[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

[John Fuqua]

Jim
You have a different memory from me.  I remember the planes going a half a
mile out at either end and gaining lots of altitude so they could screeming
in a downhill full speed max power pass at center.  Yeah the engines were
doing 16 grand and they were LOUD.  When the 98 FAI DB rule was imposed
people said it could NEVER be done.  Kinda like the IMAC boys said a few
years ago.  For one, turnaround got me back in Pattern because I got burnt
out on all that noise and the same old maneuvers.  Turnaround changed all
that.  As someone else said some quit but the rest kept at it.  And I would
challenge anybody to disagree that the overall quality of skill has gone up
dramatically because of turnaround demands.
John

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 5:15 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

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 <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

	_______________________________________________
	NSRCA-discussion mailing list
	NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
	http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion