Radio Control: Sport & Aerobatics
Ron Van Putte
Donnybrook: The Downwind Turn Debate
Donnybrook! A week or so ago a copy of the February issue of a popular magazine exclusively about radio control came into my hands. (Okay, I subscribe to Radio Control Modeler.) I peacefully settled down to read it and came across the column by a well-known author who always flies on weekends, but never on Saturday (the Sunday Flier). Very soon the author, Ken Willard, got into the subject of flying in wind, and I looked forward to what he'd say, because it's one of my favorite subjects and he's been one of my favorite writers for years.
Suddenly I recognized a quote out of my November 1984 column. I had written, "You may have heard about how dangerous a downwind turn is. The downwind turn is a 180° turn that is started when the airplane is heading downwind." Ken pointed out that he'd heard flight instructors say for 50 years (!) that a downwind turn was opposite to what I'd described — and that the 1980 FAA Flight Training Handbook agrees. He then asked for readers' input, gleefully anticipating a "donnybrook" which he looked forward to because, "I'm just gonna be the referee."
What would you do if you were challenged in print by one of our best-known and well-respected writers on RC flying? First, I got angry; then I decided to get revenge. But before I got revenge, I objectively reviewed what I'd written and decided that he was right.
If you want to go to the left, you make a left turn. Similarly, if you want to go to the right, you make a right turn. So it makes sense that if you want to go downwind, you make a downwind turn. How come I've been referring to a 180° turn from a downwind heading as a downwind turn for the last 30 years? Or have I been doing it consistently? Who knows — and more importantly, who cares? If my description of what constitutes a downwind turn bothers you, just change the labels on the two figures in the November issue. The figures are correct, since the wind direction is shown.
Ken Willard asked for comments so he could act as referee in a donnybrook. What if there were no donnybrook? What if people sent Ken postcards which said, "You were right about the downwind turn, Ken, and Van Putte agrees with you." No donnybrook — and that would be my revenge.
By the way, some authors try to create a controversy to act as material for columns. It's a valid — but kind of cheap — way to get column material when the creative juices dry up every so often. I never do it. (Well, once in a while...)
Turnaround: Soapboxes and Reactions
I had a very interesting telephone call from Jim White (Great Bend, KS). He referred me to two "Soapbox" inputs. The first was from Jim Mowrey, reprinted from Turbulent Tissue, newsletter of the Model Aircraft Association of Central Kansas. This "Soapbox" input was published in the November 1984 issue of Model Aviation under the title "Foe of RC Turnaround Pattern." The second "Soapbox" was from Howard Crispin, Jr. (President, Unified Scale and Pattern Judges Association and AMA District IV vice-president) in response to Mowrey's input; it was published in the February 1985 issue of Model Aviation.
I had read both inputs when they were published, but I reread them after receiving White's call. Basically, Mowrey took exception to what appeared to be an attitude by proponents of Turnaround that ignored any opposition to it. He also claimed that Turnaround was "pure boredom."
Crispin's response was that Mowrey must not have seen a Turnaround contest under F3A rules at all, and that some contests call an event Turnaround even when it isn't run according to the rules. He went on to point out the "three things which make or break an F3A event." I agree with Howard on all his points up through this part of his response. He should have stopped there. I think he "shot himself in the foot" when he went on to say that "There is no place in the FAI Sporting Code that states that F3A is a spectator sport. You can take this in any fashion you choose, but the fact remains that the entire purpose, at present, for F3A to be flown here in the U.S. is to develop fliers able to compete in World Championships."
No wonder people like Mowrey are opposed to the attitude of people who "belong to the inner circle." I don't claim to be a proponent of Turnaround, but I thought that the reason it was being promoted was because it was an exciting event, with different kinds of airplane/engine combinations. He condemns it. There may be a time not far off when all of our RC Aerobatics will be flown this way.
I certainly hope not, although I understand there is a rule proposal to fly Turnaround in all classes of competition. Unfortunately, some people think it's necessary to junk what you have in order to start something new. Turnaround Pattern competition is always available to anyone who wants to compete in it. The rule book states that competitors from any class may compete in Turnaround. Many Contest Directors force competitors to choose between their normal class and Turnaround because allowing them to compete in both would either make the contest too long or cut the number of rounds flown. Of course, fliers who normally fly in Expert or Masters usually win in Turnaround, too, and that's probably what brought about the new rules proposal to make Turnaround a separate class.
Three Essentials for an F3A Event
Howard Crispin summarized three essentials that make or break an F3A event:
- A suitable airplane.
- A disciplined pilot.
- Trained judges.
I agree with these points — up to a point. Where the debate gets heated is over the purpose of F3A competition and whether it should primarily develop world-championship-level fliers or be shaped to attract and entertain a broader base.
How Many Pattern Fliers Are There?
Jim White also claimed there really aren't a lot of RC Pattern fliers in this country. He said there were only about 2,500 Pattern fliers who competed in 1984, fewer than 150 contests, and an average contest attendance of only about 20. If he's right, and with AMA membership around 50,000 and more than half of those being RC fliers, then only about 5% of RC fliers competed in Pattern at least once last year. That's a small number of people to expend so much time, effort, and money on.
Of course, the AMA receives contest reports from Contest Directors, and it shouldn't take an enormous effort to go through the reports and analyze the statistics. I know that's a strange thing for a Pattern competitor to say, but I think it bears looking into. By the way, I believe the five contests I competed in last year had an average of 25 contestants.
The Super Seven Proposal
I received a letter from Mark Corbett (Route #2, Box 80-A, Waxhaw, NC 28173) regarding a Pattern proposal called the Super Seven. Excerpts:
"The Super Seven, a one-day Saturday Pattern meet, would reduce time involved, thus avoiding unnecessary motel, food, and fuel costs, as well as problems with delayed Sunday fliers. As its name implies, the Super Seven provides a seven-minute flight with seven maneuvers for everyone in which the takeoff and landing would count. Expert and above would perform a touch-and-go. The rest of the schedule could be aligned to suit the AMA or Contest Directors holding the meet. The Turnaround-style pattern could use the same type format as the Super Seven and could be flown on Sunday—perhaps as a pro-class event for those who favor Turnaround and can afford it."
"Those with whom I have spoken regarding this idea feel that this change is needed, and I believe it would instill new life into Pattern flying. I have personally flown models for 22 years, Pattern for eight, and in the Master's class for six of the eight. I cannot attend Pattern meets because of the time and expense. The time has come to really 'turnaround' and look at our ultimate goal. Any response to the Super Seven proposal would be appreciated."
I'm sure Mark will get a lot of pro and con responses. Those of us who have to drive a long distance to contests (I averaged 265 miles to five contests last year) would probably rather stay for two days if we can afford the time, but I can appreciate the reasoning for a one-day contest like he describes. Let him hear from you.
Congratulations
I'd like to congratulate Steve Rojecki publicly for winning the Tournament of Champions. Steve is a member of my club, and we are proud of his accomplishment.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
