<html><head><base href="x-msg://75/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">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.<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Jim</div><div><br><div><div>On Oct 20, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Bill Glaze wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div bgcolor="#ffffff"><div>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.)</div><div>Again, just asking.</div><div>Bill Glaze</div><blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 0px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; "><div style="font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal arial; ">----- Original Message -----</div><div style="font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal arial; background-image: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: rgb(228, 228, 228); background-position: initial initial; "><b>From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a title="bob@toprudder.com" href="mailto:bob@toprudder.com">Bob Richards</a></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal arial; "><b>To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a title="nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">General pattern discussion</a></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal arial; "><b>Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:34 PM</div><div style="font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal arial; "><b>Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question</div><div><br></div><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top"><div>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.</div><div> </div><div>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.</div><div> </div><div>Again, this is JMHO.</div><div> </div><div>Bob R.</div><div><br>--- On<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b>Tue, 10/20/09, John Gayer<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i><<a href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net">jgghome@comcast.net</a>></i></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>wrote:<br></div><blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(16, 16, 255); border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; "><br><div id="yiv1158923941">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.<br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>John Gayer<br><br></div></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><hr><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>_______________________________________________<br>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></blockquote>_______________________________________________<br>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></div></span></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>