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!
Topic: The corner conversation... (Read 8108 times)