[NSRCA-discussion] unknowns

Wed Sep 23 14:17:22 AKDT 2009

Jim. 

Been reading all the comments about "unknowns" and thought I'd add my view. I started flying AMA pattern around 1978. At that time, the Masters class made up their own sequence from a list of approved maneuvers, essentially a Freestyle. Being a Novice, I never got to do this, and by the time I reached Masters (some ten or twelve years later), the rules had changed and we were flying turnaround. I think we lost something when the Freestyle went away. 

 I left the model world for a dozen years and started flying IAC competition at first in a Pitts, then a Giles 202, and now a Sukhoi 26. Like most newcomers, I started in Sportsman, won a few contests and started up the ladder. At the second level (or third if you count Basic), Intermediate, you are introduced to both Freestyles and Unknowns. For me, this added a whole new level of interest. You might think creating a Freestyle program is a simple matter of selecting maneuvers that add up to the allowable K, and meet the other constraints such as the right number of rolls, snaps, spins, etc. Not so! It forces you to understand your skills and the capabilities of your airplane. My Freestle might be a disaster for another pilot in another plane - its tailored to my flying style and the strenghts of the Sukhoi. No doubt, working this out over the years has made me a better pilot and made me understand the airplane's capabilities as well. 

The "Unknown" - well, that separates the men from the boys, so to speak. In most IAC contests where the competition is reasonably close, the Unkown is the decider. Usually, it is not the most difficult sequence. All the maneuvers that can be included are published at the begining of the year, and the allowable K is less than that of the Known or the Freestyle.  Generally, it favors the best pilots. Of course, you don't have a caller, so you have to make up a sequence card that you read during the flight, and/or, if you prefer, try to memorize the sequence. Personnaly, I have found the memory alternative to be a disaster for me. Nonetheless, I find this is the most interesting round of the competition. Yes, it requires that you spend some time Sat night thinking it through, but that's why I came here - I can drink a beer with friends anytime. I guess it just depends on how you view a contest weekend - are you there to compete and win, or  socialize?  I belive both are valid reasons for attending, and lately, I often find myself in the latter group. 

Five or six years ago, I decided to get back to model competition. Both AMA Pattern and IMAC. Not a serious threat to anyone (at 73 you don't do anything seriuosly), but I do try to make a respectable showing. I've been favorably impressed with what I've seen in IMAC - it's like pattern contests were 20 or 30 years ago. Lots of enthusiasm, a bunch of newcomers, even some young kids. I haven't seen any kids (defined as less the 20, maybe 30 ), at a pa ttern contest since I've returned to the scene. Sad. 

Would an "Unknown" be good for pattern ?  For me, it would make it more interesting, as would a Freestyle, but I don't know if it would attract any new blood.  If a Freestyle and /or an Unkown were introduced to AMA Pattern, the best, most dedicated pilots would still win - it would just be a more interest ing and fun contest. And that's what its all about. 

Jack 

From: "Jim Woodward (US SSA)" <jim.woodward at baesystems.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 10:40:08 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] unknowns 

True that!  Basically, the "unknowns" and how they shape the event from all angles, is part-n-parcel to the IMAC experience, personality, and culture. 
Thanks, 
Jim 

-----Original Message----- 
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of steve hannah 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 10:34 AM 
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] unknowns 

Boy ain't that the truth about calling. I had a hard time saying NO. 
The other thing that happens is that you get to sit in the judges 
chair and watch 15 guys from another class fly their unknown then you 
have to shake that off and go fly yours. 

On Wednesday, September 23, 2009, Woodward, Jim (US SSA) 
<jim.woodward at baesystems.com> wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Steve, 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully we'll cross paths in the future, maybe at the 
> 2010 pattern nats.  Thanks for sharing your experience below.  Just 
> to add some more thoughts about the unknowns.  Unknowns invite a "team" 
> approach to flying them successfully.  Most the pilots will take their 
> unknown, and go to their most experienced friend that can read arestii, and ask 
> for it to be deciphered.  Groups of 3-5 pilots will go through and try to 
> get them sorted out.  You then leave the field or dinner thinking you got 
> them right.  Later in the hotel room, you realize that some particular 
> snap & roll combination is "same direction" instead of the 
> typical opposite direction (for instance).  Then, you doubt the whole 
> thing and study it again.  In the morning, you go to your buds and see if 
> they caught the mistake, but then sort of hope the other 'competition' 
> didn't catch it. 
> 
> 
> 
> So here goes the sequence of events morning of - if you 
> are the person folks are relying on to "call-correctly" for them, 
> it can really cramp your morning.  You will be studying the other classes 
> unknown nearly as much as your own.  If you call for them (sometimes a 
> couple people let's say) before you fly, YOU better have a good caller 
> lined up to help keep you own head straight.  It puts more pressure on you 
> to "call-correctly" for someone, than to fly your own 
> sequence.  It also puts you in an uncomfortable spot to say "no" 
> to the task when you absolutely need to.  You will quickly look around and 
> realize that other pilots have that "super-experienced" caller 
> working with them all the time - maybe for years.  If your flying 
> group doesn't have that, all of you are at the disadvantage. 
> 
> 
> 
> As the unknown flier - there are tricks to memorizing the 
> sequence (Don S.'s latest video covers one technique nicely for it), but 
> the bottom line is that your caller will make-or-break this round for you, and 
> in short, the contest outcome.  Reading aresti is a skill.  Flying 
> unknowns with the same composure and "presentation" that you fly 
> the knowns with a huge new skill to learn.  If you are really practicing 
> with IMAC dedication, you should probably fly 65% of the knowns, and 35% of 
> learning how your airplane does every other maneuver not in your known.  The 
> benefit is that learning how to approach unknowns and fly them confidently will 
> accelerate your skill growth and make you a better pilot fast.  You knees 
> may shake like you are on the Nationals flight line though!  I always have 
> a good feeling of accomplishment for pulling off a clean unknown, that you don't 
> always have after even a really good known flight.   Unknowns offer a 
> lot and they will make your head stronger for flying, show where your 
> weaknesses as a pilot are, but they come at the price of a lot of studying, 
> dramatic changes in the final pilot positions, and needing a good "team 
> approach" to pull the flights off cleanly. 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> Jim 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: 
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of steve 
> hannah 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 9:17 PM 
> To: General pattern discussion 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] unknowns 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this thread started as 
> a query into unknowns.  Jim W's post pretty well hit the nail on the 
> head.  Leave the unknowns to IMAC.  When I switched from F3A to IMAC 
> (actually the JR SCAT series) in 2002 I started flying Intermediate and really 
> liked the unknowns.  Flying those unknown sequences was very easy.  I 
> found the degree of difficulty of maneuvers between intermediate and the then 
> F3A sequence to be compatible.  Unknowns were no more difficult and, since 
> I had been flying competitive pattern for 12 years I had little trouble 
> adapting.  I was typically the most experienced pilot in the class so I 
> had little trouble.  Moving up the ladder saw an exponential increase in 
> the degree of difficulty for the maneuvers as well as for the unknowns. 
> It is true, you have to kick butt in the unknown in order to win.  So, at 
> every contest I would spend saturday night learning and memorizing my 
> unknown.  I'd get the sequence and stick fly it until I fell asleep. 
> I got to where I really hated that.  It wasn't fun.  Flying Unlimited 
> in 2007, including the TAS, burned me out on this whole thing and cured me of 
> any desire to fly unknowns ever again. 
> 
> When I started flying pattern again in 2008, it was like a breath of fresh air 
> to me.  The contests were fun again.  I am a competitive guy and I 
> stopped having fun at IMAC contests.  They were just too much work. 
> 
> Pattern contests are much lower key and relaxing.  IMAC events are 
> hectic.  The unknowns put a cramp on your fun as well.  I would 
> always be thinking at the evening group dinner "I can't have that extra 
> beer, I need to leave NOW in order to have enough time to cram the Unlimited Unknown 
> sequence into memory".  That sucked. 
> 
> As for the never ending debate of which is better/tougher/more precise, I'll 
> say this.  Flying Pattern made me a good IMAC pilot.  Then, flying 
> IMAC made me a much better Pattern flier.  They're all good. 
> Everyone should try both.  Just leave the unknowns to IMAC, Keep them easy 
> enough to memorize in 10 minutes in the morning so you can have a few beers and 
> shoot the bull with your buddies at night. 
> 
> Steve 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'wemodels at cox.net');>> wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J N Hiller wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks 
> guys that will make it a little easier.  I will then assume that the slash 
> marks through the loop only indicate centering the rolling element. 
> 
> It 
> looked nice through 90 degrees of ark with a very slow rate but I only got one 
> out of maybe a dozen attempts that looked decent. 
> 
> Jim 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those marks are from the Aresti 
> catalog and indicate where on the loop a roll element can be placed. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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 
_______________________________________________ 
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/20090923/0db49f99/attachment.html>