Radio Control: Aerobatics
Ron Van Putte 111 Sleepy Oaks Rd. Ft. Walton Beach, FL 32548
Problem
Now that the first few contests of the year are history, it has become apparent that some changes are necessary. We moved from maneuver schedules that were mostly non-turnaround format to a new set that are mostly turnaround format. There were bound to be problems on the first try, and there are. The rules-change procedures will take care of the changes eventually, but it will be almost two years before their effects are felt.
Most of the needed changes involve the Advanced class. With no Expert class between Advanced and Master, the difficulty jump is enormous. At virtually every contest this year Advanced fliers have said one of two things: "The Advanced maneuver schedule is too easy," and/or "The jump to Master is going to be tough!"
Since the plan is for the Master class to inherit the FAI maneuver schedule that is being phased out, the Master schedule will remain tough. We need to ease the transition between Advanced and Master.
Expert class — why I don't favor it
One option is to insert an Expert class between Advanced and Master with a schedule halfway in size and complexity. Problems with that approach:
- Advanced is currently the largest class at most contests. Adding Expert would likely split Advanced two-to-one (two-thirds remain Advanced, one-third move to Expert).
- At a 50-contestant event, instead of about 15 Advanced contestants you'd have roughly 10 Advanced and 5 Expert — too few in Expert for competitors to earn their way out.
- Clubs would need to buy Expert trophies without additional entry-fee revenue, which impacts contest budgets.
For these reasons I don't think adding an Expert class is a good idea.
Proposed approach
I propose changing the maneuver schedules instead: make minor adjustments to Sportsman and add maneuvers to Advanced so that Advanced ends up roughly halfway between Sportsman and Master in both maneuver count and total K-factor.
#### Sportsman changes
Current Sportsman schedule has three sets of three maneuvers that must be done in the turnaround box. The last maneuver before landing is Three Horizontal Rolls, a downwind maneuver. I propose adding a turnaround maneuver after the rolls, followed by an upwind maneuver so the final set ends upwind. The upwind heading would allow a gear-check downwind, a 180° turn, and a landing. Sportsman fliers already perform a gear-check pass after the rolls, so the extra two maneuvers wouldn't add time.
Suggested added sequence: One-half Cuban 8 into a Square Loop. With these additions the Sportsman schedule would have 14 maneuvers and a combined K-factor of 25.
#### Advanced changes
Current figures:
- Master: 23 maneuvers, combined K-factor 66.
- Advanced: 15 maneuvers, combined K-factor 31.
- If you subtract Takeoff and Landing K-factors, the average K-factor per airborne maneuver is about:
- Sportsman: 2.00
- Advanced: 2.23
- Master: 3.05
That's a large leap from Advanced to Master. The target is to get Advanced to about 19 maneuvers with an average K-factor per airborne maneuver above 2.4.
Proposed changes for Advanced:
- Change the Square Loop to an Avalanche.
- Add four maneuvers: Top Hat with 1/4 rolls, Triangle, Rolling Loop, and a Vertical Three-Turn Spin.
With those changes the Advanced schedule would have 19 maneuvers and a combined K-factor of 43. The average K-factor per airborne maneuver would be about 2.41.
These added maneuvers provide experience with:
- snap-type elements,
- wind-correction maneuvers,
- a straight vertical turnaround maneuver,
- various spin types — all of which appear in the Master schedule.
Engine-parity proposal
There is likely to be discussion about parity between two-cycle and four-cycle engines. Many four-cycle pilots claim no performance advantage, so they see no reason for bonuses or penalties.
My response: if four-cycles offer no advantage, why choose a heavier, louder, more expensive engine?
Consequently, I am considering a 5% scoring penalty for fliers who use four-cycle engines with displacement over 0.91 cubic inch. I believe this would provide propulsion parity. I welcome feedback — both pro and con will receive fair consideration.
Rules process
I plan to submit rules-change proposals for these suggestions. If you feel strongly about the subject, make your opinions known to your RC Aerobatics Contest Board member. Look up his name and address in the "Competition Directory" in the "Focus on Competition" section and participate in the rules-change process.
R/C City has moved
R/C City and Jim Graham have relocated to an industrial section of Tullahoma, Tennessee — roughly halfway between Nashville and Chattanooga. Jim has long provided Pattern competitors with a wide range of kits at reasonable prices; look along the flight line at the next contest and you'll see many R/C City aircraft.
The move is convenient for me because I do wind-tunnel testing at Arnold Engineering Development Center, about 10 miles from Tullahoma. I plan to visit Jim and his new operation during my next test — who knows, I may pick up another kit.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
