I am disappointed when you go to a major
contest like the NATS and they do a Mickey Mouse runway landing task.
IMHO, the Nats landing task is a fair, yet challenging task, especially if
done without skegs and/or sharks teeth.
Regards,
Bob Johnson
Fond du Lac, WI
RCSE-List facilities provided
]
To: Jack Womack [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [RCSE] Devaluing landings
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 20:50:17 -0500
I was at a contest once where landings didn't count and everyone who made
their times just flew across the field and push down elevator at zero.
Instead of devaluing
Womack; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [RCSE] Devaluing landings
I was at a contest once where landings didn't count and everyone who made
their times just flew across the field and push down elevator at zero.
Instead of devaluing landings I think the landing tasks should be made
tougher
At 09:41 PM 2/7/02 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The F5J group is on to something by doing the launches with electric
motors. The rules are still in evolution, but the end result will hopefully
be a test of soaring skill rather than motor power.
I have always wondered why sailplane clubs
First, I have to agree that the same guys are going to
be winning anyway...well, most of the time. Landing is
part of flying, after all, if you can't land, you
can't really fly. I would like to see landing devalued
to add a max of 10 flight points, or 10 seconds before
a flight score is
How about zero points for dorked landings?
From: Jack Womack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [RCSE] Devaluing landings
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:54:23 -0800 (PST)
First, I have to agree that the same guys are going to
be winning anyway...well, most of the time. Landing is
part
On 2/7/02 4:01 PM, Andy Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about zero points for dorked landings?
Please define a dorked landing and describe exactly how that would be
judged.
We already get a zero for lost parts, so it can't be that.
~~
Bill Malvey
Ladera
7 matches
Mail list logo
