![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
At 22:18 29 July 2007, Kirk.Stant wrote:
Lots of good points made. I went flying yesterday and found that my SN10 has a beatiful digital pressure altimeter readout, that is automatically calibrated before takeoff to field elevation, and can be reset inflight to the latest altimeter setting if desired. I also found that my mechanical POS alitmeter lags about 100' during a final glide, showing me that much higher that the SN10's no-friction digital readout. Guess what I'll be using from now on! Back to the original subject (actually a spin off): I still think the current hard cutoff at 500 ft is a poor setup, due to the difficuty for the pilot to accurately judge his altitude at the time of crossing the line. If the goal is to make pilots finish higher (for whatever reason), then there needs to be a finish window the pilot can aim for that if he accurately figures his final glide, will not be penalized. Let's assume we can hit a 200' window - and assume that 300' agl is the cutoff for a safe pattern. Setup the scoring so anywhere in the 200 ft window (300'agl to 500'agl ) is neutral - if below the nominal 500', then add the time it would have taken to climb in (based on the climb rate in the last thermal). That would remove any incentive to finish lower than 500', but give a reasonable window to shoot for before a bigger penalty (automatic rolling finish score) kicks in. Comment? Obvious problems? Kirk 66 Hey Kirk, I think if you have a 'zero penalty' band pilots will tend to use it. I can't figure the difference between and 700' finish with a 200' band and a 500' finish. If you are going to try to ease up on the current 'all-or-nothing' system adding a continuous penalty equal to some low, but not minuscule, rate of climb. I think 30 to 60 seconds per 100' is reasonable. This would amount to 10-20 points on a long task and 20-40 points on a short task if you finished 500' low - you could set 500' under as the maximum penalty, or let it scale all the way to worm-burner finishes (at a mile out!). The maximum penalty could also apply to rolling finishes, or just let the penalty for your actual finish height apply irrespective of whether you roll or do a pattern. After all, it's the finish height, not the shape of your pattern that matters. Or we could leave it to the CD's discretion. Then pilots might try a little harder to not miss the finish height. 9B |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WinScore Question | Ray Lovinggood | Soaring | 2 | June 5th 07 03:15 PM |
calculate last point of diversion | jaws | Piloting | 1 | July 5th 06 04:19 PM |
How to calculate TOC and TOD? | Andrea da lontano | Piloting | 3 | October 21st 04 09:24 PM |
Weight and Balance Formula, Can one calculate the envelope | Joe Wasik | Piloting | 12 | September 29th 04 08:15 AM |
Winscore source code now available | Guy Byars | Soaring | 0 | February 5th 04 10:43 AM |