[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

[Atwood, Mark]

I recall everyone flying YS 61 short strokes JUST prior to turnaround being moved into all the classes, with full tuned pipes. Soft mounts weren't really in vogue yet, though I recall Chip/Klein/McConville all semi-soft mounting their firewalls with silicone without the firewall actually touching the sides of the fuse.

Noise wasn't too bad, but I do remember flying a LOOOOOONG way out to turn around and coming into a maneuver from a mile out at 135mph.



Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>  |  www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill Glaze
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 5:55 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

I'm asking for a bit of history now.  When the turnaround system was added, were't the pattern folks flying unmuffled (or barely muffled) 2-strokes with high noise levels, not the now (relatigvely quiet) well muffled 4 strokes?  (to say nothing of the current generation electrics?)  There may be some interconnection /correlation here.  Just asking, Dave, not quarreling at all.  I've flown pattern before it was called pattern, when you made up your own sequence, and did only those maneuvers you wanted to do. Now of coursw, we have a well  established turnaround pattern.  (Which, by the way, I prefer.)
Again, just asking.
Bill Glaze
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Richards<mailto:bob at toprudder.com>
To: General pattern discussion<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Dave L mentioned the "noise footprint", but I am not sure that is a major reason (maybe it was?) that we went to turnaround. I was not heavily involved in pattern at that time. However, "noise footprint" can be divided into two parts, "noise" and "footprint". The fact that, as Dave mentioned, some sites in the NE are starting to fly pattern events again may be due more to the noise level than the overall flight footprint. So, the turnaround aspect may not be the saviour in this case as much as the noise reduction itself. Either way, thanks can go to FAI because that is where the noise reduction technology came from, and it filtered down to the AMA flyers. IMHO.

All that aside, I have always felt, and expressed my opinion, that the AMA rules and schedules should be geared towards what is best for the sport of precision aerobatics IN THE USA. I don't think we should pick schedules for any class, including Masters, with the major concern of helping prepare our pilots for FAI. FAI is another class, and if you think about that, here in the US it is almost two classes in itself: Those that fly at national/world level, and those that don't. If someone is really aspiring to fly at a world level, they will find the FAI class all by themselves. The fact that we do fly the FAI class at all contests is, IMHO, all we need to do to help them prepare for world level competitions. There is no need for us to put an FAI flavor in the Masters sequence, unless it will benefit pattern flying in general.

Again, this is JMHO.

Bob R.

--- On Tue, 10/20/09, John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net> wrote:

As I recall, the ONLY reason AMA is now flying turnaround is because F3A went to a turnaround format. The "powersthatwere" were concerned that our team would not have the relevant experience to compete on the world stage. This started a process of conversion to turnaround by including the FAI pattern and then expert turnaround in AMA pattern contests.
The pendulum has now swung the other way where the AMA pattern community, while overly committed to turnaround, rejects the patterns, rules and concepts of the FAI.

While I no longer see a need to use the current(or past schedule as we have already done) F3A pattern as the Masters pattern, I believe it is important to address whatever is new and challenging in the upcoming F3A patterns and consider introducing similar elements into the Masters pattern.

At the other end of the spectrum, I believe that the Sportsman class should have the turnaround elements removed completely. Perhaps some of the center maneuvers could be upgraded in difficulty at the same time. The sportsman flyer needs more focus on learning the maneuvers and where to place them. Making them fly the box simply insures that they aree not in position to do a proper center maneuver. This is not intended as a first step in getting rid of turnaround but rather creating a progression in the learning process.

John Gayer

________________________________
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091020/16b5b20b/attachment.html>