I thought I was hallucinating so I watched it again. Chris only did 5 inverted laps.
Maybe that’s OK in F2B, I don’t know. I try to remember to do 6, and if my mind drifts and I lose count, well, maybe I go to 7.
-
I thought I was hallucinating so I watched it again. Chris only did 5 inverted laps.
Maybe that’s OK in F2B, I don’t know. I try to remember to do 6, and if my mind drifts and I lose count, well, maybe I go to 7.
You are right, he only did 5! AFAIK that should mean zeros for the outsides.
I know they dinged me for not doing enough level laps before my wing-over in my first flight.
Started doing an extra one for both upright and inverted after that.
-
Doesn't FAI say only one lap between maneuvers. So that means only 4 laps inverted. Also we need to see all the fights as there was 4 days of qualifying. My perspective was watching the flying styles, especially between Chris and Igor. Chris has hand and arm lined up in front of his face and Igor has hand/arm off center in what I consider as relaxed stance. Yes I have seen guys turn sharp corners but then can't consistently put maneuvers on top of each other like the so called inside/outside loops. You also notice that both started to lead their planes for the landing. I believe the judges probably did the best they could with the long days. Where are the team members that were there and what comments do they have. Also Orestes was only USA team member with prior WC experience. I know we need to thank the team for their efforts and dedication. S?P
-
Richard
I hope you brought back some of that green fence .... it makes a great grid for filming the maneuvers ... makes walking really stand out and helps with determining symmetrical shapes. We ought to use that all the time for training.
Frank
-
1.5 laps, which means 2 for everything but the overhead\
c) All judges shall award a mark 0 (zero) for:
i) Manoeuvres omitted or not attempted at all.
ii) Manoeuvres started but not completed.
iii) Manoeuvres with an incorrect number of repeat figures (either too few or too many).
iv) Manoeuvres flown out of the sequence.
v) Manoeuvres flown without a minimum of 11/2 laps interval after the previous manoeuvre.
vi) Manoeuvres performed after the maximum flight time of 7 minutes has elapsed.
Looking at his finals scores either the judges missed it, or I am missing something ??
-
1.5 laps, which means 2 for everything but the overhead\
Looking at his finals scores either the judges missed it, or I am missing something ??
If the 1.5 laps minimum is correct (and I'm not doubting it at all), since he launched opposite the judges, he did 5.5 laps before starting the RWO and as I see it, Chris actually did an EXTRA lap over the 4.5 laps that would be absolute minimum. Takeoff and level flight is still 3 laps, correct? IMO, he made a much better flight than the first video.
The one thing we generally are not used to is that their score is the total of two best of three, while we generally just take the best flight of two in our normal contests. This might be why (perhaps) two "good" flights might win over the sum of one much better flight plus one mediocre flight, for example, and we all know that flight order pick and weather changes during the day could make a lot of difference, allowing a great flight or resulting in a mediocre one. And we've only seen one of three, right? y1 Steve
-
I got dinged for the wingover, his was fine. It was his inverted that seemed to have only 5 laps, so his outsides would be zeroed.
But I guess 1.5 + 2 +1.5 = 5, so 5 is enough?
I always thought laps 2 -4 were judged, but this would mean they have to start judging as the model passes them the second time, not when it starts lap 2?
-
The rule states that the judges have to judge laps 3 and 4. (So we need to do a minimum of 6 laps inverted.}
If you do 5 laps inverted you will lose your outside loops score. You have to do the outside loops at the end of the 6th lap downwind (opposite) to the judges.
Yes, Chris started his outside loops at the end of the 5th lap so he should've been given 0 for his outsides.
-
OK, that was Chris second flight of the finals rounds. That flight was in the latter part of that round that started the morning of the fifth day of competition. Do you think it is possible that every judge is not going to count every lap after the inside loops of every flight, particularly after 4 days of competition and even more particularly after that 4th day where the judges were out there for 59 to 60 flights on that day?
The 2 lap requirement between maneuver requirement is to allow a judge time to consider the score to be assigned to the maneuver just completed, then physically write the score on a sheet, then look up to locate the model before the model starts the next maneuver. With the computerized recording system used this year at the Championships, the recording process takes less time, so the judge is sitting there for sometimes more than a lap before the next maneuver. It is certainly conceivable that most of the six judges will have missed a lap. Having been in that circumstance before, even if one judge actually was positive that only 5 laps were flown, it would be virtually impossible to get all the other judges to agree.
If this is something that was "incorrectly" scored by the six judge there, it was not a fault of Chris.
Keith
-
OK, that was Chris second flight of the finals rounds. That flight was in the latter part of that round that started the morning of the fifth day of competition. Do you think it is possible that every judge is not going to count every lap after the inside loops of every flight, particularly after 4 days of competition and even more particularly after that 4th day where the judges were out there for 59 to 60 flights on that day?
*Of course it is*. It's not just possible, it's inevitable. If you can't reliably count to 6, what else do you suppose gets missed? I have done this sort of thing on multiple occasions. After even *one day*, you start homing in on one thing over the others, because you are trying to maintain your concentration on *something*.
One round a day is better in some respects than one round, twice as big, as one round over 2 full days, just because the effects are reduced, it still violates the 4-hour rule.
We have know what the problem is for at least 40 years. We have also know how to solve it for at least 40 years. The difference is, we/AMA *actually solved it*. TFFAI just ignoring the problem, pretending it doesn't exist, saying there are overwhelming extenuating circumstances that make the solution impossible, etc. All of which provides all the evidence you need to know that *executing the WC in the best and most fair way is not the goal*.
It's ridiculous and it's a disgrace that while stunt fliers (everywhere) generally understand the problem and solutions perfectly well, there is some unaccountable brick wall preventing it being done. That is TFFAI.
Brett
-
Does anybody know which prop the chinese World Champion used?
It was a three blade carbon prop with relatively wide but quite thin blades. It was printed "JFX" on one of the blades. It seemed to me it was 12" in diameter but don't remember and also didn't find this prop in the internet.
Also impressive, his very quick body turn in the wingover.
Christoph
-
I watched the winner's flight and Chris's flight. What was all that talk about corners?? Seriously? The winner's corners weren't any sharper/tighter than Chris's. Watch them with no sound.
Looked like good solid flying to me. Chris has a very nice square 8!!
-
Christoph
Perhaps it was made by JXF in China. I believe they make the XOAR brand also.
http://www.jxfmodel.com/index.asp
Dave
-
I watched the winner's flight and Chris's flight. What was all that talk about corners?? Seriously? The winner's corners weren't any sharper/tighter than Chris's. Watch them with no sound.
Looked like good solid flying to me. Chris has a very nice square 8!!
I felt the same way, Doug. "Some" of the best stuff in any of the videos. I've never seen Chris fly myself but have heard rave reviews from people whose opinions carry weight with me...David, for instance. Saw nothing in the video to change my respect for his description.
-
I thought I was hallucinating so I watched it again. Chris only did 5 inverted laps.
Maybe that’s OK in F2B, I don’t know. I try to remember to do 6, and if my mind drifts and I lose count, well, maybe I go to 7.
Well you are right looks like I missed a lap there. One thing I do if I lose track of laps I just fly until I see the judges look ready. If they are ready I assume I have done the right amount of laps. Guess I shouldn't lose track :)
-Chris
-
I watched the winner's flight and Chris's flight. What was all that talk about corners?? Seriously? The winner's corners weren't any sharper/tighter than Chris's. Watch them with no sound.
Looked like good solid flying to me. Chris has a very nice square 8!!
Thanks for the compliments. That flight was about 25 points down (if I remember right) and when I finished the flight Keith told me I was between 5.5-6.5 feet on most of my maneuvers. Thats hard to see on the video. To high for what the judges were scoring. The next flight (last one) I really focussed on being at 4.5 feet. It showed and I got a 1061 and Igor the flight before me got a 1067. So I don't think I was that far off on the sharp corner. When Jose mentioned his original post it was earlier in the contest. I had since widened the spacing on my handle and developed a little more corner.
I also think that electrics appear to turn faster with less sound... Maybe...
I will say that video doesn't really show how tight Igor's bottom corners are. They are clean and the tightest I have ever seen in person.
-Chris
-
I will say that video doesn't really show how tight Igor's bottom corners are. They are clean and the tightest I have ever seen in person.
That is one of the details that videos tend to "miss". I say "miss" advisedly - if you look at the tracing data, you see what is probably the true track of the CG through space. What it actually looks like might be something very different. Paul had the money comment earlier, in the other thread, it's not what it really does, it's what it *looks like* it does that matters. No one is actually out there measuring it, it's eyeballed from 175 feet away in a fraction of a second, and 60 mph.
This brings up an interesting issue with the possibility of machine "judging" (actually measuring), do you really *want* to measure it and probably change things radically, or not?
I thought the finalist videos showed about what you would expect, all very high-quality competitive patterns flown at a very high level of skill.
Brett
-
It really comes down to doing only 2 manouvers WELL.
Triangles and Hortizontal S8
Fact.. but do those great and you score high.