<!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 6.00.2900.2668" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #8000ff; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 bgColor=#ffffff leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>To add to what you say I spent a flying session on
Monday trying to see what a plane will and will not do. Even with ridiculously
high roll throws I could come nowhere near the roll rate that a snap-roll
exhibits. Adding just rudder and aileron never showed a break and just aileron
and elevator was plain ugly.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>I could snap-roll pretty effectively with elevator and
rudder but it was hard to stop it at level.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>I did see a lot of examples that were not snaps and
began to believe that pictures, especially moving pictures could do a much
better job than all of thousands or word written about this his stuff. It
is 2000 plus. we have the technology???</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>One closing point is that if a stall-turn is
better envisaged as a hammerhead, then would it not be much easier to see this
as a "Flick-roll". And lastly what really is a break????? The plane flies like a
boat with a rudder on the back.....!!!.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>Regards,</FONT></DIV><FONT color=#000000>
<DIV><BR>Eric.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=BUDDYonRC@aol.com
href="mailto:BUDDYonRC@aol.com">BUDDYonRC@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, August 04, 2005 10:39
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Performance Judging? (how
did we get where we are)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2><FONT
id=role_document face=Arial color=#8000ff size=2>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> I believe that the present quality of judging has / is improving
except in some areas that inject a measure of personal opinion driven by
errors in interpretation and definition that tend to magnify the error factor
in contest scores.</DIV>
<DIV>It seems to me that the controversy about score differences was
escalated when, a few years ago people complained about
weather snaps and spins being performed by FAI pilots were to fast and
the question arose as to weather they were not actually doing a snap or just a
fast roll. Much emphasis was placed on a judging criteria to determine
the correct methods to assure that those particular maneuvers were judged
correctly.</DIV>
<DIV>Due to the human factor, inconsistencies filtered down to all classes and
since most of the snap maneuvers are high K-factor this fact has resulted in
skewing scores to the point where the ability due to
personal opinion for some judges to accurately distinguish the correctly
performed maneuver is resulting in an error factor which
decreases the probability of selecting the proper results in
a contest. </DIV>
<DIV>This leads me to believe that the descriptions of actual performance
requirements is much better than the ability to judge them correctly in many
cases and makes me wonder if descriptions which fall in this area are actually
an obstacle that leads to a worse situation when our goal is to determine
the best pilot.</DIV>
<DIV> Two choices exist to minimize our situation, 1. Eliminate the
problem maneuvers. The AMA rule description is somewhat confusing at best
and in fact incorrect or misleading if taken literally I believe the FAI
rules provide a much better description ("At the start of a
snap-roll, the fuselage attitude must show a definite break and
separation from the flight path, before the rotation is started." ) instead of
the AMA rule which says (" Since the maneuver is defined as a stall maneuver
(induced by a rapid stall of the wing induced by a change in pitch
attitude"), <U>The nose of the fuselage should show a definite break from
the flight path in the direction of the snap while the track closely maintains
the flight path. </U> </DIV>
<DIV>In reality the nose and the tail should show a definite break in attitude
(the angle of the model in relation to the flight path) from the flight path.
</DIV>
<DIV>I think wording of the AMA rule overlooking this reality is a
primary cause which results in many of the errors in scoring and in fact in
relation to less experienced judges actually foster it.</DIV>
<DIV>2. Make an all out effort to correct the description and judge training
in this area.</DIV>
<DIV>Many newly trained judges actually award a higher score for a rapid
barrel roll than they do for a well done snap that is done at a higher speed
and actually zero many if them incorrectly.</DIV>
<DIV>Likewise another area which results in large point spread errors with
less experienced judges is their lack of firmiluarity with the geometric
requirements of the maneuvers.</DIV>
<DIV>Spin entry is another problem area that must be addressed that is also a
culprit that in many cases is judged incorrectly. </DIV>
<DIV>We have a ways to go guys but the effort will be rewarded, look where we
were a few years ago and I believe you will agree we have come a long way
toward improving the system.</DIV>
<DIV>Just a few of my thoughts and a lot of rambling on in an effort to
get you to thinking of solutions and the means to an end.</DIV>
<DIV>Buddy </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></FONT></BODY></HTML>