[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Phil Spelt
chuenkan at comcast.net
Tue Oct 20 15:23:13 AKDT 2009
In 1991, I was flying a plane with an Enya .61 GearPump with a
Soundmaster "Muffler" and turning a 3-blade prop which sounded off @
89dB at 9 ft. It was extremely competitive -- MUCH more than I was... :-)
I also had a YS .61 short-stroke which did the same...
At 05:57 PM 10/20/2009, you wrote:
>Content-Language: en-US
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>
>boundary="_000_99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216DB45B4E3PEVM01paragon_"
>
>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
><mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com |
>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: <mailto:bob at toprudder.com>Bob Richards
>To: <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>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
-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.
Phil Spelt, Webmaster & Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294, Scientific Leader Member, SPA--177
My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
(865) 435-1476 v (865) 604-0541 c
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091020/e774199c/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list