Precision Aerobatics keeps up with the times
Eric Henderson [[email protected]]
I received a request from John Konneker asking me to let the general AMA membership know that he was in the process of putting together a rules-cycle proposal survey for the AMA RC Aerobatics (Pattern) competition classes 401–404. Before I get into the details of John’s request, let’s look at why the rules for Aerobatics change at all and why we really need to keep up with the times in this sport.
There is an old engineering phrase that “form follows function,” meaning that the physical shape of a design usually follows on after the mechanics have been completed to achieve the desired technical result. In the world of competition, there is another, not-so-well-defined phrase: “design changes follow rule changes.”
You can see this clearly in Formula 1 car racing. Look at the Formula 1 rules 10 years ago and look at the cars of that era. Then compare them with the cars of today. Without going into detail, you can observe unmistakable external changes that keep the cars competitive and aerodynamically efficient. Today’s cars hug the track but can go fast, if not faster, with less available engine. All of these changes came about because the FAI world motor-racing body made changes to the FAI motor-racing sporting handbook and rules.
It may surprise you to know that the international world of precision Aerobatics also falls under the auspices of the FAI. Rules changes made at the international level usually have a marked effect on what and how we eventually fly in the AMA classes.
The FAI rules-change process operates on a two-year cycle. The AMA rules-change cycle for Pattern adopted the same cycle a couple of years ago, but it is one year out of sync.
In the AMA process, it takes two years to gather change requests and ideas, turn them into a survey for interested AMA members, publish that survey, and then gather all the replies and tally the polls. Based on a majority, the answers are then turned into proposals that are submitted to the AMA.
The AMA event director submits those proposals to the RC Aerobatics Contest Board members for their votes. There are 11 people on that board—one member from each AMA district—and a chairperson. (You can find this information in the “Focus on Competition” section in Model Aviation and on the AMA website under competition news.)
The AMA does not typically administer the survey and poll. It is done by the SIGs for their respective competition classes.
But what about the pilots who are climbing the skills ladder and those who have, either by achievement or results, stayed at the national level? Their schedules and rules have changed in the last 20 years—almost every three years and now every two years. Sometimes it is only a rules modification, with the schedules staying the same; other times both might be altered at the same time.
One rules change was the adoption of the maximum engine size of .120 cubic inch for four-strokes when the limit was .61 for two-strokes. This allowed developing U.S. pilots to be competitive with four-stroke engines. FAI pilots were already there, but those coming up behind them in the AMA classes could benefit from the larger engines permitted. (The engine-size limit was eventually lifted, and the maximum airframe size of 2 meters [78.625 inches] and a weight limit of 5 kilograms [11 pounds] more effectively controlled what was in the airplane. The FAI sound limits also began to make their way into AMA RC Aerobatics rules.)
It is important to point out that there was no automatic trickle-down effect from the FAI rules to the AMA rules. It took a lot of concerted effort and the application of collective wisdom to change what people had become used to.
In the 1980s, Pattern pilots were happy with what they were flying. The schedules allowed you to make long, high-speed approaches into an aerobatic area, where you were judged. You then left the “scene of the crime” to set up for the next maneuver. An axial roll at roughly 170 mph looked like it was on a wire and took up a big piece of sky.
All was well with the world until the FAI came along and adopted turnaround schedules. Pandemonium broke out in the establishment. The FAI pilots adapted, as they always do, but the AMA classes were in trouble.
The older-design models did not like staying inside a 600-foot flying area, or “box” as it became known. It was evident that the existing designs needed much more rudder and elevator authority when flying slower. These inputs had not been needed at the higher speeds.
New designs soon emerged that provided better vertical performance for the turnaround maneuvers. They also rolled well at the slower speeds and required fewer corrective inputs. The new models flew at a more constant speed in level flight, as well as up and down the aerobatic lines.
Pattern airplanes such as the A-6 Intruder could no longer be competitive in the turnaround box. Fortunately, the SPA (Senior Pattern Association) has resurrected these beautiful designs and is basically flying the old schedules for the Pattern veterans.
This pulls us back to the question of what made the design changes in the last 20 years. It is simple really: modify the rules, and the designs of Pattern models change. It was not just change for the sake of change. FAI turnaround schedules created a real paradigm shift in Pattern aircraft design.
There were many designs that sought to take advantage of the shift. More significant, though, is that the AMA rules had to change to make this happen. There was massive resistance to these alterations—Pattern pilots liked the old non-turnaround routines that did not vary much.
That is probably because a major differentiator for Pattern flying is that the schedules are practiced a lot—for years, in some cases. Practicing a routine hundreds of times gives you “muscle memory,” especially to that mental muscle between your ears.
Flying the same schedule in both directions and in many varying flying environments teaches you to correct for things such as different wind directions. Turnaround schedules require a different flying style and constant planning and positioning for the next maneuver.
Add to the challenge of turnaround that the schedules are updated every two or three years, and you can see that Pattern flying became much harder. Not only did that happen, but model designs and engines—up to the current use of incredibly powerful electric motors—changed more often than the schedules.
These changes did not happen slowly and, in hindsight, more attention could have been paid to the U.S. Pattern-pilot contingent. This makes the case that you should take extra time to look at what changes are being proposed and what you think should be done.
By now you should have realized that AMA rules changes are not an osmotic process caused by FAI rules changes. This brings us back to the request for AMA membership involvement in the next/current rules-change cycle.
I am including part of the note that John Konneker sent me. If you are interested in contributing your ideas or voting on the Pattern survey, he will tell you how to get involved. Precision Aerobatics considers that all interested AMA members should have a chance to join in the process of determining the future of the sport of Pattern.
John Konneker wrote
On January 1, 2009 the two-year process of making changes begins. That’s right! A proposal that is submitted and makes its way through the process to become a rule won’t take effect until January 1, 2011. If we don’t take advantage of this cycle the next cycle’s rule changes become effective January 1, 2013.
I have volunteered to collect all the proposals that folks wish to submit, group them into a survey so that all AMA members may be polled, then convert them into official rules proposals that will be submitted to the AMA Aerobatics Contest Board for consideration.
You can read about the procedure on page four of the AMA General Rules. You can see your contest board members under “Aerobatics.”
Now is your chance to help make Pattern better. No matter what class you fly or what organization you belong to, you can help. Please send your proposals to John L. Konneker via e-mail. (His contact information is in the Sources list.)
Please note that individual AMA members have the right to submit their proposals independent of the SIG survey process, but they are always invited to have their suggestions included in the survey.
Time to land. Model Aviation
Sources
- John L. Konneker — [email protected]
- AMA competition rules general information:
www.modelaircraft.org/files/events/rulebooks/0708general.pdf
- Contest Board members listing:
www.modelaircraft.org/events/cbmembers.aspx
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
