Radio Control SPORT/AEROBATICS
Ron Van Putte
You may not have heard about it, but there are many influential people who are pushing to have the Aresti style of aerobatic judging made the standard for all classes of AMA Pattern competition. In case you aren't familiar with it, the Aresti style of judging involves the entire flight pattern from the time the airplane flies into the "judging box." This includes judging of the turnarounds at each end of the field as well as the individual maneuvers.
The nature of Aresti judging makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to have more than one airplane aloft from the same flight line. Simultaneous flights by two or more airplanes would require substantial lateral spacing of flight lines to preclude having the flight paths of the airplanes overlap. Since most flying fields can't accommodate more than one flight line, use of Aresti would mean that the number of rounds of Pattern competition in a weekend contest would be reduced significantly. For this reason alone, it appears that a switch to the Aresti style of judging Pattern competition is ill-advised.
Most of the opinions you see in this column are not mine, but are a reflection of what I've heard (and read) other fliers express. The magazine management likes me to act more like a reporter and less like an activist, so I usually manage to curb putting my opinions in columns. However, this move to the Aresti pattern is happening so fast that I'm afraid that it will be a way of life in Pattern competition before people realize what is happening and can express their opinions.
The influential people who are pushing it are acting like it is something which is going to happen anyway, so that resisting it is futile. I disagree and will use any way I can to continue to resist the movement to use the Aresti pattern for all AMA classes. This month's column is one form of resistance, and I hope others will join me. My opinion alone won't sway the decision makers, but if many of you agree and take action to let the decision makers know how you feel, maybe we can prevail.
Lest you think that the push to the Aresti style of judging is ill-founded, let me assure you that it is based on very good intentions. In recent years, the Tournament of Champions (TOC) in Las Vegas has been moving firmly in the direction of the Aresti style of judging. The models flown there have evolved to a type of aircraft substantially different from those flown at past FAI RC Aerobatic World Championships. Now, I understand that the next World Championships will be flown using rules (and aircraft) very much like those used for the TOC. If so, the next U.S. World Championships team will need substantial experience flying against the Aresti style of judging with their new-style airplanes.
Our team will have a tough job winning the World Championships without that experience and equipment. What better way to give our team the best chance to win than to adopt the Aresti style of judging in all U.S. Aerobatics events? In that way, the top fliers can develop their flying techniques and aircraft regularly during the contest season so that we can select the best team to represent the United States in the World Championships. In addition, if all classes adopt the Aresti style, we will develop fliers in a progressive manner so that there will always be a large number of experienced fliers moving into the Masters class to replace those who leave the top levels of competition. Sounds great, doesn't it? I don't think it will work out that way.
The biggest problem I see was discussed earlier. The Aresti style of judging will cause a substantial reduction in the number of rounds of Pattern which can be flown during a typical weekend Pattern contest. Many competitors are already complaining that they don't get enough flights at a contest where flights are conducted from only two flight lines. Can you imagine what will happen if all but a few contests have only one flight line and 40 fliers show up? You'll only get one flight on each day of flying!
Who will be willing to drive several hundred miles, when the contest is decided by two flights? Not me. I average driving 300 miles one way for the contests I regularly attend, and most active competition fliers probably do about the same. That's too far to drive for two flights—I'd rather just send in my entry fee and let the Contest Director pull the winners' names from a hat.
Are all of you ready to scrap your current Pattern airplane and build a TOC-type airplane? If you aren't, you probably won't be able to keep your airplane in the "judging box" because it covers too much ground between turnarounds, and you'll be downgraded accordingly. You won't be competitive with today's Pattern airplanes!
Do you think that a Novice or Sportsman class flier is ready to be judged during the entire flight? Many of us need the turnaround to get our heads straightened out between maneuvers. The pressure of being judged continuously can easily lead to unsafe flying by pilots in the lower classes. We don't need more crashes.
If you agree that forcing all AMA classes to fly in events using the Aresti style of judging is not a good idea, let your AMA District RC Contest Board member hear from you. Look for your District's member in the AMA Competition Newsletter (in the Directory section).
What can be done if the AMA rules are modified to require the Aresti style of judging in all classes? My club has already discussed that possibility. We will offer Aresti-style judging for the Master class only and conduct our other events as they are now. We average 40 contestants at our annual contest, but there are usually only three to five Master class fliers. The additional time required to judge the Master class fliers won't be all that bad, and we should be able to have four rounds in a weekend using two flight lines and still have time for a couple of rounds of Sport Scale. If the AMA Contest Board decides that the non-Aresti events don't qualify as official events, so be it.
Reader Request: Buried Engine and Coaxial Props (Bud Wolfe)
I received a letter from Bud Wolfe (Scottsdale, AZ) who thanked me for sending him some Sears Filled Epoxy which wasn't available in his area, and he continued with the following remarks:
"Since your column puts you in touch with so many modelers, perhaps you can find someone to help me with a problem. I know it's been done, but I haven't seen it as a construction article. I'm talking about a buried engine with an extension shaft for the prop. An extension shaft of at least a foot should be good enough. I've experimented somewhat and haven't had much luck. I'm talking about an easily removed, rugged unit with a 1/4-in. shaft to which I can mount a stock prop or spinner. I also want to be able to use a starter on the prop spinner.
I do not want to have to use a pulley rope on a flywheel like on a boat. I've tried boat universals without much luck. If someone could come up with a unit which doesn't whip out of shape at 15,000 rpm, doesn't require much welding or machining, doesn't weigh a ton and can be easily constructed, I'm sure that many modelers would be appreciative.
Something else I would love to see is a construction article on coaxial props. I remember seeing one back in 1946 in Mechanix Illustrated, but don't have the magazine any more. My machining is somewhat limited, but I'm sure that some modeler out there can come up with a fairly easily built coaxial gear set for a .60-size engine. Two .40-size engines in tandem with a gear and a coaxial prop setup would really put the fun back in modeling. Sure would be fun to be able to fly the F-82 I'm building with the props turning in opposite directions.
How about it; do any of you have some ideas to share on this subject? Let Bud know at 8724 E. Weldon Ave., Scottsdale, AZ 85251. Thanks."
Editor's Note
Ron didn't know about Jack Stolfi's award-winning CL P-39 Airacobra construction article in the May issue of MA when he wrote this column. That model features a long extension shaft on an Enya .45, so there are some good ideas there for Bud Wolfe. —R.McM.
Ron Van Putte 111 Sleepy Hollow Rd. Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
