Radio Control: SPORT/AEROBATICS
By Ron Van Putte
The loss of Lakehurst NAS as the 1982 Nats site was tragic. As I understand it, the runway that was to be used for the Radio Control events is scheduled to be used by the Navy during the period the Nats were to have been held. It seems as though the situation should never have developed as far as it did, but anyone who has dealt with a government agency knows that one part of the agency usually does not know what the other parts have planned, and vice versa. It must be very disappointing to the Lakehurst Nats promoters, like AMA District II VP John Byrne, who was delightedly looking forward to an East Coast Nats. The transfer of the Nats to Lincoln, NE will change a lot of Nats plans. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the Nats this year. Maybe next year.
Rule changes for 1982–1983
I was mostly pleased to see the changes to the RC Pattern rules which will appear in the 1982–1983 rule book. Now is the time for everyone to review the rules to see how the changes affect them. There are changes to almost every class — and some of them are quite dramatic.
Most changed is the Expert class maneuver list, which dropped five maneuvers and added two for a net decrease of three maneuvers. Dropped were:
- Figure M with 1/2 Rolls
- Three Inside Loops
- Rolling Eight
- Running Eight
- Three-Turn Spin
Added were:
- Figure M with 1/4 Rolls
- Square Loop
Since the allotted time was unchanged, it will be much easier to complete the pattern.
In the past two years many pilots lost landing points because time ran out; they had just barely earned a landing, with only scant seconds to spare. Few will weep over the loss of the Rolling Eight and Three-Turn Spin since they were either impossible to properly base or were judged by luck, respectively. Three Inside Loops belongs in the easier class. However, we will miss the Running Eight since it is difficult to perform well yet relatively easy to judge by my criteria of a good maneuver. Figure M also meets my criteria of a good maneuver and is welcome.
The old Novice class has been changed to Sportsman; Pre-Novice has been changed to Novice. Sportsman will have three maneuvers deleted and two new ones added. No one will cry over the loss of the terrible trio:
- Straight Flight Out
- Procedure Turn
- Straight Flight Back
These maneuvers are deceptively difficult to perform and also difficult to judge, particularly since an error in one maneuver could lead to errors in subsequent maneuvers and downgrading. Reverse Cuban Eight and Cobra Roll are much better maneuvers for the new Novice class.
Advanced class maneuvers remain the same. The Masters fixed-option list will be difficult — the Masters fixed-option list will have 12 maneuvers, with takeoff/landing combined, K-Factor 45. The freestyle list will again have 14 maneuvers, including takeoff/landing combined, K-Factor 45. Also, some minor changes confirm what people were doing anyway. A change affirmed that landing should be scored whether the maneuvers that normally precede it were performed. It clarified what should be done about landing points in case of engine flameout.
The new rule book also establishes a mandatory 50-ft level entry and exit prior to and after a maneuver, respectively. Somehow this requirement was omitted from the old rule book although everyone judged maneuvers that way anyway. Be sure to carefully review the changes so that Pattern won’t present surprises at the first contest in 1982. It would be very embarrassing near the end of a flight to announce on the Traffic Pattern Approach that a maneuver had been deleted from the maneuver list due to two rule book changes earlier.
Letter from Ed Cregger (edited)
Once something is written it hits a responsive chord with the reader. Such was the case when Ed Cregger, Pennsville, NJ, wrote a comment on the fact that competitors can buy success in Pattern contests. Since the topic is of general interest, an edited version of Ed's letter follows:
"I have had a similar experience, where the competition was won by the person with the most money. I was involved in drag racing for quite a few years, and I finally gave up. I couldn't begin to compete against the factory teams with unlimited budgets and engineering staffs. It left a bitter taste in my mouth.
"Well, here we are again in the same situation with Pattern. I'm not against factory teams; I think they ultimately benefit the hobbyist. However, it is detrimental to the hobby when the average non‑sponsored competitor has to compete toe‑to‑toe with them. We are reaching the point where talent is not enough, not to mention dedication and perseverance.
"You might wonder why a Sportsman class competitor would be concerned with this. The reason is simple: why should I work my tail off and be eliminated because I lack the financial backing when I finally reach the Masters class? I will continue to fly, but I have to admit that it has dampened my enthusiasm somewhat.
"In the same vein, I would like to see retractable landing gear and tuned pipes banned from Sportsman and Advanced classes. We wonder why we aren't attracting people to Pattern, and then we make it so expensive to explore the field that no one will take the risk. I thought Pattern was supposed to be a flying event. However, it has rapidly turned into a buying and building event.
"Will banning retracts and pipes from the first three Pattern classes hurt Pattern? My opinion is—absolutely not! Competition is a relative thing. If everyone in the lower three classes had to contend with fixed gear and less power, the best pilots would prevail and have just as much fun (perhaps more). The pilots could concentrate on flying and learning trim secrets instead of worrying about a stalled retract servo or lack of pressure in the tank and rasping down the bottom of their all‑winter project on the runway.
"In my opinion, the time to learn about retracts and tuned pipes is after you've mastered the art of flight line procedures, building and trimming the plane, and flying the pattern. I strongly feel that, until we reorganize our sport, we will continue to decline in numbers. Let's make it a flying event again."
Thanks, Ed. I couldn't have said it better myself. How do the rest of you feel about it? Speak up.
AMA RC Frequency update
I hope you've all had a chance to read or be informed about the information release (dated November 16, 1981) from Bob Aberle, chairman of the AMA RC Frequency Committee. According to the release, the FCC should have sent out a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in February, just prior to your receipt of this magazine. The NPRM covers the proposed new 50 aircraft and 23 non‑aircraft RC channels. At the time of the release, it was expected that we could be operating on the new channels as early as the end of the summer.
An important facet of the proposal for new frequencies is the maintenance of a united AMA proposal. The Frequency Committee requested that individuals who do not understand the NPRM or the AMA proposal should contact the Frequency Committee rather than the FCC. Should a considerable number of controversial responses be received by the FCC, it is likely that there will be further delays in the efforts to obtain new frequencies.
In the unlikely event that the NPRM is not released in February, the Frequency Committee has already informed the FCC that a letter‑writing campaign on the part of the membership would be immediately forthcoming, with letters going to the FCC and interested members of Congress and the Senate. Let's hope that a letter‑writing campaign will be unnecessary.
Ron Van Putte 111 Sleepy Oaks Rd. Ft. Walton Beach, FL 32548
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
