Radio Control: Aerobatics
By Ron Van Putte
111 Sleepy Oaks Rd. Ft. Walton Beach, FL 32548
NSRCA-Pan American Aerobatic Championships (N-PAC)
The National Society of Radio Controlled Aerobatics (NSRCA) will sponsor the first annual NSRCA-Pan American Aerobatic Championships (N-PAC) on July 26 through August 1, 1992, at the Mid-American Flight Center (Lawrenceville, Illinois — near Vincennes, Indiana).
- All 1992/93 Pattern classes will be flown and all legitimate aircraft frequencies will be used.
- The contest will be open to all AMA members (not restricted to NSRCA members).
- Pre-registration will be required, and the entry fee will be comparable to the AMA Nationals entry fee.
Critics have said the NSRCA is attempting to wreck the AMA Nationals. The NSRCA denied the charge, responding that the N-PAC is simply an idea whose time has come. Like other special interest groups that sponsor their own championships (RC Scale Masters, the National Soaring Society, and the National Miniature Pylon Racing Association), the NSRCA decided it was time to sponsor its own championships.
The N-PAC will be held a month after the AMA Nationals, so contestants can compete in both events. Some fliers who might have attended the AMA Nationals won't be able to go to both events, which will probably reduce attendance at the AMA Nationals. However, a reduced number of contestants at the latter event would offset the 40% reduction in RC Pattern flying time in years past at the AMA Nationals (compared to the 1991 contest). This would alleviate the pressure to complete the promised number of rounds within the reduced RC Pattern time slot.
The N-PAC will have the following officials:
- Co-Contest Directors: Jim Fife (Baton Rouge, Louisiana) and Mike Dunphy (Medford, Oregon).
- Chief judge: Jim Parker, president of the Unified Scale and Pattern Judging Association (USPJA).
- Other USPJA members and qualified Pattern fliers will be recruited as judges.
Competition format:
- All Pattern classes will have qualifying rounds and a finals.
- Everyone will fly four rounds of qualifying.
- The top 25% will move to the finals.
- FAI fliers will fly three rounds in the finals; everyone else will fly two final rounds.
- There will be split shifts, with different groups flying in the morning and afternoon.
- Competitors should expect to perform duties (scribe, timer, line chief, gofer, etc.) for a day or two during their nonflying half of the day, as was done at last year's AMA Nationals and will be done at this year's event.
The flying site will be the same as the last two AMA Nationals, and the headquarters motel is the Executive Inn in Vincennes. I will include more details in this column as they become available.
Rule-change SNAFU
If you've seen the new AMA rule book for 1992/1993, you may have noticed the Sportsman maneuver schedule shown is not the same as the one I published in this column or elsewhere.
Background: When rule-change proposals were submitted for the 1992–93 cycle, similar proposals were put in by Gene Rodgers (Ft. Worth, Texas). After the initial vote the RC Aerobatics Contest Board held, a revote was requested by John Fuqua (AMA District 5 RC Aerobatics Contest Board member) because the voting procedure the board chairman established caused a split "acceptable" vote, thereby ensuring neither proposal would pass. Rather than revote, it was decided to allow the proposal to go to the final vote.
Gene Rodgers called to tell me he was going to withdraw his proposal. I informed the board chairman and recommended he contact Gene Rodgers to confirm the decision. When the ballots came out, many—if not all—of the Contest Board members thought they were voting on my proposal. John Fuqua called several other Board members who also thought they were voting on my proposal. However, the voting material the board members received apparently did not include a letter from the board chairman in which he announced that he had decided to combine Gene Rodgers's proposal with mine as a compromise proposal. The compromise proposal's maneuver schedule is what was printed in the 1992–93 rule book.
So what we have is a maneuver schedule in the rule book that is different from what the Contest Board members thought they were voting on. At this point I don't know what will happen. You will probably read about the resolution of this SNAFU in the "Focus on Competition" section of this magazine. All I'm really sure about is that my club's annual contest will use the maneuver schedule I submitted.
Letter from Eric Hawkinson (NSRCA District 8)
I received a letter from Eric Hawkinson (Billings, Montana), Co-VP for NSRCA District 8. The letter was obviously prepared on a word processor and printed on a laser printer. I don't know about you, but I didn't know they even had things like that up in Montana! (Just a joke.)
The substance of Eric's letter was disagreement with my agreeing with Tim Woods' letter (printed in the January issue). Tim had suggested reducing nitro percentage in fuel limited classes and/or reducing the maximum displacement of four-cycle engines. I agreed with both suggestions, but Eric took me to task. The following are excerpts from Eric's letter (his input in quotes), followed by my responses.
Eric: "The 'no-nitro' concept is a loser. The Hanno Special can easily turn 12,000 rpm with an APC 12 x 11 prop on no-nitro fuel, which will outpull Tim's Fox (turning an 11 x 10 at 11,000 rpm) quite noticeably. I use nitro primarily to achieve a smoother, more reliable idle, as do most Pattern fliers running two-strokes. Please note that in countries where nitro is not used (just about everywhere but in the USA) the 1.20s have just as big an advantage over .61s as they do here."
Response: I don't agree that four-cycle 1.20s on no-nitro fuel have as big an advantage over two-cycle .61s as they do on high-nitro fuel, but I will admit my experience on the subject is limited. However, if they had the same advantage, why is extra nitro used? Is it because a two-cycle .61 on high-nitro fuel approaches the power of a four-cycle 1.20 on no-nitro? Nitro improves more than idle in a two-cycle engine — the Pylon Racing guys figured that out a long time ago.
Eric: "I suspect that Tim will soon discover that the better-prepared pilot usually wins, not the better-equipped. I urge Tim and any other pilots with similar complaints to practice flying flawless maneuver geometry rather than spend time finding other reasons for placing poorly. And when you do win a contest over pilots who fly models that cost 10 times what yours did, just smile and think of the money you saved as a cash bonus to go with your trophy!"
Response: No argument with this one. The more I practice, the luckier I get.
Eric: "I personally favor increasing the two-stroke limit to 15cc to allow more equity with four-strokes and more choice in engine types. But, I firmly believe that the .90s that would follow would make the Hanno Special seem like a bargain. Likewise, if you lower the four-stroke limit to .90 you will simply cause the creation of some very expensive, pumped, supercharged .90 four-strokes."
Response: This is a tough one. I don't favor increasing the two-cycle limit above .61 because airplane size would go up (to stay competitive), and I have enough trouble getting my LA-1 in my Ford Probe already. My personal favorite way to promote two-cycle vs. four-cycle equity is to restrict four-cycle engine displacement to .80 or .90. Two-cycle technology seems about topped out — we can't keep the engines together for very long now without replacing something. On the other hand, four-cycle engine technology is still improving. With the current 1.20 four-cycle restriction, the disparity between two-cycle and four-cycle engines is likely to worsen. A more severe restriction on four-cycle displacement is reasonable.
Eric closed with: "It is almost impossible to legislate either morality or economy in a competitive event. However, with good judging, I think it is likely that the pilot who flies the better sequence will win the contest in most cases."
I agree with that. If anyone would like to see a complete copy of Eric's letter, I'd be glad to provide one if you send a SASE.
If any of you are on Prodigy and would like to send me a message, my ID is CMFB02B.
RC Aerobatics / Van Putte
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
