[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

[James Oddino]

Just before turnaround, we were flying 15-18000 rpm OSs and Rossi 60s  
with 11x7 props and tuned pipes.  When the YS 60s came along the trend  
was to lower rpm and use 12x12 props.  This was driven by turnaround  
because we couldn't build up a lot of kinetic energy prior to vertical  
maneuvers.  It also resulted in less noise.  The noise footprint is  
much larger now because the planes and power plants are bigger and one  
needs to be further out to stay in the triangle.  By the way the  
triangle was always there, but only the maneuvers had to be inside the  
plus and minus sixty degrees.  The un-judged turnarounds could be  
outside.  Because most guys did the maneuvers inside 100 meters they  
were much easier to see and judge.

It was always pretty clear if you wanted a smaller footprint you  
should put a limit on engine size.  We obviously went the other way.

Jim

On Oct 20, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Bill Glaze wrote:

> 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
> To: General pattern discussion
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20091020/9c5e2d79/attachment.html>