[NSRCA-discussion] Topic migrating ; ) > Re: Rules proposal 11-6 question

Wed Oct 21 04:44:03 AKDT 2009

So how is senior pattern dealing with this? I have seen a few guys around do SPA and those planes are not  noisy, reasonably quiet even. They are running 4c and 2c engines and hard mounted but no pipes. So the performance of the engines has changed a great deal I assume and don't need the speed as much to go vertical. 

________________________________
From: michael s harrison <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, October 21, 2009 7:26:24 AM
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 
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/20091021/20cec343/attachment.html>