[CIAM-F6-Working_Group] Re: Back to work
- From: "Richard Swindells" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ciam-f6-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 18:21:26 +0100
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:
