A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Does the FAI think its April 1st?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 3rd 17, 04:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Paul T[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 104
Default Does the FAI think its April 1st?

At 15:21 03 October 2017, Tango Whisky wrote:
Le mardi 3 octobre 2017 15:39:20 UTC+2, krasw a

=C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
tiistai 3. lokakuuta 2017 16.30.50 UTC+3 Tango Whisky kirjoitti:
=20
1. Let's make a fancy computer software and calculate

handicaps
bas=
ed on old crappy idaflieg measurements (304 vs. Mosquito!) and

weather
mode=
l.
=20
What exactly would be crappy with the Idaflieg

measurements?
=20
I have no other explanation to 304 vs. Mosquito handicaps. Do

you?

The Idaflieg measurements involve a massive effort (calibrated

reference
sa=
ilplane, towing both sailplanes early morning high up multiple

times, lots
=
of customized measurement electronics and software)and are the

most
accurat=
e measurements of glider polars you will ever get.

What you then do with the results is another story (which neither

bothers
n=
or interests me).


Trouble is sailplanes rarely compete in the smooth morning air!


Ads
  #12  
Old October 3rd 17, 05:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tony[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,703
Default Does the FAI think its April 1st?

More axe work at the bottom of the handicap list. Asw19 and cirrus handicapped the same? A light szd-55 with the same handicap as a libelle. And the us wants to adopt this handicap list?

If this change ends up reflected in the us rules I might have to go get a real job again so I can afford to double or triple my investment in the sport so I can stay competitive...
  #13  
Old October 3rd 17, 05:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 442
Default Does the FAI think its April 1st?

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 12:00:05 PM UTC-4, Paul T wrote:
At 11:57 03 October 2017, Muttley wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:30:07 PM UTC+1, Paul T wrote:
http://www.fai.org/igc-our-sport/handicaps

So many misplaced handicaps its a joke. Whoever came up with

this
list was clearly smoking some illegal substance at the time.


May be you should read this first

http://static.skysight.io/hc.pdf

Document on how they arrived at the changed Handicaps


Read it - 'commonsense gone out of the window' - some of the
anomalies on the list are ludicrous. SZD55 and Crystal less handicap
than an LS4, when they are at least equal to the Discus (some would
say marginally better)? 304 less than Mosqiuto. Mosqiuto higher
handicapped than Mini Nimbus - it's the same wing LS7 handicap
way less than ASW24 etc, ASW19 same as a Cirrus, LSIF higher
than ASW19 and Cirrus etc.etc.

Notice lack of US built gliders that would be in the 'performance
range' for club class not included.

SZD55, Crystal and to lesser extent LS7 seem big winners in this.

Sorry but whoever came up with this handicap list is 'off their
trolley', and that seems the consensus of most experienced pilots so
far.


Perhaps M. Rohde-Brandenburger owns an ASW-19? Holy c r a p.

I'm busy filling out US rules poll. Among the questions (paraphrasing): "Should we harmonize US rules with FAI?" My answer (also paraphrasing): yes, but not until the FAI adopts less stupid rules.

This, unfortunately, is a step in the wrong direction!

Evan Ludeman / T8
  #14  
Old October 3rd 17, 06:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Does the FAI think its April 1st?


Sorry but whoever came up with this handicap list is 'off their trolley'...


I have heard a similar complaint about every handicap list published in the past 30 years.
  #15  
Old October 3rd 17, 07:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 442
Default Does the FAI think its April 1st?

Our IGC rep sez: "That handicap list is getting un-published, today."

I hope he wasn't puttin' me on.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8
  #16  
Old October 5th 17, 08:33 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
krasw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 294
Default Does the FAI think its April 1st?

On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 21:44:52 UTC+3, Tango Eight wrote:
Our IGC rep sez: "That handicap list is getting un-published, today."

I hope he wasn't puttin' me on.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8


Still not un-published, I see.
  #17  
Old October 7th 17, 02:24 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default Does the FAI think its April 1st?

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 7:57:45 AM UTC-4, Muttley wrote:
May be you should read this first
http://static.skysight.io/hc.pdf


To quote from that document: "It is supposed, that a slower glider is faster and a faster glider is slower...".

OK, OK, that quote (from section 3.3) is out of context... But really, the document spells out the theory. If you don't like the results, point out where the theory is incorrect. There are many possible issues, for example:
* the measured or estimated polars may be incorrect - commenters on this thread seems to focus on that
* the weather model (which is not assuming calm morning air!) may be bad, in the sense of being not representative of real flying conditions
* the weather model may be OK but the flying model is bad, in the sense that winning competitors don't fly like the MacCready model, rather follow "energy lines" etc
* the arbitrary taking of the square root to reduce the handicaps' spread may be silly - and this after all the nice theorizing? But this step does not change the rank ordering of the handicaps.

Personally, I think that the weather and task conditions on different days give the various gliders different relative performances, and thus cannot be summarized by one fixed "handicap" number for each model. (If that wasn't the case, nobody would ever fly without full ballast.) Nevertheless, mild handicapping is better than no handicapping at all. And it's all for fun.. And since I fly a glider with performance that is much lower than the low end of "club class", I find the strength of the feelings over these minute differences somewhat amusing. But note I am not defending this specific set of handicaps.
  #18  
Old October 7th 17, 02:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
krasw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 294
Default Does the FAI think its April 1st?

The whole idea of taking one single measurement of one single sailplane (representing type with production run of 300+), in this case done mostly in 70's technology, for handicap calculation is wrong. We have dacedes worth of first hand experience flying wingtip to wingtip with these glider types. No one in their right mind would say that gliders of similar class and generation have widely different handicaps, and gliders of newer generation would not have better performance. Now we have a list that has examples of both of these anomalies. That is pretty solid proof that something in the method is seriously wrong. The highest level of computer modelling includes use of common sense to estimate sanity of results. I hope these guys get there soon.
  #19  
Old October 7th 17, 04:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Paul T[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 104
Default Does the FAI think its April 1st?

At 13:49 07 October 2017, krasw wrote:
The whole idea of taking one single measurement of one single

sailplane
(re=
presenting type with production run of 300+), in this case done

mostly in
7=
0's technology, for handicap calculation is wrong. We have dacedes

worth
of=
first hand experience flying wingtip to wingtip with these glider

types.
N=
o one in their right mind would say that gliders of similar class and
gener=
ation have widely different handicaps, and gliders of newer

generation
woul=
d not have better performance. Now we have a list that has

examples of
both=
of these anomalies. That is pretty solid proof that something in

the
metho=
d is seriously wrong. The highest level of computer modelling

includes use
=
of common sense to estimate sanity of results. I hope these guys

get there
=
soon.


Ditto - why does the IGC handicapping committee or its chairman
not see this? Was there any consultation with competitors this
new handicap list? Would have been the polite thing to do?


  #20  
Old October 7th 17, 04:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Paul T[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 104
Default Does the FAI think its April 1st?

At 13:49 07 October 2017, krasw wrote:
The whole idea of taking one single measurement of one single

sailplane
(re=
presenting type with production run of 300+), in this case done

mostly in
7=
0's technology, for handicap calculation is wrong. We have dacedes

worth
of=
first hand experience flying wingtip to wingtip with these glider

types.
N=
o one in their right mind would say that gliders of similar class and
gener=
ation have widely different handicaps, and gliders of newer

generation
woul=
d not have better performance. Now we have a list that has

examples of
both=
of these anomalies. That is pretty solid proof that something in

the
metho=
d is seriously wrong. The highest level of computer modelling

includes use
=
of common sense to estimate sanity of results. I hope these guys

get there
=
soon.


Ditto - why does the IGC handicapping committee or its chairman
not see this? Was there any consultation with competitors this
new handicap list? Would have been the polite thing to do?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
April 5 Richard Lamb Home Built 5 April 7th 06 07:20 AM
April 10 Update [email protected] General Aviation 0 April 8th 05 01:01 AM
April 3 Update [email protected] General Aviation 0 April 1st 05 03:38 AM
April 11 Update DHeitm8612 General Aviation 0 April 9th 04 04:22 AM
April 4 Update DHeitm8612 General Aviation 0 April 2nd 04 06:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.