RADIO CONTROL AEROBATICS - 2005/01
Eric Henderson, 303 Shady Ln., Marlton NJ 08053; E-mail: eric.henderson@comcast.net
The Don Lowe Masters was held courtesy of Pat Hartness and many sponsors at the Triple Tree Aerodrome in Woodruff, South Carolina, September 30–October 2.
This event is looking more and more like, and probably will be, the new Tournament of Champions (TOC) for RC aerobatics.
I was honored to be invited to go down there and judge. I was in some special company, not the least of which was Don Lowe himself. Judges came from England, Ireland, Canada, and the U.S. The judging standards were not International Miniature Aerobatic Club (IMAC) or FAI; they were more of a hybrid, leaning heavily toward precision and accuracy.
This contest was a who's who of pilots. A popular misconception is that it is an IMAC event—definitely not an FAI F3A competition. It is much better defined as what it is rather than what it is not. The Don Lowe Masters is a unique event flown with large-scale versions of full-scale airplanes that execute serious precision aerobatics.
If you look at the makeup of those who were invited, you would see pilots from both disciplines and a large group who have flown both styles for many years. No matter what their derivation, the one thing they all had in common was that they could really fly. "Best in the world" is not strong enough to convey what we watched.
The airplanes were much bigger and a bit louder, but the schedules still demanded accurate maneuvers. Spins and snaps had to be executed correctly. A 1-point-per-5°-error standard was used.
There was a significant difference when it came to the Freestyle component, but that was to be expected. Freestyle is definitely the crowd pleaser, and it certainly had my heart thumping when I was in the front row!
A sort of déjà vu feeling kept running through my mind. In July of this year I judged the FAI F3A Team Selection Finals in Muncie, Indiana—another finals with almost the same top pilots (although some names were different—most notably Christophe Paysant Le Roux and Mark Leseberg).
In front of me were current and ex-World Champions who may have been holding a prequel to the next F3A World Championships. Jason Shulman, Quique Somenzini, Christophe Paysant Le Roux, and Chip Hyde placed, in that order. All of the U.S. world team members were competing: Jason, Chip, Sean McMurtry, and Don Szczur (team alternate).
This leads me to how they made it onto the U.S. FAI F3A team. The Team Trials were combined with the AMA Nats event this year. I am often asked, "Why isn't it always the case? Why don't we simply take the top three from the AMA event 406 (FAI) category?" I wish there were a simple answer, but it is complicated.
- The AMA contest is open to all members from anywhere in the world. This year there were some Canadians and Argentineans in the mix.
- The judges for a Team Trials are usually one per AMA district, and they judge all of the entrants. At a Nats, the judges' pool consists primarily of Masters (AMA event 404) contestants.
- Compromises are made in judging. The heats at the Team Trials were judged primarily by Nats Masters contestants. The FAI Team Trials Committee chose the panel of judges for the finals, and it contained some well-known, well-qualified judges.
- It gets sticky when the finals contain non-U.S. pilots, or, put another way, pilots who are ineligible for the U.S. team. Some argue that this denies potential pilots the chance to be in contention. It also becomes problematic when you are flying in heats against a pilot of, say, Quique Somenzini's caliber. This year his performance depressed scores of those who were unfortunate enough to be in his group in every round.
- The FAI pilots never get to fly the more difficult F-05 schedules unless they make it into the finals. FAI differs from all AMA classes in that it has two schedules for the pilots to learn: a P series and an F series (Preliminaries and Finals, respectively).
In Europe and at the World Championships, a semifinals round is flown that employs the finals routine. The finals, then, usually comprise two Known and two different Unknown routines.
Because the semifinals system is bypassed here, contestants enter the finals without ever having been "tested" with a P-05 schedule.
There are two sides to this problem. One is that the more skilled pilots do not get to differentiate themselves until the finals. The other is that there is the potential for some pilots to qualify who are not ready or have not practiced the finals routines.
Regardless of all the preceding, the pilots who eventually form the U.S. team really do earn their places. What never gets enough attention or appreciation is the need for an expert caller. The schedules, especially the Unknowns, are extremely difficult. There is also a need to provide funding for these team members, but that's another column in itself.
At this year's Team Trials, the FAI F3A contestants flew P-05 for three days, performing six rounds of the preliminary schedule. The best score from each day was counted, and one best remaining score from any of the three days was counted.
The top six pilots each won at least one round. Chip and Quique carried four rounds of 1,000 points each. The finalists were:
- Quique Somenzini: 1,000.00
- Chip Hyde: 1,000.00
- Jason Shulman: 991.63
- Sean McMurtry: 989.19
- Don Szczur: 988.22
- Andrew Jesky: 970.38
- Troy Newman: 969.52
- Kenny Lauter: 952.45
(Mike Caglia finished ninth.)
A special mention goes to Sean McMurtry, who had a midair in the first round of the contest. He and his father then went to his backup model and spent most of the contest getting it into competition shape. That got him into the finals.
Young Andrew Jesky made an excellent showing and will be a force to be reckoned with in the future. (He, too, attended the Don Lowe Masters.) Chip Hyde battled a bad throttle servo and still came out near the top.
The finals use a different method of totaling the scores. Round One is a Known finals schedule (F-05). Round Two is the first Unknown schedule. Round Three is another round of F-05. Round Four is the second Unknown schedule. The winner is determined by adding the best of the Known-schedule scores to the best of either of the Unknown-schedule scores. The results were:
- Jason Shulman: 1,999.29
- Quique Somenzini: 1,995.46
- Chip Hyde: 1,986.72
- Sean McMurtry: 1,982.53
- Don Szczur: 1,981.24
- Troy Newman: 1,824.25
- Andrew Jesky: 1,747.80
- Kenny Lauter: 1,701.20
The team-eligible pilots clearly have an effect on the final outcome. It is also worth noting how close Sean McMurtry’s and Don Szczur’s scores were.
There is a golden rule in business: you never report a problem without at least having a proposed solution. My two cents is that the FAI F3A Nats needs a bit of a change to make it fairer and much more attractive to those who travel so far to be there.
Proposed changes:
- Scrap the artificial grouping and seeding of the pilots and get back to the sound practice of running normal rounds. In a normal round, all of the FAI pilots would get to fly in front of the same judging panel. This could be done on two sites in one afternoon. Split the pilots into two groups, and swap the judging panels at the halfway mark.
- Run P-05 preliminary schedules only on Day One and Day Two. Run pseudo semifinals with F-05 on Day Three. The word "pseudo" refers to the fact that all pilots would be allowed to fly in this semifinal round.
- Qualifying scores should be the total of a pilot’s top four scores of the six rounds flown. At least one score would have to be from the third day (one round of F-05). If a pilot had a bad Day One or Day Two and, in a worst-case scenario, had two failed flights, the four-flight total could include both semifinal scores.
This system would achieve the goal of having the pilots who make it into the finals prove their finals-schedule skills. It would also allow all of the FAI pilots to experience both of the FAI schedules in a competition environment.
- If there are non-U.S. contestants in a Team Trials, change the way we tabulate the scores. Calculate the Nats results as we currently do, then remove the scores of those who would not qualify to be on a U.S. team. Recompute and renormalize the scores to see who should be on the U.S. F3A team. It’s that easy!
Frequently Asked Question:
"Should I compete with a small model or a big model in Pattern?"
This question comes up all the time, and the answer is fairly simple.
All Pattern airplanes are basically designed to fly well and are intended to perform the required maneuvers. The bigger an airplane, the better it will handle the wind and associated turbulence (usually). A smaller model can and will win a contest in the right hands. A better pilot will eventually come through and win every time.
However, when the pilots’ abilities get closer to each other, it is natural to want the best equipment. Competitors will not give their opponents any real or perceived advantages. The more equal the equipment, the more likely it is that the contest will be decided by flying skill.
You can compete successfully with a smaller airplane, such as one powered by a .61 two-stroke engine or a .91 four-stroke. Sooner or later you will develop the need for equipment that is at least equal to — if not better than — your opponents’. Once this happens, you are hooked!
Natural Disaster at Gator R/C — Update:
The following is paraphrased from an e-mail sent by Diana Lakin.
There was a nasty fire at Gator R/C in Brookline Station, Missouri. Diana and Chris Lakin lost part of their house, and smoke damage ruined the rest. It started in the main electrical feed to the house; mother nature’s lightning was the cause.
Apart from losing their home, Diana and Chris lost approximately 15 airplanes/helicopters. The company lost a great deal of inventory. They were unable to answer the telephone or e-mail for roughly two weeks in September and October and are concerned that many people will be confused and may be getting angry. They appreciate your patience and will try to get back up and running as soon as possible.
My thoughts go out to Gator R/C and all of you readers who have gone through this season’s storms and many natural disasters. I wish you and yours a swift return to normality.
MA
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
