<!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><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></BODY></HTML>