Judging Question/Does the Rule Book address?

Let's say you have two flyers. We will look at the inside squares.

Flyer #1: The manuever is flown exactly the correct size. The consectutive manuevers are in exactly the same place. All legs of the square are at exactly parallel and perpindicular to the ground as they should be. The corners are very soft and rounded but there are no wiggles whatsoever.

Flyer#2: Same as flyer #1 except the corners are very sharp. Each corner has a noticable bobble as the airplane exits the hard corner.

Which scores higher. By the rulebook.

Slow day at work?

Look, in order to answer questions like this is exactly why we have contests.

There is just no way for me to give you an honest answer based upon the information supplied.

There is a tie-breaker, however: Who has the best Pit Tootsie?

Yes, you have hit on the subjective nature of this event.

This exact situation you described will be played out over and over again at the World Champs. There are MANY different styles there, and until the scores are up, no one can answer your question.

If you look through para. 9.1, the maneuver descriptions, and 15.1.4 place a lot of emphasis on shape. A square loop that does not have really sharp corners isn't a square, so it obviously should score significantly lower. A square flown with 5 ft. corners would really look like a square. The corner radius would be down in the range of the "width of the pen" so to speak. 15 ft. or larger corners make it look like a soggy loaf of bread.

>Let's say you have two flyers. We will look at the inside
>squares.
>
>Flyer #1: The manuever is flown exactly the correct size.
>The consectutive manuevers are in exactly the same place.
>All legs of the square are at exactly parallel and
>perpindicular to the ground as they should be. The corners
>are very soft and rounded but there are no wiggles
>whatsoever.
>
>Flyer#2: Same as flyer #1 except the corners are very
>sharp. Each corner has a noticable bobble as the airplane
>exits the hard corner.
>
>Which scores higher. By the rulebook.

Can't tell from your description. It depends on the magnitiude of the various errors.

LAST EDITED ON Jun-23-04 AT 05:53 AM (CDT)
 
Hi!

I'd say that what you're talking about really falls in with what is commonly called "Impression points".

As we well know, what the plane looks like going through the pattern, has a great deal to do with how the judges will score a flight. The same goes for the overall impression that the pilot makes while flying the plane.

How many times have we heard comments about how fast, slow, crisp,or soft someone has flown the pattern, without any comment about how close to "rule book standards" the flight was made?

We've all seen and known guys who benefited from or were hurt by, the recognized or unrecognized "impression" that the plane/pilot made on the judges. Therefor, my advice to ANY competitor would have to be to have that plane trimmed as well as possible, not only because it'll FLY better but because it'll look better doing it.

It might also be a good idea to check out what the judges are looking for in a presentation. As we all know, our best pilots are capable of presenting almost any variation of flying style that the judges seem to be buying on any particular day.

I think that Bob Baron was a flyer who appreciated and was frustrated by these issues, as have been many others.

My bet is that a poorly trimmed plane would produce much poorer scores than a smooth flying one, from almost any judge.

Don't forget, those of us who have been around for a while have lived through countless cycles of big planes, small planes, loud planes, quiet planes, pipe planes, white pants, on and on and on. Each variation on the theme providing an advantage or disadvantage, reflected in a flyers scores.

Your question is about like asking: "what might happen if I went to this years Nats and put in a Walker Cup winning quality flight with a Twister?" The fact is, that you would get a "Twister quality" score.

Kinda like flying a Patternmaster on the West Coast or an SV-11 in Joisey. We're all judged as much for how we look like as for how well we do.

Bigs

" What constitutes the dignity of a craft is that it creates a fellowship, that it binds men together and fashions for them a common language. For there is but one problem - the problem of human relations."

LAST EDITED ON Jun-23-04 AT 10:53 AM (CDT)
 
Snip.. Chop chop
Your question is about like asking: "what might happen if I went to this years Nats and put in a Walker Cup winning quality flight with a Twister?" The fact is, that you
would get a "Twister quality" score.

- Now i Either have to disagree with what your implying here, OR.. Just totally disagree with the statement..
A twister is a profile, 35 - 40 Sized plane correct??

I get the impression, your implying, If you fly a great flight with the twister you wont be as compeditive score wise, with those flying more conventional machines??

I beleive If you fly a pattern Correctly, no bounce, clean exits, correct shapes. high scores will flow down your score sheet.

Ive seen some NATS WINNING flights put in with a "profile 40"

Hey I'll bite........
The guy flying the MUSTANG!

>Hi!
>
>I'd say that what you're talking about really falls in with
>what is commonly called "Impression points".

No it does not.

I do not get this. I have watched people debate a SINGLE DEGREE in the clover, and which one was correct, but no one will touch which of these two mistakes should be scored? This is not subjective, it is very objective. Judges are responsible for judging bobbles, and judges are also responsible for assessing correct shapes (which include corners). The idea that this portion of the judging is purely "subjective" is a complete mystery to me.

In my OPINION, each flyer would receive the same score, as they had the same amount of mistakes.

>The idea that this portion of the judging is
>purely "subjective" is a complete mystery to me.
>

Indeed it is.

LAST EDITED ON Jun-23-04 AT 09:20 PM (CDT)
 
Ok...

Mayhaps I misunderstood what was meant by a "bobble".

If the corner is cleanly flown in both cases, then the judge has to score the manuever as he or she sees fit.

If the faster plane OVERTURNS the corner thats another matter and a MISTAKE.

If the plane scribes a correct arc through the corner but BOBBLES, that is another matter entirely because the plane's jiggling around will make you look like a poor pilot and further subject to the judges IMPRESSION of your flight.

Hows that?

Bigs

" What constitutes the dignity of a craft is that it creates a fellowship, that it binds men together and fashions for them a common language. For there is but one problem - the problem of human relations."

>In my OPINION, each flyer would receive the same score, as
>they had the same amount of mistakes.

Brad,

I think there is a reason that there has not been a direct answer to your question. In your mind, you have described a scenario that all else being equal in the way the square maneuver is flown, the only difference is one has sharp corners with bobbles, the other has a "smoother shape" (as in no bobbles in the corners) but softer corners and the errors in the one case will have the same deduction as the errors in the other, hence a similar score. What your scenario does not address and the judges must assess is the degree of error for each error made. Were each of the bobbles barely noticable, or were they really significant and were they precisely the same in severity? Were the corners fairly distinct but not really sharp or were they really soft and were they all the same? It is for these sort of discriminators that it is impossible to set up a recipe book type of error assessment that says if a pilot does such and such, or does something at the same time he should have done something else in a different manner, that a certain score should automatically be given. There are errors and there are degrees of errors. Is this subjective? Most definitely. Is it a part of the event? Most definitely. Can it be improved? Most definitely with trained, experienced conscientious judges. Is there a recipe solution to this? Only if you want to write a tome the size of a NY phone book and have every judge memorize every word in it, and even then, it might take such a volume for every maneuver and even then, every possible combination would still not be covered.

When I am judging and see a pilot execute sharp corners with the sacrifice that some precision and/or smoothness is lost, I will give that pilot credit with a higher score for flying a more difficult maneuver than the pilot who flies smoother but with exceptionally soft corners. But here, as I tried to explain above, it depends on how erratic the corners are in the one case or how soft the corners are in the other case.

I am not trying to start an argument here, but the way you describe the square loops in your first post of this thread does not describe how a square loop is to be flown. You describe a square loop where all legs of the maneuver are exactly parallel and perpindeuclar to the ground. The rulebook does not describe the square loops that way. The vertical sides are not parallel, in fact the rulebook does not even define those paths to be vertical. Nor are all four corners the same. The rulebook is very careful to explain that the two bottom corners are the same and the two top corners are the same, but the rulebook correctly does not specify that the top corners need to be the same as the bottom corners.

This just goes to show that we have trouble even defining in the rulebook how a maneuver is to be flown. It would be even more difficult to define how to assess and score every possible error and every possible combination of errors for any maneuver. It really surprises me to see people trying to establish some means to automatically score a maneuver. It just does not work that way.

>I am not trying to start an argument here, but the way you
>describe the square loops in your first post of this thread
>does not describe how a square loop is to be flown. You
>describe a square loop where all legs of the maneuver are
>exactly parallel and perpindeuclar to the ground. The
>rulebook does not describe the square loops that way. The
>vertical sides are not parallel, in fact the rulebook does
>not even define those paths to be vertical. Nor are all
>four corners the same. The rulebook is very careful to
>explain that the two bottom corners are the same and the two
>top corners are the same, but the rulebook correctly does
>not specify that the top corners need to be the same as the
>bottom corners.

Huh?

What would be square about it then?

>Huh?
>
>What would be square about it then?

Well, let's see here. It is possible to define a square shaped maneuver on the surface of a sphere where all four sides are the same length and all four corners are the same angle. Such a figure would be about as close to a square as it could be. All four sides would be great circle paths. And all four corners will be equal but will NOT be 90-degrees. To the pilot, they might appear to be 90-degrees but they will all be something greater than 90-degrees (meaning that the model does not have to turn a full 90-degrees to properly execute each of the four equal angles). This happens as soon as you put that four sided figure with four equal sides on the surface of a sphere. The bigger this "square" is with respect to the size of the hemisphere, the greater each of those equal angles will be (again meaning that the model has to turn less and less than 90-dgress). If one of those great circle paths is at the equator of our hemisphere (~five feet) then the sides will not be perpindicular to the ground. Our rule book does not define our square loops this way. The sides are not to be perpindicular to the ground. The top side is to be a constant 45-degree line elevation, not a great circle path as the base and the two sides are supposed to be. So in terms of a square loop with all four sides the same and all four angles being the same, our rulebook square loops are not "square".

(The square horizontal eight defined in the rulebook is a far cry from joinging two truly squre loops together, but this has nothing to do with the question at hand.)

Interesting question. One needs to study the rulebook and think about what is going on. So to answer your question, the rule book square loop is not square in terms of four equal sides and four equal angles.

>When I am judging and see a pilot execute sharp corners with
>the sacrifice that some precision and/or smoothness is lost,
>I will give that pilot credit with a higher score for flying
>a more difficult maneuver than the pilot who flies smoother
>but with exceptionally soft corners. But here, as I tried
>to explain above, it depends on how erratic the corners are
>in the one case or how soft the corners are in the other
>case.

Do you train other judges to score the same way?

So, you are saying that if you were judging with PJ, and a flyer flew a square that was perfect, smooth, no bobbles and soft in the corners, PJ would score me high and you would score me low.

The next guy flies and does just the opposite.

Who would be right?

The way I see it, this is not a subjective thing, it is simply poorly defined. I think either way is fine, but EVERYONE should agree that one is better than the other. To have judges scoring from opposite philosphies is simply too frustrating for the flier, he simply does NOT KNOW WHO TO BELIEVE OR WHY.

For Dan,

I have noticed that you seem to like to point who you feel "gets it" and "don't get it". I have seen this approach in several threads now, aimed at several different posters. In fact, you have made comments to me in the form of "so-and-so says you are for real" or "you have proved yourself worthy" or something to that effect.

I think that is pretty interesting...

>
>>When I am judging and see a pilot execute sharp corners with
>>the sacrifice that some precision and/or smoothness is lost,
>>I will give that pilot credit with a higher score for flying
>>a more difficult maneuver than the pilot who flies smoother
>>but with exceptionally soft corners. But here, as I tried
>>to explain above, it depends on how erratic the corners are
>>in the one case or how soft the corners are in the other
>>case.
>
>Do you train other judges to score the same way?
>

In the stunt clinics that I have run and in the judges' training sessions that I have been involved with at the Nats and Team Trials, this is one of the things that I discuss. Smoothness is good, but so are crisp corners. And as I said, the score awarded a square maneuver will depend on the severity of boobles (if any) as well as the sofness of the corners. What I try to stress is that the judges should award the pilot who is presenting a maneuver as described by the rule book which does not even mention smoothness.

>So, you are saying that if you were judging with PJ, and a
>flyer flew a square that was perfect, smooth, no bobbles and
>soft in the corners, PJ would score me high and you would
>score me low.
>
>The next guy flies and does just the opposite.
>
>Who would be right?

What I am saying is that each judge has to work out in his own mind what his standards are recognizing that the rulebook emphasizes sizes, shapes, intersections and bottoms. (In this context, shapes mean sharp corners for those maneuver where they are specified.) It is interesting that smoothness is not emphasized in the current AMA judges' guide nor is smoohness emphasized in the new judges' guide that will be in the 2005 AMA rulebook. It is also interesting to go back to some articles written over the years by Bob Hunt that the properly flown pattern has some violent stuff in it that could not necessarily be characterized as smooth. So, a judge needs to work out what he can in his own mind to resolve what the rulebook requires and how he assigns points to a maneuver.
>
>The way I see it, this is not a subjective thing, it is
>simply poorly defined. I think either way is fine, but
>EVERYONE should agree that one is better than the other. To
>have judges scoring from opposite philosphies is simply too
>frustrating for the flier, he simply does NOT KNOW WHO TO
>BELIEVE OR WHY.

The other thing that I am saying is that there is no recipe standard on how to award points for a manuever. I truly think that there is a problem, not just in this country, but throughout the world, that the smooth pattern will unnecessarily be scored higher than a pattern that is flown closer to the rulebook parameters. Properly flown eights will normally be scored down because they "look too small" while most, even really great pilots fly their eights too big and that has become a "standard". Properly flown four leaf clovers will normally be scored down in this country because they will look too big because everybody here (notice I did not say the rest of the world) overemphasizes the size of the loops to be signifcantly smaller than 45-degree diameters (because of the 38 degree elevation entry level) and flies all of the loops too small. I do not think it is a matter of the rules being "simply poorly defined." It is more a matter of not judgeing how the rules specify how each maneuver is to be flown. The new judges' guide is a step in the right direction to give the judges additional tools to score a pattern.

If the rules are poorly defined, then please offer something specific that will better define them. A prerequisite for doing so would be to have a good understanding of the current rules and what is going on as a model is maneuverd on the surface of a sphere.

>>Hi!
>>
>>I'd say that what you're talking about really falls in with
>>what is commonly called "Impression points".
>
>No it does not.

You are right. Impression would be the OVERALL feel the pilot is giving off as the pattern progresses. You know the very clean and controlled look or the rushed a cramped look.
>
>I do not get this. I have watched people debate a SINGLE
>DEGREE in the clover, and which one was correct, but no one
>will touch which of these two mistakes should be scored?
>This is not subjective, it is very objective. Judges are
>responsible for judging bobbles, and judges are also
>responsible for assessing correct shapes (which include
>corners). The idea that this portion of the judging is
>purely "subjective" is a complete mystery to me.

It isnt really a mistery at all. There are those who like the smooth look and those who like the sharp look. They know what the book says but when they see what they LIKE then they score it better it is just nature and the subjectivity comes into play here big time. That is why there are many judges.

>
>In my OPINION, each flyer would receive the same score, as
>they had the same amount of mistakes.

Would they really? I agree with you. However I bet I would give the smooth one more points without really knowing I was doing it. Say this happened in the course of twenty judged patterns. Most are snappy with bobbles and all of a sudden here comes one that is in the 45 degree mark like the snappies but it is smoother and "looking" more in control. Sure it will get more points. And vice versa. You have a bunch of soft patterns and then one that is killer hard all within the same sizes the hard one will really stand out.

A big part of it depends on how much of a bobble you are talking about and how soft the corner is.

>>Hi!
>>
>>I'd say that what you're talking about really falls in with
>>what is commonly called "Impression points".
>
>No it does not.
>
>I do not get this. I have watched people debate a SINGLE
>DEGREE in the clover, and which one was correct, but no one
>will touch which of these two mistakes should be scored?
>This is not subjective, it is very objective. Judges are
>responsible for judging bobbles, and judges are also
>responsible for assessing correct shapes (which include
>corners). The idea that this portion of the judging is
>purely "subjective" is a complete mystery to me.
>
>In my OPINION, each flyer would receive the same score, as
>they had the same amount of mistakes.

No, it depends on how soft versus how big the bobble was. You can't count errors one point at a time. You have to judge how big one error was versus another. They might be the same quantity of errors - but the MAGNITUDE of the deduction for each error is a subjective judgement. Without seeing it, there's no way at all to tell which should score better.

LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-04 AT 09:22 PM (CDT)
 
>It might also be a good idea to check out what the judges
>are looking for in a presentation. As we all know, our best
>pilots are capable of presenting almost any variation of
>flying style that the judges seem to be buying on any
>particular day.

Dont do this ever. Sorry to be so blunt about it. But if you go to contests and check out what all the different judges like you will never be able to nail down a good pattern. You will spend to much time trying to fly for them and not flying it correct by the book. The closer you get to the book the better you score. As a pilot you should work on YOUR pattern. You take it to them and if it doesnt score well you analize it ask why and match the answers to the book. If you get answers that dont coincide with the book dont listen to them and keep after the book. The book dictates what you should bring to the contest. Worrying about what the judges are looking for that day will only ruin all the practice you have been putting in.

>Kinda like flying a Patternmaster on the West Coast or an
>SV-11 in Joisey. We're all judged as much for how we look
>like as for how well we do.
>
>Bigs

I am retracting my original statement here after doing some thinking. I fly a plane that doesnt really have a classic "Standard" Paint scheme and I am not one of the long time standing pros I got ONE HELL OF A FAIR SHAKE AT THE NATS when I entered Open for the first time. They were fair and I got a fair shot at the title just like everyone else.

They see a good flight white pants or not they score it good!

>Your question is about like asking: "what might happen if I
>went to this years Nats and put in a Walker Cup winning
>quality flight with a Twister?" The fact is, that you would
>get a "Twister quality" score.

Nonsense. If it's a good flight at the NATs, it will get a good score. Period, no if's and's, or buts. If I thought I could do a more accurate pattern with a Twister, I would have *absolutely no hesitation* in flying it at the NATs in Open. I don't think you will find any frequent NATs qualifier who thinks otherwise. NATs judging is incredibly fair, and consistent, and has in almost all cases nothing at all to do with who it is or what they are flying. I challenge you to find a Top 20 flier who has anything bad to say. It's *uncannily* good.

I have no idea what your recent NATs experience might be, but I would have to conclude from these comments that it's extremely minimal - because you are so far off base that you couldn't have been paying attention, at least in the last 10 years or so.

Good flights get good scores. Period. Any comments to the contrary are, at best, misinformed.

If you would like, please find me at the NATs this year, introduce yourself (since I don't know your real name) and we can watch a few flights and I will happily point out why particular flights scored well and others did not. It will have NOTHING AT ALL to do with "impression" or fame

By the way, the original question is not a matter of impression i any sense of the word which I am familiar. There is a element of subjective judgement in how much to take off for one versus the other, but after NATs judges training I would be willing to bet that all the judges rank the maneuvers the same way. These are are two variations on shape errors - without comparing the actual degree of the errors there is no way to make any judgement which is worse.

>Kinda like flying a Patternmaster on the West Coast or an
>SV-11 in Joisey. We're all judged as much for how we look
>like as for how well we do.
>

No one gives a Pea Turkey Poop what anyone flies. I have encouraged at least a few local fliers, here on the West coast, to fly Patternmasters. Not because they are intrinsically better or worse, or whether or not it happened to be designed on the East Coast - but because these flier's Patternmasters flew better than the other airplanes they had, and would thus yield a better score. Unless you are *very very experienced*, design *does not matter*, and the type of engine *hardly matters*; it's how well they are set up and work.

Occasionally, at local contests with inexperienced judges, you do get what appears to be an anomaly now and then. But I think those anomalies seem to have a lot more to do with "who" rather than "what".

I agree with Brett. The Nats is the best run, fairest contest you'll see, and it's flown at the best stunt facility you'll see. If you fly well there, you'll make it to the top even if your airplane looks like a bunch of billboards flying in formation.

>I agree with Brett. The Nats is the best run, fairest
>contest you'll see, and it's flown at the best stunt
>facility you'll see. If you fly well there, you'll make it
>to the top even if your airplane looks like a bunch of
>billboards flying in formation.

Or even if you're a combat flier, for goodness sake! That's gotta be worse than flying a Twister.

> If you fly well there, you'll make it
>to the top even if your airplane looks like a bunch of
>billboards flying in formation.

Howard,

That was a good one. If my name was Brett, I would say "touche!"

I totally agree with what brett so bluntly said .

If its a good flight, at any nats, you will be scored accordinly.

As someone said to me in a pervious post about "flat bottomdecks" appearing better than something with a curved surface he said :
" it happens to fast and its to far away to be influenced all U do is judge what you see. "

I couldnt agree more. Judging is a ##### hard task, and Its impossible for a judge to think to himself " oh thats a twister.. mm id give that a 9 if he was flying a patternmaster.. ill give it a 7.5 "

It just happens to fast.

In answer to your 1st question tho.. My gut feeling would be, Place the empahsis on shape 1st.. If the 1st guy puts in a decent SHAPE.. but the courner are soft, then he would score slightly higher than a Square that was tight, but had bobbles in ever turn, If you think about what SHAPE that would take, it wouldn't resemble a square as much, and would appear "out of control"
yet a smooth, softly defined vertical climb, top section and bottoms, would leave a smoother impression.
Im not saying either are correct.. and I fully understand what poit your trying to make, I agree with everyone else, its to hard to give a specific answer, my gut would be the better shape would score better.

This isnt really helping anyone tho ! You fly to the rule book and thats that.

One last point, Someone said " top flyers seem to change there flying style to suit judges " or words to that effect.

Only one word to reply. "RUBBISH"
The "top guys" practice ONE pattern only, as close to the rulebook as they physically can. It takes imcredible timing to get pullouts to the correct heigh.. To get 45' heights consitant. Its jsut no possilbe to then think during a flight " ohh this jugde likes 50' tops and 6ft bottoms, ill change my style to suit, It throws your timing out to much.

I think i know why this comment was made. If a "top flyer" wins a certain amount of contests.. then you may think its because he/she is changing the style to suit the judges. My feeling would be, The "top flyer" would win no matter who was judging, or what he/She was flying becasue : they are a "top flyer"

My 2 cents.

For Dan,

I have noticed that you seem to like to point who you feel "gets it" and "don't get it". I have seen this approach in several threads now, aimed at several different posters. In fact, you have made comments to me in the form of "so-and-so says you are for real" or "you have proved yourself worthy" or something to that effect.

I think that is pretty interesting...

The City Smasher

TCS,

While I am quite sure there is a snappy and witty retort on file here, I think it pretty interesting that I don't get it as far as what point you may be trying to make.

LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-04 AT 09:44 PM (CDT)
 
The way I have heard it many times is that the one that is closer to the book should score higher. So that would mean that the one with tighter coreners but bobbles SHOULD score higher. But I bet the smooth one garners more points even though it isnt as close to the rule book.

Look at "The Master" he takes an Impact with tiny props and LASER BEAM corners and whips everybody's ##### from here to eternity and back again! Then "The Great One" takes the Stanger with a 13" prop and a heavy front end with all be it good but softer corner and still WHIPS EVERYBODY'S ##### from here to Kingdom Come and back again! Look at the 02 flyoff video. There were four of us with sharper corners and then his with the bottoms that were absolutley without a doubt head and shoulders above us other guys. I remember thinking "How am I going to compete with that?" Actually I was just trying to get through without passing out. Every time by he looked to be landing on a table at 5'. Ted had way more corner than him but he bobbled here and there and it cost him. Lord of the Circle was cleaner everywhere not as sharp of a corner but clean and smooth and the presentation and the precision took him to the top! Bobbles just dont present as precise even if they are closer to the book. The bobbles take away from the look. Now if it gets to soft then you are just out of luck. But PWs was still sharp enough to compete. But not as sharp as Ted's.

>The way I have heard it many times is that the one that is
>closer to the book should score higher. So that would mean
>that the one with tighter coreners but bobbles SHOULD score
>higher. But I bet the smooth one garners more points even
>though it isnt as close to the rule book.
>
>Look at "The Master" he takes an Impact with tiny props and
>LASER BEAM corners and whips everybody's ##### from here to
>eternity and back again! Then "The Great One" takes the
>Stanger with a 13" prop and a heavy front end with all be it
>good but softer corner and still WHIPS EVERYBODY'S #####
>from here to Kingdom Come and back again! Look at the 02
>flyoff video. There were four of us with sharper corners
>and then his with the bottoms that were absolutley without a
>doubt head and shoulders above us other guys. I remember
>thinking "How am I going to compete with that?" Actually I
>was just trying to get through without passing out. Every
>time by he looked to be landing on a table at 5'. Ted had
>way more corner than him but he bobbled here and there and
>it cost him. Lord of the Circle was cleaner everywhere not
>as sharp of a corner but clean and smooth and the
>presentation and the precision took him to the top!

There is a strong tendency to focus in these sorts of analyses on one area of the rule book, like corner radius, and ignore the others. Of all the many things I am impressed with by PW is the way he has managed to kick everybody's butt time after time, and still leave most people wondering why. I think it's pretty obvious, but I can't execute it at a level to compete.

Hint: instead of looking at the minutae of maneuver descriptions, you might note the name of the event!

LAST EDITED ON Jun-25-04 AT 09:50 PM (CDT)
 
> There is a strong tendency to focus in these sorts of
>analyses on one area of the rule book, like corner radius,
>and ignore the others.

Yep, I hear it all the time "Do I have enough corner?" I simply want to go nuts when I hear it. If the square isnt square then why worry about corner. Just work on the shape and size of each overall maneuver and the scores will come.

It is only when the corner becomes noticable softer that you will suffer. 9 out of 10 times when the corner is TOO soft the maneuver becomes to big. So staying at 45 "Size" will dictate your corner, most likely. Going for monster corner will hurt you if it results in a pattern that appears to loose precision. That will overshadow the fact that you are flying hard corners and trying for rulebook. The mistakes will be just too much.

I know I am vearing WAY off the thread here but I just agree with what Brett was saying.

Of all the many things I am impressed
>with by PW is the way he has managed to kick everybody's
>butt time after time, and still leave most people wondering
>why. I think it's pretty obvious, but I can't execute it at
>a level to compete.
>
> Hint: instead of looking at the minutae of maneuver
>descriptions, you might note the name of the event!
>
> Brett

Could it have something to do with the word "Precision"....maybe???? I think so..

Brett, the NATS judges truly do try to do a fair job judging. They work very hard. But sometimes it is difficult to tell what exactly the judges are scoring. I watched several finals flights a couple years ago. One in particular stood out. The maneuvers were all way oversize, with very soft corners. The angles in the square maneuvers were all over the place, noticably not tracking the same paths, the overhead came way down to 30 degrees, and the clover leaf was about 110 deg. high and wide. The flight was scored maybe 10 pts down, say 545, vs another flight scored at 555 where I could not see any errors, other than the usual "square" corners being 15 ft instead of 5ft.

555 for the second flight was pretty reasonable. The first flight was about 490-510 if you were generous. I watched that and could only say, "how the heck could a guy do better except to get another model and another name". It was obviously a case of the judges judging what they expected to see, and not what was flown. This is one reason I don't generally bother looking up the score sheets. I only rarely find the judges seeing the mistakes maneuver to maneuver.