Radio Control: Sport and Aerobatics
Ron Van Putte
111 Sleepy Oaks Rd. Ft. Walton Beach, FL 32548
Initial vote on aerobatics rules proposals
The results of the Initial Vote by the RC Aerobatics Contest Board on the current group of rules proposals have been tallied and were published in the "Competition News" section of last month's Model Aviation. I won't rehash the entire results, but a few comments are in order.
Gene Rogers and I submitted separate proposals to insert turnaround maneuvers in the Sportsman maneuver schedule while keeping the center maneuvers the same. When ballots were received, Board members were instructed to mark only one of the proposals "acceptable" or vote "not acceptable" for both.
District V Contest Board member John Fuqua recognized that such a procedure would likely split the "acceptable" votes and virtually doom both proposals, since six "acceptable" votes were required for a proposal to move into the Final Vote. That's exactly what happened. Seven Contest Board members found one or the other proposal "acceptable" and only three determined that both were "not acceptable." However, since neither proposal received six "acceptable" votes, both failed to pass the Initial Vote.
As a result, John Fuqua requested a revote on RCA-92-21 and RCA-92-22. After his request, Gene Rogers withdrew his proposal No. 22 in favor of mine. Proposals numbered 21A and 21B will be combined and placed on the final ballot as number 21.
Takeoff-direction proposal
One of my proposals that failed the Initial Vote was RCA-92-47. It would have made takeoff direction the pilot's option rather than the Contest Director's mandate. Opponents cited potential safety problems with airplanes landing in opposite directions. Certainly it requires more attention by the judges, but in three years' use at my club's annual contest this option never caused a mishap.
Many other contests in the Southeast also allow pilot's option on takeoff, and I'm not aware of any mishaps at those contests either. Too bad the proposal failed, but if you attend contests in the Southeast you'll still get to exercise your option to take off in the direction you choose.
Only a fool takes off downwind, because you have to land in the same direction — not to mention flying the whole maneuver sequence in the wrong wind direction.
A note on my January column
On a lighter note, I was absolutely astounded not to receive a single letter pertaining to my tongue-in-cheek piece in the January column about saving the smoke from your next radio malfunction to save on radio repair costs. I expected some exasperated responses telling me how dumb an idea it was and a few tongue-in-cheek responses saying what a good idea it was and suggesting other equally absurd ideas. But... nothing. What a disappointment! Maybe I'll get something in the mail before this column appears in your mailbox.
AMA Membership Manual and insurance
I just received my 1991 Membership Manual. Usually I set it aside with the good intention of reading it thoroughly later, but I hardly ever look at it again. Not this year. After the AMA insurance squabble that erupted when it was announced that member-to-member insurance (note: it was member-to-member liability insurance) had been terminated, I decided to wade through the AMA bylaws to see what they said about insurance.
It has long been my belief that if you asked an AMA member why he joined, he would probably say it was because of the AMA insurance. A few might say it was because of the competition, Model Aviation magazine, or one of the other purposes listed in Article II: Purposes. However, did you know (I didn't) that providing insurance for members is not an official purpose among the nearly 20 listed for the AMA? Get your copy of the Membership Manual out of your drawer and see if you can find insurance mentioned.
You should be aware by now that member-to-member (liability) insurance coverage has been reinstated, but several other options had to be changed to pay for the expected costs of the reinstated coverage.
By the way, the AMA Bylaws say in Article VIII: Meetings that "a regular meeting of the membership shall be held annually." Maybe I'm showing my ignorance, but what is the "meeting" held? Is that meeting held at the Nats? I don't think so, because I've only missed a few Nats in the last 16 years and can't remember any AMA membership meetings. If somebody on the AMA HQ staff could let us know when the 1991 meeting is, I'll bet a lot of members will be there. Thanks.
Frequency-control plan and Warren Ploh's letter
Earlier I wrote about the situation impending in 1991 if wideband radios were mixed in with narrow-band radios. I mentioned that my club planned to have fliers with narrow-band radios use one frequency pin while fliers with wideband radios would use three pins: one pin for the primary frequency and one pin for each adjacent frequency.
Subsequently I received a letter from Warren Ploh (North Olmsted, Ohio), a member of the AMA Frequency Committee. He wrote:
"While reading your column in the latest issue of MA, I noted your club's plans for special frequency controls. I suggest that you encourage them to reconsider. Just taking three pins will not protect all the wideband receivers that are out there.
"Tell them to review the AMA recommendations in the May 1990 issue of Model Aviation beginning on page 120. Direct their attention to Alternate Plan Number 2. One of the Flight Station Plans is detailed there. The 1991 issue of the AMA Membership Manual details other Station Plan options.
"The use of a mix of odd- and even-numbered channels with wideband receivers does require special frequency controls, just as you said. For this combination, the recommended AMA Frequency Management Plan is Alternate Plan Number 2. This plan uses Flight Stations and Paddles. The use of individual channel pins for interference control is just not practical.
"Receivers that are of the single-conversion superheterodyne type using a 455-kHz intermediate amplifying frequency are the cause for concern. Many — but not all — encounter RC-to-RC interference other than that caused by an adjacent-channel transmitter. This interference can be identified by the number 23.
"Avoid the use of channels that are 23 in number apart. For example: a susceptible receiver on CH 34 can be hit by a transmitter on CH 11 or CH 57. (Think: 34 − 23 = 11; 57 − 23 = 34.) The same receiver is also susceptible to a signal from any pair of transmitters operating 23 channels apart, as is any other susceptible receiver on the field. One pair of transmitters operating 23 channels apart can glitch all susceptible receivers on the field.
"When properly implemented with Paddles instead of Pins, the Station Plans provide protection against adjacent-channel interference as well as the 23-channel problem. It is the best way I know of to manage this mixture of equipment and channels — unless you prefer to weed out the old receivers through attrition. You will not see some drawbacks. Only 37 of the 50 channels can be used. Wideband receivers must be restricted to the upper band."
You can be certain that I will take Warren's letter to my next club meeting for discussion. How naive we can be when we don't understand the problem!
Editor's note: Contributing Editor George M. Myers also addresses this subject in his "RC Flying Today" column elsewhere in this issue. RMcM
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
