U.S. Wins Aerobatics, Combat at CL World Championships
Oxelosund, Sweden. The U.S. CL Team swept to World Championships in the FAI's Class F2B (Aerobatics) and Class F2D (Combat).
Les McDonald (Miami, FL), the reigning World Champion, successfully defended his title, outpointing Wu Dazhong (PRC) — 2nd place — and O. Andersson (Sweden) — 3rd place. Ted Fancher (Foster City, CA), Robert Baron (Claremont, CA), and Bill Werwage (Berea, OH) finished in 4th, 5th, and 6th places. Zhang Xiandong and Niu Anlin, both of the People’s Republic of China, were very close behind the Americans in 7th and 8th places. The PRC team was only 125 points behind the U.S. team in total. In national ranking the Chinese team was second and the French team was third. Twenty-three nations and 56 fliers competed.
Tom Fluker, Jr. (Gainesville, TX) became the new World Champion in FAI Class F2D, Combat. Gary Arnold (Garden City, MI) was in an 8-way tie for 9th place, and Dick Stubblefield (Houston, TX) was in a 16-way tie for 17th place. Forty-seven competitors flew in the double-elimination tournament. Second place was captured by U. Edslev of Denmark, and P. Salerma of Finland was third. The U.S. placed first among the 16 nations competing, with Italy second and Denmark third.
The U.S. team did not do well in either Class F2A (Speed) or Class F2C (Team Race). In Speed, the U.S. placed 10th out of 17 nations (with 48 fliers) competing. In Team Race, the U.S. placed 15th out of 19 nations competing.
In Speed, Charles Schuette (Lakewood, CA) was the highest-placing American — fifth, at 266.2 km/hr; Carl Dodge (Richmond Heights, OH) was 28th at 247.2 km/hr; and Ed Gifford (Newfield, NJ) was 42nd at 223.8 km/hr. S. Szegedi, J. Mult, and J. Molnar, all of Hungary, finished 1–2–3, with speeds of 275.4, 272.3, and 271.9 km/hr. On this basis, Hungary's team was the World Champion in this event, with China second and Poland third.
In Team Race (Class F2C), the team of J.E. Albritton (Vienna, VA) and Walt Perkins (Ocala, FL) finished sixth — their fastest semi-final time of 3:35.2 was the fourth-highest (thereby eliminating them from the Finals), narrowly behind the U.S.S.R.'s Barkov/Suraev team at 3:34.7. The next-ranking U.S. team was John McCollum (El Toro, CA) and Tom Knoppi (Seattle, WA), who posted the slowest of the official times (7:17.1) to place 43rd. The team of Larry Jolly (Santa Ana, CA) and Jed Kusik (Crestline, CA) did not post an official time. The U.S. team finished with a ranking of 15th (out of 19 nations competing); in this event England was first, U.S.S.R. second, and the Netherlands third. Nineteen nations and 51 teams competed.
NC Contest Board — 1984-85 Rules Chairman Comments
Proposals — Pattern Rules Controversy has generated considerable criticism toward the R/C Contest Board. As a consequence, a procedural mix-up resulted in some anticipated R/C Pattern rules changes being incorporated in the new 1982–83 AMA rule book printing. A letter from Rick Bergeron (July 1982 Soapbox) seemed to strike a raw nerve for some people; as evidenced by the Editor's reply immediately following the letter, I would like to take exception to that point of view, as expressed in the reply.
Rick Edwards' letter (filed Advanced Pattern and living in Baldwin Park, CA) triggered a reply from another AMA member; Rick Edwards' comments were printed in a subsequent Soapbox. Copies of Rick Edwards' letter were sent to AMA President John C. Griggs and R/C Contest Board Chairman Joe Friend and have resulted in preparation of comments-in-reply by those individuals. President Griggs' comments will be found in the AMA News section this month. Chairman Friend's comments are printed below.
R/C Contest Board Chairman's Response
Mr. Rick Edwards has made very severe accusations regarding the integrity and diligence of AMA HQ staff members and the R/C Contest Board. This has caused upset over the confusion that resulted when expected Pattern maneuver schedules did not appear in the recently released rule book.
Summaries of new rules proposals begin the issue cycle for rules changes. The 1984–85 rule book cycle has begun. A few rules proposals have been received at AMA HQ through mid-July. Proposals for rule changes must be mailed to AMA HQ with a postmark no later than September 1, 1982, in order to be considered in the new cycle. If you intend to submit rules proposals in time, hurry — the September 1 deadline is almost upon us.
The complete rulemaking procedure was published June 1982 in Competition Newsletter (pages 1–4 of issue 15). Competition Newsletter is mailed separately. A Model Aviation rules proposal form was printed on page 15 of that issue. Published first, summaries of newly submitted proposals are printed so interested modelers can review them. Let your District Contest Board members see the Competition Directory issue and let them know what they think of the proposals. The Contest Board wants input now so it can make an intelligent initial vote.
Are the newly submitted proposals the ones summarized? The ones received at AMA HQ are given an initial screening by Contest Board chairmen up through mid-July. Some proposals received at AMA HQ have continued into subsequent stages of review.
Remarks on FAI Team-Selection Programs
The newcomer often finds the team-selection programs stacked against him. Many experienced competitors have special equipment all lined up in advance and are ready to roll, but the newcomer is snowed under. He may not be familiar with all aspects of how the program operates; he may not even have built his model yet. If he wants to compete, he may realize that he'll be playing against a stacked deck — much of his competition will know all the ins and outs of the rules and will be experienced in this type of competition. By the time a potential new participant reads the program announcement (probably in Competition Newsletter), he is already at a disadvantage because the inner circle of competitors was well aware of what was going on in advance.
Another problem is that when a team program is announced, the announcement is usually very terse: it will generally list only events and dates. That is not enough to entice newcomers. All FAI team-selection programs should be announced early — any late invitation for an activity is bad.
Put yourself in the place of an active modeler who has just become interested in one of the FAI programs. Would you enter the program without knowing the complete program? Would you enter without a good idea in advance of the amount of work, money, and time it would take — without knowing in advance where and when the Finals would be held? How could you plan your vacation, knowing you must submit the request months in advance? If you couldn't plan on these important aspects well in advance (six months may not be enough), I doubt you would enter the team-selection program — especially if you were not already an active, hard-core FAIer.
Assume you did get involved and won a place on the team. What do you get for your trouble? A little recognition, perhaps, but very little relative to the effort and expense. After participating for two years, spending a lot of time and money building and practicing, your name may be mentioned in Model Aviation — almost as an afterthought. The effort expended deserves more than that. People thrive on recognition — it is our most economical commodity.
What about the people who didn't make the team? How can the selection programs be made more appealing to all participants? What is the purpose of the AMA's FAI program — just to produce a winning team and a World Champion, or is there a longer-range goal? Maybe we should be concerned with the new modeler who has yet to try his hand in FAI activity. After all, World Champions are made, not born. A World Champion's first efforts probably left a lot to be desired; champions have entered multiple sessions of the team program and have built more than one model. A good team-selection program will pick a good team, and a good team will be one that has experience. So why not encourage more people to acquire that experience and give new participants more chances to get involved, to learn and gain experience through watching and doing? Perhaps we could have some kind of AMA promotion for FAI programs. Can you remember when we used to have FAI Eliminations instead of today's FAI Qualifications? Why don't we give the qualifiers something?
Are our FAI team-selection programs working? What about the expense to AMA — is the per-capita cost reasonable? (The total program cost compared to the number of participants gives the per-capita cost.) Is there need for concern outside of the present program participants? How many people are really involved in our various FAI programs? Should the program concepts be created and voted on only by the "pro" FAI flier? Why is participation declining in older programs? If we want new blood, we must stop late program announcements.
There was once a time when the NAA helped secure transportation for the AMA to send teams to overseas World Championships and helped send AMA delegates to FAI's CIAM meetings in Paris. When AMA membership was around 20,000 we had more FAI program participation than we do now with 80,000 members. Our general membership is growing, but FAI participation is dwindling.
At one time, team programs generated revenue to help pay team members' travel from home to the port of embarkation for overseas World Championships ("inboard travel"). This helped keep out-of-pocket costs down. As team programs degenerated from lack of participation, funds dwindled and costs to individuals increased. Eventually, to increase team effectiveness, the AMA Executive Council voted to finance a practice session for each team prior to the World Championships — covering round-trip expenses from team members' homes to the practice site, plus two nights' lodging. Maybe we should use this money to pay for team members' inboard travel and hold practice sessions at the World Championships site. Also, since the Executive Council now pays for inboard travel, why should any team program try to generate travel funds by increasing participation?
One aspect of encouraging participation should not be overlooked: increased participation decreases the chance of any one individual making the team — he would face more competition.
Experience shows that older team programs such as Outdoor FF and CL had greater participation when Zone-type programs were used. This method has been discarded in favor of central Finals. The goal of the central-Finals concept was to pick a better team, but it has resulted in decreased participation. Yet the U.S. has produced winning teams under both systems.
I once heard a modeler eager to enter the FAI program say:
"I'm ready, and have the stuff, I don't care if the field is rough. Show me the sky, And let me fly. I'll do the rest, To prove I'm best,"
I don't mind competition — but not when I would be at a disadvantage regarding travel, time, expense, and home-field advantage. Fliers competing at their local site are likely to have advantages such as chasers, motor bikes, and local support. If I have to fly clear across the country to compete, my retrieval aid might be only a pair of roller skates — and those don't work well in grass, mud, or sand!
As an AMA member, I would hope that elected AMA officials would have my interests at heart when they appropriate part of my dues money to support an FAI program. I would hope they would ensure timely announcements for AMA-funded events and provide guidance so I could take full advantage of such events. I would also hope AMA presidents would closely oversee all FAI affairs and help ensure these programs do not die, and that they continue to offer rewarding opportunities to AMA membership. Their leadership should help create increased program participation in keeping with overall AMA membership growth.
Thoughts and suggestions:
- If we can move our Nats site all over the country, why not the FAI team-selection Finals site, too?
- It would be wise to hold our FF Finals at a site similar to the World Championships site. (Some World Championships sites would never pass our own site requirements.)
- Any team-Final site that cannot extend equal support and services to all contestants should be denied sanction.
- Regional Finals sites worked. The problem in using them was not permitting anyone a chance to fly whenever he chose, thus denying geographic areas the chance to fill all the team slots if they had the three best modelers in a category. If we returned to that system but held Zone Finals a month apart and allowed any contestant to enter any or all of them, we would likely select a superior team — one that could cope with diverse field and weather conditions at a World Championships. In addition, a flier could not complain if beaten at a Zone Final by someone from outside his Zone because he could attend another Final in a different Zone. It would be a more national program and would induce more participation by reducing required time and resources.
Chairman Comments (continued)
Mr. Edwards, as well as many others, has good reason to be upset over the situation, but I reject his broad condemnation of "the Powers That Be." It is true that a clerical error was made regarding one proposal in 1980 — which was not detected by anyone until a year and a half later. Many people had the information that would have enabled its discovery, but because of the complications of the submitted proposal, it remained undetected; for this I extend my apology.
I cannot, however, accept any criticism of the integrity of any individual or of the RCCB as a body. There is no evidence to support it.
I agree with the Editor's note following Rick Bergeron's letter in the July "Soapbox" regarding AMA HQ's role and the advice to communicate with RC Contest Board members. As chairman of the RCCB, I view my position as one of considerable responsibility as opposed to one of power.
The function of the RCCB is not to propose changes, but to follow clear procedures for handling formal proposals submitted by the AMA membership — hence this material published through the Competition Newsletter — collect inputs from the membership with respect to their wishes on the proposals, and to vote as consistently as possible with the majority of comments from our AMA districts and with Contest Board policy, as best we can determine these factors. It is not my intention to allow the use of the RCCB to invoke the wishes of a few at the expense of many, or to be arbitrary in the execution of our responsibilities.
Comments on the Turn-Around Pattern Concept
On the subject of the new FAI Aerobatics pattern versus the AMA Aerobatics pattern, I have received considerable correspondence and comment, thanks to the efforts of NSRCA, IMAC, and various individuals. My view of the activities and feelings is as follows:
The FAI has adopted a "box"-style program for RC Aerobatics which now causes a large stylistic difference between FAI RC Aerobatics and AMA RC Pattern. Because Pattern has historically been fashioned after FAI Aerobatics, there is a philosophical momentum pulling against the sensitivities of the majority of AMA Pattern fliers. Most correspondence I have received from Pattern fliers shows violent opposition to the "box" style. Some are willing to allow FAI as an add-on at the top of the AMA Pattern skill classes, and I understand such a proposal is being formulated within the NSRCA.
On the other hand, Jerry Nelson is formulating an Aresti "box"-style program which will be endorsed by IMAC for inclusion under the RC Sport Aerobatics event. This program is closely aligned with FAI concepts. Jerry Nelson has suggested (in Don Lowe's column in the July 1982 issue of Radio Control Modeler magazine) that it would be a good time to start organization of the U.S. RC Aerobatic groups, including USPSA, IMAC, NSRCA, and the FAI team selection committee, under common leadership and common rules. I agree. However, there appears to be insufficient organizational capability and too much philosophical diversity at this time to expect such a thing to happen.
What, then, might we expect? I expect to see some proposals endorsed by the NSRCA suggesting minor changes to the existing RC Pattern program — some maneuver-schedule changes and a top-end FAI class add-on. I expect another proposal to change RC Sport Aerobatics from Jerry Nelson, endorsed by IMAC. These two proposals should please the two major bodies of competitors, but I think there will be some side effects.
Pattern contest directors are not likely to offer the FAI class because of anticipated low participation and the need for special physical arrangements and judge qualifications. Top fliers will be driven to fly at IMAC contests because of the natural FAI alignment offered at these meets. Finally, U.S. RC Aerobatic team members are most likely to emerge from the IMAC ranks, in which case IMAC, rather than NSRCA, will sponsor the U.S. team selection program.
Rules Proposals (continued) (not yet been screened by the Contest Board Chairmen.)
The Next Step
The Contest Boards will complete their Initial Votes by December 1, 1982. The tabulated results of that vote will be published here soon thereafter — probably in the March 1983 issue. The door will then be open for modelers to submit Cross-Proposals to the proposals that survive the Initial Vote. These Cross-Proposals are then published in the Competition Newsletter, and the Contest Boards accept more modeler input, preparing for the Final Vote deadline of May 1, 1983. The results of this vote are then tabulated, and the final wording of the surviving proposed rules is decided upon. These are then published in the Competition Newsletter as soon as possible, so that additional modeler comments can reach the Contest Boards prior to the final vote deadline on September 1, 1983. Final vote results are then tabulated and a synopsis of the new rules is published in the Competition Newsletter — probably in the December 1983 issue. The new rules are then incorporated in the 1984–85 rule book, which is published and mailed to members (with a target date for mailing of January 1984).
With respect to most proposed changes, these fall into the normal category and will ultimately be dealt with under the existing two-year rules revision cycle. Only rules changes dealing with emergency or highly unusual situations that require immediate resolution are handled outside of the two-year cycle.
Rules Proposals (continued)
The New Rules Proposals
The newly received rules proposals are summarized below. Rule book (1982–83 edition) items affected by the proposed changes are given in parenthesis following each rule proposal.
GENERAL RULES PROPOSALS
#### Gen-84-1 — Delete "Terrain" specification from Section 1 of the rule book This proposal would delete paragraph 1.14 Terrain from Section 1 (Sanctioned Competition) of the rule book. Horace Cain of Buffalo Grove, IL states that this section is outmoded and that various event rules and requirements already dictate any terrain requirements that may exist. He believes contest management should determine the adequacy of the terrain (p. 5, para. 1.14).
#### Gen-84-2 — Redefine Contest Director responsibilities for providing contest equipment This proposes replacing Paragraph 1.12 Equipment with: "Contest Directors are directly responsible to ensure (1) the availability of any and all equipment that is required for their contests, and (2) the availability of those scoring and recording aids as are necessary for efficient conduct of their contests." In addition, the first sentence of the existing 1.12 would be moved to paragraph 5.11 (Free Flight General). Horace Cain wants important event-specific information placed within the applicable section of the rule book rather than in the General section. He believes this change will assist both Contest Directors and competitors to better understand AMA requirements for competition and administration. He further states that the second and third sentences of 1.12, which apply specifically to CL events, are already covered in paragraph 23 Control Line Speed (p. 5, para. 1.11; p. 8, para. 5.11).
#### Gen-84-3 — Delete/relocate takeoff facilities rules now given in Section 1 This proposes relocating all of paragraph 1.13 to Section 5 Free Flight General. Horace Cain states that the existing paragraph 1.13 Take-off Facilities pertains only to FF events and should therefore be relocated to the FF General section (p. 5, para. 1.13; p. 8, para. 5.11).
RC RULES PROPOSALS
#### RC-84-1 — No rate gyros or autopilots in Pattern This proposes imposing limitations on allowable control systems in a Pattern model by adding to para. 39.4.4: "There shall be no radio equipment or aircraft control function limitations in any Pattern class except Novice; however, the use of an 'automatic pilot' type device, which places the model under anything less than full pilot control at all times, is prohibited in all classes of competition. All radio equipment must comply with FCC regulations." Michael K. Moritko of Ft. Ritchie, MD is concerned that rate gyros and potential 'automatic pilot' devices would deviate from the spirit and intent of Pattern competition — namely precision flying by the pilot and not by an automatic control device within the model (p. 41, para. 39.4.4).
#### RC-84-2 — Unify descriptions of Traffic Pattern This proposes changing the description of the Traffic Pattern in the AMA RC Pattern Judges' Guide to agree with the drawing on p. 45 (AMA RC Pattern Maneuvers). The first sentence of the description in the Judges' Guide would be changed to read: "The maneuver is commenced with the model flying into the wind parallel to the flight line, continuing 200–300 ft. past the judges, then turning away from the flight line 90 deg., a . . . touchdown." The sentence "The circuit may be to the right if the contestant wishes." would be deleted. Horace Cain states that eliminating contradictions between the drawing and description and removing the contestant’s option for a right-hand pattern will prevent potentially unsafe flying; field layout, landing circle, judge placement, and spectator location will determine whether the Traffic Pattern is left or right — the contestant should have no option (p. 49, Traffic Pattern).
#### RC-84-3 — Scalelike landings for RC Sailplanes This proposes revising para. 47.1.2.2 by deleting the last two sentences ("Loss of wing or . . . be immediately flyable.") and replacing them with: "If the aircraft experiences sufficient impact to release canopies, rubberbands, skids or other attached parts, that landing would not be prototypical and the landing points will be disallowed. The intent of this rule is that the landing be performed in a scalelike manner and that the aircraft be immediately flyable." Paul Proefrock of Lexington, KY states that the original intent of the existing rule — to be fair to a competitor who unexpectedly experiences a harder-than-normal landing — has eroded to the extent that fliers with strongly built models are now spot-landing to gain high landing points, which should be discouraged (p. 67, para. 47.1.2.2).
CL RULES PROPOSALS
#### CL-84-1 — One oz. fuel for Endurance This proposes changing the maximum allowable fuel capacity for an Endurance model from four oz. to one oz. Joseph L. Brautlecht of Collingswood, NJ states the present event is a test of the model and engine and of the flier's stamina and endurance. He believes a smaller fuel limit will better test model and engine performance and might promote interest in the event (p. 39, para. 36.4).
#### CL-84-2 — Maneuver diagrams from pilot's viewpoint This proposes redrawing Precision Aerobatics maneuver diagrams so they are seen from the pilot's viewpoint — not from a point outside the circle and above the ground. Also, verify whether the Start/End points of the Inside Square Loop and the Triangular Loop are correctly drawn. Bill Zimmer of Varna, IL states the present illustrations are difficult for newcomer pilots to interpret and have caused at least one new competitor to crash at an official flight due to confusion. He believes maneuvers should be illustrated as the flier would see them. Judges, who position themselves on the upwind side of the circle and thus "look over the pilot's shoulder," would also benefit. He further believes the Start/End points for the Inside Square Loop and Inside Triangle Loop should identify the first inside corner as the proper spot (pp. 31–34, maneuver diagrams).
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
