|
Post by Andrew Godden on Jan 6, 2010 4:12:05 GMT -5
Brett,
Glad you can join us for the GAAR and I hope you enjoy it.
Norm, Bob and you guys at DC-3 did another fine job with the WR. I noticed in the WR Forum at the end there were the predictable pundits and the diatribe over race versus scoring versus using the same aircraft model and the GAAR got a mention to cap it off. I sat back and just smirked, knowing that no matter what you do, some people just can't leave the competitive instinct on the ramp and just climb into the left hand seat and pit themselves against the aircraft, the course, the weather and their own abilities.
On a more personal note, I had been looking at your nice work with the Reeve Aleutian Airways route. I have been looking for something different and under "real weather" this can be some real challenging flying. Unfortunately, it has to go onto the list until after the GAAR.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Goodrick on Jan 6, 2010 10:14:35 GMT -5
The matter of scoring for rallies and races is very complex and can have many unintended consequences. It would be great if we could figure out some way of measuring desirable piloting traits. In some past years, I have had a hand in setting up and administering some GAAR scoring systems. Mostly, they didn't work out as intended.
I don't think measuring conformance with an average is good because the average may be wrong. For DC-3's I have found what appears to be a flaw in FS9 that makes what would be good and reasonable power settings in the real world fly much slower. this means the average DC-3 airspeed is lower than it should be.
In the case of the GAAR scoring system that has developed, it seems to award "consistency" which is admirable if it promotes proper operation of the aircraft. But I am not sure it does. The people who want to "win" will fly a slow test and then will have extra time on the rally legs so they can time their approach to coincide with the esitmated time (which most can calculate). Thus you end up with the top 20 separated by something like 0.02%. It is not clear to me that this is good but it gives us something challenging to do.
In the past we tried to incorporate a utility aspect and an economical aspect - awarding low fuel use and high payload capability. One "trick" many of us have used is to fly a plane empty. Thus we can fit bigger planes into and out of short runways they ordinarily could not use. The wide range of aircraft types used in the GAAR makes this difficult but not impossible.
I have another gauge that could be useful. (It is free on my web site, of course.) That is the landing gauge which gives the indicated airspeed and vertical rates at touchdown. But using this is tricky because it is not clear what the best landing speeds are. A very low airspeed can only be achieved if you do a stall landing where there can easily be a high vertical rate. Any plane can compete for the lowest vertical rate. This may be a good aspect to award. But trying to minimize the touchdown speed often leads to rather long landings. A 10,000 ft runway may not be enough!
Speed races are seldom very good. You have to limit them to particular airplanes in a few classes and then they reward bad flying habits. Practices that would burn up an engine in real life should not be rewarded.
We might all benefit by a discussion of these scoring aspects. Obviously the method for this years' rally is already set. But we could prepare for future activities.
|
|
|
Post by rattler1 on Jan 6, 2010 15:40:44 GMT -5
I have to agree with Andrew about the Reeve routes. I flew a few sectors with real weather a couple of weeks ago, and several times got the "what am I doing here?" feeling. It must have been a tremendous challenge in the real world; hats off to the crews.
|
|
|
Post by Brett I. Holcomb on Jan 6, 2010 16:01:02 GMT -5
Brett, Glad you can join us for the GAAR and I hope you enjoy it. Norm, Bob and you guys at DC-3 did another fine job with the WR. I noticed in the WR Forum at the end there were the predictable pundits and the diatribe over race versus scoring versus using the same aircraft model and the GAAR got a mention to cap it off. I sat back and just smirked, knowing that no matter what you do, some people just can't leave the competitive instinct on the ramp and just climb into the left hand seat and pit themselves against the aircraft, the course, the weather and their own abilities. On a more personal note, I had been looking at your nice work with the Reeve Aleutian Airways route. I have been looking for something different and under "real weather" this can be some real challenging flying. Unfortunately, it has to go onto the list until after the GAAR. I am looking forward to it. It was a fellow DCA pilot who pointed me to BGA over a year ago as like the DC-3s and 4-s but also like to fly the Connies and Electras so here I am as a BGA member, too. Yes, you are right that some just can't enjoy things! The thing the I like most about BGA and DCA is the purpose is to have fun and enjoy flying. The WR (and from what I hear the GAAR also) are fun to fly. You are challenged to try and fly your a/c the best YOU can but the flights are fun. I really don't worry about my score but do the best I can. Thank you for the kind words on the RAA routes. I had a lot of fun making them up and doing the scenery. I know you have your hands full right now.
|
|
|
Post by Brett I. Holcomb on Jan 6, 2010 16:03:16 GMT -5
I have to agree with Andrew about the Reeve routes. I flew a few sectors with real weather a couple of weeks ago, and several times got the "what am I doing here?" feeling. It must have been a tremendous challenge in the real world; hats off to the crews. You are to be commended! From what I read it sure was a challenge! The book "Flying Beats Work" is the story of Bob Reeve's career including RAA.
|
|
|
Post by jazzthom on Jan 6, 2010 18:18:01 GMT -5
Hi to you all and a Happy New Year! I'm glad to see you all again and even more that the GAAR 2010 is taking place at last...
just taking care of my old bird if she's still operating sufficiently, as I didn't take the old lady out of the hangar since last year... some test flights....
and I'll be back soon with my registration.....
Thom
|
|
|
Post by Bill Von Sennet on Jan 6, 2010 23:17:29 GMT -5
I fly the test flight at the cruise power settings. I then fly each flight at the same settings, thus I am late when I have headwinds and early when I have tailwinds. On some GAARS we averaged the times so that if you were 5 min late for half of the flights and 5 min early for half of the flights you ended with a perfect score. It didn't actually work out that way, as you never even things out. Even though I realize the current scoring systems means I will be off (+ or minus) for most flights, thats the way I will fly it.
|
|
|
Post by Brett I. Holcomb on Jan 8, 2010 8:25:26 GMT -5
The matter of scoring for rallies and races is very complex and can have many unintended consequences. It would be great if we could figure out some way of measuring desirable piloting traits. In some past years, I have had a hand in setting up and administering some GAAR scoring systems. Mostly, they didn't work out as intended. I have another gauge that could be useful. (It is free on my web site, of course.) That is the landing gauge which gives the indicated airspeed and vertical rates at touchdown. But using this is tricky because it is not clear what the best landing speeds are. A very low airspeed can only be achieved if you do a stall landing where there can easily be a high vertical rate. Any plane can compete for the lowest vertical rate. This may be a good aspect to award. But trying to minimize the touchdown speed often leads to rather long landings. A 10,000 ft runway may not be enough! If we can find a way to absolutely measure the subjective we are okay <G>. Where is your website - what is the address. I'd like to visit it.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Goodrick on Jan 8, 2010 10:08:42 GMT -5
The icons under our photos are useful. The left icon is my web site and the middle icon is my email. (Email is preferred to messaging.)
I am not a fan of scoring for antiquated navigation capabilities. Today most real pilots fly integrated panels and gps/nav computers. What may still be useful in scoring is the ability to pick the best altitude and power setting for an economical trip when carrying a significant payload. Landing capabilities can also be scored. I say that after making several firm landings (vertical rates below -250 fpm and one at -450 fpm).
|
|
|
Post by louross on Jan 8, 2010 14:33:39 GMT -5
"The passengers congradulated him for the smooth landing, but they don't know he almost killed them during the flight," well-known saying among airline pilots. In other words, smooth, hard landings have nothing to do with a pilot's professionalism or his abilities. I occassionally log a flight with a VA that records landings. Some runways have a definite slope- land one way and grease jobs are fairly easy, even tho you actually prang the plane. Land in the other direction and a "smooth" landing is impossible (FS problem). What they don't record is how bad they actually fly- descending from high altitude in a pressurized turbo-prop and the props are all the way forward; five miles from the destinaton and at FL210; flying a DC7 on a 800 mile trip at 12,000 msl; etc, etc, etc. "Scoring" competitions in FS? Never seen a way that really works. The competition can be done for fun. Learning? Very limited possibility. Seen many a real pilot come to work with a company- flight is from west to east. They use the same techniques taking off on runway 27 as they use on runway 09. Mention it to them and they have a blank look on the face, so you have to explain to them how. Not possible in FS. (only one example). lr.
|
|
|
Post by katiepipkin on Jan 8, 2010 16:38:35 GMT -5
Looking forward to flying again this year after having to pull out last year due to childcare issues!
|
|
|
Post by Brett I. Holcomb on Jan 8, 2010 22:44:24 GMT -5
The icons under our photos are useful. The left icon is my web site and the middle icon is my email. (Email is preferred to messaging.) I am not a fan of scoring for antiquated navigation capabilities. Today most real pilots fly integrated panels and gps/nav computers. What may still be useful in scoring is the ability to pick the best altitude and power setting for an economical trip when carrying a significant payload. Landing capabilities can also be scored. I say that after making several firm landings (vertical rates below -250 fpm and one at -450 fpm). I never knew that about the icons. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by pterodactyl (George) on Jan 9, 2010 1:23:21 GMT -5
Katie: It's good to have you back, as its good to see all of us coming back for more flying. Are you taking out a warbird this year or something else. I decided to put away the Corsair and came down with the Lancaster BIII for something different. Looking forward to some fun and interesting "Crashing with Style".
|
|
|
Post by katiepipkin on Jan 9, 2010 7:59:23 GMT -5
I'm testing planes at the moment, haven't made my mind up. I was going to take my trusty Vega which served me well in my first GAAR, but the one I got (which is the FS9 version adjusted to work in FSX, which I'm flying now) has a fairly major bug: you can't see anything out of the cockpit! So my current front runner is a Mitsubishi Zero, which can handle a short runway fairly well as long as one is careful. But I still haven't decided.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Goodrick on Jan 9, 2010 9:56:32 GMT -5
There is one thing that could make the GAAR a litle more interesting: Give us a brief waether report covering the airports and then let us find our own way between them. When you give us complete instructions from ramp to ramp it takes some of the fun out of it. You might also tell us we are forbidden to fly in restricted zones. Some of us might even obey.
|
|