156 MODEL AVIATION
CONTROL LINE AEROBATICS
Curt Contrata, 6783 Nightwind Cir., Orlando FL 32818; E-mail: [email protected]
went to Event Director Warren Tiahrt to
explain what happened, thinking that was the
case.
Warren properly declared the incident a
foul and charged Howard with an attempt.
The judgment was a combination of two
rules, the first of which is found in “Control
Line, General,” section 7: “Safety Rules.”
“A foul shall be called against a
contestant when any part of his model other
than the propeller(s), but including wheels
and/or tires, is lost during flight (unless due
to midair collision or line entanglement in
multiple pilot events).”
The second rule describes what to do if a
foul occurs and is found in section 9. It reads,
“Any foul as defined in these regulations is to
constitute an attempt with no official time or
score being recorded.”
Warren’s ruling surprised many people,
myself included. At the time, I thought I
knew and understood the rules, but these
were from the “Control Line, General”
section. This verdict is now affectionately
referred to as the “Howard Rule.”
There were two other occasions in recent
Nats where the rule book was consulted for a
proper judgment. The models were
challenged for removing and/or exchanging
parts after appearance judging and before
their first official flights.
The stipulation is specific in this regard,
yet it is commonly misunderstood. Let’s read
the first portion of “Control Line Precision
Aerobatics,” section 10.
A pilot and his “Motor Man”: three-time World Champion Les McDonald (L) and Stan
Powell at the 2004 Control Line World Championships in Muncie IN.
Junior World Champions with their winning Dreadnoughts: 1996
champ Derek Barry (L) and 2004 champ Rob Gruber.
Bob Gieseke (L) with his PA .65-powered Bear. It sat alone on the
front row at the 2004 AMA Nats appearance judging.
EVERYONE WHO IS involved in CL
Precision Aerobatics should read and become
familiar with the rules of the event. Our
understanding of the rules is often a
combination of what others have told us and
our interpretation of something we read a long
time ago. It is fairly predictable that the AMA
rule book—Competition Regulations—will be
consulted at least once to arrive at a proper
ruling on a particular issue at the AMA Nats.
A few years ago at the Nats, Howard Rush
was landing his model and it turned in at him
and spun around. When he got back to the pit
area, he noticed that his tail wheel’s tire had
fallen off the hub.
At the time, it was commonly accepted as
the rule that when a part of your model fell off
during a flight, you were disqualified. Howard
“Appearance. Models shall be judged for
appearance complete and ready to fly. After
model has been judged, nothing will be
removed from or added to the model which,
in the judges’ opinion, changes in any manner
the appearance of the model from the way it
was when presented for appearance judging.”
The words “ ... in the judges’ opinion ... ”
are critical to this rule. Some feel that you
cannot change anything on the model, which
is simply untrue. It is really only an issue if
the parts being exchanged—“in the judges’
opinion”—affected their decision on the
points awarded for the appearance portion of
the competition. Not to be unreasonable, the
rule goes on to read:
“However, during an attempt for official
flight after the contestant has begun to crank
the engine, if it becomes necessary to remove
the propeller spinner for change of propeller,
etc., then it is permissible to leave off the
spinner for that particular flight. Any damage
to the model after judging, or changes that
may be made as a result of such damage, will
not be cause for loss of appearance points.”
This rule allows for a wind propeller to be
exchanged for a calm-weather propeller,
providing that the judges did not use that
particular propeller as criteria in establishing
an appearance score. It also makes
allowances for damage of any kind to the
model that occurred after appearance judging
and before the first official flight.
There are many other things to be found
in the rules, especially in section 13 which is
“Flight Maneuvers and Scoring.” Not only
are the proper maneuver descriptions and
diagrams fairly specific, but errors for each
maneuver are also described in detail.
After carefully reading the descriptions
of maneuvers and common errors, it
became obvious that the pilot’s flying
skills and the model’s performance are
extremely important.
January 2005 157
There are at least nine references in the
collective descriptions of errors containing
the words “smooth” or “smoothly,” seven
occurrences of the words “wobble(s)” or
“wobbly,” and the word “rough” is used five
times.
The context in which these words are used
include “Wobbles when going into climb,”
“Loops are rough and irregular,” “(2)
Smooth, stable laps,” “Model wobbles on
turns,” and “Turns are rough and wobbly.”
From these descriptions, it should be obvious
that an out-of-trim or underpowered model is
clearly at a disadvantage.
The term “on rails” is common to see in
this event’s rules to describe a model flying a
rule book pattern that is locked in. To
accomplish this, the model must be flown
well and trimmed well. It is not enough to get
the geometry of each maneuver correct; the
airplane must fly cleanly through the pattern,
as if it were “on rails.”
Nowhere in the rules does it mention the
model’s ideal speed. This is interesting
because the “crowd” always seems to have an
opinion about who is flying too fast. It is
possible that shapes can appear distorted from
inconsistent speeds throughout a particular
maneuver; however, no judging criteria is
spelled out for such an occurrence.
Section 14 covers judging procedures,
which is enlightening. Pilots often concern
themselves with the judges’ location in
regards to the perfect upwind position to
have their flights scored. The rules in this
regard are quite clear:
“14.1.3. Judges should change position
when the wind changes.
“14.1.4. Judges should move only
during level flight between maneuvers.”
Section 15 deals with “Maneuver
Assessment” and how each error should be
scored. It defines the severity of each error
and helps answer many common questions
fliers have. This segment is extremely clear
on the importance of a maneuver’s size and
shape and how they should be scored.
“15.1.4. Size and shape are the most
important parts of a maneuver. Without
proper shape, there simply is no maneuver.
Clearly the most difficult aspect of a pattern
to execute is proper shape, providing it is
done the proper size. The pattern is
extremely difficult to fly at 45 degrees. As
the pattern is flown larger, it becomes
easier. A 60 degree maneuver, for example,
is much easier than a 45 degree maneuver.
To score them closely grossly distorts the
event.”
The rules are specific about flying too
big, and there are many references to 45
degrees. However, how to score someone
who flies too small is never clearly defined.
A common question fliers have is if the
first loop is low, where should the next one
be placed to maximize the score? If this
question were on a test, I bet most would get
it wrong. The rules state:
“15.1.5. ... If, for example, the first
pullout is low on a square, but the second
one is at five (5) feet, then clearly the
second maneuver has not been placed on top
of first one. This is a more serious error than
just low flying. Placing the second
maneuver directly on top of the first one,
even with a low bottom, should be scored
higher.”
I recommend that everyone obtain a
copy of the rules for our event and get
familiar with them; don’t assume you know
them. Did you know, for instance, that you
are allowed to take off and land more than
once on a single attempt during competition?
You can purchase a rule book from AMA
for $2.50, and you can download all rules for
competition from the AMA Web site free of
charge, in PDF format, at www.modelair
craft.org.
It is apparent that ARFs are becoming
more and more popular in our event, with
new models being introduced each year.
Brodak Manufacturing (100 Park Ave.,
Carmichaels PA 15320; Tel.: [724] 966-
2726; Web site: www.brodak.com) is
currently producing several airplanes with
prices that rival their kit equivalents.
John Brodak is currently working with
Randy Smith to produce two more models
that will be available in ARF and Almost
Ready-to-Cover (ARC) form. The Vector 40
and the SV-11 are due to be released in the
summer of 2005. Both have solid
competitive records and are sure to make a
huge impact.
Regarding the Builder-of-the-Model
Rule, ARFs and ARCs continue to be legal
for every competition other than the Open
event at the Nats. Even for the serious
competitor, these models will make
excellent practice or test airplanes and will
be well suited for contests and flying sites
with less-than-perfect conditions. MA
Edition: Model Aviation - 2005/01
Page Numbers: 156,157,158,160
Edition: Model Aviation - 2005/01
Page Numbers: 156,157,158,160
156 MODEL AVIATION
CONTROL LINE AEROBATICS
Curt Contrata, 6783 Nightwind Cir., Orlando FL 32818; E-mail: [email protected]
went to Event Director Warren Tiahrt to
explain what happened, thinking that was the
case.
Warren properly declared the incident a
foul and charged Howard with an attempt.
The judgment was a combination of two
rules, the first of which is found in “Control
Line, General,” section 7: “Safety Rules.”
“A foul shall be called against a
contestant when any part of his model other
than the propeller(s), but including wheels
and/or tires, is lost during flight (unless due
to midair collision or line entanglement in
multiple pilot events).”
The second rule describes what to do if a
foul occurs and is found in section 9. It reads,
“Any foul as defined in these regulations is to
constitute an attempt with no official time or
score being recorded.”
Warren’s ruling surprised many people,
myself included. At the time, I thought I
knew and understood the rules, but these
were from the “Control Line, General”
section. This verdict is now affectionately
referred to as the “Howard Rule.”
There were two other occasions in recent
Nats where the rule book was consulted for a
proper judgment. The models were
challenged for removing and/or exchanging
parts after appearance judging and before
their first official flights.
The stipulation is specific in this regard,
yet it is commonly misunderstood. Let’s read
the first portion of “Control Line Precision
Aerobatics,” section 10.
A pilot and his “Motor Man”: three-time World Champion Les McDonald (L) and Stan
Powell at the 2004 Control Line World Championships in Muncie IN.
Junior World Champions with their winning Dreadnoughts: 1996
champ Derek Barry (L) and 2004 champ Rob Gruber.
Bob Gieseke (L) with his PA .65-powered Bear. It sat alone on the
front row at the 2004 AMA Nats appearance judging.
EVERYONE WHO IS involved in CL
Precision Aerobatics should read and become
familiar with the rules of the event. Our
understanding of the rules is often a
combination of what others have told us and
our interpretation of something we read a long
time ago. It is fairly predictable that the AMA
rule book—Competition Regulations—will be
consulted at least once to arrive at a proper
ruling on a particular issue at the AMA Nats.
A few years ago at the Nats, Howard Rush
was landing his model and it turned in at him
and spun around. When he got back to the pit
area, he noticed that his tail wheel’s tire had
fallen off the hub.
At the time, it was commonly accepted as
the rule that when a part of your model fell off
during a flight, you were disqualified. Howard
“Appearance. Models shall be judged for
appearance complete and ready to fly. After
model has been judged, nothing will be
removed from or added to the model which,
in the judges’ opinion, changes in any manner
the appearance of the model from the way it
was when presented for appearance judging.”
The words “ ... in the judges’ opinion ... ”
are critical to this rule. Some feel that you
cannot change anything on the model, which
is simply untrue. It is really only an issue if
the parts being exchanged—“in the judges’
opinion”—affected their decision on the
points awarded for the appearance portion of
the competition. Not to be unreasonable, the
rule goes on to read:
“However, during an attempt for official
flight after the contestant has begun to crank
the engine, if it becomes necessary to remove
the propeller spinner for change of propeller,
etc., then it is permissible to leave off the
spinner for that particular flight. Any damage
to the model after judging, or changes that
may be made as a result of such damage, will
not be cause for loss of appearance points.”
This rule allows for a wind propeller to be
exchanged for a calm-weather propeller,
providing that the judges did not use that
particular propeller as criteria in establishing
an appearance score. It also makes
allowances for damage of any kind to the
model that occurred after appearance judging
and before the first official flight.
There are many other things to be found
in the rules, especially in section 13 which is
“Flight Maneuvers and Scoring.” Not only
are the proper maneuver descriptions and
diagrams fairly specific, but errors for each
maneuver are also described in detail.
After carefully reading the descriptions
of maneuvers and common errors, it
became obvious that the pilot’s flying
skills and the model’s performance are
extremely important.
January 2005 157
There are at least nine references in the
collective descriptions of errors containing
the words “smooth” or “smoothly,” seven
occurrences of the words “wobble(s)” or
“wobbly,” and the word “rough” is used five
times.
The context in which these words are used
include “Wobbles when going into climb,”
“Loops are rough and irregular,” “(2)
Smooth, stable laps,” “Model wobbles on
turns,” and “Turns are rough and wobbly.”
From these descriptions, it should be obvious
that an out-of-trim or underpowered model is
clearly at a disadvantage.
The term “on rails” is common to see in
this event’s rules to describe a model flying a
rule book pattern that is locked in. To
accomplish this, the model must be flown
well and trimmed well. It is not enough to get
the geometry of each maneuver correct; the
airplane must fly cleanly through the pattern,
as if it were “on rails.”
Nowhere in the rules does it mention the
model’s ideal speed. This is interesting
because the “crowd” always seems to have an
opinion about who is flying too fast. It is
possible that shapes can appear distorted from
inconsistent speeds throughout a particular
maneuver; however, no judging criteria is
spelled out for such an occurrence.
Section 14 covers judging procedures,
which is enlightening. Pilots often concern
themselves with the judges’ location in
regards to the perfect upwind position to
have their flights scored. The rules in this
regard are quite clear:
“14.1.3. Judges should change position
when the wind changes.
“14.1.4. Judges should move only
during level flight between maneuvers.”
Section 15 deals with “Maneuver
Assessment” and how each error should be
scored. It defines the severity of each error
and helps answer many common questions
fliers have. This segment is extremely clear
on the importance of a maneuver’s size and
shape and how they should be scored.
“15.1.4. Size and shape are the most
important parts of a maneuver. Without
proper shape, there simply is no maneuver.
Clearly the most difficult aspect of a pattern
to execute is proper shape, providing it is
done the proper size. The pattern is
extremely difficult to fly at 45 degrees. As
the pattern is flown larger, it becomes
easier. A 60 degree maneuver, for example,
is much easier than a 45 degree maneuver.
To score them closely grossly distorts the
event.”
The rules are specific about flying too
big, and there are many references to 45
degrees. However, how to score someone
who flies too small is never clearly defined.
A common question fliers have is if the
first loop is low, where should the next one
be placed to maximize the score? If this
question were on a test, I bet most would get
it wrong. The rules state:
“15.1.5. ... If, for example, the first
pullout is low on a square, but the second
one is at five (5) feet, then clearly the
second maneuver has not been placed on top
of first one. This is a more serious error than
just low flying. Placing the second
maneuver directly on top of the first one,
even with a low bottom, should be scored
higher.”
I recommend that everyone obtain a
copy of the rules for our event and get
familiar with them; don’t assume you know
them. Did you know, for instance, that you
are allowed to take off and land more than
once on a single attempt during competition?
You can purchase a rule book from AMA
for $2.50, and you can download all rules for
competition from the AMA Web site free of
charge, in PDF format, at www.modelair
craft.org.
It is apparent that ARFs are becoming
more and more popular in our event, with
new models being introduced each year.
Brodak Manufacturing (100 Park Ave.,
Carmichaels PA 15320; Tel.: [724] 966-
2726; Web site: www.brodak.com) is
currently producing several airplanes with
prices that rival their kit equivalents.
John Brodak is currently working with
Randy Smith to produce two more models
that will be available in ARF and Almost
Ready-to-Cover (ARC) form. The Vector 40
and the SV-11 are due to be released in the
summer of 2005. Both have solid
competitive records and are sure to make a
huge impact.
Regarding the Builder-of-the-Model
Rule, ARFs and ARCs continue to be legal
for every competition other than the Open
event at the Nats. Even for the serious
competitor, these models will make
excellent practice or test airplanes and will
be well suited for contests and flying sites
with less-than-perfect conditions. MA
Edition: Model Aviation - 2005/01
Page Numbers: 156,157,158,160
156 MODEL AVIATION
CONTROL LINE AEROBATICS
Curt Contrata, 6783 Nightwind Cir., Orlando FL 32818; E-mail: [email protected]
went to Event Director Warren Tiahrt to
explain what happened, thinking that was the
case.
Warren properly declared the incident a
foul and charged Howard with an attempt.
The judgment was a combination of two
rules, the first of which is found in “Control
Line, General,” section 7: “Safety Rules.”
“A foul shall be called against a
contestant when any part of his model other
than the propeller(s), but including wheels
and/or tires, is lost during flight (unless due
to midair collision or line entanglement in
multiple pilot events).”
The second rule describes what to do if a
foul occurs and is found in section 9. It reads,
“Any foul as defined in these regulations is to
constitute an attempt with no official time or
score being recorded.”
Warren’s ruling surprised many people,
myself included. At the time, I thought I
knew and understood the rules, but these
were from the “Control Line, General”
section. This verdict is now affectionately
referred to as the “Howard Rule.”
There were two other occasions in recent
Nats where the rule book was consulted for a
proper judgment. The models were
challenged for removing and/or exchanging
parts after appearance judging and before
their first official flights.
The stipulation is specific in this regard,
yet it is commonly misunderstood. Let’s read
the first portion of “Control Line Precision
Aerobatics,” section 10.
A pilot and his “Motor Man”: three-time World Champion Les McDonald (L) and Stan
Powell at the 2004 Control Line World Championships in Muncie IN.
Junior World Champions with their winning Dreadnoughts: 1996
champ Derek Barry (L) and 2004 champ Rob Gruber.
Bob Gieseke (L) with his PA .65-powered Bear. It sat alone on the
front row at the 2004 AMA Nats appearance judging.
EVERYONE WHO IS involved in CL
Precision Aerobatics should read and become
familiar with the rules of the event. Our
understanding of the rules is often a
combination of what others have told us and
our interpretation of something we read a long
time ago. It is fairly predictable that the AMA
rule book—Competition Regulations—will be
consulted at least once to arrive at a proper
ruling on a particular issue at the AMA Nats.
A few years ago at the Nats, Howard Rush
was landing his model and it turned in at him
and spun around. When he got back to the pit
area, he noticed that his tail wheel’s tire had
fallen off the hub.
At the time, it was commonly accepted as
the rule that when a part of your model fell off
during a flight, you were disqualified. Howard
“Appearance. Models shall be judged for
appearance complete and ready to fly. After
model has been judged, nothing will be
removed from or added to the model which,
in the judges’ opinion, changes in any manner
the appearance of the model from the way it
was when presented for appearance judging.”
The words “ ... in the judges’ opinion ... ”
are critical to this rule. Some feel that you
cannot change anything on the model, which
is simply untrue. It is really only an issue if
the parts being exchanged—“in the judges’
opinion”—affected their decision on the
points awarded for the appearance portion of
the competition. Not to be unreasonable, the
rule goes on to read:
“However, during an attempt for official
flight after the contestant has begun to crank
the engine, if it becomes necessary to remove
the propeller spinner for change of propeller,
etc., then it is permissible to leave off the
spinner for that particular flight. Any damage
to the model after judging, or changes that
may be made as a result of such damage, will
not be cause for loss of appearance points.”
This rule allows for a wind propeller to be
exchanged for a calm-weather propeller,
providing that the judges did not use that
particular propeller as criteria in establishing
an appearance score. It also makes
allowances for damage of any kind to the
model that occurred after appearance judging
and before the first official flight.
There are many other things to be found
in the rules, especially in section 13 which is
“Flight Maneuvers and Scoring.” Not only
are the proper maneuver descriptions and
diagrams fairly specific, but errors for each
maneuver are also described in detail.
After carefully reading the descriptions
of maneuvers and common errors, it
became obvious that the pilot’s flying
skills and the model’s performance are
extremely important.
January 2005 157
There are at least nine references in the
collective descriptions of errors containing
the words “smooth” or “smoothly,” seven
occurrences of the words “wobble(s)” or
“wobbly,” and the word “rough” is used five
times.
The context in which these words are used
include “Wobbles when going into climb,”
“Loops are rough and irregular,” “(2)
Smooth, stable laps,” “Model wobbles on
turns,” and “Turns are rough and wobbly.”
From these descriptions, it should be obvious
that an out-of-trim or underpowered model is
clearly at a disadvantage.
The term “on rails” is common to see in
this event’s rules to describe a model flying a
rule book pattern that is locked in. To
accomplish this, the model must be flown
well and trimmed well. It is not enough to get
the geometry of each maneuver correct; the
airplane must fly cleanly through the pattern,
as if it were “on rails.”
Nowhere in the rules does it mention the
model’s ideal speed. This is interesting
because the “crowd” always seems to have an
opinion about who is flying too fast. It is
possible that shapes can appear distorted from
inconsistent speeds throughout a particular
maneuver; however, no judging criteria is
spelled out for such an occurrence.
Section 14 covers judging procedures,
which is enlightening. Pilots often concern
themselves with the judges’ location in
regards to the perfect upwind position to
have their flights scored. The rules in this
regard are quite clear:
“14.1.3. Judges should change position
when the wind changes.
“14.1.4. Judges should move only
during level flight between maneuvers.”
Section 15 deals with “Maneuver
Assessment” and how each error should be
scored. It defines the severity of each error
and helps answer many common questions
fliers have. This segment is extremely clear
on the importance of a maneuver’s size and
shape and how they should be scored.
“15.1.4. Size and shape are the most
important parts of a maneuver. Without
proper shape, there simply is no maneuver.
Clearly the most difficult aspect of a pattern
to execute is proper shape, providing it is
done the proper size. The pattern is
extremely difficult to fly at 45 degrees. As
the pattern is flown larger, it becomes
easier. A 60 degree maneuver, for example,
is much easier than a 45 degree maneuver.
To score them closely grossly distorts the
event.”
The rules are specific about flying too
big, and there are many references to 45
degrees. However, how to score someone
who flies too small is never clearly defined.
A common question fliers have is if the
first loop is low, where should the next one
be placed to maximize the score? If this
question were on a test, I bet most would get
it wrong. The rules state:
“15.1.5. ... If, for example, the first
pullout is low on a square, but the second
one is at five (5) feet, then clearly the
second maneuver has not been placed on top
of first one. This is a more serious error than
just low flying. Placing the second
maneuver directly on top of the first one,
even with a low bottom, should be scored
higher.”
I recommend that everyone obtain a
copy of the rules for our event and get
familiar with them; don’t assume you know
them. Did you know, for instance, that you
are allowed to take off and land more than
once on a single attempt during competition?
You can purchase a rule book from AMA
for $2.50, and you can download all rules for
competition from the AMA Web site free of
charge, in PDF format, at www.modelair
craft.org.
It is apparent that ARFs are becoming
more and more popular in our event, with
new models being introduced each year.
Brodak Manufacturing (100 Park Ave.,
Carmichaels PA 15320; Tel.: [724] 966-
2726; Web site: www.brodak.com) is
currently producing several airplanes with
prices that rival their kit equivalents.
John Brodak is currently working with
Randy Smith to produce two more models
that will be available in ARF and Almost
Ready-to-Cover (ARC) form. The Vector 40
and the SV-11 are due to be released in the
summer of 2005. Both have solid
competitive records and are sure to make a
huge impact.
Regarding the Builder-of-the-Model
Rule, ARFs and ARCs continue to be legal
for every competition other than the Open
event at the Nats. Even for the serious
competitor, these models will make
excellent practice or test airplanes and will
be well suited for contests and flying sites
with less-than-perfect conditions. MA
Edition: Model Aviation - 2005/01
Page Numbers: 156,157,158,160
156 MODEL AVIATION
CONTROL LINE AEROBATICS
Curt Contrata, 6783 Nightwind Cir., Orlando FL 32818; E-mail: [email protected]
went to Event Director Warren Tiahrt to
explain what happened, thinking that was the
case.
Warren properly declared the incident a
foul and charged Howard with an attempt.
The judgment was a combination of two
rules, the first of which is found in “Control
Line, General,” section 7: “Safety Rules.”
“A foul shall be called against a
contestant when any part of his model other
than the propeller(s), but including wheels
and/or tires, is lost during flight (unless due
to midair collision or line entanglement in
multiple pilot events).”
The second rule describes what to do if a
foul occurs and is found in section 9. It reads,
“Any foul as defined in these regulations is to
constitute an attempt with no official time or
score being recorded.”
Warren’s ruling surprised many people,
myself included. At the time, I thought I
knew and understood the rules, but these
were from the “Control Line, General”
section. This verdict is now affectionately
referred to as the “Howard Rule.”
There were two other occasions in recent
Nats where the rule book was consulted for a
proper judgment. The models were
challenged for removing and/or exchanging
parts after appearance judging and before
their first official flights.
The stipulation is specific in this regard,
yet it is commonly misunderstood. Let’s read
the first portion of “Control Line Precision
Aerobatics,” section 10.
A pilot and his “Motor Man”: three-time World Champion Les McDonald (L) and Stan
Powell at the 2004 Control Line World Championships in Muncie IN.
Junior World Champions with their winning Dreadnoughts: 1996
champ Derek Barry (L) and 2004 champ Rob Gruber.
Bob Gieseke (L) with his PA .65-powered Bear. It sat alone on the
front row at the 2004 AMA Nats appearance judging.
EVERYONE WHO IS involved in CL
Precision Aerobatics should read and become
familiar with the rules of the event. Our
understanding of the rules is often a
combination of what others have told us and
our interpretation of something we read a long
time ago. It is fairly predictable that the AMA
rule book—Competition Regulations—will be
consulted at least once to arrive at a proper
ruling on a particular issue at the AMA Nats.
A few years ago at the Nats, Howard Rush
was landing his model and it turned in at him
and spun around. When he got back to the pit
area, he noticed that his tail wheel’s tire had
fallen off the hub.
At the time, it was commonly accepted as
the rule that when a part of your model fell off
during a flight, you were disqualified. Howard
“Appearance. Models shall be judged for
appearance complete and ready to fly. After
model has been judged, nothing will be
removed from or added to the model which,
in the judges’ opinion, changes in any manner
the appearance of the model from the way it
was when presented for appearance judging.”
The words “ ... in the judges’ opinion ... ”
are critical to this rule. Some feel that you
cannot change anything on the model, which
is simply untrue. It is really only an issue if
the parts being exchanged—“in the judges’
opinion”—affected their decision on the
points awarded for the appearance portion of
the competition. Not to be unreasonable, the
rule goes on to read:
“However, during an attempt for official
flight after the contestant has begun to crank
the engine, if it becomes necessary to remove
the propeller spinner for change of propeller,
etc., then it is permissible to leave off the
spinner for that particular flight. Any damage
to the model after judging, or changes that
may be made as a result of such damage, will
not be cause for loss of appearance points.”
This rule allows for a wind propeller to be
exchanged for a calm-weather propeller,
providing that the judges did not use that
particular propeller as criteria in establishing
an appearance score. It also makes
allowances for damage of any kind to the
model that occurred after appearance judging
and before the first official flight.
There are many other things to be found
in the rules, especially in section 13 which is
“Flight Maneuvers and Scoring.” Not only
are the proper maneuver descriptions and
diagrams fairly specific, but errors for each
maneuver are also described in detail.
After carefully reading the descriptions
of maneuvers and common errors, it
became obvious that the pilot’s flying
skills and the model’s performance are
extremely important.
January 2005 157
There are at least nine references in the
collective descriptions of errors containing
the words “smooth” or “smoothly,” seven
occurrences of the words “wobble(s)” or
“wobbly,” and the word “rough” is used five
times.
The context in which these words are used
include “Wobbles when going into climb,”
“Loops are rough and irregular,” “(2)
Smooth, stable laps,” “Model wobbles on
turns,” and “Turns are rough and wobbly.”
From these descriptions, it should be obvious
that an out-of-trim or underpowered model is
clearly at a disadvantage.
The term “on rails” is common to see in
this event’s rules to describe a model flying a
rule book pattern that is locked in. To
accomplish this, the model must be flown
well and trimmed well. It is not enough to get
the geometry of each maneuver correct; the
airplane must fly cleanly through the pattern,
as if it were “on rails.”
Nowhere in the rules does it mention the
model’s ideal speed. This is interesting
because the “crowd” always seems to have an
opinion about who is flying too fast. It is
possible that shapes can appear distorted from
inconsistent speeds throughout a particular
maneuver; however, no judging criteria is
spelled out for such an occurrence.
Section 14 covers judging procedures,
which is enlightening. Pilots often concern
themselves with the judges’ location in
regards to the perfect upwind position to
have their flights scored. The rules in this
regard are quite clear:
“14.1.3. Judges should change position
when the wind changes.
“14.1.4. Judges should move only
during level flight between maneuvers.”
Section 15 deals with “Maneuver
Assessment” and how each error should be
scored. It defines the severity of each error
and helps answer many common questions
fliers have. This segment is extremely clear
on the importance of a maneuver’s size and
shape and how they should be scored.
“15.1.4. Size and shape are the most
important parts of a maneuver. Without
proper shape, there simply is no maneuver.
Clearly the most difficult aspect of a pattern
to execute is proper shape, providing it is
done the proper size. The pattern is
extremely difficult to fly at 45 degrees. As
the pattern is flown larger, it becomes
easier. A 60 degree maneuver, for example,
is much easier than a 45 degree maneuver.
To score them closely grossly distorts the
event.”
The rules are specific about flying too
big, and there are many references to 45
degrees. However, how to score someone
who flies too small is never clearly defined.
A common question fliers have is if the
first loop is low, where should the next one
be placed to maximize the score? If this
question were on a test, I bet most would get
it wrong. The rules state:
“15.1.5. ... If, for example, the first
pullout is low on a square, but the second
one is at five (5) feet, then clearly the
second maneuver has not been placed on top
of first one. This is a more serious error than
just low flying. Placing the second
maneuver directly on top of the first one,
even with a low bottom, should be scored
higher.”
I recommend that everyone obtain a
copy of the rules for our event and get
familiar with them; don’t assume you know
them. Did you know, for instance, that you
are allowed to take off and land more than
once on a single attempt during competition?
You can purchase a rule book from AMA
for $2.50, and you can download all rules for
competition from the AMA Web site free of
charge, in PDF format, at www.modelair
craft.org.
It is apparent that ARFs are becoming
more and more popular in our event, with
new models being introduced each year.
Brodak Manufacturing (100 Park Ave.,
Carmichaels PA 15320; Tel.: [724] 966-
2726; Web site: www.brodak.com) is
currently producing several airplanes with
prices that rival their kit equivalents.
John Brodak is currently working with
Randy Smith to produce two more models
that will be available in ARF and Almost
Ready-to-Cover (ARC) form. The Vector 40
and the SV-11 are due to be released in the
summer of 2005. Both have solid
competitive records and are sure to make a
huge impact.
Regarding the Builder-of-the-Model
Rule, ARFs and ARCs continue to be legal
for every competition other than the Open
event at the Nats. Even for the serious
competitor, these models will make
excellent practice or test airplanes and will
be well suited for contests and flying sites
with less-than-perfect conditions. MA