Radio Control: Sport and Aerobatics
Ron Van Putte
Boy! What a month it has been for me! Lots of RC flying? No. Just work. However, it's been an interesting job to make sure that external stores (bombs, missiles, fuel tanks, and the like) don't strike U.S. airplanes when they are released during flight tests. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. No, Virginia, those external stores don't just fall off or fly away from the airplane while releases occur. Sometimes we have a devil of a time getting them off some airplanes, and that is what makes my job so interesting.
During the last month I was conducting wind-tunnel tests on external-store separations from a new USAF air-to-surface attack fighter airplane that will be flight-testing during 1987. The tests were conducted at Arnold Engineering Development Center near Tullahoma, TN — the largest wind-tunnel testing facility in the free world. My team of three lieutenants and I spent a month of 24 hours a day/seven days a week testing. So, getting down to writing this column has been kind of difficult.
Letters and comments
Ken Willard (Radio Control Modeler magazine's "Sunday Flier") wrote to me to "send some helpful info" and to attempt to agitate me about the downwind turn a bit. He wrote:
"Just finished reading your column in the December issue. Naturally you goaded me into comment.
"First, regarding scoring. Actual scoring by rounds can be distorted by a 'barnburner' round. Normalized scores can be distorted by a collusion. In diving, high and low scores are thrown out — not just throwaway. Why not try that system whenever there are three rounds left to count?
"Another idea — score both ways, then add up the actual and normalized (scores).
"A third idea. Add up the placements as they result from actual plus normalized, and low total placement wins. I did all three using the data in your column. The results were interesting — and varied. I'm not going to give the results, just to keep you on your toes. (Whatever happened to professional courtesy, Ken?)"
As for the downwind turn, I have a whole new concept. A downwind turn is one made by a well-stacked gal when she turns her back to the wind to make it blow her skirt down. An upwind turn is one made by the same gal as she turns the corner around a building and comes up facing the wind, making her skirt balloon up. Now, as you can well understand, the upwind turn is far more dangerous. Last time it happened on Michigan Avenue (the Windy City) three pedestrians collided, two taxis crashed, and four onlookers got severe eyestrain!
Commenting on the last item first: I always thought the downwind turn was more dangerous, but this puts the problem in a whole new light.
The data in my December column, to which Ken refers, was the Nats Expert class scores. I did a scoring which Ken suggested. The actual placing (first through fifth) was:
- Cooper
- Lewis
- Vail
- Chale
- Staub
Throwing out the high and low round, using the remaining three scores, resulted in this placing:
- Lewis
- Cooper
- Vail
- Chale
- Staub
If you add the actual and normalized scores and use the high three, the placing is:
- Cooper
- Staub
- Vail
- Lewis
- Chale
If you add the placements both ways (actual and normalized) and add up the placements, the low-total placement wins. I did the three using the data in my column. The results were interesting and varied. I'm not going to give the results; just to keep you on your toes. (Whatever happened to professional courtesy, Ken? — RVP)
A letter also came from Fred Duley (Crystal Lake, IL) who wrote in part:
"I have just completed letters to the AMA Contest Board members, but I thought I would write to you as well due to your influence. As an ex-Pattern flier, I strongly support Harrison's proposal to outlaw retracts in Sportsman class. It's expensive, time-consuming, and discouraging. When something goes wrong, complex airplanes may be too costly to repair. For the family man on a budget, retracts are just one more socioeconomic barrier to overcome in entering sport. Make it easier and sport fliers would be inclined to give Pattern a try, advance to the next class, and have fun in the process. Isn't that what it's all supposed to be about? Novice now doesn't allow enough break-in time. Advanced flier can keep advanced equipment, but let's have a true event for the sport flier."
My only comment is that I think Fred (as well as many others) may not have seen the rule interpretation from the RC Aerobatics Contest Board regarding the advancement from the Novice class. Many Contest Directors had been telling the winners in the Novice class something like: "Well, next contest you guys will have to fly in Sportsman." It just isn't true.
Novice fliers don't have to move to Sportsman until the beginning of the next calendar year — just like contestants in all the other classes who "point-out." That ruling takes a lot out of the argument that Novice doesn't have enough "break-in" time.
The Novice class was created after many years with a four-class system to give sport fliers a chance to decide if they really liked Pattern before investing a lot of money in their airplanes and radios. Granted, a contestant who enters Pattern contests as a Novice late in the season and wins right away will only spend a short time in the Novice class. However, a flier good enough to do that will probably be ready to move on anyway. Most Novice fliers start flying Pattern in the spring or early summer and have almost an entire flying season to decide what to do next if they win.
Still another letter came from Mark Scheda (Rochester, NY). Mark is all for adopting normalizing of scores without delay. His letter dealt mainly with offering arguments against the critics of normalizing. An edited version of his arguments follows.
"The first criticism is that normalizing cannot be done until all rounds are complete. This is a valid point in that the effects of varying weather and judges' dispositions can be magnified. The simple solution is, of course, frequency allocation which demands that all pilots in a particular class fly in front of a particular set of judges during the same round.
"Two positive results are as follows:
- Normalizing can be done on a per-round (and per-class) basis, and some of the variations requiring normalizing in the first place are eliminated.
- If one class is so loaded up that this would cause unacceptable delays, then split the class into two sets of judges. Have the class fly two rounds back-to-back, swapping judges in between. Two rounds per day should be easily attainable even at the Nats.
"Another negative is the cost of extra frequency modules. Baloney! Not many $500-per-ship Pattern pilots are on a budget so tight that they couldn't afford the extra few bucks. However, this factor might make it advisable to forget normalizing in Novice (Novice isn't for them at the Nats — RVP) as this would surely turn away many potential supporters.
"As for the question involving potential monkey business, my feeling is that we shouldn't even need to address this. Pattern should be a gentleman's sport. Those who might cheat will find a way to do so no matter what the rules. To allow a few undesirables to put a stranglehold on progress is sheer nonsense.
"Any chance for a Pattern construction article? I see other high-performance construction articles (Sailplanes, Pylon Racers, Free Flights) which I'm sure represent a fairly small segment of reader interest. (I doubt that the Sailplane fliers will agree! — RVP) Why not a full-blown, up-to-the-minute Pattern job?"
Mark has some very good points, many of which were the object of Mike Harrison's proposal for the Nats. Mike's proposal was evaluated by the Nats Management Committee (Betty Stream, the Nats' RC Category Manager, called them "The Gang of Six Plus One") and was accepted. I assume that the proposal will be reprinted by the time this column is published, so I won't excerpt it here. (Editor's note: There is more information about this in the "Competition Newsletter" section of the magazine this month. R C McM) Suffice it to say that the Nats should be much better this year.
Ron Van Putte 1111 Sleepy Oaks Rd. Ft. Walton Beach, FL 32548
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
