Discontinued Aircraft - RTWR Executive Committee Canvassing

[PRB]

I think practices should be conducted on public forums for two reasons. One is the reason Reggie pointed out, and the other is that it generates interest among the rest of the forum members, and can act as a recruiting tool.

No matter what sub-set of FS planes are “race legal”, the teams are going to work hard to exploit every advantage from that sub-set, and fly the “best” ones. If only the P-38F and the P-38L were legal, the teams would spend a week testing them, and everyone would fly the fastest of the two. The race committee has attempted to address this with required planes. The scope and complexity of this section of the rules has also exploded over the years to the point that it now represents a significant portion of the rules, and a growling accounting burden during the race.

So we have two problems that seem, in some ways to contradict each other. One the one hand, it's getting increasingly difficult for the race committee to keep track of what planes are legal (we feel your pain, believe me), and on the other hand, all anyone wants to fly are the P-51H and the DH Hornet anyway (because they're speedy, way more so than the Epic LT...)

Maybe it's time to dispatch both issues by making the set of planes very small, and picking a different “theme” each year. 2012 will be “Cold War Jets”, 2013 will be "European Fighters of WW-II", etc. Come up with a short list of authorized planes, 10-20 or so, and make some SIMPLE rule regarding how may legs must be flown by each type so everyone doesn't gravitate to the speedy one. Ok, so I got this idea from the events we host between the RTW Race. Just my two pesos worth.

 

[Ferry_vO]

I think practices should be conducted on public forums for two reasons. One is the reason Reggie pointed out.

If I have a 'secret weapon' for the RTW, I am not going to reveal it before the race, so I'll practice with that in private anyway!

Maybe it's time to dispatch both issues by making the set of planes very small, and picking a different “theme” each year. 2012 will be “Cold War Jets”, 2013 will be "European Fighters of WW-II", etc. Come up with a short list of authorized planes, 10-20 or so, and make some SIMPLE rule regarding how may legs must be flown by each type so everyone doesn't gravitate to the speedy one. Ok, so I got this idea from the events we host between the RTW Race. Just my two pesos worth.

Good ideas there, Paul!

 

[cputters]

That's a great idea. It also gets people out of their comfort zones (during practice) and forces them to experience other aircraft.

 

[apollosmith]

Maybe it's time to dispatch both issues by making the set of planes very small, and picking a different “theme” each year. 2012 will be “Cold War Jets”, 2013 will be "European Fighters of WW-II", etc. Come up with a short list of authorized planes, 10-20 or so, and make some SIMPLE rule regarding how may legs must be flown by each type so everyone doesn't gravitate to the speedy one.

Regardless of how it's structured, I think there needs to be a public list of authorized planes as proposed by race participants. I've suggested that planes be categorized based on maximum TAS or ground speed - either based on pre-race data or based on the maximum airspeed reached during the race leg. By categorizing, rather than disallowing or black-listing aircraft (except for extremely inaccurate or "not readily available" models), and by structuring the rules to require category diversity, things become MUCH more simple and it allows newcomers to fly aircraft they have and are comfortable with (stock/default planes would be perfect for the slowest categories).

"Hot" planes would thus be identified before the race, and could still be allowed, but in the appropriate category. For example, you could submit and fly your favorite "hot" model of the Tigercat in one category, or fly a different authentic model in a separate, slower category. So long as the aircraft is submitted and on the publicly available and categorized list, it's fair game for anyone. There would be no surprise Epic LT's or surprise questions about 'unavailable' B2's, for example.

If you do the categories based on actual maximum race speeds (e.g., 10 flights allowed with maximum TAS of 420-450 KTAS) rather than the model, then you could fly any airplane that has relatively accurate flight modeling. You could fly a fast plane more slowly (and more accurately - rather than redlining for 2 hours) to achieve a flight in a slower category. Of course you'd fly close to the maximum speed for that category - an interesting challenge. If you 'speed' and fly too fast, it simply bumps that flight into the next category up counting toward it's maximum. Penalties would only occur if you fly too many aircraft in one category.

This puts the focus on HOW you fly rather than WHAT you fly. Thoughts?

 

[PRB]

I think I like the categories idea. This scheme could replace all variations and permutations of the required planes section of the rule book. If the classes came with a minimum leg length... If you need help testing planes I volunteer my testing services.

 

[salt_air]

I think I like the categories idea. This scheme could replace all variations and permutations of the required planes section of the rule book. If the classes came with a minimum leg length... If you need help testing planes I volunteer my testing services.

On the same channel as well Paul.


I would be happy to help with any testing ... not sure about the volunteer thing ... Times are tuff ... might cost ya ...

 

[Ferry_vO]

Categories OK, but don't make it too difficult!
Easiest way is to make groups like UL/VL, GA, props, WW2, Subsonics jets etc. and appoint a few (Between 5-10, preferably freeware!) aircraft to each, and a maximum number of legs each category can be used.

If you do the categories based on actual maximum race speeds (e.g., 10 flights allowed with maximum TAS of 420-450 KTAS) rather than the model, then you could fly any airplane that has relatively accurate flight modeling. You could fly a fast plane more slowly (and more accurately - rather than redlining for 2 hours) to achieve a flight in a slower category. Of course you'd fly close to the maximum speed for that category - an interesting challenge. If you 'speed' and fly too fast, it simply bumps that flight into the next category up counting toward it's maximum. Penalties would only occur if you fly too many aircraft in one category.

It would be very hard to calculate your average speed during a flight! If we have a strong tail- or headwind or a wind that constantly changes direction it will be almost impossible.
I think most here will favour a 'KISS' approach to the categories.

 

[apollosmith]

It would be very hard to calculate your average speed during a flight! If we have a strong tail- or headwind or a wind that constantly changes direction it will be almost impossible.
I think most here will favour a 'KISS' approach to the categories.

You would need a gauge or the Duenna to show True Airspeed. Duenna would track maximum TAS. This could perhaps be adjusted to account for short term changes due to wind shifts. Or performance could be based on Ground Speed (this is really what matters for race time) which would not be as significantly affected by wind shifts.

And yes, a 'KISS' approach is what everyone wants, without removing excitement and variety from the race.

 

[MaddogK]

Seriously ?
We've shredded the old rules a couple of years ago because they were too complicated (for some), went to this new continental briefing system because planning got too complicated (for some), and now some are crying because they can't get old airplanes nor 'spy' on other teams practice sessions ?

I don't believe faster aircraft win this race, look at the P-51H usage 2 years ago. All the teams used it almost equally but crashes and bonus' determined the winner, as it always does. Banning A/C doesn't work as we all have seen, cheaters will find a way around the rules. Even going to defaults will cause problems- whose gonna put up their FS9 C172 against the FSX maule ?

I'd have to agree with a couple others here: this is a solution looking for a problem to solve.

When did this stop being a gentleman's race ?

 

[apollosmith]

I'd have to agree with a couple others here: this is a solution looking for a problem to solve.

I think there is a problem. Otherwise we wouldn't have had so many appeals, complaints, and contention the last couple years over certain aircraft being used. The factors that go into determining whether an aircraft is 'legal' or not are extremely complex. Pick any random warbird from any library and it most likely fails one of the dozen or so qualification factors. This poses a significant barrier for new pilots (and for veterans like me that can't even understand all of it). This complexity is turning the race into a sprint between just a few planes that we are pretty sure might still be legal because they have been in the past (though the B-2 situation proved that even past usage is no guarantee of validity).

The committee has said they are inundated with "Can I fly X?" and "Why can't I fly X?" questions. If it's so complex that participants have to ask the committee to determine an aircraft's eligibility... it's too complex.

By removing most of the model qualification requirements and categorizing aircraft based on performance, you can fly pretty much any reasonably accurate model in any appropriate speed category. This promotes diversity. For slower categories, it would be a disadvantage to fly a P-51H slowly when a P-38 or a default prop will get there just as fast (and likely more safely).

 

[MaddogK]

I appreciate the reply, and admittedly am ignorant of last years 'issues', but I must point out there really isn't an issue of secrecy as each team does have a rep on the council except iFly. Each team should be able to police their own if penalties were substantial, and committee members (I assumed) talked among themselves.

I'm this close --> <--- to participating this year and I hope for some resolution prior to a week before the race begins.

 

[apollosmith]

I'm this close --> <--- to participating this year and I hope for some resolution prior to a week before the race begins.

I personally think it's fine to have some secrecy. Every team likes to have a 'secret weapon'. I'm still not sure I'm a fan of the "whitelist" of approved aircraft that I'm advocating or that teams must publish everything they plan on flying before hand. At the same time, it needs to be easier to determine if a particular aircraft is legal or not. Again, my proposal would simplify things by dropping most model requirements and categorizing flights based on how fast you actually fly an aircraft, not which aircraft is flown.

It would be great to have you participate. I said it last year and I'll say it again this year - you guys are the team to beat. The numbers alone show that SOH usually flies faster and more efficiently than any other. That you have 33 pages of RTW 2012 test flight posts already is a testament to your preparation. I'm really looking forward to a competitive and fun race this year.

 

[Moses03]

We appreciate the Executive Committee (EC), addressing this issue. I tend to agree with some others and don't mind if a payware aircraft (B-2 etc), has become unavailable. Like Willy said, we all had a chance to purchase it at one time. That said, usually an aircraft like the B-2 is very specialized within the race and only available for a few legs.

After reading the posts here, at AVSIM and over at Flightsim, there is a thought to ban or severely limit the use of the A2A P-51H and Alpha Hornet (and possibly the SimTech Do-335). Maybe the EC could table the idea of banning these three aircraft for this years RTWR only? It would open up the race to all the 2nd tier racers (which are mostly freeware) and could be a lot of fun. The problem I see with putting limits on the three is that, say maybe the Hornet is my favorite plane and by the time I am available to fly a leg, it has been used up and is now unavailable. At the very least it would be an experiment to see how it plays out for this year. Are there any pilots from any of the four teams that would throw their hands up and complain bitterly if these sat out this time?

I have flown the Do-335 quite a bit in past RTW races, but not because it is speedy. I just think it's a cool design. It can be range challenged as everyone knows. I would be just as happy flying the Howard 500, FW-190, Seafury or other slower warbirds.

My 2 cents,
Moze

 

[salt_air]

No need to quote Moses on his post ... I agree with every bit of it.

I couldn't be happier if those three were disallowed or severely limited in this year's race.





:iidea:

 

[Willy]

I couldn't be happier if those three were disallowed or severely limited in this year's race.

I agree. Especially after hearing from some quarters that if you don't fly them, then you're hurting the team. One of the things that endeared the RTW to me in the early days was that I could fly what I wanted to within reason with no complaints.

 

[Tako_Kichi]

I agree. Especially after hearing from some quarters that if you don't fly them, then you're hurting the team. One of the things that endeared the RTW to me in the early days was that I could fly what I wanted to within reason with no complaints.

Simple maths says that if the other teams are flying the 'hot three' to the allowed limits and we are not then yes we are disadvantaging ourselves as a team. However, Team SOH has always had a policy of 'fly what ya brung' and long may it be that way but that just means we are simply flying for fun and not flying to win and it is supposed to be a race after all.

 

[Great Ozzie]

I say spot on Guys.

Certainly an idea worth trying. If "we" side-line / restrict a few make/models (H's etc... ) and this allows a "blossoming" of the number of aircraft choices...

And as I said on FlightSim... would not mind having a certain number of default aircraft that must be used "x" amount of legs. And here again I am referring to make/model (e.g. C172 x 3 legs, Mooney x2 legs, Caravan x1 leg, Baron x2 legs etc...)

Only concern here this will make the race last a bit longer... which makes me happier but...

 

[apollosmith]

Only concern here this will make the race last a bit longer... which makes me happier but...

If there's some consensus around these aircraft, then you should compile the list and submit it to Matt and the committee, along with answers to their other questions.

They could easily bring the race duration back to something manageable by offsetting these with fewer mileage requirements, less helos/classic props, more jet legs (Concorde anyone?), wildcards, or maybe expanding the maximum flight time (don't like this idea myself) and/or distance.

 

[Dangerousdave26]

Well looks like we have a lot of ground to cover here since I was last around.


Most of you from the 4 teams may find this long winded and of no use to you. Continue to read if you like but I am writing this primarily for the benefit and eyes of the race committee. Everything that follows is of my own personal opinion.


As a commentary I really wish these topics would have come up in June or July instead of just a little over a month from the race. We have little time to make any changes and a lot of personal opinions to wade through to get to a final product.


First to start off with the topic started by Matt.


As another commentary lets try to remember that this race is conducted in the MS Flight Simulator World and not the real world. Inherintly we will have to accept some inaccuracies and inconsistencies when compared to the real world. We do not need to burden ourselves with extra rules that are unnecessary.


Discontinuing of Aircraft - I do not find it necessary.


The original rules as stated in the General Rules and Charter

• section c. Aircraft Requirements,
• sub section i. General,
• Part 1 Aircraft must meet all of the following requirements to be eligible for use in the race,
• c. Finally, the flight simulator model must have been designed for use in FS2004 or FSX, and have been openly available to the general public, either as a commercial product or as freeware, at least two weeks before the race.

As pointed out as soon as a freeware or Payware aircraft becomes no longer available the aircraft no longer meets the rule requirement.


I propose amending the rule to read.


"Finally, the flight simulator model must have been designed for use in FS2004 or FSX, and have been openly available to the general public, either as a commercial product or as freeware, at least two weeks before the race. Once a model is officially eligible it will remain so no matter what the current availability"


This amendment is based in the fact that there is no reason to limit the aircraft use just because it has gone dark. Whoever has it and is still racing should have the option to use it if they so choose. We at SOH do not condone or promote piracy as I believe is the case with our fellow competitors Flightsim, AVSIM, and iFlyonline so there is no concern with teams trying to put the fastest race planes in every persons hanger illegally. This covers my second topic of choice Piracy. We don't condone it and the race committee for good form should throw a line in the rules...


"It is expected that each participant will be in legal possession of the models they use in the race. The race committee does not condone software piracy and will not be taking on the task of policing the use of payware models in the race."


Now to knock off a few off topic comments that were brought up.


First lets beat up on this P-51H/DH-Hornet issue. Clearly the race is becoming way too one sided by the use of those aircraft.


The first thing I would like to say is STOP WORRYING ABOUT IT. Fly the aircraft you want to fly, that you can fly, and bring your A game to the Race. If you don't have an A game bring everything you can and contribute to your team. Trust in the fact the race committee also has noticed this trend and will put in place simple routing rules that address the issue.


In both cases both aircraft are terribly hot not even close to reality. It should also be noted that all aircraft with drop tanks suffer from this lack of reality. Speaking specifically on the P-51H though it is fastest at its Maximum Continuous cruise setting of 46" map, 2,700 RPM, @ 32,000'. This power setting will yield around 371 ktas and a range of 1,431 nm + a bit. At our typical race settings which is the Wet Wep Setting of 80" map, 3,000 RPM @ 28,800 (limited to 7 minutes Maximum) it will fly at 434 ktas with a range of 825ish nm. That is 14.5% faster than it should fly. Keep that number in mind.


Now real quick DH-Hornet F1 and F3 version Maximum Continuous will yield 394 ktas. The Alphasim DH-Hornet cruises full out at 440 ktas for all variants. That is 10.5% faster than it should fly. The F20, NF21 are 5 and 10 kts slower than the F3 that is 11.6% and 12.7% faster. Lets not get started on all of the other unrealistic items in the Hornet it has more than one.


Bottom line they do not have to be banned or even limited to encourage the use other aircraft.


Here are some options listed by feasibility and ease of implementation.


a.) Bring back the aircraft diversity bonus. It is the single fastest way to expand the aircraft base. It does lead to more accounting which can be bothersome.


b.) Add on a 15% time adjustment to all P-51H legs and 11% adjustment to each DH-Hornet leg.


c.) Add a feature to the Duenna that allows us to select aircraft profiles. The profile will contain time limits at certain power levels before initiating engine damage through FSUIPC. Arguably this would be the hardest to pull off this year but would be the coolest new feature.

Give me time and I will come up with more but if I keep going I will bust the character limit in the post.

 

[jt_dub]

I have noted that a number of posters have commented that they are OK with discontinued aircraft being used in the race including the alphasim B2 that was protested last year.

I would like to register a contrary point of view at least as regards the B2. The performance demonstrated in last years race by the B2 showed that it was significantly superior in speed to its competitor aircraft. See this graphic analysis by Tenson on the Flightsim forum:

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showt...ve-Committee-Canvassing&p=1643066#post1643066

The problem is competitive advantage. Unless a comparable performing aircraft is available to all participants it aint right. If a freeware B2 or other jet is available with comparable performance then who cares if the Alphasim B2 is discontinued. I don't. Equal access to competive race aircraft is the issue. Handicapping may be a solution but I think it will be very complicated with its own associated issues.