Radio Control: Sport and Aerobatics
Ron Van Putte
1111 Sleepy Oaks Rd. Ft. Walton Beach, FL 32548
Boy, did I get letters in the past month! The subjects varied substantially. Only one topic was repeated: several letters were received about contest rules. It appears there is a groundswell of concern on the part of contestants regarding competition rules. Many writers expressed frustration with the time it takes to change rules.
All rules-change proposals had to be in by last fall (1988), but it won't be until 1990 that new rules can be put into the rule book. In this era of electronic mail, telefax, computer networking and other communications innovations, we are still using an antiquated system. Many writers are upset with the powers-that-be at AMA Headquarters who have dictated that a two-year rules-change cycle is the only way to do the job.
Efforts to change the system appear to be stonewalled. At least a few members of the Radio Control Aerobatics Contest Board don't know how to overcome the resistance; they don't even know who has the authority to dictate the duration of the rules-change cycle. Obviously the AMA Executive Council has final say on competition rules, but the decision not to change to a one-year cycle seems to have been made at a lower level. In any case, people are frustrated with how long it takes to put new rules in the book.
AMA versus FAI: Turnaround Pattern
Another subject of writers' concern is AMA versus FAI rules. When the Turnaround pattern was introduced, there was a lot of initial resentment from competitors who flew the AMA pattern. The resentment came from what appeared to be an attempt to cram the Turnaround pattern down the throats of U.S. competitive fliers whether they wanted it or not.
Turnaround promoters argued, "This is the wave of the future, because all of Europe flies Turnaround, and we must adopt it to be competitive in world competition."
The response from many AMA fliers was, "I won't ever be on the United States team and couldn't care less about what the Europeans are flying, so leave my pattern alone!"
After a while (several years) the animosity of AMA-pattern fliers toward proponents of Turnaround died down, and some AMA-pattern fliers even switched sides. However, a new wave of concern has developed in the wake of recent rules proposals.
Proposed Class Changes
Two notable proposals have caused debate:
- Combine AMA Expert and Master into a single class called Master.
- Create a new Turnaround class as an entry level to FAI called Expert Turnaround.
Presumably competitors would decide, when moving up from the Advanced class, whether to go on to Master or to Expert Turnaround. That seems logical, but many see these proposals as another step by Turnaround proponents to take over AMA Pattern. They are not as vocal nor as numerous, but there are a lot of them out there.
Proposed Binding Vote by Competitors
An idea from a writer who wishes to remain anonymous: the AMA should conduct a binding vote by fliers who have competed in at least one Pattern contest during the past three years. The vote would determine AMA policy regarding Pattern competition, essentially deciding the priority of world-championship competition relative to domestic competition.
Possible outcomes:
- If the majority favor minimizing the effect of world-championship competition on U.S. competition, the push toward FAI/Turnaround would be curtailed and AMA-pattern competition preserved.
- If the majority favor emphasizing world championship considerations, AMA competition would move toward all-Turnaround.
A faster rules-change cycle (one year rather than two) would, in my opinion, give better U.S. teams' chances in world championship competition. I think such a vote would make very clear to AMA officials which direction U.S. competitors want to go.
Editor’s note: AMA's Technical Director has several comments to make with respect to the preceding material. See the Technical Director column in next month's Competition Newsletter.
Jim White, Luis Escalona, and Classes for FAI Pattern
I received a copy of a letter that Jim White (who edits a potent newsletter in Kansas) wrote to Luis Escalona regarding the latter's Soapbox editorial in the February edition of Model Aviation's Competition Newsletter. Luis recommended that the AMA institute novice and sportsman classes of the FAI pattern in order to get U.S. fliers off to a good start against the rest of the world.
Jim pointed out that such a proposal would come at the expense of the present AMA classes, or we would end up with seven or eight classes of Pattern at each contest. Jim concluded that seven or eight classes would be "a bit much." He also quoted some statistics which, if correct, are interesting: he claimed that 2,500 Pattern fliers enter three or more contests each year. In addition, of the 96 who paid to sign up for the current U.S. team selection program, 42 have qualified, and 16 are still pending. That means only about 2% of U.S. Pattern competitors are currently in the U.S. RC Aerobatics team selection program.
Letter: Glassing Technique (Bill Bolger, Montevideo, Uruguay)
Bill Bolger wrote regarding glassing techniques and offered an alternative to using toilet paper to remove excess epoxy. He described his method:
- Make a mixture of epoxy and alcohol and pour it into a shallow tin. The consistency should be such that the weave is nicely soaked with epoxy, the glass cloth lies close to the balsa, and no excess epoxy remains on the model.
- Lay the glass cloth slightly oversize and orient the weave in the desired direction.
- Use a piece of plastic sponge about 5 cm wide, 10 cm long, and about 2 cm thick. Dip the end of the sponge in the epoxy (soaking up some), press down onto the model to force epoxy into the weave and onto the balsa, then lift the sponge up. When you lift it, the sponge soaks back the excess epoxy, leaving the weave filled and the cloth close to the wood.
Once the epoxy hardens, [text incomplete]
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
