Pattern Box Rules (discussion)

[Ron Van Putte]

On Mar 2, 2005, at 2:05 PM, <rcaerobob at cox.net> wrote:

> My TAKE....If a box change is 'needed', let's make the thing SMALLER.  
> That would drive us to fly SLOWER, require less POWER, and the 
> airplanes would not have to be 2M...

While I sympathize with the intent, if the box was smaller and we had 
to fly slower, there would be a premium on transition to vertical 
flight and vertical flight itself.  This would not necessarily require 
less power, in fact it might require more power to accelerate into 
vertical flight and continue.  Most would probably use very low 
pitch/large diameter props kinda like the electric-powered 3D airplanes 
use.  Hmmmmm.

> Plus, a smaller box presents a smaller noise footprint, permits faster 
> rounds, easier judging, and farther distances between center overlaps 
> for collision avoidance.

Unscored takeoffs and landings will speed things up too.  Oops, I 
understand that's controversial.

> Changing the box size smaller COULD have a lot of benefits!!!!

As much as I hate to say it, I generally agree with Bob.

Ron Van Putte

>>
>> From: BUDDYonRC at aol.com
>> Date: 2005/03/02 Wed PM 12:03:30 EST
>> To: discussion at nsrca.org
>> Subject: Pattern Box Rules (discussion)
>>
>>
>> As a member of the rules change committee I am trying to determine if 
>> there
>> is interest in pursuing this matter and welcome a discussion and  
>> suggestions
>> regarding this issue
>> I have outlined some of the issues and suggestions pertaining to  
>> this below
>> and welcome your opinions.
>>
>>
>> The pattern box was added to the AMA rules when the  turnaround 
>> method of
>> Presentation and scoring was initiated. It defines the  limited 
>> scoring area
>> where all maneuvers must be performed.
>> The purpose of the box is to provide a uniform but somewhat  flexible 
>> area of
>> presentation that allows the pilot the opportunity to tailor  his
>> presentation to the requirements of the pattern being flown, and 
>> allow  judges to score
>> his presentation on an equitable basis when compared to the  
>> presentations of
>> other pilots flying the sequence.
>> The rules provide for specific score penalties for  performing any 
>> maneuver
>> either out of the box or partially out of the box,  making it all 
>> important
>> that all box violations are downgraded the same by all  judges to 
>> provide the
>> correct score earned.
>> Over the years the failure of judges to provide a uniform  
>> application of box
>> violations has resulted in an unfair advantage to some pilots  and a
>> disadvantage to others.
>> In many cases box line poles are not  or cannot be provided to give 
>> the pilot
>> or judge the visual reference necessary  which becomes the primary 
>> reason
>> among others that this condition continues to  exist.
>> In addition to the above the present box configuration  increases the
>> possibility of a midair collision when two flight lines are used  
>> because many pilots
>> strive to utilize the same optimum distance out in their  
>> presentation.
>> By reconfiguring the box more area  will be available for those who 
>> wish to
>> fly in closer with out fear of box  violation downgrades, this will 
>> also allow
>> those who experience vision  difficulties at greater distances the 
>> possibly to
>> be more competitive
>> In order to provide a method that will  more nearly insure equity to 
>> all
>> participants and simplify the task of judges,  while possibly 
>> reducing the
>> occurrences of midair collision, and also encourage  those with 
>> limited eyesight at
>> the greater distances to participate, It has  been suggested that a 
>> rules
>> change be requested to modify the pattern  box layout and redefine 
>> the box boundary
>> infringement  penalty.
>> One suggestion was to revise the box size by changing  the box line 
>> from
>> Sixty (60) degrees to Seventy-five (75) degrees. And adopt a  uniform 
>> system of
>> accessing penalties similar to the FAI rule or to the  method used in 
>> IMAC
>> Another suggestion which may offer solutions to more of the  inherent
>> problems experienced with the present box layout and scoring methods  
>> would be to
>> adopt
>> A box layout and penalty system as described in the AMA  Scale 
>> Aerobatics
>> Rules Item 4.1 with modifications to suit pattern.
>> Buddy Brammer
>>
>>
>>
>
> Bob Pastorello, El Reno, OK, USA
> rcaerobob at cox.net
> www.rcaerobats.net
>
> =================================================
> To access the email archives for this list, go to
> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> To be removed from this list, go to 
> http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
>

=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.