Radio Control: Aerobatics
Ron Van Putte
111 Sleepy Oaks Rd., Ft. Walton Beach, FL 32548
In the April column, I mentioned that I'd been getting quite a few letters from would-be and new pattern fliers asking what the best choices are for their first and second airplanes. In that column I said that I have my own ideas, but I wanted opinion from others because some critics commented that I might have lost perspective regarding the needs of the "lower classes."
It's been a while now, and I'm surprised that I haven't been flooded with opinions. If I've learned one thing about pattern fliers, it's that generally they are not shy with their opinions. However, most responses I've received have been from people who want to know how the survey is coming. I still want your opinions.
I want to share a few letters that did come in, partly because they contain readers' ideas and partly because I like what they contain. The first is from Bobby Green (Birdsboro, Pennsylvania). Here's what he had to say:
"I had to respond to your latest column. I feel that all the planes out there are designed to fly better than most people are capable of flying. There are a few people who can take a well-built Dirty Birdy and can win with it. The key, I believe, is to practice with one airplane and know that ship inside and out.
"Years ago I was just getting into pattern and wrote to you. Your advice was to get a Dirty Birdy. Well, I did and built it very light (seven pounds four ounces), with a YS engine. A friend of mine took that airplane and made me realize that it was me and not the airplane that was not capable of doing the maneuvers.
"He did a slow roll that was outstanding, a real 10 in my book. Anyway, I practiced and won Novice in my first contest. The next week I went to Sportsman and got second, and the next week I won. Then things happened, and I did not fly contests till last year. I did not even know the new turnaround pattern. A friend of mine, Dean Pappas, called for me and showed me the pattern. After the first round, I was fifth out of 17 contestants. I wound up seventh. Not bad for never flying the pattern and flying an ARF EZ Supra-Fly 45 with a .60 in it. That's not a very new airplane."
Bobby made two points I have made over the years. The first is that you start with an airplane that is capable of doing the maneuvers, even if the pilot can't. The second is that you must practice and become very familiar with the airplane.
A lot of would-be pattern champions try to buy their way into the winner's circle by getting the latest winning design and loading it up with a high-tech radio, retracts, and engine. They are befuddled when a guy with a simple, reliable airplane with a modest radio and engine who practices a lot cleans their clocks at a contest.
The next letter came from George Voss (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma), who had the following to say:
"I feel capable to discuss the Novice airplane requirements, since I started flying in the Novice class last year. The direct answer is: No! A Novice doesn't need a pattern ship, complicated or not, to begin flying precision aerobatics. I started practicing with an Ugly Stick. That works okay for Novice. Since the Stick wasn't trimmed like a pattern ship, it had some odd characteristics.
"About a month before my first contest I purchased an out-of-date EU-1A. Total investment without radio was less than $350. Sure it was used, but it flew straight and was actually easier to fly than the Stick since it didn't have those odd habits. I finished second in that contest. I got beat by a young man half my age flying a Goldberg Extra 260.
"A couple of good starter ships come to mind, specifically the Ultrasport 60 and the Extra 260 previously mentioned. What I would recommend to an average flier just starting out is the following: If you can find an out-of-date pattern plane—e.g., EU-1A, Tipo, Phoenix, etc.—used, get it. Use a dependable engine and radio, and spend your money on fuel.
"I'm using a 10-year-old Airtronics Championship 7, updated to '91 specs, a Rossi .61 with a pipe (not necessary), and I use 0% nitro fuel. Any European engine should run fine; no nitro in my opinion. The point is, it's important to fly often. You can gain 200–300 rpm and spend $4–$5 per gallon on fuel."
After rereading the above, I thought I'd clarify a few statements. The EU-1A has retracts, a tuned pipe, separate aileron servos, and pull-pull rudder. Airtronics competition servos and the aileron and elevator linkage are heavy-duty. As a complex aircraft it will have little trouble with anything. Don't use retracts in practice since you can't use them in competition. However, move up to Sportsman next year. I'd guess an adult or talented teenager would be out of Novice in about a year. Once you move up to Sportsman, retract-equipped ships would be desirable. A person serious about advancing through the skill levels should start out with a pattern ship as stated above. If you just want to give it a try, trim a Super Sportster, Ultra Sport, or a Tel-Star ARF ($150) to fly straight and true, and have at it.
One final thought — I started flying pattern to become a better pilot, period. It contains a progression program that anyone can follow and will help save lots of crashes and wasted fuel just boring holes in the sky. I know what I'm supposed to do, so I can mentally prepare for the next maneuver.
I vowed to myself that I wouldn't get caught up in the hype and politics of pattern (precision aerobatics sounds so much better) and would concentrate on being a better pilot by flying my best each time out. I'd spend my money on fuel and not on the latest pattern widget!
I set out to please myself, get better, and have fun. When it stops being fun, I quit!
I don't have anything to add to what George had to say. It sounds to me like he's got the right idea on what it takes to get started in pattern, and he's got his head on straight about what he's looking for from the hobby.
For years I have been telling people what I thought the best way was to get started in pattern. My recommendations have evolved as the years went by, but the airplanes have generally been straightforward designs without a lot of frills.
A long time ago I recommended the Dirty Birdy because it met my criteria for a good airplane. I still think it is one of the best rolling airplanes around. I have been beaten by many fliers who flew them. I also recommended the Bird/Great Planes Super Kaos .60. For the uninitiated, the Kaos was a Joe Bridi design from more than 20 years ago. I flew one back in 1970 or 1971. It had a boxy fuselage and generally looked functional (read that as kind of ugly).
Then Joe came out with the Super Kaos, with a nice rounded fuselage that greatly improved the appearance. Both designs flew well. Then Great Planes bought out Bridi's line of kits and continued to produce them. I continued to recommend the Super Kaos .60 as a good starter pattern airplane. Well, no more. I just got a letter from James Morey (Flagstaff, Arizona), who wrote:
"When I started flying pattern in 1987, I flew a Great Planes Super Kaos .60 and thought it was an excellent plane for learning to fly pattern. I flew it for several years but never quite got to compete.
"When I relocated from New York City to Flagstaff, Arizona, I found that I could once again dive into my desire to enter pattern flying.
"Unfortunately I had totaled my Kaos in a previous mishap and found that Great Planes no longer supplies this airplane. So I too am very interested in learning what you and other more experienced fliers have to recommend to a semiexperienced, but still very much novice, pattern flier."
Now that's a bummer! No more Super Kaos .60s. Just thinking out loud, I wonder if Joe Bridi could get the rights to the kit and would consider marketing it again. Joe is still in the kit-making business and still turns out wonderful kits. There was a saying about Joe's kits that it's still true—if two parts of a Bridi kit don't fit, one of the parts is the wrong one.
Getting back to the theme of this column, let me ask one more time: What do you think is a good first or second pattern airplane? Let me hear from you.
The lead time for column submission is so long that I can't comment on the proposed Federal Communications Commission (FCC) changes that will/would mess up the 72 and 75 MHz RC bands. Had I realized that the deadline for the acceptance of comments would be extended, I'd have encouraged people to get their comments in to the FCC, their congressmen/women, and their senators. I hope you did it.
One encouraging thing I heard was that an FCC official asked an AMA lawyer to try to shut off all the letters from the modelers.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
