Radio Control: Sport and Aerobatics
Ron Van Putte 111 Sleepy Oaks Rd. Ft. Walton Beach, FL 32548
Safety and Public Perception
We are all in favor of safety. John Preston has been like a bulldog in pursuit of safety problems in his column in Model Aviation (MA). Apparently the rigorous safety program has borne some fruit that hadn't been intended. John Krekelberg, president of the Twin City Radio Controllers, wrote a letter to me containing the following:
"I just finished reading your column in the August issue of MA, and the first couple of paragraphs struck me right between the eyes.
"I struggled with how I was going to word this letter because I happen to agree with Ed Hunter and his ideas on sharing past editions of MA and other periodicals with local schools, dentist waiting rooms, etc. However, I do want to share an experience our club had which may make it not so good an idea in certain areas.
"Our club, located in the Minneapolis area, just completed a two-year search for a new field. During that time we faced township boards, planning commissions, county commissioners, and, yes, neighbors opposed to us wanting to locate on their turf. I could relate many stories about our efforts in this matter, but I just want to relate one of them that I think might interest you and others.
"At one of the planning commission meetings we were forced to attend to obtain a conditional use permit for our activity, we were confronted by over 100 people who opposed our plan to develop a site in their rural area. At one point during the hour and a half we were lambasted from pillar to post, a man stood up waving two magazines (names were not visible) and recited from articles on safety and how dangerous model airplanes were and the damage they can cause: fly-aways, fires, injuries, etc. I think you get the point. I would like to suggest two things:
- That you issue a statement in your column that distribution of old copies of MA magazine be withheld in any area where a field search is being made in what could be considered hostile territory. This should be done at least until a site is obtained—and even after that if it's located on public property which is subject to changing regulations based on citizens' complaints.
- The second suggestion is somewhat harder to make, because it's about a column. I think maybe the column John Preston writes, "Safety Comes First," which appears every month in MA, should be handled with some caution. By copy of this letter to John via Geoffrey Styles, I ask consideration of an idea that may be possible or practical. Otherwise, a good idea might be similar to what the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association uses to disseminate safety information to its members. That is, a separate publication prepared and mailed separately to its members. I see this as a way of keeping information that could be detrimental to an effort to secure flying sites within the model plane fraternity.
"I guess I'm a little paranoid about the subject having just gone through two years of searching for a flying site, but I do think it would be helpful if some way could be found to keep this information within the model plane fraternity."
Thanks for the suggestions, John. I'm sure John Preston will have some comments to make.
NSRCA, Rule Changes, and the Noise Rule
A couple of years ago Bryan Henderson was the District 6 vice president of the National Society of Radio Controlled Aerobatics (NSRCA). He is now the NSRCA president. Back then he undertook the task of trying to find out how NSRCA members felt about possible changes to the competition rules. He mailed surveys to all NSRCA members and received a large percentage of them back. Based on the way a majority of NSRCA members felt, he assembled a group of tentative rules change proposals and brought them to the 1988 Nats at Virginia Beach. There, a group of representatives from all NSRCA districts hammered out the set of rules change proposals that was submitted to the AMA in the name of the NSRCA.
Let's set the stage: a set of rules change proposals was submitted by a special interest group which had already received the backing of at least a majority of its members. If you read the results of the RC Aerobatics Final Vote, you know that all the suggested NSRCA rule changes passed except the noise rule (RCA-90-25). It failed by one vote. It had a majority of RC Aerobatics Contest Board members in favor of it, but failed to receive the required percentage by one vote. Some very hard questions were asked, particularly of the board members who voted against the noise proposal which was submitted by a special interest group whose members favored it.
It turned out that one of the board members who voted against the noise proposal said he was personally in favor of it, but had received a number of letters against it and very few in favor of it, so he voted against it.
It sounds as though he was doing his job in representing his constituents, doesn't it? However, he didn't know whom the letters were from. It turned out that most, if not all, of the negative letters were from pylon racers. A pylon racer's letter looks just like a pattern flier's letter if he doesn't identify himself.
Why would pylon racers be against a noise rule for pattern fliers? If you do not want a noise rule in your event, one way to help your situation is to make sure that none of the other events has one, either. It's that simple. It worked, too.
Stand back and look at the situation. We can't do anything about a new AMA rule change for two (2) years, even though a majority of NSRCA members want it. The AMA is publicly on record in favor of limiting noise.
Can we do anything? The solution turns out to be very simple. For years the National Miniature Pylon Racing Association (NMPRA) and other special interest groups have been making their own rules in addition to the AMA rules. They basically say, "If you want to fly in our events, you've got to fly in accordance with our rules." So, the NSRCA could have a noise rule, even though the AMA won't. Contest directors would have to support this action and announce in contest promotion material that the NSRCA noise rule would be in effect. Let's do it. Maybe the AMA will catch up in two years and make the noise rule an AMA rule, too.
Engines in Pattern Competition: Two‑Cycle vs Four‑Cycle
Recently I've been getting lots of letters and telephone calls from contestants. I am very impressed when people write or phone me about any subject, because they have to feel strongly enough about it to invest their time and money.
One subject I've been hearing a lot about is the use of two‑cycle versus four‑cycle engines in Pattern competition. Everybody wants to know which way to go.
I don't know!
Until a few years ago, the answer was very clear. You flew a Rossi, Webra, or other premier two‑cycle engine or you weren't a "serious pattern" competitor. Then FAI's F3A (Turnaround) event was started.
Before anyone figured out that they could run their two‑cycle engines with other than 10.5 x 7.5 propellers, it was decreed that four‑cycle engines and big propellers were the way to go. Suddenly, all the "serious pattern competitors" were flying four‑cycle engines in Turnaround.
A few of the diehards who insisted on flying their two‑cycle engines were "rewarded" with low scores because they flew too fast and couldn't stay in the box.
Then people began to experiment with new props, new engines, and lighter airplanes, and discovered that two‑cycle engines were still a viable option in Turnaround. A lot of the four‑cycle converts reverted to two‑cycle, and pretty soon all the serious pattern competitors were flying two‑cycle engines again. Is this the end of the story? I doubt it.
Both engines have their advantages and disadvantages:
- Four‑cycle engines can easily turn larger propellers and yet offer better vertical performance. However, they also have problems caused by higher torque; more finesse with rudder is necessary in vertical maneuvers.
- Two‑cycle engines use more fuel, but the fuel costs less than four‑cycle fuel. Propeller cost is really not a factor, because exotic two‑cycle propellers cost as much as the big props four‑cycles turn.
- Four‑cycle engines are bigger and heavier, making them more difficult to shoehorn into the fuselage and affecting airplane balance.
- Cost, reliability, and maintainability are about the same for both types.
Do I think a four‑cycle engine will win the World Championships in F3A competition? Not unless Hanno Pretner decides to do it.
A curious thing happened at the 1989 RC Aerobatics World Championships. The report is probably in this issue, so I won't go to great lengths about it. But it appears that the international (read "European") judges let Pretner get away with some oddities at this event. He apparently flew his very fast airplane about 200 meters out from the judges. Still apparently flying in the box, he did not get penalized by the judges. The rules say 150–175 meters; Joe Helms and Tony Frackowiak flew fast and way out two years ago and were penalized. So, if a four‑cycle engine is ever to win in the World Championships, Hanno Pretner will probably have to do it.
Propellers and Spinners
I wrote to TruTurn's Bob Obenberger to find out if he had any three‑ or four‑blade spinners, because Graupner has three‑blade propellers and Bolly has three‑ and four‑blade propellers, and I wanted to do some comparisons with two‑blade propellers. The only reasonable way to do it would be if the airplane always had a spinner mounted, and if I had identical propellers available for comparison.
Bob responded that they are available, even though all the distributors don't have them. He also asked that anyone who has special requirements give him a call at Romco Mfg., Inc., 713/943‑1867.
By the way, I also asked him if he had two‑blade spinners to try on my Graupner propellers. He responded that they can cut a spinner for any prop and recommended the fliers let him cut the spinner, because it's not a simple task to make sure that the slots are identical and 180° apart. He said that at least 1/8" clearance around the blade is necessary for safety, since "the prop rubbing on the aluminum can work‑harden the material and start cracks to form at this point."
Give Bob a call at TruTurn, because "Service is almost a thing of the past, but we intend to carry on that commodity at TruTurn for a long time to come."
By the way, when Bob offered me a TruTurn spinner to try on my Tiporae at a Lake Charles Nats several years ago, little did I know that I'd be the first Nats competitor to run a TruTurn spinner; but Bob says it's true.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
