Welcome Guest! To enable all features please try to register or login.
2 Pages<12
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Kevin Wilson  
#16 Posted : Wednesday, December 6, 2017 3:27:14 PM(UTC)
Kevin Wilson

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 159
United States

Thanks: 74 times
Was thanked: 60 time(s) in 35 post(s)
Weren't the K factors for rollers increased quite a bit a few years back?
Offline Steve Stanton  
#17 Posted : Wednesday, December 6, 2017 3:36:08 PM(UTC)
Steve Stanton

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 261
United States

Thanks: 28 times
Was thanked: 126 time(s) in 61 post(s)
Sorry, I thought we were just having a simple and civil conversation about something I think is an issue.
I wasn't suggesting that anyone take their time or effort away from "more pressing matters".
I would urge anyone following this thread that has more pressing matters not to spend their time
commenting on it.
As for the issue, an argument has already been made that a Half Cuban Eight provides more length of travel than
a 90 degree turn and as a result, exposes the pilot to more opportunity for error and that is certainly true.
The problem is that the theory or argument for, is not born out by reality,
The scores for the 90 degree rolling turn are consistently lower than they are for the Half Cuban. That alone
suggests that there is an inequity in the K value assigned to the 90 degree rolling turn compare to a Half Cuban.
As for what should or should not be done about it ; If there is enough interest, it will get done.
In any event, I'm sure it could wait until we take care of the "more pressing matters".
Offline Steven Brentson  
#18 Posted : Wednesday, December 6, 2017 4:56:44 PM(UTC)
Steven Brentson

Rank: Member

Posts: 29
United States

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 9 post(s)
My previous post was tongue-in-cheek. I had suggested that the K values be inversely proportional to the actual difficulty of the maneuver. That would effectively overly penalize mistakes made on easy maneuvers.

But here's a more practical side of that: The inverse is also true. In the case of the roller, if you're claiming that the K-value under-represents the difficulty of the maneuver and everyone seems to be botching it, then you benefit from not being penalized as much as you should.

But I'm with Steve on this one. The raw score doesn't reflect the difficulty of the maneuver given the relative K-value. Do I think it should change? No. It's still a level playing field. Everyone is subject to the same rules. The (rare) competitor who has a clean, consistent roller is probably not getting the full credit she deserves. But likely the individual who nails the roller every time is also crushing all the way through the sequence. Final scores will still place that competitor on top. Adjusting the K-value for rollers really only affects the competitor who can somehow put up a 10 on the roller but bleed points everywhere else.
Offline Chuck Edwards  
#19 Posted : Thursday, December 7, 2017 3:13:40 AM(UTC)
Chuck Edwards

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 284
United States

Thanks: 109 times
Was thanked: 70 time(s) in 46 post(s)
Damn those Pattern guys A.J...

I see both sides of the argument on changing things to Better fit IMAC. If we start changing things too much it becomes a very slippery slope that could lead us into the bowels of Precision Aerobatics (Pattern). If we want to strive to be more like our big brothers of IAC, maybe we should look at limiting our power to weight ratio so that it is more realistic. After all, that is what most of you that are arguing against change hang your hats on....
Charles Edwards
TEAM FUTABA
Professional UAS pilot.
Putting the Man in Unmanned.
It takes less time to do something right
than to explain why it was done wrong.
HWL.
Offline Silver Fox  
#20 Posted : Thursday, December 7, 2017 9:18:41 AM(UTC)
Silver Fox

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 443
United States

Thanks: 75 times
Was thanked: 154 time(s) in 99 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Chuck Edwards Go to Quoted Post
Damn those Pattern guys A.J...

I see both sides of the argument on changing things to Better fit IMAC. If we start changing things too much it becomes a very slippery slope that could lead us into the bowels of Precision Aerobatics (Pattern). If we want to strive to be more like our big brothers of IAC, maybe we should look at limiting our power to weight ratio so that it is more realistic. After all, that is what most of you that are arguing against change hang your hats on....
Hey Chuck.... I'm surprised that no one has as yet pondered on TWO significant difference between the two organizations......Especially you, who have been a proponent of one of them.

Firstly....... The IAC uses a box for their competition, while we moved in a different direction (i.e. without a defined box), in 2007.
Positioning Airspace1.jpg (99kb) downloaded 2 time(s).

Secondly...... The IAC HAS a defined system for their "Positioning Score" and we have not adapted their system as yet.
Positioning Airspace.jpg (489kb) downloaded 5 time(s).

The Third difference, in addition to the above two.....is that the IAC requires the pilot to "wag" the wings just prior to entering the box. AMA Scale Aerobatics rules requires the pilot to make a verbal declaration for the "attempt".
In the past, IMAC had required the "wagging of the wings" in the rules, but this was changed quite some time ago.
Wayne
To know the road ahead........ Ask those coming back.! (Chinese Proverb)
www.sewbusy.com
Offline Chuck Edwards  
#21 Posted : Thursday, December 7, 2017 9:31:23 AM(UTC)
Chuck Edwards

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 284
United States

Thanks: 109 times
Was thanked: 70 time(s) in 46 post(s)
Wayne,

I was unaware of the wing wag rule. As far as the rest of it goes, we both know I have beat that proverbial horse to death 100 times over! Lol. Having said that, why in the hell don’t we implement the aerobatic box??? I know Curtis will respond with we don’t have enough judges to properly judge the back of the box! As with the rest of the things that are subjective, we would just have to do our best as judges... No one wants to hear that though.... Thanks Wayne! Miss you buddy
Charles Edwards
TEAM FUTABA
Professional UAS pilot.
Putting the Man in Unmanned.
It takes less time to do something right
than to explain why it was done wrong.
HWL.
Offline Earle Andrews  
#22 Posted : Thursday, December 7, 2017 9:48:44 AM(UTC)
Earle Andrews

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 236
United States

Thanks: 151 times
Was thanked: 114 time(s) in 55 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Chuck Edwards Go to Quoted Post
Damn those Pattern guys A.J...

I see both sides of the argument on changing things to Better fit IMAC. If we start changing things too much it becomes a very slippery slope that could lead us into the bowels of Precision Aerobatics (Pattern). If we want to strive to be more like our big brothers of IAC, maybe we should look at limiting our power to weight ratio so that it is more realistic. After all, that is what most of you that are arguing against change hang your hats on....

Chuck.....I seriously doubt if anyone is hanging there hat on the power-to-weight ratio as an argument against change. I pointed it out as an issue that relates to the K factors in full scale vs what we perceive as difficult, or not in IMAC flying.

Although it would be an interesting experiment to have a contest where thrust to weight was limited to the aircraft's RTF weight. Energy managment would come into play, as it does in full scale. Matt Balaz, I and others discussed this a year or so ago as a "special" contest with static judging of the model also playing into the results.

Oh....and God help us if we delve into the "Bowels of Pattern" LOL
Offline Earle Andrews  
#23 Posted : Thursday, December 7, 2017 9:51:22 AM(UTC)
Earle Andrews

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 236
United States

Thanks: 151 times
Was thanked: 114 time(s) in 55 post(s)
Wayne....Would love to have the wing-wag as a rule....but think some would get lost doing it!!!Flapper
Offline Silver Fox  
#24 Posted : Thursday, December 7, 2017 10:45:35 AM(UTC)
Silver Fox

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 443
United States

Thanks: 75 times
Was thanked: 154 time(s) in 99 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Earle Andrews Go to Quoted Post
Wayne....Would love to have the wing-wag as a rule....but think some would get lost doing it!!!Flapper
Yup.... Then there would be another bone of contention with changing the rules if the "wing wag" were to be re-introduced. Blink No one can win! Can't please everyone.Brick wall
W

To know the road ahead........ Ask those coming back.! (Chinese Proverb)
www.sewbusy.com
Offline Kevin Wilson  
#25 Posted : Thursday, December 7, 2017 11:39:55 AM(UTC)
Kevin Wilson

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 159
United States

Thanks: 74 times
Was thanked: 60 time(s) in 35 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Earle Andrews Go to Quoted Post
Wayne....Would love to have the wing-wag as a rule....but think some would get lost doing it!!!Flapper


I'm not sure why it went away, but I do remember that it was optional. You could either wag or verbally declare.
Offline Earle Andrews  
#26 Posted : Thursday, December 7, 2017 11:57:04 AM(UTC)
Earle Andrews

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 236
United States

Thanks: 151 times
Was thanked: 114 time(s) in 55 post(s)
Think I'll start doing them anyway.....brings back memories!
Offline Brad  
#27 Posted : Thursday, December 7, 2017 12:07:11 PM(UTC)
Brad

Rank: Advanced Member

Medals: Board of Directors

Posts: 462
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 90 time(s) in 45 post(s)
Just do the wag before you make the vocal declaration, or I'll deduct points beginning with the departure from horizontal, level flight LOL

Brad
Offline Earle Andrews  
#28 Posted : Thursday, December 7, 2017 1:03:05 PM(UTC)
Earle Andrews

Rank: Advanced Member

Posts: 236
United States

Thanks: 151 times
Was thanked: 114 time(s) in 55 post(s)
I'll do like the Ole days.....come diving into the box, throttle WFO, three big-assed wags, pull level, begin!
2 Pages<12
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error