[CIAM-F6-Working_Group] Re: Back to work

  • From: Tomas Bartovsky <Tomas.Bartovsky@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: <ciam-f6-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 08:49:01 +0200

Dear Richard,

Thank you very much for your data. I like this task for HTG fly-off more and
more, because it has many advantages.

For spectators:

1.       It includes the impressive simultaneous launch (at lest at the
beginning of the  working time)

2.       With electronic transfer system spectators can be informed about
the current standing of each competitor.

3.       Throughout the whole working time some activity on the field can be
seen. The "boring" floating of each glider is limited to less then two
minutes.

For competitors:

1.       They all fly in the same conditions; only their skill decides.

For organisers:

1.       At qualification competitions, where the spectators aren't the most
important part of the event, no sophisticated timing system is necessary.
Simple stopwatches will do.

2.       The duration of the task is fixed.

With best regards

Tomas 

 

From: ciam-f6-wg-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ciam-f6-wg-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Swindells
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 7:21 PM
To: ciam-f6-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [CIAM-F6-Working_Group] Re: Back to work

 

Hi Guy,

 

I see where you are going with the idea. However having a max-flight time of
2 minutes will provide more separation in the scores for several reasons.

 

1.       Only in exceptional conditions can all pilots expect to get 2
minutes from all-5 flights. If we extended the maximum flight time, pilots
who might not be able to fly 2 mins for all five flights, might bag a 5
minute flight when it is possible in the round, meaning all other flights
only have to be around the 1:15 mark. Obviously this turns the task into a
pure turn-around test and will provide less separation in the scores.

2.       With a maximum flight time, some tactics do have to come into play.
Flying even a fraction longer than 2mins is wasted time and will show up in
the scores. Pilots who are really fighting will aim to land on 1:59 so there
is no time wasted in the air (turnarounds take > than 1 second). This is
much more of a test for pilots and will provide a greater separation in
scores.

3.       In difficult conditions when 2:00 is not easy to achieve, then the
pilot with the best ability to keep his model in the air will win.

4.       In good conditions, with all pilots able to fly for 2 minutes, it
is an exciting spectacle to watch them all catch and launch at the same
time.

 

Importantly, the F3K 5x2 pilot is a well liked task by hand-launch pilots.
It tests them on a variety of skills and is the most physically demanding of
all. 

 

I have attached some individual round results from UK competitions using the
5x2 task. As you can see it is very uncommon for a pilot to get within 15
seconds of a "perfect" 600 seconds  (it is also impossible to get 600
seconds). Only on one occasion have pilots ever tied scores.

 

 


Num

Name

FR

Rnd 1

TOTAL

%SCORE

Flight 1

Flight 2

Flight 3

Flight 4

Flight 5


3003

Chris Gibbs

76

1

487

1000

2.00

1.27

2.00

1.19

1.21


9994

Gavin Stern

70

1

479

984

2.00

1.19

1.45

1.38

1.17


9981

Paul Smith

86

1

437

897

1.22

1.22

1.36

1.22

1.35


1568

Peter Mitchell

90

1

382

784

1.04

2.00

1.04

1.17

0.57


350

Tony Beckett

82

1

363

745

1.21

1.07

1.27

1.07

1.01


2679

Neville Warby

66

1

353

725

0.57

1.29

0.53

1.04

1.30


3531

Roger Allton

74

1

297

610

1.01

1.04

0.56

0.59

0.57


850

Martin Bell

72

1

255

524

0.46

0.45

0.46

0.57

1.01


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


9978

Matt Cuthbert

72

2

545

1000

1.15

1.52

1.58

2.00

2.00


3555

Tony Merritt

66

2

445

817

1.20

1.10

1.44

1.45

1.26


9998

Nick Chitty

82

2

395

725

1.19

1.19

1.07

1.32

1.18


9991

Oliver Chitty

90

2

378

694

2.00

0.42

0.58

1.09

1.29


9976

John Cuthbert

62

2

376

690

0.54

1.32

1.15

1.29

1.06


9982

Ron Chitty

70

2

302

554

0.28

1.12

1.00

1.23

0.59


3187

Arthur Ott

78

2

245

450

0.55

1.28

1.03

0.39

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


9977

Richard Swindells

68

3

553

1000

1.40

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.33


9980

Simon Clarke

64

3

525

949

1.59

1.25

2.00

1.57

1.24


3491

Mike Allton

88

3

485

877

1.21

1.15

2.00

2.00

1.29


9995

Michael Stern

74

3

479

866

1.25

1.22

1.51

1.31

1.50


9979

Doug Penman

62

3

427

772

1.14

1.27

1.07

1.45

1.34


1513

Chris Grant

66

3

344

622

0.45

1.13

0.54

0.57

1.55


9975

Steve Burns

24

3

326

590

0.55

0.56

1.00

1.13

1.22

 

 


Name

FR

Rnd 3

TOTAL

%SCORE

Flight 1

Flight 2

Flight 3

Flight 4

Flight 5


Lorry Green

72

1

538

1000

0.58

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00


Nick Chitty

90

1

495

920

2.00

2.00

1.46

1.14

1.15


Mike Fantham

78

1

483

898

1.59

1.29

1.24

1.19

1.52


Liam Hawes

68

1

446

829

1.06

1.09

1.11

2.00

2.00


Simon Clarke

74

1

299

556

1.50

1.47

1.22

 

 


Ron Chitty

62

1

214

398

0.51

0.45

0.42

0.40

0.36


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Mike Stern

72

2

588

1000

1.59

1.59

1.59

2.00

1.51


Tony Beckett

82

2

516

878

2.00

1.50

1.45

2.00

1.01


Tony Merritt

66

2

507

862

1.59

2.00

1.26

1.38

1.24


Martin Bell

2

2

422

718

1.36

2.00

1.04

1.06

1.16


Steve Burns

56

2

0

0

 

 

 

 

 


Arthur Ott

74

2

0

0

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Richard Swindells

68

3

587

1000

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.50

1.57


Mike Allton

84

3

587

1000

2.00

1.59

2.00

1.58

1.50


Pete Mitchell

90

3

561

956

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.21


Gavin Stern

70

3

547

932

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.59

1.08


Simon Jones

56

3

542

923

1.12

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.50


Mac McComb

76

3

528

899

1.00

1.48

2.00

2.00

2.00

 


Name

FR

Rnd 1

TOTAL

%SCORE

Flight 1

Flight 2

Flight 3

Flight 4

Flight 5


GRANT Chris

86

1

408

1000

1.58

1.06

1.11

1.15

1.18


CHITTY  Nick

80

1

399

978

1.05

1.08

1.23

1.03

2.00


GREEN Lorry

72

1

398

975

2.00

0.53

0.55

1.12

1.38


BECKETT  Tony

82

1

369

904

1.51

0.59

0.57

1.16

1.06


MITCHELL  Pete

84

1

359

880

2.00

0.50

1.11

1.10

0.48


KEATLEY  Roger

78

1

296

725

1.25

0.42

0.43

0.58

1.08


SWINDELLS  Richard

90

2

588

1000

1.59

2.00

1.57

1.59

1.53


MERRITT  Tony

82

2

540

918

1.17

1.43

2.00

2.00

2.00


FANTHAM  Mike

88

2

533

906

1.05

1.48

2.00

2.00

2.00


McCOMB  Mac

76

2

484

823

1.11

1.41

1.12

2.00

2.00


BELL  Martin

24

2

435

740

0.59

1.24

0.52

2.00

2.00


CHITTY  Ron

74

2

240

408

0.58

0.36

0.38

0.38

1.10

 


Num

Name

FR

Rnd 1

TOTAL

%SCORE

Flight 1

Flight 2

Flight 3

Flight 4

Flight 5


3529

Richard Swindells

68

1

555

1000

1.50

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.25


9989

Mike Stern

74

1

525

946

1.39

1.30

2.00

1.48

1.48


9998

Nick Chitty

82

1

411

741

1.15

1.30

2.00

1.01

1.05


9981

Paul Smith

86

1

344

620

0.51

1.37

1.08

1.04

1.04


3380

Mac McComb

76

1

308

555

0.54

0.55

1.06

1.16

0.57


9982

Ron Chitty

70

1

176

317

0.00

0.00

0.38

1.04

1.14


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


9979

Doug Penman

62

2

505

1000

1.44

2.00

1.27

1.33

1.41


1568

Pete Mitchell

90

2

450

891

1.08

1.49

1.35

1.47

1.11


3530

Lorry Green

88

2

401

794

0.45

1.20

1.48

1.45

1.03


3555

Tony Merrit

66

2

327

648

1.04

0.50

1.07

1.38

0.48


9980

Simon Clarke

64

2

0

0

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

 

 

 


Name

FR

Rnd 1

TOTAL

%SCORE

Flight 1

Flight 2

Flight 3

Flight 4

Flight 5


GREEN Lorry

72

1

480

1000

1.57

2

1.05

0.59

1.59


JONES Simon

56

1

457

952

2

2

0.54

1.34

1.09


FANTHAM Mike

78

1

415

865

2

2

0.55

2

 


BECKETT Tony

82

1

400

833

1.18

2

1.07

0.56

1.19


BURNS Steve

24

1

400

833

1.14

2

1.08

1.01

1.17


CHITTY Ron

74

1

315

656

1.15

2

0.38

0.44

0.38


CLARKE Simon

62

2

492

1000

1.18

1.18

2

1.36

2


SMITH Paul

86

2

425

864

1.1

1.25

1.4

1.26

1.24


MITCHELL Pete

88

2

369

750

1.22

1.42

0.59

1.11

0.55


HAWES Liam

68

2

327

665

1.15

1.08

0.55

1.09

1


WARBY Neville

64

2

299

608

0.53

1.03

0.54

0.52

1.17


FIELD Tony

72

2

297

604

1.01

0.55

1.1

0.56

0.55


SWINDELLS Richard

68

3

591

1000

1.59

2

1.59

2

1.53


STERN Mike

60

3

575

973

2

2

2

1.35

2


STERN Gavin

70

3

527

892

1.2

1.58

2

2

1.29


MERRITT Tony

66

3

496

839

1.07

1.59

2

1.26

1.44


McCOMB Mac

76

3

481

814

1.22

1.37

1.57

2

1.05


GRANT Chris

64

3

415

702

1.05

0.59

1.24

2

1.27

 

 

 

 

From: ciam-f6-wg-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ciam-f6-wg-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Guy Revel
Sent: 02 July 2009 17:10
To: ciam-f6-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [CIAM-F6-Working_Group] Re: Back to work

 

At 15:21 02/07/2009, you wrote:

I support the proposal of using task 5x2 for fly-off. I also have an idea of
a wireless electronic system which would allow to display the running
results (throughout the working time) for the public. 
I think that for qualified decision we now need some supplementary data -
records of task G flown at different weather conditions. I mean not only F3K
result lists but more detailed records. Can we ask the organisers of F3K
competitions to send us such data?
Let's then discuss the number of flights (=length of working time) and the
rounding of time (full seconds or tenth of second).


Dear Tomas & all,

In such a case I would suggest a different approach that may have several
variations. The basic principle would be not to time the flights, but the
time the glider is not flying and substract from the ideal score.
Example: 10 minutes worlkng time, 5 launches (copulsory), timing in full
1-second units.
For all competitors, you start at 600 seconds and time the amount of time
the glider is not in flight
On a display everybody wouls start at 600 and the stopwatches (or whatever
system) would be used to deduce time from the initial 600.
Less than 5 launches = 0 score, so one has to carefully balance yher benefit
of a good thermal with the need to come back and launch again.
No more launch after the 5th one, so the stopwatch is going on and score
decreases.
Highest score (less time not flying) wins.

The system only needs one stopwatch per competitor and a running display of
scores would be readily understandable. Timing to the full second reduces
the timing errors (when catching and relaunching) and slightly increases
safety.

Just my idea.

Guy R.

Other related posts: