Radio Control: Aerobatics
Ron Van Putte 111 Sleepy Oaks Rd. Ft. Walton Beach, FL 32548
Senior Pattern Association — a new concept
Mickey Walker (Smyrna, Georgia) had no idea of the monster he might create. Last May he wrote that he was forming a new Pattern group called the Senior Pattern Association. It will be open to Pattern fliers 45 and older, and contests will be held using airplanes designed before December 31, 1969. I included an excerpt of his letter as part of my column in the August issue of Model Aviation (MA).
After that column was published, Mickey wrote again to report that the response had been overwhelming. A lot of people are intrigued by the idea. The first contest will be held near Atlanta, Georgia on October 12–13, and I've heard of several former world-class Pattern fliers who plan to attend. The contest should be dripping with nostalgia.
Publisher Ross McMullen asked me to cover the initial contest with a special article featuring color photos; it will appear in next month's issue.
If you are interested in this new concept, write to Mickey Walker, 3121 Northview Pl., Smyrna, GA 30080 or call him at 404/435-8158 (home) or 404/422-3286 (office) for information.
Jim Kirkland A-6 Intruder
John Fuqua and I are each building a Jim Kirkland A-6 Intruder. Jim published plans for his Intruder in October 1969; he won the 1970 Nationals with it and a two-part construction article appeared in the March and April 1971 issues of Model Airplane News. We have plans that were shot from vellum prints Fred Carnes (Shalimar, Florida) had made from Jim's original drawings just after Jim died in October 1972. I also have new-looking magazine issues; the March issue even has a color picture of Jim holding the airplane, so I'm painting mine in the same color scheme.
The first thing I noticed about the airplane is that it's tiny by contemporary standards. The airplane's 654 square-inch wing area is about 200 square inches shy of many modern designs. The vertical fin (including the rudder) is only slightly larger than the rudder on my LA-1, and the fuselage looks about a foot too short. It will be interesting to see how it handles the newer turnaround patterns.
Engine choices
Because the Senior Pattern rules require engines of a design like those flown prior to 1970, John Fuqua and I are both going to use SuperTigre G-60 Bluehead engines without PDP (Perry Directional Porting). We each have one, but if anyone has a new or lightly used one they wouldn't mind parting with, I'd like to pick up another. Call me at 904/243-0207 (home) or 904/882-3017 (office).
Tim Woods — ideas on Pattern competition
I received a thoughtful letter from Tim Woods (Indianapolis, Indiana) with some interesting ideas. An edited version follows.
This is my first year of active competition in the AMA Pattern. I fly Sportsman class. I have over eight years of RC flying experience and have flown in two contests here in the Midwest, with one more planned in October. I have met some top fliers and fly with two other club members who have become good friends.
I would like to present some ideas concerning Pattern contests and airframes. I have read articles in Model Aviation on sound abatement, propellers, and engine displacement. One such article, "Sound & Model Aeronautics" (MA, October 1991) by Howard Crispin Jr., brought together some ideas that have been stewing in my mind this year.
I offer four brief points for discussion, all pertaining to current Pattern competition:
- Nitro
- Props
- Engines
- Fields
Nitro We are all aware of the explosion at Angus, or at least the impact this has had on fuel prices. Necessity is the mother of invention, and budding Pattern pilots need to practice often, using large quantities of fuel. I consider myself fortunate to be located in Indianapolis, where automobile racing activity makes finding methyl alcohol very easy and cheap.
Several members of my club and I have begun blending our own fuel (no nitro or oxidizers of any kind) with good results. Perhaps future Pattern contests could be flown on a no-nitro fuel blend, with a minimum oil content specified, thereby leaving the competition open to all and not simply to those who can afford to burn up several engines. An honor system could be tried, because it would be impractical to analyze every pilot's fuel.
Props If a no-nitro fuel blend is used, props costing upwards of $20 may not be a determining factor in contest placings. By lowering engine output, smaller props can be used. My experience has shown it is no problem to turn an APC 11x10 prop on alcohol with 15% castor and 2% synthetic oil at a respectable 11,200 rpm (on the ground) using a Fox Eagle .61 with MAC'S Products Quiet Pipe.
I don't mind paying for a high-tech, carbon-fiber prop—especially the new popular brand that lowers noise and, in my experience, increases performance. However, industry tends to produce products to meet increasing power demands—and at a price.
Engines I saw a stellar performance by a top pilot using one of the new supercharged .120s at a contest in Lafayette, Indiana. He received a standing ovation on his last flight as he flew full bore for his best pass for landing. This engine, however, has an advertised price of about $600. That's more than my engine, radio, complete airframe, and flight box combined. If we want new contestants, some kind of parity is needed.
I don't think engine classes are the answer. I want the freedom to advance with the option to choose my appropriate skill level without having to construct four different types of aircraft. Could the elimination of nitro bring about an equitable split in classes? I have a feeling that four-cycles don't run as strong as two-cycles if deprived of nitro. Maybe the pattern could be reworked for classes above .403 to put less emphasis on vertical performance. A 100% displacement advantage considering recent four-cycle advances seems a bit high.
Fields I fly from my club field, which is in an urban location and could be considered small. I certainly noticed the smallness after flying from some very nice, large fields at contests. I have already started to include next year's turnaround maneuvers in my flying (especially as my tuning skills with pipes, fuels, and propellers improve) to stay within the confines of our airspace. If, in order to be competitive, I have to move to a larger, noisier plane, I'll have to find a new practice site. This could mean joining another club or flying at a non-AMA-chartered field. The loudest noticeable noise I hear in flight is a whistle from my engine cowling.
In closing, there is no substitute for power—except for good flying. I tried to provide direction in these comments so this letter would not be one big gripe. If you bring up a concern, you should at least have a reasonable alternative.
Thank you, Tim. I must say I agree with most of what you said.
My thoughts
I've been thinking about these issues and have commented on a few of my own ideas. I don't like to be beaten by someone simply because he spent more money on his equipment than I did. I've hated being "bought out" ever since my first Soap Box Derby, when another 15-year-old beat me because his father could afford to buy ten sets of wheels to pick the best set. Fliers should beat other fliers based on pilot proficiency, not superior equipment or luck.
My biggest exception to Tim's letter is his claim that he has to "move to a larger, noisier plane" to be competitive. I'm currently flying an LA-1 with an O.S. .61 Longstroke, a Horner 650 pipe and an APC 12x12R propeller. While it is the biggest airplane I've ever owned, it is also the quietest—and it's certainly competitive.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
