Thread Tools
Dec 30, 2017, 08:43 PM
Scale Aircraft = Scale Crators
mikejr83's Avatar
Name: FSSScoring2017.PNG
Views: 21
Size: 148.6 KB
Description:

WOW! This was an awesome year!

I want to point out how many novice pilots we had this year. I can only attribute that to our friends over in St. Augustine. It's been so fun having you come. Huge shout out to Mike Pouge! This guy is close to being able to run a master class on competing with that Radian XL. The only drawback is that y'all will now be experts!

Looking at the results I really wish that we would have had some of our experts at more of the contests. I'm not knocking participation by anyone! I just think it would have been a much different set of results in the pilot classifications if Brayden would have had one more contest and we found a way to have a few more contests convenient to Paul Parret's location. I think we're all going to have to watch out for Brayden. Dude shows up after flying K all year and starts kicking tail! Hopefully we'll see more of Dillon next year. If he's not jetsetting off the UK, that is. It was awesome to see him come out for the last contest of the year after only flying team selects a few months before and win!

I went to all but one contest this year. I really had a blast. I am already looking forward to the busy start of the year with all the soaring events in January and February. I'll see you there!
Latest blog entry: Finished My Sbach 342!
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Dec 30, 2017, 08:50 PM
Registered User
raed5's Avatar
It is going to be nice to have more Masters I can beat with my Radian in ALES :-)
Also we are talking about hosting F3RES and F5J contests. It is indeed going to be an interesting year.
Raed
Dec 30, 2017, 09:04 PM
400' is a bad winch launch.
Miami Mike's Avatar
Mike, you finished first in Expert, which makes sense to me since you flew really well. Congratulations!

I finished second, which doesn't seem right since it seems like in most of the contests I wound up somewhere in the middle, but as Woody Allen is credited with saying, "Showing up is 80 percent of life."



I wonder if we can get more data. I'd like to know the averages for the contests that were scored.

Raed, F5J sounds interesting since I already have the plane for it. I might also get into F3-RES if it catches on.
Latest blog entry: List of Threads About HR 302
Dec 31, 2017, 08:10 AM
roxaneandjohn's Avatar
Mike P. is about to finish up Brayden's old Xperience Pro. Just a few adjustments and it will be in the air; then Y'all better watch out. The wife has put our 18 calendar together around flying contest this year so I hope to make a few more contest and improve. Thanks Raed for carrying the torch and making it all happen. You are the "man of the year". Going to venture out and try some "J" and some "B" and hope to try some NAT'S, '3RES and '5J before this new one is over. With the lowest average in the Masters Class I've got a tough road to travel. We have a very energetic group of glider drivers here in St Augustine and invite you folks to come fly with us. Informally we fly Thursday and Saturdays usually 'till about lunch, so come on out! Steve - sorry I bumped your wing last contest - I'm a very dangerous man.
Dec 31, 2017, 09:15 AM
Registered User
raed5's Avatar

L7 landing


We are at it again!
Dave Millonig and I had a few email conversations back and forth, about soaring in general, the topic of landings is our latest, Dave feels a scale like landing would be more appropriate for electrics and wood models because dork landings and skegs are not practical with these type of models.
I am suggesting we bring back the L7 landing, also called "graduated runway" in the AMA rules, for woody and electrics (upto 4 channel) with a few modifications:
-Make the runway 25 ft long (same as our 100 point tape)
-Use our old measuring sticks with 100, 75, 50, an 25 point gradutaions.
-For woodys, and electrics, RE, RES, REE or RESE only qualify, basically excluding models like an Xplorer electric. (sorry Mike N, Mike G, Jody, John, ...)
-No dorks
-No skegs

I would like to implement this at FSS 1 if we can agree to it.
Raed
Dec 31, 2017, 09:51 AM
400' is a bad winch launch.
Miami Mike's Avatar
I miss the old "runway" type landings, but we changed due to pressure from those involved in international competitions. I personally might not be too opposed to going back, even though it could (1) compromise our attendance by out-of-state fliers, and (2) confuse those here in Florida who also compete out of state, but I don't think different landing rules for different model types is going to work.

Maybe we could work out a solution similar to our current "mixed" competition rules, where we adjust parameters in an attempt to create a level playing field. You'd be allowed to choose your type of landing, no matter what your pilot class or model type, but the point measuring system for the "L7 / runway" landing would be adjusted in an attempt to achieve equality and fairness.

But that's not a suggestion, just an idea that I think would be better than what you're purposing. All in all, I don't think this is going to work out.

By the way, remember that the Punta Gorda guys had different landing requirements for different pilot classes, and FSS ultimately ruled that out. There was no way to fairly reclassify pilots who were being scored under different rules.
Latest blog entry: List of Threads About HR 302
Dec 31, 2017, 10:30 AM
Registered User
Tenderfoot's Avatar
Mike,

I think that your idea of a landing choice could work very well. The biggest complaint that I have heard is that motors, woodies and monokote don't handle "abrupt" landings comfortably. Being one of the "non-abrupt landings" guys flying a full house, your idea of choice appeals to me. As far as confusing -- I don't agree -- if you have a choice, you can choose either way and not change anything from your normal routine. My understanding of the previously used measuring stick is there was limited delineation in awarded points. Keeping nearly the same length stick increased to 50 inches would allow a 2 point per inch delineation. Love to hear from more folks.

Dave Millonig
Dec 31, 2017, 10:55 AM
Pompano Hill Flyers
Radian's Avatar

L7 vs Target Circle.


Gentlemen

I do believe a good compromise is possible here. One criteria that I feel must be met is the landing task must be equal to all.

To make that happen, I feel we can use the older "L7" landing along a line task... With the addition that dork landing are allowed. The main change is: Instead of a landing target circle. The 100 point spot is now a long 25' line that is only a few inches wide. You can land any way you want as long as you are upright and don't shed parts.
Also our current rules regarding contacting timers/pilots or others should be in effect. I feel this is a strong safety rule and very sensible.

This would better accommodate those with electric or "built up wings" while still supporting those who favor the F3J style landings.

The scoring would be the same. Those who strive to land "F3J" like, can target the middle of the L7 line.

Or maybe.... What if we overlap the two landing targets. The Tape in the middle of the L7 line... Take the best landing points by either method. Humm?
This way you can run your landing either way and the task and scoring would be the same for all pilots.

Radian
www.phflyers.com
Dec 31, 2017, 11:11 AM
400' is a bad winch launch.
Miami Mike's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenderfoot
As far as confusing -- I don't agree -- if you have a choice, you can choose either way and not change anything from your normal routine.
When I wrote "confusing" I was referring to the scenario that Raed outlined, but then I described an alternate method where you'd have a choice. In other words, I don't agree that you don't agree. On the contrary, you do agree! As you say, if you have a choice, you can choose either way and not change anything from your normal routine.

But my primary point is not that I don't like the idea, it's that I anticipate a lot of opposition. The best policy is probably to conform with the rest of the USA.

And one other point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by raed5
I would like to implement this at FSS 1 if we can agree to it.
Changes like this should not be made in haste. You can't expect people to adopt a new way of landing in less than three weeks.
Latest blog entry: List of Threads About HR 302
Dec 31, 2017, 11:48 AM
400' is a bad winch launch.
Miami Mike's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radian
Or maybe.... What if we overlap the two landing targets. The Tape in the middle of the L7 line... Take the best landing points by either method. Humm?
This way you can run your landing either way and the task and scoring would be the same for all pilots.
... or maybe by both methods combined.

In real life With full-scale sailplanes, spot landings aren't the main objective, it's staying close to the runway center line. However, it's also important to not come down in a corn field or slide into something at the end of the runway. So maybe landings should be scored partially by how close you are to the center line and partially by how close you are to the target spot. We could combine the two with a complicated mathematical formula. Timers would be required to carry a protractor and scientific calculator along with their stopwatches.

But then: https://youtu.be/2NS7Gkv4NNA?t=33
Latest blog entry: List of Threads About HR 302
Dec 31, 2017, 11:53 AM
Registered User
Good job sickmike you deserve it .
Dec 31, 2017, 12:32 PM
Registered User
ThermalBuster's Avatar
Mike,

The average for the scored contests is the same as the overall average if fewer than 10 contests were flown. The average for those who flew more than 10 contest is their total score divided by 10.
Dec 31, 2017, 01:01 PM
400' is a bad winch launch.
Miami Mike's Avatar
Hi Rick!

So that explains why I'm ranked much higher than I know I deserve to be. I can see counting only the best 10 contests as a reward for participation, but total score for more than ten contests, divided by 10, is not an "average" by any definition. It should be the total score for the best ten contests divided by 10.

My score should be lower, but I can't tell what it should be because I don't know the total score of my best ten contests.
Latest blog entry: List of Threads About HR 302
Dec 31, 2017, 01:50 PM
Registered User
ThermalBuster's Avatar
Mike,

You are ranked right where you ought to be. The points shown are your 10 highest contest scores. Your reward for participation was that you had two lower scored contests that were thrown out.

By definition the yearly average is the average of all contests flown. So, since you flew 12 contests, your yearly average is the total of all twelve divided by twelve. That is lower than your 10 score average because of the lower scores on the two throw out contests.

Notice that the yearly average for those who flew 10 or fewer contests is simply their accumulated points divided by the number of contests.

Hope this helps.

Rick


Quote:
Originally Posted by Miami Mike
Hi Rick!

So that explains why I'm ranked much higher than I know I deserve to be. I can see counting only the best 10 contests as a reward for participation, but total score for more than ten contests, divided by 10, is not an "average" by any definition. It should be the total score for the best ten contests divided by 10.

My score should be lower, but I can't tell what it should be because I don't know the total score of my best ten contests.
Dec 31, 2017, 02:19 PM
400' is a bad winch launch.
Miami Mike's Avatar
Okay, I get it. My yearly total (what I mistakenly thought you meant by "total score") must have been about 9816 and I must have averaged about 634 in my worst two contests.
Last edited by Miami Mike; Dec 31, 2017 at 02:24 PM.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools