stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Derek Barry on July 20, 2018, 02:21:04 PM
-
A discussion started in one of the world championships threads, and it was about "corners". More specifically, about how they are scored at the world's vs US contests. It was also mentioned by someone that we should go back to the 5' radius rule. A different person felt like we in the US have softened up a little, on the rules and/or what is considered "good"
Last year, at the Nat's I just happened to take some slow motion videos of the reigning world champion, Orestes Hernandez. He has always had some of the tightest corners in stunt, Paul is probably #1. Watch the video....
Derek
https://youtu.be/3DBEn5qj6bg
-
As one who tries to fly very tight corners as well I can really appreciate this video. One very large item people should take away from this video is the level of trim Orestes has attained with this model in this flight. As Bob mentioned the plane is very "quiet" after the corner. This is a must when completing what is considered hard corners in a pattern and have them benefit your score as opposed to a monster corner with issues afterward that actually take away from your ability to fly the rest of the maneuver with any consistency.
My personal opinion is the corner should be as tight as possible yet "even" across the maneuver. All 4 corners of a square should look the same. I see it all the time where 3 are tight and 1 is soft. Or vice versa.
I recently watched a video of Igor at the 2012 worlds I swear it he was going to plant it straight in on the wing over then BAM out inverted and flat...looked awesome.
Hard Clean corners are impressive and should be a goal of any flyer who wants to move up, or stay at the top, and get scored well no matter who is judging and what scoring system they are using. I know it is for me.
Addition: I went back and watched that video again. Orestes is about 6' tall or so. If you place mark your screen where the corner starts and where it ends its not much more than he is tall in relation. 7' radius would be a 14' diameter of a circle. Looks like a DAMN TIGHT ASS CORNER TOO ME!!
-
Derek,
Yeah, thanks for posting the slo mo video, it certainly sells the idea that there is no such thing as a 5 ft radius corner. However the issue is that at most local type contests it seems (to me at least) that a lot of judges and pilots have, now realizing that, changed their motivation to try to fly very tight corners.
The issue is not whether the top few US fliers have done so but whether or not the rest of the "crowd" thinks it's necessary. I and obviously the International judges think it is necessary to convince the people who are now representing the US in international competition that it is.
It was stated that two of the "new" people on the Team did not fly tight corners which is why the did not do as well as expected.
Personally I believe that to be true. I know that both of those Gentlemen are much better fliers than their scores reflected. Paul Walker said (in the post) that "they didn't have a chance because they don't fly tight corners." I'm very sure he knows what he is talking about!
I have heard many good expert fliers and judges of late make comments that indicate they prefer "smooth pretty maneuvers to" hard corners. I believe that reflects a tendency that came out of the general (perhaps non-intentional relaxing) of the wording from 5 ft corners to simply tight corners. In other words, "Tight" is subjective.
5 ft is not. Whether or not it can be achieved is not really the issue. It's a real target at least...Tight is really technically not!
My comments are not meant to be critical only that it seems that our selection system obviously didn't properly prepare some of the representatives on the team.
I know those guys and know that they are not only excellent stunt fliers and Gentlemen, but are also " rabid" competitors. I truly believe they are capable of flying "tight" corners but may have been lulled into believing it was not necessary in order to win.
I believe that we (the stunt community) should make an effort to establish some sort of "coaching community" of our own past national and many world stunt champions, to better familiarize new attendees with the finer points of International Competition, before we send them into the "Fray". I know for a fact that a lot of our competitor nations (Not to mention the Chinese) have such organizations!
Such an organization should make an effort to establish funds that could insure that it would happen. Once again if our own AMA was more interested in CL and competition, in general, instead of Drones, ARFS, and MONEY, it probably would already be a fact! Unfortunately it appears that they really don't Care a whit!
Randy Cuberly
-
Randy, we already have such an organization, it's called PAMPA.
I think Rich and Joe knew exactly what they were getting into, and did everything possible to prepare. The name "World Championships" pretty much sums up what you should expect. There are many very talented pilots from all over the world.
There is something else to consider though, and I think it's what Paul was talking about. Where do you want to do well, and why? Personally, I want to win the Nat's, and that is why I focus on having the best flight possible, from takeoff to landing. If my objective was to win the world's I would concentrate on having the best triangle, square eight, and hourglass...
Derek
-
My comments are not meant to be critical only that it seems that our selection system obviously didn't properly prepare some of the representatives on the team.
Randy Cuberly
Hello Randy! :)
Our selection system is not there to properly prepare the selected team members. It is there only to select those who will represent the USA.
In the big picture your idea of a strategy team so to speak is a great one. In reality it probably will never happen.
I am really curious to see what Joe and Richard say about how they scored. I know Richard was having problems with his setup, the specifics of I don't know. I do know is he a very good flier. I am not making excuses for him or Joe but I think it is very hard to say they didn't score well due to their corners when we haven't seen their flights...
Are their flights posted somewhere????
-
I would mention one more thing.
The human eye and brain processes visual information at approximately 15 to 16 frames per second. The length of 5 ft radius 90 degree arc at something around 60 mph would likely appear as an instantaneous change of direction to the observer. Obviously even 6, 7, or perhaps 8 ft radius corners do so appear!
Randy Cuberly
-
None of them are doing 5 ft corners , The 5 ft corner looks like the plane just instantly tuned the other way
If you want to see what a 5 ft corner looks like, pull up Keith Renecle's C/L simulator and watch the corners
or fly your stunt ship at 12 to 15 feet above the ground and imagine what would happen if you gave it FULL down
The corner must be Sharp and accurate without curves S es or bobbles, hard and flat is a good way to describe them,
The PROBLEM is not with the Planes or pilots it is with the Rule description, it NEEDS to be changed to something like 12 to 14 ft radius, or whatever the number should be
and of course the 120 degree corners present even more problems
Regards
Randy
-
Hello Randy! :)
Our selection system is not there to properly prepare the selected team members. It is there only to select those who will represent the USA.
In the big picture your idea of a strategy team so to speak is a great one. In reality it probably will never happen.
I am really curious to see what Joe and Richard say about how they scored. I know Richard was having problems with his setup, the specifics of I don't know. I do know is he a very good flier. I am not making excuses for him or Joe but I think it is very hard to say they didn't score well due to their corners when we haven't seen their flights...
Are their flights posted somewhere????
Doug,
I would not begin to argue with anything you said. In my post I was quoting The Master Paul Walker and will not apologize for believing what he says about what it takes to win!
I seriously doubt you would either.
I agree that it will be very difficult and expensive to establish such and organization as I mentioned. I do believe however that it would be possible if the right people will get behind it. It likely will not be anyone connected with the AMA.
It would have to be someone in the Stunt Community with the resources and connections to put the organization together. There are such folks in the Stunt Community and they know who they are. However it's a big challenge and I would not blame them for remaining silent!
Randy Cuberly
-
The topic of corners has been around for several years. Over time, I have read forum posts and conversed with other fliers about corners (perceived and actual). A few years ago someone performed a still frame analysis of a pattern ship doing a “tight” corner. This was back when the AMA rule book dictated a 5 foot radius for a proper corner and there was a lot of discussion concerning the physical impossibility of performing a turn of that radius. The video analysis determined that the radius of a very tight turn, that is the path that the CG traversed, was closer to 15 feet in radius. It is the attitude of the airplane as it follows the path of the turn that gives the illusion that the turn is tighter. As a result of previous discussions, the AMA rule book description of the maneuver was changed to “corners should be of a ‘tight radius’” instead of requiring an unobtainable 5 foot radius. I don’t know what the current FAI description of a proper corner is, but if it is anything less than 4 to 5 meters (12 to 15 feet) it is unrealistic.
Regardless of how tight a corner actually is, the fuel for the current discussion is the difference between how the FAI judges score the maneuver and how AMA judges score the same maneuver. The bottom line is that if we want our representatives to do well in the FAI competition, we need to adjust our scoring of all the maneuvers to reflect how the FAI judges want to see the maneuvers flown. This will encourage our potential team flyers to focus on the aspects of the maneuvers that the FAI judges consider important. Before someone jumps to the conclusion that I am recommending adopting the FAI scoring system with K factors, I am not. I am simply suggesting we need to base our maneuver downgrades on the same criteria and magnitudes as the FAI judges are using. Many years ago, when I was “fighting” the RC Pattern wars, we had the same issue. The US flyers weren’t scoring well against the European flyers. Ultimately, we adopted the FAI judges guide and scoring system for the contests here in the US. Our results improved as a consequence. It’s the same old adage we have been using in our contests, you have to give the judges what they want to see in order to get good scores.
Joe
-
Doug,
I would not begin to argue with anything you said. In my post I was quoting The Master Paul Walker and will not apologize for believing what he says about what it takes to win!
I seriously doubt you would either.
I agree that it will be very difficult and expensive to establish such and organization as I mentioned. I do believe however that it would be possible if the right people will get behind it. It likely will not be anyone connected with the AMA.
It would have to be someone in the Stunt Community with the resources and connections to put the organization together. There are such folks in the Stunt Community and they know who they are. However it's a big challenge and I would not blame them for remaining silent!
Randy Cuberly
I couldn’t agree more with this post..
-
Just for grins in case anyone missed it, here is the actual quote from Mr. Walker in yesterday's post regarding corners and the results of the Worlds Competition!
"Since you are into opinions, here is mine:
Joe and Richard never had a chance. They fly a USA type pattern that no longer scores there. They don't have adequate corners.
Somehow the now accepted USA type scoring pattern does not reward tighter corners even though the rules specify tight corners. This is not helping our F2B team compete.
Look at the US results. Orestes has the tightest corners of the US group, and he was the highest placing US pilot. Chris was the next tightest, and the next highest placing pilot. And so on..
If the US does not start getting on board with tight corners, get used to these results."
Quoted from Paul Walker yesterday!
Randy Cuberly
-
Good points, gentlemen. One thing we could do is to train our team trials judges to emphasize that which scores at worldly contests. We could encourage people-- American or otherwise-- with worldly experience to judge at our team trials. We are doing a pretty good job of that now. Mark Overmier, who judged at the last two world champs, and Keith Trostle, who was 2014 and 2018 assistant team manager, judged at the last team trials. Dave Fitzgerald was signed up to judge, but had flames licking at his house and had to drop out.
-
Derek,
Yeah, thanks for posting the slo mo video, it certainly selsl the idea that there is no such thing as a 5 ft radius corner. However the issue is that at most local type contests it seems (to me at least) that a lot of judges and pilots have, now realizing that, changed their motivation to try to fly very tight corners.
The issue is not whether the top few US fliers have done so but whether or not the rest of the "crowd" thinks it's necessary. I and obviously the International judges think it is necessary to convince the people who are now representing the US in international competition that it is.
It was stated that two of the "new" people on the Team did not fly tight corners which is why the did not do as well as expected.
Personally I believe that to be true. I know that both of those Gentlemen are much better fliers than their scores reflected. Paul Walker said (in the post) that "they didn't have a chance because they don't fly tight corners." I'm very sure he knows what he is talking about!
I have heard many good expert fliers and judges of late make comments that indicate they prefer "smooth pretty maneuvers to" hard corners. I believe that reflects a tendency that came out of the general (perhaps non-intentional relaxing) of the wording from 5 ft corners to simply tight corners. In other words, "Tight" is subjective.
5 ft is not. Whether or not it can be achieved is not really the issue. It's a real target at least...Tight is really technically not!
My comments are not meant to be critical only that it seems that our selection system obviously didn't properly prepare some of the representatives on the team.
I know those guys and know that they are not only excellent stunt fliers and Gentlemen, but are also " rabid" competitors. I truly believe they are capable of flying "tight" corners but may have been lulled into believing it was not necessary in order to win.
I believe that we (the stunt community) should make an effort to establish some sort of "coaching community" of our own past national and many world stunt champions, to better familiarize new attendees with the finer points of International Competition, before we send them into the "Fray". I know for a fact that a lot of our competitor nations (Not to mention the Chinese) have such organizations!
Such an organization should make an effort to establish funds that could insure that it would happen. Once again if our own AMA was more interested in CL and competition, in general, instead of Drones, ARFS, and MONEY, it probably would already be a fact! Unfortunately it appears that they really don't Care a whit!
Randy Cuberly
Randy:
I am really sorry I started this in the wrong thread but it needs to be debated. The problem we seem to have is that we are talking past each other. I have known since I was 15 years old that a 5' corner was extremely difficult but not impossible. I have done them but not with anything built in the last 40 years. They simply are not practical. You loose so much energy that the rest of the maneuver looks like cr**. Doug's post pretty much sums up how I feel about it and I to plotted Orestes first corner, which should be the softest, and also came out at about 7'. You will also notice that as the plane bleeds energy the corners get a bit tighter and you can see it kicking the tail. What grabbed me about that video was the long straight flats. You need tight corners and smooth transitions to do that.
We have two issues here. One is how tight should they be and the second is how do we judge them which is Randy's first point. You simply cannot have subjective standards and objective judging. IMHO the standard should be the tightest realistic corner. It gives judges the guidance that is now lacking. I am going to guess that that will fall somewhere around 7'. It would be useful to ask Igor if he knows how tight, excuse me, sharp his corners are. I have also watched them in slow motion and....DAMN.
As to Randy's second point, I really agree. We simply do not give our teams the resources they need. It is a tribute to them that they do as well as they do.
Ken
-
https://youtu.be/AsQ7j6_nEts
-
https://youtu.be/--0pea7R4TE
Disclaimer: this video is 2 years old and with a different plane than he used in France.
-
.... you aren't gong to like this but .... as Joe said above "we adopted the FAI judges guide and scoring system for the contests here in the US. Our results improved as a consequence."
The "K factor system" really gets some riled up, but when a square eight has a factor of 18 ..... maybe you should practice the square eight more than a set of rounds.
-
https://youtu.be/Ky15MapFvUs
-
maybe you should practice the square eight more than a set of rounds.
And build an airplane and control system that makes nice corners.
-
snip
and of course the 120 degree corners present even more problems
Regards
Randy
Actually, Randy, the radius required (whatever it might be) is no different for 120 degree corners than for 90s!
-
In 1963 I built a ship that would do a 5' corner and every thing that everybody says about that tight of a corner is true. It actually looks funny, it is nearly impossible to not stall and you loose so much momentum that without a really strong 4-2 you were about to land - tail first. So why do it? Because that was what the rule book called for and at 16 you are just stupid enough to try it. Now it calls for "tight". Is that 7', 14' or having a beer before you fly and at 71 I am just stupid enough to question it.
If we are going to compare video we should be getting it from the F2B patterns from the fliers that are beating us. I doubt many are turning under 6.8' but we should be debating based on what they do and setting our standards accordingly. We can keep it "tight" but do what the FAI does and define "tight" like they do "sharp".
Ken
-
.... you aren't gong to like this but .... as Joe said above "we adopted the FAI judges guide and scoring system for the contests here in the US. Our results improved as a consequence."
The "K factor system" really gets some riled up, but when a square eight has a factor of 18 ..... maybe you should practice the square eight more than a set of rounds.
Which, of course, brings up once again...
Why do international stunt competitions employ a K factor...a device intended in diving to somehow leaven the difference between one diver doing an easier dive versus one doing a more difficult dive and attempting to compare them mathematically...in an event where everyone does all 15 of the same dives every time they get on the platform, each of which is judged by the same scale by the same judges?
The use of a K-factor has no place in an event where everyone does the same tricks for individual examination every time they don their Speedos. Yet we continue to do it and have these inane discussions over and over.
Ted
p.s. I really don't know the answer to this question. Are diving and FAI F2B the only competitive events that utilize the K-factor?
-
Of course I have some opinions here.
I learned clearly in 1990 that it is not how tight your corner is, but the illusion of that. In 1990, VCR's were available and good enough to record stunt flights. That happened at the 1990 Nat's. I thought I had a tight corner, but judges and orher pilots told me that Jimmy did. I was puzzled.
Once home with a copy of those flights I played them over and over tracing the path of both Jimmy's and my plane. It wasn't even close!!!
My plane turned a much tighter radius, BUT Jimmy's looked tighter due to its paint scheme and speed. It flew faster and that made it look tighter also. I have never forgotten that demonstration and used it to fashion my corner presentation. I further worked on the stop of the corner to be as abrupt as the start. That also adds to the illusion.
Does it do a 5 foot radius, not a chance, but neither does anyone else.
Brett submitted a rule proposal to change from 5 foot requirement to "tight". I don't believe that has and impact on where we are now. I think people found out the judges here will score them well even without a tight corner. If that is the case, why bother doing tight corners. It is certainly easier to trim a plane that way, and easier to fly.
We can argue for weeks about what radius they CAN do, or the "merits" of the K factor, but that will change NOTHING.
The problem is that in international competition NOW, tight corners score. PERIOD. As has been pointed out, if you can't do tight corners on all the high K maneuvers, you will not score well.
How do we fix this??
I think the only way is for US judges to start recognizing tighter corners and scoring them accordingly. Yes, one has to decide how to judge a perfectly square loop with soft corners versus the same shape but with tighter corners, and then of course a perfect geometry with tight corners but with a slight hop on one corner.
If this paradigm shift doesn't happen, how will we ever get pilots to fly tight corners and expect to compete at the worlds.
We have a few youngsters coming up that still have time to train themselves to do tighter corners. Again, if their tighter corners are not rewarded (as the rules dictate) then they will never develop the muscles and reflexes for future use.
So, if I am all wet, where am I wrong on this?
-
Actually, Randy, the radius required (whatever it might be) is no different for 120 degree corners than for 90s!
Hi Ted
I was not saying the radius is tighter, what I see is other problems, such as the pilot starting the bottom corner of the triangle and hourglass higher up, like 25 to 30 ft altitude to make sure they can get that bottom..very soft corner, not all do this but many do, and the 120 degree corner many pilots have MAJOR troubles doing ALL the corners the same. and another is over turning the first corner...etc
Randy
-
Which, of course, brings up once again...
Why do international stunt competitions employ a K factor...a device intended in diving to somehow leaven the difference between one diver doing an easier dive versus one doing a more difficult dive and attempting to compare them mathematically...in an event where everyone does all 15 of the same dives every time they get on the platform, each of which is judged by the same scale by the same judges?
The use of a K-factor has no place in an event where everyone does the same tricks for individual examination every time they don their Speedos. Yet we continue to do it and have these inane discussions over and over.
Ted
p.s. I really don't know the answer to this question. Are diving and FAI F2B the only competitive events that utilize the K-factor?
There are others - Ice Skating is one I am unfortunately very familiar with and I think most of the snowboarding events use them but your point is well taken. They all allow the competitor to select the difficulty they want to tackle. I am against the K-factor for another reason. If we dump that much math on these wonderful volunteers that make our local contests so much fun they might stop bringing those delicious cookies! With that I surrender. I need to balance some props so I can go out in the morning and fly some "tight" corners.
Ken
-
Which, of course, brings up once again...
Why do international stunt competitions employ a K factor...a device intended in diving to somehow leaven the difference between one diver doing an easier dive versus one doing a more difficult dive and attempting to compare them mathematically...in an event where everyone does all 15 of the same dives every time they get on the platform, each of which is judged by the same scale by the same judges?
The use of a K-factor has no place in an event where everyone does the same tricks for individual examination every time they don their Speedos. Yet we continue to do it and have these inane discussions over and over.
Ted
p.s. I really don't know the answer to this question. Are diving and FAI F2B the only competitive events that utilize the K-factor?
Well, as I am sure you are very aware and familiar with, they aren't using the K factor to normalize one pilot to another pilot doing different routines. They are normalizing maneuver to maneuver across the pattern itself.
We can score well on take off and make up for a missed square eight bottom or use a really great inverted flight to make up for a tiny bounce on landing. I have done these very things. I love a really well executed take off. Both when I am flying and when I am judging. It can really set the tone for the flight from either side of the coin. When I get the ascent just right with that little "kick" at level flight it just feels cool. I feel we have way more opportunity to shine using the AMA scoring as opposed to FAI scoring where you better bust the crap out of the triangles or its curtains.
But me you and everyone else knows they will never remove it. It's part of their game and I think they like it that way. More power to them.
-
The topic of corners has been around for several years. Over time, I have read forum posts and conversed with other fliers about corners (perceived and actual). A few years ago someone performed a still frame analysis of a pattern ship doing a “tight” corner. This was back when the AMA rule book dictated a 5 foot radius for a proper corner and there was a lot of discussion concerning the physical impossibility of performing a turn of that radius. The video analysis determined that the radius of a very tight turn, that is the path that the CG traversed, was closer to 15 feet in radius. It is the attitude of the airplane as it follows the path of the turn that gives the illusion that the turn is tighter. As a result of previous discussions, the AMA rule book description of the maneuver was changed to “corners should be of a ‘tight radius’” instead of requiring an unobtainable 5 foot radius. I don’t know what the current FAI description of a proper corner is, but if it is anything less than 4 to 5 meters (12 to 15 feet) it is unrealistic.
Regardless of how tight a corner actually is, the fuel for the current discussion is the difference between how the FAI judges score the maneuver and how AMA judges score the same maneuver. The bottom line is that if we want our representatives to do well in the FAI competition, we need to adjust our scoring of all the maneuvers to reflect how the FAI judges want to see the maneuvers flown. This will encourage our potential team flyers to focus on the aspects of the maneuvers that the FAI judges consider important. Before someone jumps to the conclusion that I am recommending adopting the FAI scoring system with K factors, I am not. I am simply suggesting we need to base our maneuver downgrades on the same criteria and magnitudes as the FAI judges are using. Many years ago, when I was “fighting” the RC Pattern wars, we had the same issue. The US flyers weren’t scoring well against the European flyers. Ultimately, we adopted the FAI judges guide and scoring system for the contests here in the US. Our results improved as a consequence. It’s the same old adage we have been using in our contests, you have to give the judges what they want to see in order to get good scores.
Joe
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I apologize for repeating quotes. An anomaly with this program.
The Internats is a different event.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Of course I have some opinions here.
I learned clearly in 1990 that it is not how tight your corner is, but the illusion of that. In 1990, VCR's were available and good enough to record stunt flights. That happened at the 1990 Nat's. I thought I had a tight corner, but judges and orher pilots told me that Jimmy did. I was puzzled.
Once home with a copy of those flights I played them over and over tracing the path of both Jimmy's and my plane. It wasn't even close!!!
My plane turned a much tighter radius, BUT Jimmy's looked tighter due to its paint scheme and speed. It flew faster and that made it look tighter also. I have never forgotten that demonstration and used it to fashion my corner presentation. I further worked on the stop of the corner to be as abrupt as the start. That also adds to the illusion.
Does it do a 5 foot radius, not a chance, but neither does anyone else.
Brett submitted a rule proposal to change from 5 foot requirement to "tight". I don't believe that has and impact on where we are now. I think people found out the judges here will score them well even without a tight corner. If that is the case, why bother doing tight corners. It is certainly easier to trim a plane that way, and easier to fly.
We can argue for weeks about what radius they CAN do, or the "merits" of the K factor, but that will change NOTHING.
The problem is that in international competition NOW, tight corners score. PERIOD. As has been pointed out, if you can't do tight corners on all the high K maneuvers, you will not score well.
How do we fix this??
I think the only way is for US judges to start recognizing tighter corners and scoring them accordingly. Yes, one has to decide how to judge a perfectly square loop with soft corners versus the same shape but with tighter corners, and then of course a perfect geometry with tight corners but with a slight hop on one corner.
If this paradigm shift doesn't happen, how will we ever get pilots to fly tight corners and expect to compete at the worlds.
We have a few youngsters coming up that still have time to train themselves to do tighter corners. Again, if their tighter corners are not rewarded (as the rules dictate) then they will never develop the muscles and reflexes for future use.
So, if I am all wet, where am I wrong on this?
It's all about the stop!!! Stopping the corner after it has begun is one of the most important elements of flying hard corners. I have beat that into my head for years. We build large tails on our planes so use them to STOP that corner clean with a flat exit giving the appearance nothing happened and the score will climb. I used to have really hard corners. As of late my skills are lacking due to life constraints on practice but from time to time and can still bang a few out here and there. Brad Walker helped coach me for a while and he would call it the "non-event" corner. The plane is flying along it stops changes direction and goes again as if nothing happened. That will give off that hard presentation. I have seen it done with slow flying and fast flying. Sometimes I see people hauling ass through the pattern and their corners looked rounded off. Sometimes I see the slow flights and the plane is flopping around after the corner. There is certainly a fine balance there getting the trim and speed just right for the flyer.
You are not wrong on any of what you said above as far as I can tell when it comes to your observations about needing more corner. Quite the opposite you are pretty much spot on. And I would also note that the top 5 from this past nats shows our judges still do reward hard corners. I have not seen Chris Cox fly his new plane so I have no experince there but I have seen plenty of Howard, Dave, yourself, and The One fly and ya'll (like that Texas word there?) all have very hard very clean non-event corners that score extremley well. I judged in 2017 and it was a eye opener for sure to watch patterns all day then a Dave or Derek get on the circle and the corners made the maneuvers. That leads me to my next point.
Above you said
"Yes, one has to decide how to judge a perfectly square loop with soft corners versus the same shape but with tighter corners"
This simply cannot be. The square loops described here are not the same shape so they wont score the same. The one with the tighter corners should always score higher as the manuever is actually more of a square because the legs will be longer making it more of a square. At least it will appear that way and I would score it that way. Also if one were to look at the Walker trophy they would note there have been only two different names on it since 2012, yours and Davids. You both fly hard corners. You are rewarded for it.
If one wants to crack into the top ranks here or the worlds they are going to have to have hard corners. Orestes has hard corners, they have seen him fly and they know it and expect it and he scores with it. Placed 5th. Chris R has hard fast corners. First time out found himself in 7th place. I would say that's a damn nice showing for sure. He will be back and he will move up, I have no doubt about that.
-
What has changed with FAI judging since Paul took the B-17 to the WC in 2001? Was it because of the B-17 that they started putting some emphasis on corner radius? If so, BRAVO to Paul!
Having watched Paul and Howard cut blinding corners for close to two decades, I know that I usually can't see any radius, but in video, even at normal speed, it shows clearly. I was at first puzzled, but have come to accept the fact.
In the first video of Orestez' Sq8, the inside "squares" were short in the horizontal legs, and I would not have given great points for that. Much easier to see in real time than those blinding corners. There is also some "mush" on some of the corners, but not all. Interesting, but likely impossible to see in real time. y1 Steve
-
Regarding the competition that the USA faces in FAI style cornering, Igor Burger sure has a consistently crisp presentation. The reverse wing-over is tight, rounds look round, squares look square, maneuver sizes are appropriate, bottoms are solid and the intersections are good. Looks like a clean, well flown pattern regardless of the name of the sanctioning organization that is officiating the event. This seems like it would be a high scoring AMA pattern as well, no?
If you click on the little gear shaped icon, you can slow it down to 1/4 speed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5Bc5S5EmbU
-
.25 is too slow. .5 speed is perfect! H^^ Steve
-
Of course I have some opinions here.
I learned clearly in 1990 that it is not how tight your corner is, but the illusion of that. In 1990, VCR's were available and good enough to record stunt flights. That happened at the 1990 Nat's. I thought I had a tight corner, but judges and orher pilots told me that Jimmy did. I was puzzled.
Once home with a copy of those flights I played them over and over tracing the path of both Jimmy's and my plane. It wasn't even close!!!
My plane turned a much tighter radius, BUT Jimmy's looked tighter due to its paint scheme and speed. It flew faster and that made it look tighter also. I have never forgotten that demonstration and used it to fashion my corner presentation. I further worked on the stop of the corner to be as abrupt as the start. That also adds to the illusion.
Does it do a 5 foot radius, not a chance, but neither does anyone else.
While we are giving out the secrets, I will give away the other part of your "discovery" - intentional or not. Of course, it's not exactly a secret, you have been demonstrating it for almost 30 years, and while I can't remember you actually directly discussing it, I have. The time it takes to go from "straight" to "turning" is approaching zero. This is where your "Impact" corner would look dramatically different from Orestes'. If anyone takes a look at the second time through the square 8 in the super-slo-mo above (which is EXCELLENT), after the airplane has slowed down and after he has to start repeating the track, you can see the airplane sliding rapidly to the outsides of the corners, almost looking as if (and perhaps really) being pulled out-side by the lift of the elevator (which hurts the turn). The radius decreases as the corner goes on, so the whole thing is in a "transient" condition.
What I see with my eye, and what I would expect to see with the Impact/40VF is that the turn radius is established very early and then just stays at that radius throughout. It's got to have some curl to the entrance, but it certainly looks like it takes almost no time to get going.
I also suspect that the turn would look "better" on the Discovery-Retro version, and that the "crank-up time" issue is probably a function of the airplane maintaining it's speed, or even accelerating as the corner starts. If it had a Retro and a 6" pitch prop, I would expect that as the airplane starts to maneuver, it would also slow down, keeping it from sliding too far out to the side as the turn starts. It might fly better on electric if they changed the flap/elevator ratio closer to 1:1. That aside notwithstanding...
This is one of the things that got our (David, Ted, and my) attention at the 1988 Golden State meet, and what we started out to try to design in and achieve in flying. When it works, it is *undeniable* that it appears more accurate than any previous approaches. That, and the fact that a lot of other people weren't paying *any* attention or making all sorts of arguments to the contrary, is where the perceived "West Coast Bias" came from, as we learned the lesson by observation, and many still to this day haven't gotten it.
The problem is that in international competition NOW, tight corners score. PERIOD. As has been pointed out, if you can't do tight corners on all the high K maneuvers, you will not score well.
How do we fix this??
It depends on your opinion on what is "broken". I don't necessarily buy the premise that they have it "right" and we are doing it "wrong".
I think the only way is for US judges to start recognizing tighter corners and scoring them accordingly. Yes, one has to decide how to judge a perfectly square loop with soft corners versus the same shape but with tighter corners, and then of course a perfect geometry with tight corners but with a slight hop on one corner.
If this paradigm shift doesn't happen, how will we ever get pilots to fly tight corners and expect to compete at the worlds.
I think you are making some assumptions that I think are quite debatable (because I am going to debate them...). You appear to be assuming that the most important goal of stunt is to win the world championship, and that US judge's and flier's goal is to train themselves for competition in the WC. Also, the implication is emphasis on corner radius is both the sole reason for success, and that this is something we are doing wrong that we should be looking to "fix".
I would dispute all of those points. The current apparent (note: apparent) emphasis on corner radius appears to me to be an overreaction to previous, different overemphasis on other standards, specifically 5 foot bottoms, in the era that you couldn't tell the difference between round 8s and square 8s. At the time, many people in the US argued that this was a distortion of the intent of the rules, which have "5 foot altitude" or some equivalent, and then 10,000 other words. For a while, it appeared that they read the first 3 words and ignored the rest. Well, after not inconsiderable lobbying and discussion, and some other factors I decline to discuss in public, now the apparent (note again: apparent) approach is to look at the "5 foot radius" and not really considering the other aspects.
So, it could be argued that the emphasis has shifted from one narrow view to a different, equally narrow view, both of which are mistakes/not really the intent of the rules.
Note that while it is perfectly clear that the emphasis has shifted and you are certainly well-capable of evaluating what it takes to win stunt contests, in the problem at hand, I would contend that there were quite obviously other factors involved. I will decline to discuss them here, for exactly the same reason from the other thread. I think we even discussed it at the NWR this year. But, for sake of argument, let's grant the premise that the way to win "world" contests is to turn tighter.
That doesn't mean that they have it "more correct" than we do, and that we should "fix" US stunt to do it their way. Even if it *is* the way to be successful at the WC, that doesn't mean the emphasis here should change, if we happen to think we/US are doing it more correctly, with a balanced weighting of all the aspects, instead of homing in and providing emphasis on just one aspect. I think the US Nationals judging corp has been very consistent over several decades in weighting the various factors appropriately.
I removed the 5 foot radius words to attempt to reflect this approach - not to "reduce emphasis" but to reflect the recognition that it is physically impossible for any airplane with conventional aerodynamics. And, additionally, to remove the tendency of a few to home in on what appears to be an engineering requirement and forgetting about the rest of it. Which, interestingly, is also the premise I dispute in the current FAI emphasis.
Turning tighter still gets you better scores in the US, too. It's just that it's not the sole determining factor.
I do not think that we should try to "fix" something in US stunt that we have absolutely no agreement is broken, just to follow the current FAI trend. Nor do I consider US competition as a "AAA Baseball" training league for the WC. I think success in US stunt is at least as legitimate a goal as success in "world" stunt. Now, of course, that might be considered self-serving considering my US success compared to my non-existent "world" success, and I am willing to grant you, Bobby, Billy, David, and Orestes' different perspective, but I bet there are plenty of other people with have *neither* experience that feel the way I do.
We have a few youngsters coming up that still have time to train themselves to do tighter corners. Again, if their tighter corners are not rewarded (as the rules dictate) then they will never develop the muscles and reflexes for future use.
So, if I am all wet, where am I wrong on this?
Igor is not exactly a spring chicken, and he managed to tighten up drastically since the 2004 NATs when I first met him, so people who want to do it generally have a lot of time to prepare. Turning tighter (without losing everything else) will still help them in the USA. It counts for a lot, here, too - just not everything. Which is what I think it should be.
It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's entirely a matter of opinion where the emphasis should lie.
Brett
-
Should we then just face the reality that we are going to settle for continued lower placings of our entries in the WC. And the absence of any chance for the team championship trophy to show the world that we believe our way to be the best?
While I don't compete at these levels that attitude somehow rankles my senses.
I believe the Europeans think they have rigged the game to make it more difficult for the Americans because they compete at home on a different playing field. What happens then when we simply continue to lose. Will they continue to change the game to make it even more difficult for the silly Americans that refuse to play by the WC rules..
Good luck with convincing truly competitive souls to spend any time endeavoring towards that attitude! HB~> HB~>
Sounds a little like "Let's just take our marbles and go home". Maybe I'm too old to care anymore! Sport flying sounds more and more attractive. LL~ LL~
Sorry Brett, but while I truly respect your intellect and your modeling abilities, I'm at odds to understand this attitude!
Randy Cuberly
-
Should we then just face the reality that we are going to settle for continued lower placings of our entries in the WC. And the absence of any chance for the team championship trophy to show the world that we believe our way to be the best?
Rephrasing, should we break a system we think is correct so a few people can finish better in one contest every two years? After a single contest didn't turn out the way we wanted (and where other significant factors were also present)? A single contest that a lot of people don't care about too much?
We didn't start giving 40's to bloop-soft maneuvers that happened to wind up at 5 feet just because that what appeared to scoring back in the 80's and 90's - because we thought it was the wrong thing to reward.
There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from approaching stunt however they want. I think we ought to at least agree that there is a problem, what it is, agree on what the solution should be, and what the side effects would be, before we just change it for everyone.
Brett
-
Rephrasing, should we break a system we think is correct so a few people can finish better in one contest every two years? After a single contest didn't turn out the way we wanted (and where other significant factors were also present)? A single contest that a lot of people don't care about too much?
We didn't start giving 40's to bloop-soft maneuvers that happened to wind up at 5 feet just because that what appeared to scoring back in the 80's and 90's - because we thought it was the wrong thing to reward.
There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from approaching stunt however they want. I think we ought to at least agree that there is a problem, what it is, agree on what the solution should be, and what the side effects would be, before we just change it for everyone.
Brett
Again, I am in agreement with you. Our way (the American way) is far superior in every aspect and I will fight to the end to keep our traditions in place. I fully understand what Paul is saying, and if/when I decide to go to another world championships, I will practice accordingly. Who knows what "they" will be looking for by then?
I find it very frustrating, and a little infuriating that some people seem to think the US is done when it comes to world championships. We had a very "green" team this year, and considering everything they had to overcome, they did as good as can be expected. There are so many factors that go into placing well at a world's, many of which have nothing to do with the pattern and how it is flown. There are still politics involved, there are still "favorites", there are weather conditions that can be much different from 8am to 5pm, untested fuel witb no place to get new fuel, and on and on. You can never be too prepared when traveling thousands of miles from home to compete at a world championships. In 2010 I went through every prop I had, two engines, and a wing failure. I barely made the cut for qualifying and ended up 13th. At that time the emphasis was on 5' bottoms and nothing else. Shape, size, and corners appeared to be non factors to the judges...I remember watching the person that ended up winning that year, and thinking to myself, this guy wouldn't make the top 10 at our Nat's.
One thing we can do to help our team is to have our team trials as far from the world's as possible. This will give any future team time to prepare.
-
As an outsider looking in, these comments are more observation than fact - I'll get that out of the way first (oh and i'm a Brit and none of our guys featured so i'm hardly biased LOL!)
Someone mentioned the difference between FAI and AMA rule definitions of corners - FAI rule 4.2.15.4 very clearly states - all turns shall be between 1.5 - 2.1m (roughly 5' - 7') whilst AMA says 'tight'. One is clearly specific, the other subjective and open to interpretation and so if you wish to 'play by the rules' you must fly tighter?
It occurs to me that plane design over the years has / is contributing to the problem in that a smaller plane will turn tighter - simple physics, and (this is MY opinion) a flap equipped plane cannot turn as sharply as one with just elevator control. The latter control gives a snappy response, forcing the plane to rotate about its CG but with flaps you are 'softening' the elev. response by moving the CG whilst turning so making the resultant turn smooth but likely to be more 'open'. Look at combat planes, they don't need flaps to turn tight - it would be interesting to see, if you could slow a combat wing down enough, how the full schedule would look / be scored - probably be done in 2 minutes tops? LL~
One other thing is a strong American tradition of having 'World Finals' or 'World Championships' in sports very popular predominantly only the USA and run under US rules. International teams do enter and do run under the US rules - they prepare accordingly. I can understand that the great majority of stunt flyers have no world aspirations but surely if beginners start flying 'soft' patterns and progress through intermediate and to expert, still flying 'soft, open' flying patterns, flying wide but smooth turns, won't generate future flying 'professionals' who can compete at world level standard - to internationally agreed standards? It is almost equal to competing in a World / Olympic 100m race but all training has been completed over 100 yards!
I'll expect a flaming for some of these thoughts but compared to some of the xenophobic suggestions elsewhere, I don't think they are too outrageous / outlandish?
-
"One thing we can do to help our team is to have our team trials as far from the world's as possible. This will give any future team time to prepare."
Why not take the top five from the Nats as the team plus alternates? ....... I'll stand back and take cover
-
"One thing we can do to help our team is to have our team trials as far from the world's as possible. This will give any future team time to prepare."
Why not take the top five from the Nats as the team plus alternates? ....... I'll stand back and take cover
If you want to pick a team using AMA scoring and rules instead of FAI scoring and rules, sure.
-
"One thing we can do to help our team is to have our team trials as far from the world's as possible. This will give any future team time to prepare."
Why not take the top five from the Nats as the team plus alternates? ....... I'll stand back and take cover
The AMA Mandates that the scoring system and format to pick our team, is similar to the WORLDs and FAI scoring be used, SO you would need another set of judges, and TIME to run another contest at the NATs, there are other reasons, but that one is very hard to do with the time constants of the NATs month
Randy
-
Again, I am in agreement with you. Our way (the American way) is far superior in every aspect and I will fight to the end to keep our traditions in place. I fully understand what Paul is saying, and if/when I decide to go to another world championships, I will practice accordingly. Who knows what "they" will be looking for by then?
Of course, I am not disputing the observation at all. There is no one, anywhere at any time, more capable of determining how to get good scores in a stunt contest than Paul Walker. I am sure he has captured at least one element of the situation and maybe the only one that we have any control over. The key is how we go about controlling it.
I am very troubled with the apparent solution and the reasoning behind it. We, *the pilots*, are going to instruct, direct, or otherwise encourage *the judges* to alter their standards - which we have largely been happy to thrilled with for many years - to fit our perceived notion of what will score well elsewhere? All in order to use our competition as a training series?
As soon as you get the notion in your head that it is the role of the pilots to explicitly lobby the judges for a particular type of result, it is a *very short step* from that to directly lobbying for individual results, or using "post-contest analysis" to sanction the judges for not getting the desired result.
I am pretty sure that everybody knows how that works, unfortunately.
The pilots have two fail-safe and workable ways to influence the judges. One is rule changes. If someone wants to change the rules back to show 5 foot radius, or 1 foot radius, or negative 50 foot radius (because we really really care about corners), then go right ahead. It won't change diddly-squat in practice, but if it doesn't matter either way, it can be put to anything you want with no effect.
I would point out that the "5 foot radius" specification permits the concept that a corner can be "too tight", whereas the "tight as possible" rule (which, by the way, is UNCHANGED from the previous version) does not, it means "tighter is better" down to 0. But if that is not clear or a sticking point, fine with me. It's all moot, because the best anybody anywhere has ever done in a competitive setting is more like 10-11, including all World Champions. Note Paul's comment above - the judges are eyeballing it in 200 milliseconds from 150 feet away, for hours at a time, it just has to look tight. Hence the rule...
The other safe way to influence the judges is by demonstration. Again, the most sterling example of this since I have been doing it is again Paul, who was really the first person to take full advantage of the piped engine performance increase. As noted above, it hit us in the face, and it also hit the judges in the face, "Oh, I get it, THATs what the rules meant". In fact I may have said that to Ted at the 88 Golden State contest after the first practice flight we watched. It had similar effect on the judges, and the days of flat-bottom rounds, 60 degrees high, "polished rock" smooth but swoopy corners was dead forever. It was so obviously more correct that you couldn't see it any other way any more.
In fact, it seemed the judges were paying better attention than the pilots because a lot of pilots sputtered and argued, and a huge fraction of the current participants still haven't grasped the implications. Since that point on, all I have seen is that the closer someone comes to making it look like the drawings in the rule book, the better their results. Which seems to be an ideal condition.
This is particularly relevant to the point, because at least partially as the result of this situation, people *did* start trying to directly lobby or coerce the judges into particular results, and attempted to "sanction" them for results that they didn't agree with. Of course the tactics involved were disgraceful, so even if they had a point about the scoring, that was lost in the litany of insane attempts to "fix" it.
I had and still have pretty serious objections to that - not based on who was doing it, but that anyone was doing it at all. The fact that this time, it might take a less egregious form, or happens to be a genuine attempt to correct a perceived problem, doesn't really address the objection.
I guarantee this discussion is not going unnoticed in the judging corp, and that I think it is perfectly reasonable for the judges to examine their techniques and standards in order to more faithfully execute their function as defined by the rule book. I would hope they would do that without prompting after every flying session, it's an essential part of the craft.
But I am also a firm believer in "it's the judges job to judge, and the pilot's job to fly", and I am very uncomfortable stepping across the line into telling them what to emphasize or not, particularly when we are attempting to chase a potentially moving target. All in an attempt to resolve one aspect of a much larger issue that definitely only affects a few people on infrequent occasions.
Brett
-
If you want to pick a team using AMA scoring and rules instead of FAI scoring and rules, sure.
It doesn't matter. The three best pilots will still win the top 3 spots.
Derek
-
snip
It occurs to me that plane design over the years has / is contributing to the problem in that a smaller plane will turn tighter - simple physics, and (this is MY opinion) a flap equipped plane cannot turn as sharply as one with just elevator control. The latter control gives a snappy response, forcing the plane to rotate about its CG but with flaps you are 'softening' the elev. response by moving the CG whilst turning so making the resultant turn smooth but likely to be more 'open'. Look at combat planes, they don't need flaps to turn tight - it would be interesting to see, if you could slow a combat wing down enough, how the full schedule would look / be scored - probably be done in 2 minutes tops? LL~
snip
I'm a little confused. How is it that deflecting the flaps "...mov[es] the CG..." while turning? Granted flaps rotate up and down about their hinges but their location relative to the Center of Gravity barely budges when they do so. What am I missing there?
Ted
p.s. Attachment merely FYI if Katana is interested in another point of view regarding the various affects of flaps on turn rates...among other performance affecting/enhancing factors.
-
It occurs to me that plane design over the years has / is contributing to the problem in that a smaller plane will turn tighter - simple physics,
It is? Could you maybe show these "simple physics" proving this point? Because when I examine the most daunting limitation, the absolute dimensions of the airplane do not appear.
Brett
p.s. anticipating the next step...
m = mass of airplane (slugs)
v = velocity (airspeed, feet/second)
r = turn radius (feet)
Cl = coefficient of lift (no dimensions)
a = wing area (square feet)
p=rho=density of air (0.00233 slugs/cu ft)
F = mv2/r (force required for radius r)
Lift = 1/2Claρv2 (force available)
when turning the lift will equal the force required to bend the flight path, so equate the two*1
mv2/r=1/2Claρv2
v2 cancels out
m/r=1/2Claρ
divide through by a, define m/a = wing loading Ws(slugs/square foot) *2
Ws/r=1/2Clρ
multiply through by 2
2Ws/r=Clρ
multiply through by r
2Ws=Clρr
divide through by Clρ
2Ws/ Clρ =r
Figure 12 oz/square foot, or 0.02331 slugs/square foot=Ws, air density p - 0.00233 slugs/cubic foot, Cl = 1.4, r = 7 feet. A more realistic set of values is 13 ounces/square foot, and a max Cl of about 1.2, so more like 9 feet. In practice, this is never achieved, because the other issues impede it, particularly the max Cl and how long it takes to rotate to the necessary angle of attack. Measured values have been in the 12-13 foot range for many years, the primary improvements have been in improving the rate of change of Cl.
So, the wing loading, the coefficient of lift, and the air density set the minimum possible turn radius, and it has (to first approximation) no relationship to the absolute dimensions. There are a couple of caveats to that, of course. Other items prevent you from reaching the maximum coefficient of lift, some easily visible in Derek's excellent movie.
Wild Bill did the same derivation about 60 years go. This, whether everyone realizes it or not, is what drove people to build large, light airplanes with giant flaps. This helps the effect derived above, but tends to make some of the other effects much worse.
*1 This is where one of the caveats comes in, investigation left to the reader
*2 This is where another caveat comes in, investigation left to the reader
-
Of course, I am not disputing the observation at all. There is no one, anywhere at any time, more capable of determining how to get good scores in a stunt contest than Paul Walker. I am sure he has captured at least one element of the situation and maybe the only one that we have any control over. The key is how we go about controlling it.
I am very troubled with the apparent solution and the reasoning behind it. We, *the pilots*, are going to instruct, direct, or otherwise encourage *the judges* to alter their standards - which we have largely been happy to thrilled with for many years - to fit our perceived notion of what will score well elsewhere? All in order to use our competition as a training series?
As soon as you get the notion in your head that it is the role of the pilots to explicitly lobby the judges for a particular type of result, it is a *very short step* from that to directly lobbying for individual results, or using "post-contest analysis" to sanction the judges for not getting the desired result.
I am pretty sure that everybody knows how that works, unfortunately.
The pilots have two fail-safe and workable ways to influence the judges. One is rule changes. If someone wants to change the rules back to show 5 foot radius, or 1 foot radius, or negative 50 foot radius (because we really really care about corners), then go right ahead. It won't change diddly-squat in practice, but if it doesn't matter either way, it can be put to anything you want with no effect.
I would point out that the "5 foot radius" specification permits the concept that a corner can be "too tight", whereas the "tight as possible" rule (which, by the way, is UNCHANGED from the previous version) does not, it means "tighter is better" down to 0. But if that is not clear or a sticking point, fine with me. It's all moot, because the best anybody anywhere has ever done in a competitive setting is more like 10-11, including all World Champions. Note Paul's comment above - the judges are eyeballing it in 200 milliseconds from 150 feet away, for hours at a time, it just has to look tight. Hence the rule...
The other safe way to influence the judges is by demonstration. Again, the most sterling example of this since I have been doing it is again Paul, who was really the first person to take full advantage of the piped engine performance increase. As noted above, it hit us in the face, and it also hit the judges in the face, "Oh, I get it, THATs what the rules meant". In fact I may have said that to Ted at the 88 Golden State contest after the first practice flight we watched. It had similar effect on the judges, and the days of flat-bottom rounds, 60 degrees high, "polished rock" smooth but swoopy corners was dead forever. It was so obviously more correct that you couldn't see it any other way any more.
In fact, it seemed the judges were paying better attention than the pilots because a lot of pilots sputtered and argued, and a huge fraction of the current participants still haven't grasped the implications. Since that point on, all I have seen is that the closer someone comes to making it look like the drawings in the rule book, the better their results. Which seems to be an ideal condition.
This is particularly relevant to the point, because at least partially as the result of this situation, people *did* start trying to directly lobby or coerce the judges into particular results, and attempted to "sanction" them for results that they didn't agree with. Of course the tactics involved were disgraceful, so even if they had a point about the scoring, that was lost in the litany of insane attempts to "fix" it.
I had and still have pretty serious objections to that - not based on who was doing it, but that anyone was doing it at all. The fact that this time, it might take a less egregious form, or happens to be a genuine attempt to correct a perceived problem, doesn't really address the objection.
I guarantee this discussion is not going unnoticed in the judging corp, and that I think it is perfectly reasonable for the judges to examine their techniques and standards in order to more faithfully execute their function as defined by the rule book. I would hope they would do that without prompting after every flying session, it's an essential part of the craft.
But I am also a firm believer in "it's the judges job to judge, and the pilot's job to fly", and I am very uncomfortable stepping across the line into telling them what to emphasize or not, particularly when we are attempting to chase a potentially moving target. All in an attempt to resolve one aspect of a much larger issue that definitely only affects a few people on infrequent occasions.
Brett
Just to clarify; yes I agree that Paul changed the way we fly stunt today. I first met him in 1990 and all I ever did was try to replicate his patterns.
I am in no way criticizing judges, here or anywhere else.
Not going to get into the wars from the past. While I agree with a lot you have to say on the matter, I have some of my own opinions...
As far as future teams go, it is going to have to do with who the best pilots that are willing and able to go. We have been very fortunate for many years to have people like Paul, David, and most recently, Orestes who are all great pilots and able to spend the time, money, and effort to do it every 2 years. I would love to do it, but work and family obligations prevent me from doing everything I want to do.
Derek
-
I can't add any technical expertise or advice, just some observation. It has been said that this corner thing is not a new issue and that is correct. Many articles through the years, some by Wild Bill Netzeband about the truth or myth of the 5 foot corner. I think he was the one to attempt to prove it out with lights on airplanes and time laps photography at night, not to mention his articles on the subject. The Humbug series of airplanes was in answer to that issue I believe. It will be addressed and in another 20 or 25 years it will come around on the carousel again, just like the youth problem, new blood in the hobby, places to fly and the always exciting B.O.M discussions. To me it's part of the history of what we do and I try to at least pay attention to the discussions.
We are going through a changing of the guard at the top levels of the event and that isn't new either. This isn't the first "green" team (as some one put it) that has gone to the world champs and it will take a learning curve for the cream to rise to the top, just like it has before. It's just gonna take time and the US has been through dry spells before. Like the old saying goes, "You can't win 'em all." With the wealth of former world champs that are in our midst and the advantage of easy communication these days, lots of information can be transferred from the experienced to those who desire it and want to put forth the effort to put it to use. I think that this will happen, as it has before. I don't know who it will be, but all it will take is some commitment, focus and team work amongst those directly and indirectly involved. I congratulate the USA team that went and did the best they could. That is the first step and the only way to go is up. Any success they achieve from here on out will be that much sweeter, and I think that they are the part of the group that can do it. Who are the others?
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
Just to clarify; yes I agree that Paul changed the way we fly stunt today. I first met him in 1990 and all I ever did was try to replicate his patterns.
I am in no way criticizing judges, here or anywhere else.
Not going to get into the wars from the past. While I agree with a lot you have to say on the matter, I have some of my own opinions...
And just to be clear, I am not accusing anyone of anything here and certainly not Paul, the team, or anybody. It's a case where people of good will can have a legitimate difference of opinion. I sure think we ought to work this one out to general satisfaction before acting, because once the line is crossed it's hard to go back.
In the interim, no one actually needs the judges to force them to do anything. People can improve their cornering on their own volition if they think it is to their advantage in the long run. I also think it will be a disaster for many, because while they are trying to hammer the corners they are going to make a lot of other mistakes - just like the legions of Captain Ahabs before them - but we survived.
Brett
-
I can't believe I just sat here and read all this. Do you think the top pilots of F2B just concentrate on the high factor maneuvers? To win you have to be almost perfect from the start of the engine/motor to when the plane stops rolling. I've seen and done it myself many times giving away points on even the so called simple maneuvers. Placing 3 loops on top of each other with correct entry and exit is not so simple. Also I think with the big [planes that are being flown on the length lines we are limited on would be impossible to do a 5 foot radius and make it smooth. As with any event/sport the judges chosen to do the job do the best they know how. In a perfect world it might be possible to get three judges to come to the same score on an individual. We can't even get most judges to even be close on final scores for the pilot they are judging. Each has his/her pinion of what a maneuver should score in their mind and eye. I know in my case I have been told many times I am not smooth in my patterns. So I fly/compete to help/support the club putting on the event. S?P
-
Why not take the top five from the Nats as the team plus alternates?
I think this would be going in the wrong direction. You want to pick a team that will do best at the WC. That means rewarding airplanes and pilots that do good square eights and triangles, and do them in a given spot regardless of wind direction. It also means enforcing the FAI noise rules. There should be no credit given for homemade or shiny airplanes.
I agree with Brett that we shouldn’t change our AMA contests in an attempt to pick better teams, but our team selection method should focus on picking a team that will do well at the WC. I think we are doing this well. Our 2016 team, for example, had won several team world championships and was made up of three individual world champions.
-
Dam software here. I typed out anoyher long response and it disappeared...gone...no trace.
I will try to replicate.
-
Of course I have some opinions here.
"We can argue for weeks about what radius they CAN do, or the "merits" of the K factor, but that will change NOTHING.
The problem is that in international competition NOW, tight corners score. PERIOD. As has been pointed out, if you can't do tight corners on all the high K maneuvers, you will not score well.
How do we fix this??
I think the only way is for US judges to start recognizing tighter corners and scoring them accordingly. Yes, one has to decide how to judge a perfectly square loop with soft corners versus the same shape but with tighter corners, and then of course a perfect geometry with tight corners but with a slight hop on one corner.
If this paradigm shift doesn't happen, how will we ever get pilots to fly tight corners and expect to compete at the worlds.
We have a few youngsters coming up that still have time to train themselves to do tighter corners. Again, if their tighter corners are not rewarded (as the rules dictate) then they will never develop the muscles and reflexes for future use.
So, if I am all wet, where am I wrong on this?"
I for one do not believe you are "all wet" or "wrong"! I think your summation above is absolutely correct at least for this time period in Stunt if we wish to be competitive in International Competition.
We can argue all day about who's right and who's wrong but that's not going to change the rules or perceptions of the way the maneuvers should be flown. The international rules and perceptions are put in place by an overwhelming majority of people who do not fly by American standards and rules and they are not going to change them for our benefit. Nor, probably, should they. If you wish to play European "Foot ball" you will look pretty silly trying to use "American Football" rules!
I think any other approach is probably nothing more than a "rationalization" and doomed to failure!
If you play their game use their rules or simply don't send a team!
Randy Cuberly
-
Had that happen many times, Paul; now I type my responses in a Word program, then copy and paste them here (at least the long ones I do...). If something happens, you can just recopy and paste again.
Later - Bob
Yeah, It's happened several times to me also! Darned discouraging!!!
Randy Cuberly
-
We can argue all day about who's right and who's wrong but that's not going to change the rules or perceptions of the way the maneuvers should be flown. The international rules and perceptions are put in place by an overwhelming majority of people who do not fly by American standards and rules and they are not going to change them for our benefit. Nor, probably, should they. If you wish to play European "Foot ball" you will look pretty silly trying to use "American Football" rules!
I think any other approach is probably nothing more than a "rationalization" and doomed to failure!
If you play their game use their rules or simply don't send a team!
Who said anything about changing the FAI rules or how they judge? I grant Paul's point in that regard and I don't think anyone should try to "adjust" the FAI rules to meet the pilots expectations any more than we should in AMA. Even if we think they are doing it slightly wrong, it's far better than it was before when it was egregiously and blatantly wrong. Frustration with the WC didn't start 3 days ago.
I would however point out that the rules situation is definitely one-sided and asymmetrical, and intended to be. We are certainly part of the world (in stunt, about half the world, more or less) that the FAI represents and we have every right to be represented (actually should be represented far more than one/country, if it was intended to be representative). The world is not represented, nor intended to be, in the AMA. In any case, I see nowhere in this where anyone thinks or suggests that FAI rule changes are the answer. We have the same influence over the judges we always have, i.e. demonstrate superior approaches and *make them* recognize it. The judges are intellectually honest in the FAI, just like in the AMA.
It's the rest of it I would like to at least discuss before we decide to change everything we have just to finish a bit higher at the WC, which appears to be what is being suggested. Particularly in reaction to one contest result where it is far from clear that cornering was the only issue in play.
I am very surprised by the reaction, Randy, you appear to be accusing me and Derek, at least, of making excuses ex post facto. Don't forget that Derek and I, among others, made conscious decisions in this situation long before the fact. We didn't wait to see how it turned out and then say "screw it, we didn't care anyway" - I said "screw it" something like 5 years ago.
I certainly and categorically refuse to undermine or bad-mouth the effort the team put out, which was extraordinary, or call it some sort of failure in order to promote some sort of a change, just to make myself feel better about the results.
I might have a better perspective on it than some others, having *lost* more contests (frequently to acknowledged masters, many of whom I face every damn time) than most people have participated in. I can assure you that it pisses me off just as much as anyone else, but you haven't heard me making any excuses for it. Any time anyone doesn't like how it turned out, there is only one place to look for the person responsible - the mirror. No one has to make an excuse for it, justify it to anyone else, or apologize. I apply that more to myself than anyone else. Learn more and do better next time.
Paul has a good point about cornering, there are some ideas on how to improve, and if Paul says something, it is worth listening to. I am not willing to start assigning ulterior motives to anyone, and I sure don't appreciate comments that do the same to me. I made my point above, I think it is clear.
Brett
-
I am glad to see this thread taking a more positive and constructive tone. I have advocated numerous times for returning to the 5' radius rule knowing all along that it cannot be done by today's planes or for that matter "practically" by the ships of any era. What I realize now is that what I really meant is that we need an objective standard. Without a standard the Judge cannot deduct for errors or award for excellence...but wait, according to the judges guide there is no award for excellence other than not getting a deduction.
As I have mentally debated this with myself since yesterday, the dilemma that led Brett to come up with the "tight" definition became clear. It is not the size of the corner that matters, it is whether or not it smoothly connects the flats and "tight" is exactly what it should be. How tight doesn't really matter.
Since these positions contradict each other it appears we can do one of three things. 1. Change back to a subjective scoring system (which is not going to happen and seriously, don't we really do that anyway). 2. Redefine "tight" which would be totally pointless. 3. Do not change anything and let F2B take it's own path for those that want and have the ability to participate. My vote in a near 180 is for #3.
At one point I thought PAMPA would grow into the role of selecting and preparing the team, I was wrong. Quite honestly, we need a sponsor and a mechanism to draw from the incredible talent pool of past champions to groom a team without putting too much of a burden on them.
Ken
-
Dam software here. I typed out anoyher long response and it disappeared...gone...no trace.
I will try to replicate.
Happens to me frequently, usually, back-arrow, select all, copy, will retrieve it. I had to do that with one of those above. It seems to have something to do with how long the window is open, more than the size.
Brett
-
I am glad to see this thread taking a more positive and constructive tone. I have advocated numerous times for returning to the 5' radius rule knowing all along that it cannot be done by today's planes or for that matter "practically" by the ships of any era. What I realize now is that what I really meant is that we need an objective standard. Without a standard the Judge cannot deduct for errors or award for excellence...but wait, according to the judges guide there is no award for excellence other than not getting a deduction.
As I have mentally debated this with myself since yesterday, the dilemma that led Brett to come up with the "tight" definition became clear. It is not the size of the corner that matters, it is whether or not it smoothly connects the flats and "tight" is exactly what it should be. How tight doesn't really matter.
Since these positions contradict each other it appears we can do one of three things. 1. Change back to a subjective scoring system (which is not going to happen and seriously, don't we really do that anyway). 2. Redefine "tight" which would be totally pointless. 3. Do not change anything and let F2B take it's own path for those that want and have the ability to participate. My vote in a near 180 is for #3.
At one point I thought PAMPA would grow into the role of selecting and preparing the team, I was wrong. Quite honestly, we need a sponsor and a mechanism to draw from the incredible talent pool of past champions to groom a team without putting too much of a burden on them.
Ken
My only comment here is to say that good coaching for whatever the type of flying is desired would be the best answer. Unfortunately this is a very large country with many miles and little time between most the active participants. At best we might get a few days here and there to work with those who can or will help constructively. That is different than some other smaller countries or situations where a concentration of effort is more likely. Don't know how to solve that.
Dave
-
Since these positions contradict each other it appears we can do one of three things. 1. Change back to a subjective scoring system (which is not going to happen and seriously, don't we really do that anyway).
I am not sure what you mean. Stunt judging was and always will be subjective and all the systems we have ever used are subjective. "Subjective" as opposed to what?
Brett
-
I am not sure what you mean. Stunt judging was and always will be subjective and all the systems we have ever used are subjective. "Subjective" as opposed to what?
Brett
Objective.
Ken
-
If you want to fly in a contest that rewards corners, I’d think you would put some effort into figuring out how to have your airplane make better corners. The analytical tools are readily available.
-
Paul's Quote
The problem is that in international competition NOW, tight corners score. PERIOD. As has been pointed out, if you can't do tight corners on all the high K maneuvers, you will not score well.
How do we fix this??
Brett's response:
It depends on your opinion on what is "broken". I don't necessarily buy the premise that they have it "right" and we are doing it "wrong".
Paul's 2nd response
We are talking about what is happening at the WC's. Right or wrong, corners score there. If you fly there, it is "right"!
Paul's Quote
I think the only way is for US judges to start recognizing tighter corners and scoring them accordingly. Yes, one has to decide how to judge a perfectly square loop with soft corners versus the same shape but with tighter corners, and then of course a perfect geometry with tight corners but with a slight hop on one corner.
If this paradigm shift doesn't happen, how will we ever get pilots to fly tight corners and expect to compete at the worlds.
Brett's response:
I think you are making some assumptions that I think are quite debatable (because I am going to debate them...). You appear to be assuming that the most important goal of stunt is to win the world championship, and that US judge's and flier's goal is to train themselves for competition in the WC. Also, the implication is emphasis on corner radius is both the sole reason for success, and that this is something we are doing wrong that we should be looking to "fix".
I would dispute all of those points. The current apparent (note: apparent) emphasis on corner radius appears to me to be an overreaction to previous, different overemphasis on other standards, specifically 5 foot bottoms, in the era that you couldn't tell the difference between round 8s and square 8s. At the time, many people in the US argued that this was a distortion of the intent of the rules, which have "5 foot altitude" or some equivalent, and then 10,000 other words. For a while, it appeared that they read the first 3 words and ignored the rest. Well, after not inconsiderable lobbying and discussion, and some other factors I decline to discuss in public, now the apparent (note again: apparent) approach is to look at the "5 foot radius" and not really considering the other aspects.
So, it could be argued that the emphasis has shifted from one narrow view to a different, equally narrow view, both of which are mistakes/not really the intent of the rules.
Note that while it is perfectly clear that the emphasis has shifted and you are certainly well-capable of evaluating what it takes to win stunt contests, in the problem at hand, I would contend that there were quite obviously other factors involved. I will decline to discuss them here, for exactly the same reason from the other thread. I think we even discussed it at the NWR this year. But, for sake of argument, let's grant the premise that the way to win "world" contests is to turn tighter.
That doesn't mean that they have it "more correct" than we do, and that we should "fix" US stunt to do it their way. Even if it *is* the way to be successful at the WC, that doesn't mean the emphasis here should change, if we happen to think we/US are doing it more correctly, with a balanced weighting of all the aspects, instead of homing in and providing emphasis on just one aspect. I think the US Nationals judging corp has been very consistent over several decades in weighting the various factors appropriately.
I removed the 5 foot radius words to attempt to reflect this approach - not to "reduce emphasis" but to reflect the recognition that it is physically impossible for any airplane with conventional aerodynamics. And, additionally, to remove the tendency of a few to home in on what appears to be an engineering requirement and forgetting about the rest of it. Which, interestingly, is also the premise I dispute in the current FAI emphasis.
Turning tighter still gets you better scores in the US, too. It's just that it's not the sole determining factor.
Paul's response:
At a recent competition in the NW, you were selected to do a warm up flight (thanks). The expert judges and advanced judges did a warm up flight and scored it. David and I were advanced judges and there were two Nat's judges in this group.
After the flight we went through the scores maneuver by maneuver and all was close until the IS. The expert judges scored 38's, but I had a 34, as well as David. I asked about the 38 score, and they indicated the shape was near perfect, bottom the right height, as well as the upper elevation. However, (my comment), the corners were not tight. I asked them how they would score the exact same maneuver, but with tighter corners. I was met with blank stares. I believed they completely understood what I was saying. David knew!
Unfortunately, this is how I see the Nat's judges. These two had been through Mark's judges training more than once, so it is my conclusion that there is no effort being put forth to adhere the the tight corner requirement.
My bottomnline: All other things being equal, the maneuver with the tighter corner should score higher.
I do not think that we should try to "fix" something in US stunt that we have absolutely no agreement is broken, just to follow the current FAI trend. Nor do I consider US competition as a "AAA Baseball" training league for the WC. I think success in US stunt is at least as legitimate a goal as success in "world" stunt. Now, of course, that might be considered self-serving considering my US success compared to my non-existent "world" success, and I am willing to grant you, Bobby, Billy, David, and Orestes' different perspective, but I bet there are plenty of other people with have *neither* experience that feel the way I do.
Pauil's response:
See my comments previously.
Paul's Quote
We have a few youngsters coming up that still have time to train themselves to do tighter corners. Again, if their tighter corners are not rewarded (as the rules dictate) then they will never develop the muscles and reflexes for future use.
So, if I am all wet, where am I wrong on this?
Brett's response:
Igor is not exactly a spring chicken, and he managed to tighten up drastically since the 2004 NATs when I first met him, so people who want to do it generally have a lot of time to prepare. Turning tighter (without losing everything else) will still help them in the USA. It counts for a lot, here, too - just not everything. Which is what I think it should be.
It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's entirely a matter of opinion where the emphasis should lie.
Paul's response:
It is my opinion that in the US tight corners don't not count for as much as you think based on what I saw earlier this year.
And yes, not everyone aspires to be on the US team. For them the US Nat's is as good as it gets. No need for them to bother learning the hard corners and creating extra problems trimming their planes to accomplish that.
My goal is to inform future US WC pilots what they will run into when they get there. Chris Rudd told me that both Joe and Richard were "suprised" by all the hard corners, and how they scored. If they go more informed, and practiced in that, team members will do better.
Once again, I am not picking on Joe and Richard, I know they did their best. I AM disappointed that they were surprised about the hard corners scoring. I for one didn't want to "preach" to them about how to do it before they left. How to help without being pushy?
Regarding the Team Trials, yes, we definitly should have judges there that will score good, tight corners higher. This should produce a team that will score well. If we send a team that doesn't do tight corners, we will get what we deserve!
-
At a recent competition in the NW, you were selected to do a warm up flight (thanks). The expert judges and advanced judges did a warm up flight and scored it. David and I were advanced judges and there were two Nat's judges in this group.
After the flight we went through the scores maneuver by maneuver and all was close until the IS. The expert judges scored 38's, but I had a 34, as well as David. I asked about the 38 score, and they indicated the shape was near perfect, bottom the right height, as well as the upper elevation. However, (my comment), the corners were not tight. I asked them how they would score the exact same maneuver, but with tighter corners. I was met with blank stares. I believed they completely understood what I was saying. David knew!
Fortunately, they managed to find someone that measured up.
Unfortunately, this is how I see the Nat's judges. These two had been through Mark's judges training more than once, so it is my conclusion that there is no effort being put forth to adhere the the tight corner requirement.My bottomnline: All other things being equal, the maneuver with the tighter corner should score higher.
I agree with the last bit. Of course, to determine if "everything else was equal", you have to be willing to look at everything else, too. That's where the word "emphasis" and "balance" comes in. I don't dispute your assessment of the WC. I might have a different opinion on whether it represents balance or tunnel vision.
My goal is to inform future US WC pilots what they will run into when they get there. Chris Rudd told me that both Joe and Richard were "suprised" by all the hard corners, and how they scored. If they go more informed, and practiced in that, team members will do better.
Once again, I am not picking on Joe and Richard, I know they did their best. I AM disappointed that they were surprised about the hard corners scoring. I for one didn't want to "preach" to them about how to do it before they left. How to help without being pushy?
Regarding the Team Trials, yes, we definitly should have judges there that will score good, tight corners higher. This should produce a team that will score well. If we send a team that doesn't do tight corners, we will get what we deserve!
I mostly agree. Of course, they may have gotten the idea that the hard cornering was not an issue because of the team reports and off-line complaints about the lack of emphasis on corners in favor of 5 feet for the years 1984-2006 or so. They didn't go to the last 3 WC. This is a relatively recent development that probably reflects a combination of previous US Team commentary on the topic, and demonstration of what can be accomplished by other fliers, specifically, Igor.
Trying to improve the individual pilot's performance is a legitimate goal, and I think that is a good area for examination. I also have no doubt that your assesment of the points of emphasis is probably correct as far as it goes, and probably the only factor under the pilot's control. We discussed some other factors at the NWR.
I would point out it is not "we", it is "them". "We", specifically, yourself, David, some of us parochial lesser lights such as me and Derek, all declined to participate. We all had perfectly valid reasons for it so I feel no apologies are required. It did, however, set up a situation where two of the team were flying in their first-ever big FAI contest, with tremendous pressure that comes with having relatively light experience in these sorts of situations. I remember my first Top 5, it was intimidating, and I had flown every local contest against Ted/David/RJ and sometimes Paul for the preceding 25 years. I think they did remarkably well, all things considered.
But I find it very difficult to fault anyone else's efforts (preparation, awareness, performance, style, equipment, or otherwise) if I myself am unwilling to even attempt it.
Brett
-
Brett,
You keep talking about criticizing the performance of the team members, but in re-reading this entire post I saw no mention of criticism toward anyone about their performance!
The entire objective that I did notice was to simply try to establish a way to better inform prospective International competitors of the difference between what one might expect here in the US for scoring and the reality of what would score highest at the worlds.
I'm not at all sure I understand why you seem to take a "protective stance" against any changes in that preparation and seem to think that the status Quo is just fine when admittedly the two very fine gentlemen and fliers on the team that obviously did their very best but admitted that they were surprised by the tight corners there in the competition.
The intention of everything I said was certainly not to criticize anyone or anything but to attempt to simply inspire everyone that wants to compete internationally to be able to afford themselves of specific coaching aimed at that goal by the individuals that are most prepared to have that information; The past National and international champions that we have an abundance of here!
I have attended contests here in the US as a "middle of the pack expert" for many, many years as well as judged at many for more years than I care to think about and the general attitude of many competitors and judges has been that "Smooth Presentation" is the most important aspect of stunt! While I wont necessarily argue with that I have always argued that tight corners should also be a primary goal of the highest scores because it both looks better and is much more difficult to do well!
Obviously some others agree with that premise and it would appear that the WC Judges are, at least for the present, at the head of that line! What's wrong, given that obvious fact, with trying to improve the attitude of both judges and competetitors to be aware of that.
In fact during most of that time while aspiring to fly the tightest corners I was often criticized (because I was obviously not able to do that without errors, bobbles, etc.), and generally always told by others to "back off" on the corners, and concentrate on being smooth. (whatever that means). Not once do I ever remember being afforded of any particular information on how tight corners might be achieved better either by control design or by physical style changes until I read a couple of articles by past national and world champions on the actual physical stance and hand control functions used by the best fliers!
My intention in this post was simply to try to inspire some people to collectively form a group that could provide that kind of coaching.
I don't know if it would even be possible to do so. I'm sure it would be difficult. I'm just as sure that the AMA would be no help. PAMPA was mentioned but frankly I see no real structure in PAMPA that could organize such an undertaking.
Maybe it's just "Pie in the Sky".
If anyone here misconstrued anything I said or wrote to think I was criticizing the performance of any of our team members "My Bad" and I heartily apologize. It was not my intention to do anything like that!
I consider the two Gentlemen in Question to be friends of mine and have the highest possible regard for both of them!
Randy Cuberly
-
From Paul,
"Unfortunately, this is how I see the Nat's judges. These two had been through Mark's judges training more than once, so it is my conclusion that there is no effort being put forth to adhere the the tight corner requirement"
I know from talking to more than one judge, that Mark does put a high value on corners in his training, and warm up flights.
Derek
-
Wen Orestes competed at the 2017 Nat’s. I commented that he was flying FAI in a AMA contest.
He dint understand my comment. He said Draw a square it has no radias in the corner junction
We disused AMA scoring and that his tighter corners would not ganer significantly higher scores that would overcome bottom height differences.
He now agrees his next Nat’s will feature softer corners with an emphasis on 5’ consistent bottoms
Going back to the way he won Back to back Nat’s
Igor and many other pilots can fly very hard corner with excellent corner exits The challenge is with consistent bottom heights.
As to our pilots flying harder corners with their current equipment. It will be very difficult
The entire Chinese team bought Yatsenko Sharks. The Sharks can be adjusted to fly very agreesive corners
1-2-4-5 were all Sharks. The model control system is adjustable to suit the flying style required. AMA or FAI
Two of our flyers used the Kaz blue Max. This model control system could not be adjusted to match the Sharks
We had to add weight to gain corners. The old Bar Bell effect had to be overcome
One of or pilots flew 4.45 laps. Hard to fly precision
To our team defense. A 36 hour delay with over 6 hours sitting on a plane in Iceland dint help
This delays cost 2 team members valuable practice time. They were behind from the bigining
getting a new fuel sorted was also a challenge
In my opinion Electric models should be used for international competition. Electric removes many variables and obstacles that gas planes encounter
Please this is not a negative to the valiant effort put forth by our team
Chris Rudd motor was flawless throughout the contest. Like clock work
Jose modesto
-
Thanks Jose! It sounds like you had a wonderful time in France.
Here is where I am at on the whole thing. I don't think judges should focus on any ONE aspect of the pattern. I don't think someone should get a high score just because they fly violent corners. Now, if you can fly blazing corners while maintaining 45 degrees, good shapes and 4'-6' bottoms, that's one thing.... I have watched videos of many top five flyoffs, and corners are never the thing that separates the winner from the losers, mistakes are!
Derek
-
Thanks Jose! It sounds like you had a wonderful time in France.
Here is where I am at on the whole thing. I don't think judges should focus on any ONE aspect of the pattern. I don't think someone should get a high score just because they fly violent corners. Now, if you can fly blazing corners while maintaining 45 degrees, good shapes and 4'-6' bottoms, that's one thing.... I have watched videos of many top five flyoffs, and corners are never the thing that separates the winner from the losers, mistakes are!
Derek
Of course they won't focus on one aspect only, in general the judging was ok in my opinion.
I did not place very high in final result and I can only blame myself. Looking at the score sheet and remembering my flying I quite agree with the points. Only slightly weird and unfair thing was that judges in grass circle were giving clearly less points on the last qualifying day. At least that's how I feel when comparing my 2 flights in that circle.
Also, I watched many flights, including some US pilots, and I could see the mistakes they made causing them to place lower than better pilots. In general US pilots flew a little large maneuvres with soft corners, and there was also other mistakes, caused for example by turbulent air. L
-
Howard cut combat quality corners with no bobbles. Looked that way to my prevaricating eyes. When I complimented his corners while eating mush at 12th Street, he muttered, “Igor System.”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Derek is right. In the end its all about the mistakes or lack there of that separates the top few spots.
-
Just remember if the airplanes were 1/2 the weight and 1/2 the size they would corner twice as sharp LL~
-
Just remember if the airplanes were 1/2 the weight and 1/2 the size they would corner twice as sharp LL~
If you follow Brett's math from the previous page 1/2 the weight at 1/2 the size would be double the wing loading, which (to first order) would mean twice the turn radius :)
-
If you follow Brett's math from the previous page 1/2 the weight at 1/2 the size would be double the wing loading, which (to first order) would mean twice the turn radius :)
Yep, that makes perfect sense as a Cadillac can surely out turn a Volkswagon. Just as a stunter can out turn a combat wing
-
We got the corners
That make judges scream,
“Ain’t nobody turns
Like the Jive Combat Team.”
-
Just remember if the airplanes were 1/2 the weight and 1/2 the size they would corner twice as sharp LL~
So, say, 32 ounces and 350 square inches (assuming you mean "half" of the wing area). Heavier than a Skyray and 50 less square inches - doesn't sound like a cornering machine to me. But, fortunately we have very simple math to figure it out. That results in *exactly the same wing loading* as, say a 64 ounce 700 square inch airplane, and if everything else was the same (the air density and the Cl), it would result in *exactly the same turn radius*. To the math
Wing area = 700 square inches = 4.86 square feet
Weight = 64 ounces (Impact/40VF) = 4 lbs, mass is 4/32.174 slugs = 0.124 slug
Wing loading Ws = .124 slugs/4.86 square feet = 0.0256 slugs/ft2
Wing area = 350 square inches = 2.43 square feet
Weight = 32 ounces (Impact/40VF) = 2 lbs, mass is 2/32.174 slugs = 0.062 slug
Wing loading Ws = .062 slugs/2.43 square feet = 0.0256 slugs/ft2
minimum turn radius (from lift effects alone)
r = 2Ws/Clp
Being very generous, figure a Cl of 1.5, p is the STP air density of 0.00233 slugs/cubic foot
r=2*0.0256/(1.5*0.00233) = 14.6 feet either way.
If you meant half the linear dimensions and half the weight, then it's much worse - half the linear dimensions results in 1/4 the wing area, so 32 ounces and 175 square inches. You can do the arithmetic, but you know the answer already.
If you want to hit 5 feet, you need to build your full-scale Impact not at 64 ounces (like the one who beat everybody repeatedly to the point Paul got bored with it), but *23 ounces*. That's less than the weight of the engine/pipe, wheels, etc, and much less than the bare airframe weight you could realistically achieve.
This analysis, which anyone since the Wright Brothers on could have done, and Wild Bill and many others did 60 years ago, is probably the source of the "weight is everything" tribal knowledge.
Note also that you are missing one of the caveats before. If you had a shrink ray and could magically scale down an Impact to half the wing area, with the density of all the materials the same, the weight would be *much less than half*. Proof left to the reader. Of course you can't really do that, either.
Brett
-
Yep, that makes perfect sense as a Cadillac can surely out turn a Volkswagon.
Well, since you are a physics fan, cornering in a car is more-or-less the same physical situation, with the lift replaced with the available side-force from the car (which in your example can be assumed to come entirely from the tires). In fact, it explains why adding traction from downforce works better than adding traction by making the car heavier.
And I can assure you that if you go down to your Cadillac dealership this afternoon, every new Cadillac you could buy out-corners any VW bug ever made by a large margin.
Just as a stunter can out turn a combat wing
Is it the size, or the wing loading? Note that for the combat wing, change Cl to about 1.1 or so because you don't have flaps (and the 1.5 for a stunt plane is pretty optimistic and will not be acheived under most circumstances).
Brett
-
Funny how none can see a combat plane turning tighter. A 40 oz Nobler will turn tighter than a modern stunt plane. Just my observation. A short wheelbase is going to turn quicker than a Diesel truck. Pi are round. Bisquets are square.
-
Funny how none can see a combat plane turning tighter. A 40 oz Nobler will turn tighter than a modern stunt plane. Just my observation. A short wheelbase is going to turn quicker than a Diesel truck. Pi are round. Bisquets are square.
What do you mean, "none can see a combat plane turning tighter"? Do the math, the Cl is lower, but the wing loading is much lower, so it turns tighter. Making it smaller makes the wing loading *lower* up to a point, due to the area scaling as the square of the linear dimensions, but the mass scaling as the cube of the linear dimensions.
Your example of "half the size = half the radius" was just wrong, the linear scale factor to get from 350 to 700 square inches is about 71%, meaning you would reduce the span, chord, everything to 71% of the original dimensions. If you had a shrink ray, the weight you might expect is about 22 ounces. But you aren't likely to do that - at which point the wing loading os 0.0176 slugs/square foot, which will give you a turn radius of about 10 feet rather than the original 14.6.
That's what makes it at least conceivable to build these tiny airplanes and fly them on 35 foot lines. It's the math from the caveat you skipped in your rush to play "gotcha" and "engineers are all stupid, they don't know what anybody normal knows, HA HA!"
If you want to dispute the math, show where it is wrong. Mocking me or simple math isn't going to change the reality. And *this math explains where you got your own "if 64 ounces is good, 0 ounces is better* approach to modeling that you are mocking me about. Somebody told you "lighter is better", you adopted that as a way of life - and the analysis above is what that is based on.
Brett
-
Funny how none can see a combat plane turning tighter. A 40 oz Nobler will turn tighter than a modern stunt plane. Just my observation. A short wheelbase is going to turn quicker than a Diesel truck. Pi are round. Bisquets are square.
Combat planes are lighter than Brett’s example.
-
Somebody told you "lighter is better", you adopted that as a way of life - and the analysis above is what that is based on.
Brett
Well, would you agree a 40 Oz Nobler will turn tighter than a modern stunter? You have to have a certain sense of humor to get it.
The longer you stretch the fuse the longer it takes to around the corner. Or is my hick math wrong?
-
Funny how none can see a combat plane turning tighter. A 40 oz Nobler will turn tighter than a modern stunt plane. Just my observation. A short wheelbase is going to turn quicker than a Diesel truck. Pi are round. Bisquets are square.
Someone gets what I was getting at? If a plane, any plane, can't do 5' corners - don't get hung up on it - but what you do turn should 'appear' to be tight, as unless judges are allowed video slow-mo replay with geometry measuring the actual shape is pure assessment / best judgement. I'm curious, flaps obviously assist lift of the wing but does their function make a change of direction sharper or smoother? I ask as neither full size nor RC aerobatic planes don't (to my knowledge) use coupled flaps/elevators for changes of pitch - it is serious question who isn't a qualified aerodynamicist ?
-
Wild Bill Netzeband built a series of flapless 1/2a test airplanes back in the 1980's. He used them to see if they could turn the 5' corner.
One actually did it.
-
Well, would you agree a 40 Oz Nobler will turn tighter than a modern stunter? You have to have a certain sense of humor to get it.
Apparently I am lacking in imagination, but no, it will certainly not. The appearance of the Impact with it's superior cornering is what killed the Nobler approach forever.
Doing the math from above, you get a wing loading that is 0.02 slugs./square foot, which is lower than the wing loading of the Impact. But, given the very inferior airfoil, the maximum Cl will be much lower, say, 1.2 if you are really optimistic. So 14.3 feet.
Note that over the years, people have done measurements of the actual, achieved, corner radius. It hasn't changed for years, the best are always around 13 feet and never exceeds that indicated by the calculation above.
The Nobler and the tens of thousands of "original designs" based on it, was notorious even in the day for "soft corners" and is far from the best example. Read the "Olympic" article, where is says right on the plans how to make it turn "snappy, like Shark" by trimming a large amount from the flaps.
The longer you stretch the fuse the longer it takes to around the corner. Or is my hick math wrong?
What math is that? You haven't shown any.
What I think you are attempting to explain is mentioned previously as Caveat #2. It is also clearly obvious in the movie at the start of the thread. The Cl is a function of the angle of attack (of the *entire airplane*) and the control deflection. To acheive the radius shown before, you have to *instantly* achieve the maximum Cl hold it until the flight path changes (say, 90 degrees), then remove it instantly. Lets be really generous and say you move the handle immediately to the necessary control deflection, to that takes 0 time. Once you do that, the airplane has to rotate. The rotational acceleration is a function of the moment of inertia, and the torque supplied. The lift *doesn't stay constant*, and it's also the "net" lift, which in this case is the lift from the wing (calculated before) MINUS the lift from the tail.
How long it takes the tail to start accelerating the airplane to pitch it around is definitely not zero - sometimes it takes most of the corner, as is shown in Orestes' corners. The math controlling this, and thus how much lift you actually get, is complex and uses calculus. I haven't come close to solving it in "closed form" (i.e. simple equation that can be calculated to generate the time history of either the position or the angle), but I have done it as difference equations that can be piecewise integrated to generate a time history.
But the important thing, and the reason I put in a caveat before, is that *all of these effects act in a direction to reduce the Cl you actually get (and its not remotely constant through the corner) compared to the previous simplistic analysis. Meaning the previous analysis is always going to suggest a tighter turn radius than you are going to actually achieve. So even if you managed to build a 23 ounce Impact, you STILL aren't going to get 5 feet, or at least, it won't be horizontal at 5 foot altitude and vertical at 10 foot altitude. This is because the time it takes to accelerate in rotation is not trivial, in fact, it's the driving effect.
A legion of Captain Ahabs have attempted to harpoon this particular white whale, and have sometimes managed to build airplanes with wing loading necessary to achieve a 5-foot radius using the simplistic analysis. Then they measure it, and it's 9-10-11' and not a "radius" because it takes the entire time to get to the minimum turn radius, more like a parabola getting tighter until it's time to stop.
To your, er, point, the effect Paul was talking to earlier, "making it look tight" requires something other than just looking at the wing loading. One of the breakthroughs along was *making the fuselage longer*, in order to increase the torque available from the tail. This causes the acceleration at the start of the corner to go up, and/or reduces the lift from the tail required and thus it doesn't have as much effect on the net lift for the whole airplane.
Brett
-
LL~ Can't argue with you and you don't need math to see with your eyes. LL~ The soft corner you speak of on a NOBLER is when it reaches the 50 OZ mark and wing loading becomes the same as modern planes.
You are right about one thing, no one can reach a 5-foot radius but you can at least try to make appear as if it was. You speak of a longer tail and you will need it if you have a Briggs or a clay brick in the nose.
I am by no means knocking modern power. The setups of today can't be beaten in the wind where you need max HP.
-
Wild Bill Netzeband built a series of flapless 1/2a test airplanes back in the 1980's. He used them to see if they could turn the 5' corner.
One actually did it.
It was 9 feet, more or less, because of the effect noted above. Baron flew demo flights at the NATs one time, and I think Ted flew at least one version of it. I talked to Bill (who may have built the Pequod himself) about that down at the Bob Palmer one year. Rich Porter did it a bit more extreme, and got it down in the 7 foot range.
The reason they did this was not because of Sparky's "wheelbase" effect. In fact, the airplanes in question (and he build a bunch of them) had greatly extended noses because it was necessary for balance on a 400-ish square inch airplanes with 049s, or larger airplanes with 19s. The reason he made them smaller (although still larger than "half size) was because the weight goes down as the cube of the linear dimensions and the wing area goes down as the square of the wing area, so the wing loading, everything else being equal, goes down as the sizes go down. That runs into some practical limitations hardware at some point, but they sought out the sweet spot and then invoked extreme weight saving measures.
So, they managed to approach the required wing loading, but in the effort they ran into the equally important "crank up" effect. Trying to solve the "crank up" effect had the side effects that they could never overcome - basically, it was impossible to fly reliably in straight lines. This is where they started experimenting with exponential controls in an effort to smooth it out around neutral. The result was that in practice, while it looked really good, it didn't *look* nearly as tight as it really was, sort of the opposite of the Impact effect, and the slow control around neutral made the pilot hand speed a significant limitation.
Brett
-
I have a VHS tape of Wild Bill in his garage talking about the 1/2a airplanes.
He said one of the airplanes would turn a 5' corner.
Are you denying that the airplane turned a 5' corner?
-
LL~ Can't argue with you and you don't need math to see with your eyes. LL~ The soft corner you speak of on a NOBLER is when it reaches the 50 OZ mark and wing loading becomes the same as modern planes.
Uh, no. I guarantee I have flown more Nobler flights than you have. They (or at least the Green Box built to planes) actually appear to turn better at 45-50 ounces than they do at 40 or below, even with a Fox 35. They don't get to the top of the circle as well, but the turn looks much less awkward. It's more or less the same effect we found with the Tucker Special or Profile Cardinal - too much flap. We added *8 ounces* to the Tucker and it turned DRASTICALLY better, not just a little bit.
If you build a Nobler at 40 ounces or less, you can greatly increase the quality and reduce the radius by changing the flap/elevator ratio towards more elevator. The Nobler from "stunting can be smooth" used about 2:5 ratio, that's about what Ted ended up with on his 36-ounce Ares (which is close to a Nobler clone as far as aerodynamics go). Even more so if you use a modern engine. Or, use the solution Gialdini came up with from the "Olympic" article - cut down the flap area drastically. And like Ted and I did on the Profile Cardinal.
Brett
-
I have a VHS tape of Wild Bill in his garage talking about the 1/2a airplanes.
He said one of the airplanes would turn a 5' corner.
Are you denying that the airplane turned a 5' corner?
I am relaying *what Bill Netzeband told me in about 2006*.
I am not going to get into this with you.
Brett
p.s. OK, maybe I will. What Bill actually told me was they had built an airplane (actually several) that would hypothetically achieve the 5 foot radius using the static analysis I derived above. This is the example I gave above. Then, when they actually measured it, it was in the 9 foot range because of the dynamic effects. The reason we were talking about it in the first place was Bill wanting to understand the *dynamic*/finite response issue that causes the "crank-up" issue, ALSO mentioned above. I was *assisting him* in trying to derive the necessary equations of motion, most of which he already had, and a few aspects were missing and explained the difference between the hand calculation and the actual results. I think the part he was missing was the line whip (you have to accelerate the lines around the corner in addition to just the airplane) and static analysis was not adequate. So, look at the tape and see if that is consistent, or not.
In any case, I enjoyed talking to Bill about stuff like this more than just about anyone else. Howard is always on about how his published material was too geared to rules of thumb and over-simplified, but I can assure you, he had done very insightful sophisticated analysis on an amazing number of topics, and it was almost all very well-done, even by the standards I deal with every day professionally. I am indirectly involved in both hiring and evaluating the performance of engineers we get, and you can tell in about a week whether or not they were going to ever "get it", or whether they have any feel for what they are doing, or just treat everything as a math problem with no insight into whatever it is. It has nothing to do with education, and people can get a PHDs and still be hopeless aside from narrow, targeted, tasks. I could tell, talking to Bill for 5 minutes out in Whitter Narrows park, that he "got it" and we could jump past the preamble to go right into it. I still have a engineering pad somewhere where we went over some of the issues - after we decided it was getting too complicated to draw in the dust next to the circle with a stick!
-
Uh, no. I guarantee I have flown more Nobler flights than you have. They (or at least the Green Box built to
Brett
Let's see I Started building and flying Noblers in 69 -never mind it's just not worth arguing with the smartest man on the planet. Just remember YOU DON'T know me or anything of my childhood.
-
Bob Storick;
l'll have the Wiid Bill vhs tape put on a dvd (and send it to you) if you will place it on Stunt hangar.
-
Bob Storick;
l'll have the Wiid Bill vhs tape put on a dvd (and send it to you) if you will place it on Stunt hangar.
You bet!
-
Let's see I Started building and flying Noblers in 69 -never mind it's just not worth arguing with the smartest man on the planet. Just remember YOU DON'T know me or anything of my childhood.
Who said I was "the smartest man on the planet"? Nothing in this thread requires (outside the caveat) anything more than high school math and science class, it's really basic. Most people never really consider things this way, I was trying to help clear up your misapprehensions, but if your "beleifs" are more important than reality, far be it for me to intervene.
I know you think I am doing this to embarrass you, but why would I want to do that? What is the motivation? I don't have a beef with you.
Brett
-
I had a post that failed to post. I think I suggested it would be a good idea for FAI competitors who have first- hand Worlds experience pass on their knowledge gained to the new Team headed for the Worlds.
Good Job, Team USA!
dg
-
I had a post that failed to post. I think I suggested it would be a good idea for FAI competitors who have first- hand Worlds experience pass on their knowledge gained to the new Team headed for the Worlds.
Good Job, Team USA!
dg
I am working on the forum issues today. I hope I can straighten them out if I am smart enough.
-
I had a post that failed to post. I think I suggested it would be a good idea for FAI competitors who have first- hand Worlds experience pass on their knowledge gained to the new Team headed for the Worlds.
Good Job, Team USA!
dg
Thanks Dale!
My very point way back at the beginning of this thread! Some how it all got lost in the arguments about corner radius. The people who should know, like Mr Walker say that the competitors at the worlds need to fly tighter corners. Tighter corners to me doesn't necessarily mean actual mathematically tighter corners but tighter appearing corners. I mentioned earlier that the human mind and eye cannot process visual information fast enough to actually see most of the radius that occurs when a "tight" corner is flown. This is why the radius of the corners appear to be larger when the visual "frames" of the camera action is slowed down. So...arguing whether or not it's physically possible to turn a 5 ft corner with a stunt plane really becomes MOOT!
Still I can tell you after judging thousands of stunt flights over the years that some corners definitely appear to be much tighter than others. the tightest appearing corners I have personally witnessed while judging were at VSC flown by two different gentlemen. The first was none other that Paul Walker flying his "Skylark" at about 4.3 second laps and the other was Masaru Hiki flying his USA AMA at about 4.2 second laps. In both cases the corners simply appeared to be a "flash" change of direction. In all cases (and I believe this to be a very important part of the effect) they were followed by perfectly straight lines with no bobbles or wiggles or secondary adjustment in direction necessary. This gave the appearance of perfect squares!, even though I know that they could not physically have been! I'm also very aware from my own experience at trying to duplicate that feat that the skill required to perform this consistently is beyond all but the very best of us that fly stunt (one of which I am definitely NOT!).
I suggest then that the discussion should should be how to achieve the passage of knowledge and coaching to allow those who wish to participate to try to achieve this
visual effect! Incidentally it has a very desirable effect on scores here in the USA also. Not to mention the gasps and disbelief from the bystanders that witness it in a flight!
As for the discussion that earlier centered around the US National Championships and that the pattern should be a complete presentation with no errors (or at least as few errors as possible) most certainly that is germane to the conversation but does not take into consideration that the scoring process of International competition is very heavily weighted to a few maneuvers with corners and straight lines!
Randy Cuberly
-
To lighten this up a bit you might find it humorous to know just where the "five foot radius rule" came from at the start of the modern pattern in 1958. I got this directly from the man who was commissioned by the AMA to design the "new" pattern in 1957.
I visited George Aldrich at his home in 1996 to do a video interview. I asked him about designing the pattern and he told me that a friend of his (I believe it was Ross McMullen...) and he had finished the actual maneuver selection and sequence. George then suggested that they needed to put a radius stipulation on the corner maneuvers. George asked his friend how tight the model was turning, and he said, "It looks to be about a five foot radius to me." That's what George wrote down and submitted...
Even back then the radius to the naked eye in real time "looked" to be about five feet. George told me after relating that story that he wished he had just stipulated, "...a tight but smooth corner." And, as Paul Harvey used to say, that's the rest of the story.
Bob Hunt
It would have been nice if he had wrote 14 or 15 foot radius . Something that could be done, I have measured corners for decades and I think about 14 foot is the tightest I have ever seen ( well except for when I flew Rich's 1/2 A VooDoos) This would be much better , in my opinion, than just tight corner, That could mean anything to many different people. I still think the AMA rules should reflect a number, like 14 foot radius.
And it seems, contrary to what many believe, there have been many flyers trying for very hard corners for Decades now, At least since I have been watching and flying for near 50 years.
And I will also add this to the conversation, it is not only the tight 5 ft radius corners that are causing some US pilots scoring problems with the FAI scoring system, it is the High K factors these maneuvers with corners have, To get upwards to the top, you have to get great scores on the square, and corning maneuvers
Regards
Randy
-
It would have been nice if he had wrote 14 or 15 foot radius . Something that could be done, I have measured corners for decades and I think about 14 foot is the tightest I have ever seen ( well except for when I flew Rich's 1/2 A VooDoos) This would be much better , in my opinion, than just tight corner, That could mean anything to many different people. I still think the AMA rules should reflect a number, like 14 foot radius.
And it seems, contrary to what many believe, there have been many flyers trying for very hard corners for Decades now, At least since I have been watching and flying for near 50 years.
Regards
Randy
While I don't completely disagree I do think that such wording would result in an effect that would increase the average corners way beyond 14 ft! In fact I would expect that if you talk to some people who deliberately fly softer corners now to gain more "control" and "Smoothness" to their maneuvers they would tell you that they fly 14 to 15 ft corners now! At least that has been my personal experience with a lot of "local" expert fliers when I've questioned them about corners!
Randy Cuberly
-
While I don't completely disagree I do think that such wording would result in an effect that would increase the average corners way beyond 14 ft! In fact I would expect that if you talk to some people who deliberately fly softer corners now to gain more "control" and "Smoothness" to their maneuvers they would tell you that they fly 14 to 15 ft corners now! At least that has been my personal experience with a lot of "local" expert fliers when I've questioned them about corners!
Randy Cuberly
A 14 foot radius corner IS what People call a blinding corner , so Judges and pilots that know what they are looking at should know better
Regards
Randy
-
. George then suggested that they needed to put a radius stipulation on the corner maneuvers. George asked his friend how tight the model was turning, and he said, "It looks to be about a five foot radius to me." That's what George wrote down and submitted...
Even back then the radius to the naked eye in real time "looked" to be about five feet. George told me after relating that story that he wished he had just stipulated, "...a tight but smooth corner."
Which is also where I got the idea for the rule book. I never heard why they or someone else didn't just change it as desired in the ~50 years it existed. The "5 foot rule" (or the "14 foot rule" or whatever number you put in) gives an *illusion* of a real measurement or specification, with absolutely no way to evaluate it. The judges have to eyeball it from 170 feet away in a split second, for hours on end, and assign some sort of a number to that and everything else, in a few seconds. As noted above, if it looks tighter, and that's about all you can do. How much to weight it VS size, precision, and other geometry errors, is where the art comes in.
Change it to *zero*, it won't make any difference, people who are competitive do it as tight as they think they can manage without screwing something else up and it's not the same from day to day or even maneuver to maneuver. How much to weight it is a point of evaluation for the pilot. It is their job to try to give the judges what they are looking for - which also varies from day to day, either.
GMA definitely had a different idea on how it should be done than most people have today - everything should be smooth and flowing, and you should
sneak into the maneuvers to smooth it out. That's why I didn't put his suggestion in verbatim. That may have been the same thread where he ripped Ted and I (1st and 3rd place at the 2000 NATs) for flying too small and "harshly" and offered that Jim Silhavy would have beaten us easily with his left hand, or something like that. Made that first fly-off extra special for me, I have to say.
Brett
-
A 14 foot radius corner IS what People call a blinding corner , so Judges and pilots that know what they are looking at should know better
Regards
Randy
Yeah! Well I'm of the opinion that most generally DON'T!
How are we going to educate them when a lot of these guys don't even follow Forums etc. and their only contact with other competitors is at local contests. Sorry but I live in the real world! I believe that "real world" is what truly dominates perception of the way things should be!
Randy Cuberly
-
Yeah! Well I'm of the opinion that most generally DON'T!
How are we going to educate them when a lot of these guys don't even follow Forums etc. and their only contact with other competitors is at local contests. Sorry but I live in the real world! I believe that "real world" is what truly dominates perception of the way things should be!
Randy Cuberly
Well you maybe right that some pilots do not know what a sharp corner is, or they do not know a 5 foot radius is not being done, However I do know from speaking to dozens of top pilots, that they do indeed know what a sharp corner is, and they all also know that no one is doing a 5 foot radius, So I have a hard time believing anyone capable of getting on the team, would not know what a sharp corner is, and that they are indeed NOT turning a 5 foot radius corner in their pattern.
I do agree with you that we should have some sort of program to train, or help any team member that wants to take advantage of something like you suggested, but implementation is difficult
Regards
Randy
-
Why not select the team for the next Worlds now so they have time to prepare for it. The way it's done now the team has a month or so.
-
Why not select the team for the next Worlds now so they have time to prepare for it. The way it's done now the team has a month or so.
It's usually done approximately a year ahead of time, like Labor day weekend in 2019 for the July 2020 WC.
Brett
-
Well you maybe right that some pilots do not know what a sharp corner is, or they do not know a 5 foot radius is not being done, However I do know from speaking to dozens of top pilots, that they do indeed know what a sharp corner is, and they all also know that no one is doing a 5 foot radius, So I have a hard time believing anyone capable of getting on the team, would not know what a sharp corner is, and that they are indeed NOT turning a 5 foot radius corner in their pattern.
I do agree with you that we should have some sort of program to train, or help any team member that wants to take advantage of something like you suggested, but implementation is difficult
Regards
Randy
Well, I agree in principle to what you said. I do not think you or I or anyone else for that matter knows who might be able to make the team 5 to 10 years from now. Or even if there will be a team that far into the future! I will predict however that if WE can't put something in place to change the current trend then Paul's suggestion of getting used to losing will be a fact!
As I said before, I agree that establishing an organization to accomplish the kind of training required will be difficult. There are people within the stunt community that could do it. I believe the Chinese have such an organization (Probably supported by their Government) and it's possible that some of the European countries still do. Certainly several used to have such organizations.
Randy Cuberly
-
As I said before, I agree that establishing an organization to accomplish the kind of training required will be difficult. There are people within the stunt community that could do it. I believe the Chinese have such an organization (Probably supported by their Government) and it's possible that some of the European countries still do. Certainly several used to have such organizations.
You mean like the judge-training organization that was going to provide legions of uniformly qualified Nats judges? Organizations are made of individuals, of which only a handful are qualified to help. I suppose we could raise money to send team members to Napa or the WSR for training.