<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=569424014-29072004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Hi
Earl,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=569424014-29072004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>You've
laid out even more good stuff for us to chew on.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=569424014-29072004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=569424014-29072004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I have
to say, that I share Tony's concern about an insufficient number
of distance judges. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=569424014-29072004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>More
importantly, I feel like certain carefully maintained areas of doubt and
uncertainty are good for promoting a healthy variation of style. You put your
finger on it in the 3rd paragraph, below. There is a "distance police" approach,
and then there is the "give me, the judge, the best seat in the movie
theater" approach. This approach is "not too ..." (You remember the commercial,
don't you?) What is it "not too"? Well, it's not too far to see the
details (failing eyesight not withstanding). It's not too close that
maneuvers get rushed or crowded. It's not so close that the top of the box is
violated. It's not so close that the apparent geometry is horribly keystoned.
This one is my favorite, though ... it's not fake close. What's fake close?
It's the practice of angling in to put the center maneuvers on the 150M pole,
and then angling out to make room at the end poles. I figure that
a small downgrade for each entry and exit heading discourages that
quickly.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=569424014-29072004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=569424014-29072004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>While
there is no place on the scoresheet for either disgression or intelligence, if
the wind is blowing, like at the Nats, then disgression or
intelligence will have the better-scoring pilot out at 175 or so, and using the
extral 5 MPH, that such a distance allows, to minimize the crab
angles. Also, the rules we have were first written for little 60-ships. The fat
2-M stuff generally presents well at 170 M.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=569424014-29072004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=569424014-29072004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>What's
really curious is your observation about fashions in distance. We have all seen
the race to the bottom, when one flyer moves things in to the point of
pain: a hurried pace (no lines between maneuvers) and geometric
compromises. It always amazed me when a whole bunch of flyers would
then follow suit: flying in a place and style they hadn't prepared for.
Hunters used to stampede buffalo off cliffs that way. Of course, it wouldn't
have happened if judges concentrated on good presentation and geometry as
opposed to some slavish attention to a number (or the notion that closer is
harder and therefor better). Do you remember that the book originally said
100 meters? The Japanese showed up in Flevehoff in '85 flying at 100 meters and
80 degrees wide! Back then, the book used to say <EM>about</EM> 60 degrees, as
well.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=569424014-29072004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=569424014-29072004></SPAN><SPAN class=569424014-29072004><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>The rolling circle issue is another, altogether.
Since, as Earl correctly points out, the book makes no exception for
these maneuvers, we have a nearly impossible situation. What happened, is that
everyone accepted that "fact" and almost no one judges distance for the
rollers. What's needed is a spec, that is still tough, but doable. Let's say 250
meters. If you start at 150 m, and hit 250 at the apex, that's a 1030 foot
circumference. At 75 MPH (110 feet/second) that's 9.3 seconds for the lap.
That's plenty of time for 3 or 4 rolls. Even so, it will be tight and very
tough to make them look smooth. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=569424014-29072004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=569424014-29072004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>We
have some holes in the rule book, and a lot of problems could be helped by
evaluating maneuvers with respect to Precision, Smoothness, and Placement in
that order. Oh yes, the fourth item in that list (general section of the Judges'
Guide) is Size relative to the entire flight and other maneuvers. What does that
even mean, any more?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=569424014-29072004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=569424014-29072004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Regards to All,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=569424014-29072004> <FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Dean P</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> discussion-request@nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Earl
Haury<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, July 29, 2004 9:56 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Discussion
List, NSRCA<BR><B>Subject:</B> Proper Distance<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Distance in pattern has been (and still is) one
of the great unknowns. (Spins & snaps are the others.) There are varied
individual definitions of what is proper, regardless of how much clarity or
definition is inserted into the rules. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I've been around long enough to see the trend
move in and out several times, often the out times are well outside of the
rules. Then there are times when others decide that there are more points in
really tight! </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>Unfortunately, distance out is
hard for the both the pilot and the judge to discern with accuracy.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A pilot can practice with spotters to establish a
good feel for distance. That "feel" comes both with visible size recognition
and time from box line to box line at the "comfort" speed. In too close and
one is rushed or must slow below the "sweet spot" speed, too far out and the
opposite occurs. So the pilot has the opportunity to tune for his / her chosen
distance</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It seems that, on the judges side, there are
distance police. Anything that might be approaching the limit is downgraded by
them. Then there are others that don't downgrade if they can see (or
hear) something out there! More evidence that distance evaluation is
difficult, especially when viewing airplanes of different size, visibility,
and speed. Maybe the only was to achieve judging accuracy regarding distance
is to use a "distance judge" at 175 & 200m and let them assign distance
downgrades? Seems that the variable application (with good intentions) of
distance downgrades presently experienced dictate consideration of an
alternative method.
<DIV></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From the judges chair I find very few close in
flights accurate or smooth. There are usually inaccuracies brought on by lack
of time, box violations, and errors forced by wind. The good thing about these
is that they are over quickly. Out flights often have better maneuvers as the
pilot has more time, box violations are few, and wind effect is better
handled (and/or less noticeable). But they do take forever and the
distance downgrades offset the advantages. So what to do? Take a clue from the
rules "for a large, highly visible model aircraft a line of flight
approximately 175m in front of the competitor may be appropriate". Judges take
note of the "in front of the competitor" statement, as the judges are 7 to 10m
behind the competitor. This moves the acceptable flight line 7 to 10m further
away, so 185m (from the judges) is not to be downgraded for the large models
(anybody seen small models lately). </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>Even the
rolling circle distance issues can then be handled by rolling in then. A 100
to 125m roller in would still leave a 50+m buffer between the pilot and
airplane.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So - consider that the rules are OK. Big
airplanes are best flown at the outer range of the rules. Some judges may
need help in accurately assessing distance. Maybe a distance judge would help.
There are no benefits and more risks to flying too close if to only appease
"inaccurate" distance police. Hmmm - imagine that, flying within the rules
gets the best score..</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Earl</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>