[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Wed Oct 21 04:41:25 AKDT 2009

"I believe it was Ron Chidgey that came up with all this.  He saved us.
Mike"

That was my recollection as well.  Pappas?  Matt?  Earl?

Dave

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of michael s
harrison
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 8:26 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

I agree with both of you.  I flew that stuff too. Those things were
screaming bombs.   Strangers would come from a mile or more away and
complain about the noise.  Some made threats.  I was about to quit when the
quiet stuff came along.  Turnaround saved us.  Whoever came up with that was
a true visionary.  I believe it was Ron Chidgey that came up with all this.
He saved us.  Mike

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Stuart Chale
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:07 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

I to have just read 130 messages while watching the Yankee game.  5 to 1 in
the 8th for you Yankee and Angel fans :)
As far as History of sound and turnaround.  Jim has it pretty much straight.
The noise issue was brought up well before turnaround was introduced.  When
the noise limits were introduced we started going to larger props and soft
mounts.  We were still using the short stroke high revving engines.  I
switched from 11x7's to DW 11 x 9 W with a longer pipe.  Same performance,
same speed but quieter.  My first soft mounts were hand made.  Plates with
vinyl grommets that mounted to the rails in my Atlanta's.  Dean Pappas gave
me the design.  Next came the long strokes with even larger props and even
quieter.  The long strokes made the switch to turnaround easier.  

Stuart C

J N Hiller wrote: 

I spent the afternoon at the field so I'm late with this reply.

In the mid 80's I was flying an MK Arrow copy running the traditional 11-7
1/2 Rev-Up (couldn't get a D-W) on a piped OS 61-VF tuned conservatively to
between 13500 - 14000 RPM on the ground. One of the clubs I belonged to
closed for a year due to a noise complaint. When it reopened as a
recreational airpark with sound restrictions (100 db @ 3M) I went out foe a
check before changing anything. I was making over 105 db and during the
check I observed that both the db and tachometer needles moved together when
throttling up and down. Adding a soft mount and lengthening the pipe around
2" reduced the sound 10 db turning a 12-9 prop. I actually gained
performance, burned about half the fuel and a glow plug would last half the
summer. 

As for noise footprint typical turnarounds were flown at full throttle 1/3
of a mile out on a line 75 - 80m deep. As much fun as this was it was boring
by comparison. Before Expert Turnaround I had flown turnaround style in, as
I recall, Scale Aerobatics later referred to as simply IMAC.

Jim H 

-----Original Message-----
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 2:55 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  <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>
<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/20091021/c1d768f0/attachment.html>