Change in PA stunt.

Possible ideas would the addition of the outside triangles to "balance" the pattern as was seriously proposed a few years back.

Or, how about multiple hourglass maneuvers. This is the only maneuver besides take off and landing that isn't a multiple (With the possible exception of the reverse wingover.) The hourglass was set up as doing just one in the pattern because planes at the time had difficulty doing more than one.

Would a horizontal hourglass be feasable or desireable?

How about a verticle square eight?

Since engines have gotten more powerful, should we restrict sizes? How about 4-strokes. Is it really necessary to allow such large displacements with today's advancement in design? (Windy would have done equally well with a .72 since he never even got close to full throttle.)

Should line sizes be changed with the advent of more powerful .40 size engines? How about pull tests?

How about appearance points? Some, I am sure will advocate dropping them. But we could, also, go back to 30 or 40 points and make them more meaningful. If we do keep them as-is, should we give the judges more to go on? It is subjective judging and difficult, especially when you have 80 plus airplanes and limited time in which to compare them all. But if we had definitive guidelines, would that make it easier or harder for the judges (and contestants who build their planes)?

The floor is open, guys (and/or gals). But let's make this constructive and not personal.

Before wholesale changes to the pattern would be acceptable to me, I want to look at why the pattern has remained virtually unchanged since the mid 50's. It's my belief that the pattern is just difficult enough that it's almost impossible to do a perfect pattern. Try as many have, putting it all together in a perfect flight just hasn't been done in competition. That, at least for me has been what has kept me trying all these years.

I uderstand that for the spectators, if there are any, watching a stunt pattern is less than boring, but, I once tried something out at a meet that showed a way to get the casual observer more excited about the pattern. There were several people watching from the side lines with a pizzled look on their faces, so I walked over and introduced myself, and asked if they had any questions. Sure enough there were many questions, esp. the one about, "do you crash these very often?"

After fielding these early questions, I asked if any had ever seen the stunt pattern flown before, and would they like to take a few minutes to learn what and why we were doing certain things. Every one of these spectators wanted to know more, so it just happenend, that I had a bunch of those spiffy PAMPA pamphlets in the car. I handed each one of them a pamphlet, had them open it up to where the pattern was shown, and started explaining the pattern and what the judges were looking for. When the next flight took off, we talked about what the pilot did good and bad. I explained about the two laps between manuevers and why they were there, and set them up for the reverse wingover. We went like this for the entire flight. After that flight, several of the spectators thanked me and said that they now understood better what we were doing. I told them all that they could keep the pamphlets and invited them to critique the next several flights.

Later that day I saw some of these same people still there, but now they had their pamphlets out and were explaining what was going on to others. Most of the people I talked to stayed for most of the day.

So perhaps we should consider putting a few of those pamphlets in our flight boxes to use in any similar situation. I believe that when people understand better what is being done, they'll stick around long enough to learn how to better enjoy what is rightly called a participant sport.

As far as modifieing the pattern goes, I wouldn't be to set agianst it, as long as the manuevers were meaningful and not designed for the wow factor. Outside triangles have been proposed before in FAI, but lost out as they didn't want to allow any additional time to include the manuevers. I enjoy doing overhead clovers, repetitive hourglasses in PAMPA events would be the most difficult and require the most power.

I wouldn't be in favor of changing the pattern for Classic though. It would be counter to the reason for having the event.

I've heard many times in the past, from some of the oldtimers, that stunt as it flown today is nothing like they remembered it. They mostly did a free style show. According to Bob Palmer, they informed the judges of what their schedule would be and then had at it. Of course, in those times most were flying at 90 mph, and not every one had mastered inverted flight. It seems as if rather than moving the stunt event further forward, changes to this style of stunt would move us back to before the OT type pattern was developed.

I suppose that there's a place for this type of flying, even at, or especially at a stunt contest, but it should be a seperate event. In fact, I would suggest that those desiring this style of stunt organise a meet which featured the realy old style of stunt, free style. They would have to come up with some type of organisation to put at least the basics of what they wanted into some kind of rules to govern the event. Offer to help ED this free style event at some of the contests around the country. I'm sure there would be several contests that would enjoy having this addition. Then let the contestants decide if they want to participate. Those who do will get the enjoyment, and it might just be a great crowd pleaser. If there was some kind of announcer who informed the onlookers of what was happening, the crowd would find it much more interesting. Heck, even the BiSlob could compete in such an event. I'm aware of at least one group who has tried this with some mixed reactions, but I don't know if they are still offering this event in their contest.

As far as the current PA pattern, I'd prefer to see it remain as it is as I still can't get it perfect.

However, this is not a spectator sport and adding spectators is not going to improve the pattern. And, as you say, since no one is able to fly a perfect pattern, we still have something to strive for. It is not like ice skating where 10 is perfect and if somebody is given a 9.9 they are upset because "they did better than that." Riddiculous!

I, personally, find golf boring. And I REALLY find basketball boring. Now that is opinion, and I respect someone else if he enjoys the game. But should you change the rules just so I might enjoy watching it, or are you having enough fun with your competition even if I am not there watching you? If this is a sport that is dependent upon spectator revinue, then maybe you change the rules in order to get the maximum number of spectators (like having playoffs so the season doesn't really count for much.) But if it is a sport that is for the participants, then what do you care if I like it or not? You are having fun. It works for you. Go for it. And the person who doesn't like it can take up the sport he likes.

I think the fact that this event has lasted as long as it has without a major change in the pattern speaks well for how well it works.

Of course, if combat rules allowed one to trip his opponent or to tie his shoelaces together, maybe it would add a bit more excitement to the action. I think I will propose that for the next rules change.

I'm strongly opposed to any substantive change in the pattern, or in the PAMPA skill classes. Why? Because I fly the event and I cannot imagine any substantive change that would increase my enjoyment of the event.

The stability of the pattern has been the great strength of PA. I do think there are issures that could be addressed, such as the 5 ft corner radius, the question of 4-stroke sizes, and others that Leonard mentioned.

As a point of information, the last PA pattern which included a free-style maneuver was the 1950 pattern.

Spectators are an interesting part of PA, and are a totally different thing than the mass media "spectator sports". That is, the average Joe who watches football, basketball, hockey, or baseball isn't likely to have dreams of participating in the sport in quite the same way that golf and tennis fans do the Walter Mitty thing when they watch their sports.

PA is more like golf and tennis in that spectators are most likely already participating in the sport in some way. So they don't find it boring, but find "spectating" as a way to get cheap lessons in how to do it right.

I saw this in my Big, Strong, Handsome Wife at the Nats. She watched the good guys, and said, "I think I can do that." Well, if she watches football or baseball or hockey, she doesn't say, "I think I can do that." I have no dreams that she can do the pattern like Ted, but she has those dreams, which is all that matters. She never had dreams of flattening ##### Butkus in his prime, if you get my drift.

So, I would say the spectator appeal of PA is about right.

Cogent observations, Larry. I've been thinking when time allowed about how many spectators there are around both th CLPA event at the Nats all week and at VSC. One thing JAK had right was that on the surface stunt doesn't seem like a great spectator attraction in the sense that car crashes or rugby scrums are. Clearly, what brings people to watch the events is an interest in doing the thing themselves.

Another thing which seems a little too "pat ourselves on the back" to say too much about is the comraderie that seems to follow stunt wherever it goes. The word family seems overused when one goes to the Nats or other big CLPA get-together but it is, nonetheless, appropriate. For the most part these people are kindrid spirits who truly like the company of others who are attracted to the event. It's interesting that Shareen and I probably think of many stunters around the country and world as our closest friends rather than those with different interests with whom we share time primarily because of propinquity...living close to one another.

On another part of the subject. Len brought up the matter of appearance points. Once again, this year, there was some displeasure with the awarding of points. This has happened several times in the years of my involvment and this time wasn't any different than those previous ones. Ergo, I don't feel any need to detail the disputes.

What does seem important to me is that we do as Len suggest and take a close look at defining exaactly what the judges are to consider in the awarding of points. The current rule book is totally without direction in that regard, simply stating that maximum points be reserved for airplanes clearly above the average or words to that effect. Well, duh!

This might be a good place to start comparing ideas on exactly what criteria would be appropriate so that eventually a rules proposal could be developed that has some chance of being representative of the wishes of the "clan".

Any thoughts?

This is totally irrelevant and completely off the subject, but my wife was impressed that you had Shareen's name on your plane. Women are a little more into love than the average CL flier. I apologize for this post in advance.

Thanks for noticing, Larry. Actually, it says "Thanks" on one wing and "Shareen" on the other. This is actually a dual purpose thanks...once from me personally for all the support she gives me in my life-long addiction, and second; a visible pat on the back for now 26 years of very, very hard work on all of our behalfs as head tabulator at the nats and for the last six years as Sec/Treas of PAMPA. Both jobs require dedicated and painstaking effort on the part of a total volunteer and she has come through for us in spades for a long, long time now.

Unlike Tom Morris whose hard work is visible and clearly appreciated by all who savor STUNT NEWS, Shareen's work is almost exclusively of the behind the scenes variety. Several thousand hours in the course of any given year is not an exaggeration. She earned a spot on the plane!

I think our National contest has the right idea, if my information is correct. The final Walker cup flyoff is done sans appearance points. This is good, but those points do come into play while trying to get to the rarified air of the final 5. I have to agree that better guidelines for awarding those points might need to be codified. I understand that on one of the other forums, our PAMPA Veep posted a plea for input in preparing just such a rules proposal. Here's your chance, PAMPA is listening.

I particularlly like the idea of some kind of throttle control, if for no other purpose than a convenient way to shut the engine down to avoid an over run. I personal have waasted enough time on one over run with the "surfboard" to have allowed almost two complete flights to have taken place. I'm not sure what skill is being displayed by being able to meter the right amount of fuel for the prescribed flight time. A small piece of debris in the NVA can throw the entire thing off and time is wasted. Besides, it's primarily a flying event all in all, though I have to admit that engine tuning and fuel delivery is probably as important as the layout and design of the craft. ' Learned this the hard way trying to compete with an unreliable system.

On another post by Col McClain, the safty merits of using a throttle were discussed, and, in my opinion hold some water.

Additional manuevers? I esp. like the outside triangle as it will unwind those last two twists in the lines, but, should it be implemented, more time should be given to complete the pattern. Perhaps 15 to 30 seconds per added manuever would seem about right.

Several comments have been made about show team type flights, probably during the break between rounds. It's being done at a few contests, but organised show teams are few and far between. Those I've personally seen have been entertaining and enjoyable to watch, but it would seem to me that local individuals would have to make the sacrifice in time and effort to perfect thier routines and once perfected, I'm sure, as a CD myself, they would be allowed to do thier thing during the break. As it stands, there just aren't enough show teams sponsored by the AMA, and only a few are CL oriented, so club show teams would be a better idea, IMHO.

Speaking of show teams, as a former member of one myself, I seem to remember that at one time there was a show team competition held nationally where the best and most entertaining shows were showcased and given the recognition they deserved. I should ask AMA if they are still doing this. Such a show team competition might be a lot of fun to watch after the officials at a large meet such as the VSC. But I stray from the original intent of Leonards post, so please forgive me.

There is room enough in PA for additional events, such as free style stunt, and perhaps even some form of speed limited combat with more scale like planes, ( heresy) but I say again that "they" will not get the ball rolling. It's up to the advocates of such an event to put out the effort, or it will be a waste of energy and time discussing the idea. CD's are always open, at most contests, for more fun events, but with limited manpower, and less actual help, can't offer more without more help. So, if you want to see your favorite idea put into the schedule, offer to put the event together and ED it. Most CD's will welcome you.

Appearance points are a good thing. There is a logical disconnect in that now that the "builder of the model" rule is gone does not "add up out" with appearance points. Means you can theoretically "buy" appearance points, but in real life that doesn't happen to my knowledge. One would be hard pressed to find someone to build a Paul Walker B-17 for less than 20,000 dollars.

When I was 13 and 14, I was a little bitter about competing against "Daddy-Built" planes. Some kids could not start their engines, let alone glue two pieces of balsa together. My prejudices are based on those long ago memories. I built from scratch or kits, and did it all on my own. Not whining, just the facts for young kids, probably even today.

With that caveat, I would say appearance points make sense in the Expert and Advanced classes. May not Junior or beginner.

As talk wells about "changing the pattern", mayhaps we ought to ponder our link with the FAI? The AMA pattern consists of all of the maneuvers in the same sequence as flown in the World Championships.

Change rules for balloon bust, or something, but keep the connection with the FAI.

If anything, use the FAI rules entirely..... no dreaded appearance points, and a seven minute limit. A bonus, for those envious of Winfred and his throttle gizzmoe, is that the use of throttles is apparently forbidden in FAI, although the Frence base of the rules probably favors confusion?

See Ya

I do find it interesting, however, that the move to include inverted triangles in the pattern was dropped because of the lack of desire to increase the 7 minute time limit. But watch any contest and you see half a dozen contestants now doing outside triangles at the end of the pattern to unwind the lines. Sure, we have 8 minute limits, but we aren't using them (unless we have a slow start or someone didn't figure his fuel correctly.) We figure 6 minutes 20 seconds for total time from engine start to end of roll out after landing, and that is totally adequate for FAI. It also gives enough extra time to add those two extra maneuvers (unless you are flying slower than 6 second laps.)

I do not know how much this is going to contribute to this discussion, but I have a few things to discuss regarding rules changes.

First, maybe I have been too involved with stunt/precision aerobatics, either in competition or in the organization and administration for the past 35 years, but I do not consider our rules need any significant change. Over the years, there have been some minor adjustments to portions of the PA rules. Such adjustments, for the most part have been appropriate and have helped clarify areas where better definition was needed. However, the basic pattern has remained unchanged since the mid 50's. And I am not aware of any pattern yet receiving a perfect score. I would not anticipate little or no improvement in participation or even in spectator interest if additional or different maneuvers were incorporated in the pattern. Right now, the pattern consists of basically round loops, some maneuvers with "square" corners, and some maneuvers with something approaching 120-degree corners. Also, most maneuvers are defined by 45-degree boxes in elevation and width. Any "new" maneuver that could be defined would be nothing more than different combinations of already existing loops and corners, unless the basic 45-degree size parameter is changed. Adding a free style portion to the pattern as some have suggested would add to the difficulty of judging an event that is already subjective. How can there be an equitable comparison and score awarded for entirely different maneuvers, styles and presentation? We have enough trouble now with a long established pattern description to determine an equitable score for a pattern. Furthermore, I strongly believe that our AMA pattern should continue to be the same as the pattern used in FAI competition. (It is recognized that the FAI rule book adopted the AMA pattern some time ago with no appearance points, but incorporated K factors for the various maneuvers and a 7 minute time limit among other things. The K factor scoring has been changed at least once and this will be item for review with the FAI committee now charged to review/revise the FAI F2B (CL Stunt) rules.)

I do not want to get into the topic regarding appearance points and the BOM rule. The Rules and Judging column in the March/April 2001 Stunt News addressed this matter. That article originally appeared in another forum and will not be repeated here.

There have been a number of statements in this and other forums that the rules need to be changed. Yet, I have seen little in the form of constructive ideas of what rules need to be changed or what they should be changed to. I would like to think that if there is a good idea to incorporate, some club or contest organizer would sponsor a contest which incorporates such a change in venue. Then, if it works, or works after being refined, let the word spread and see what happens. (Now, I am going to quote from the above referenced Stunt News article.) "Over a period of time and with experience of how well a new idea works, a rule change proposal could be made with an enhanced probability of acceptance. ... But to try to incorporate a rule change that might be unworkable because of some misguided perception on the part of a handful of outspoken individuals is not in the best interest of the PA event."

I do not think any of our people who fly competition PA would be found to be against change. I think there would be universal acceptance if there was something that could be changed or modified in our rules that would open the gates so that the hords of modelers and potential modelers outside the PA fence just waiting for such a change would become active participants.

Now that I have entered this discussion, I would like to share an idea that Larry Renger and I had several years ago. We thought about creating a NEW stunt event. (Our approach was to introduce the idea one year at a Nationals and then we would sponsor this as an unofficial event at the next year's Nationals.) The event would be basically defined as follows:

Event Name: "Formula 2.5 Stunt" or "Formula 15 Stunt"

Max. engine displacement: 2.5 cc or 0.15 cu in

BOM rule: None

Appearance points: None

All pertinent AMA General CL requirements apply

Pattern: Same as the current AMA pattern with two exceptions.

Exception 1: Where the current pattern is now defined by 4 to 6 foot bottoms, 45-degree elevations and widths for most maneuvers and 90-degree elevations for the tops of vertical maneuvers, the Formual 2.5 Stunt pattern would be defined by 3 to 4 foot bottoms, 30 degree elevations and widths for most maneuvers and 60 degree tops of vertical maneuvers.

Exceptions 2: There would be a catalog of optional maneuvers not currently in the AMA pattern. This catalog would define each maneuver in the same manner as the current ruled book defines each maneuver in the AMA pattern. At the beginning of the contest, the Contest Director would choose two maneuvers from the catalog to be flown at the end of the pattern (after the conventional hourglass).

Discussion/Explanation:

1. There are several dozen maneuvers that come to mind that could be put in the catalog mentioned above. (However, as previously discussed, these would for the most part would be nothing more that different combinations of round and square maneuvers that are already in the rule book. But some of these could add a degree of difficulty, particularly with revised altitude/elevation/width requirements. Some ideas can be had if you have access to the April 1954 issue of Air Trails Hobbies for Young Men. (This issue shows several dozen maneuvers that were quite innovative at the time. A few of them are now in our current pattern including the reverse wingover, triangles, a four leaf clover, hourglass, and outside squares. These were ideas from Hi Johnson, Don Still, Llloyd Curtis, Jim Saftig and Geroge Aldrich.)

2. It would be necessary to have a "standard" catalog with maneuver descriiptions so that there could be some consistency in judging rather than have a "free style" portion of the pattern.

3. The revised altitude/elevation/width requirements would add a degree of difficulty and challenge that might appeal to some modelers.

4. We have not pursued this for the reason that we already have a number of stunt event categories, including the PAMPA classes (which are based on the current rule book), Old Time Stunt, Classic Stunt, and in many areas, there is good support for 40 profile stunt (or some variation of this). On occasion, there are contests scheduled for 1/2A stunt. We have seen other categories where different events start to proliferate (like CL Racing, Carrier and perhaps RC racing) and see interest dwindle over time. It was our opinion that the stunt community would not be better served for this type of an event.

I make no claim that this would be a workable or well attended event. It is mentioned here only as one of what could be dozens of different approaches to generate an new event. But to even think about changing our basic AMA event would be a serious mistake. The current event is not broken as some have claimed. Perhaps some changes are appropriate, but the basic AMA/FAI pattern should not be changed at this time.

Info for spectators?: All the handouts in the world won't help unless you can get each one right behind the judges so they can actually see what the planes are doing.

Get AMA in line with FAI?: Makes about as much sense as playing the SuperBowl in Brazil using arena football rules. The Nat's ARE the world championships. FAI events are simply a poorly camoflaged, convoluted attempt to give the guys on the other side of the pond a chance to win. The USA has fought and WON two major wars so that we don't have to do things the way they do it over there. However, if the FAI wants to get in line with the AMA, I have no objection.

The differences in approach to the public could not be more different.

The carrier people had information sheets in plastic wallets stapled to fence posts and sited the pits right at the crowd line.

The combat people had nothing and sited their pits about 60 feet from the crowd line.

The carrier people would pounce on anyone showing the slightest interest!

It was some time before I could accost one of the combat people to ask what sort of motors were being used in the combast models (modified PAW 19's). This is British Nostalgia Combat (rather than the class limited to Oliver Tiger's only). Once they'd realised that I knew what I was talking about and I was accepted into the clique a little.

Guess which I suspect is the more positive advert for control line modelling......

Just some of my rambling views on both subjects.

That being said. I wouldn't mind if we added an unknown
sequence like the full scale aerobatic guys do. Look at
some of the events at the World Aerobatic Championships.
In full size planes, the deciding event was the unknown.

Everybody nailed the Known and Freestlye. But what seperated the
men from the boys was the unknown. The ability to link perfect
maneuvers in a brand new sequence that you get the morning of the
event.

Thanks for listening...

If a competitor did not want to fly this backwards and unknown pattern, they could fly three normal patterns. To make it even, the reverse pattern got a small bonus (I believe 5%) and the unknown pattern got a 15% bonus (if I remember correctly).

All had fun, and the results were a mix of those who ventured into the unknown and some who chose not to. This was fun at a local level, but I am not sure how "I" would receive this at a National's level?

Nils

P.S. Thanks SO MUCH for attending our little C.O.L.D. Stunt Contest last weekend, it was truly an honor to have you fly on the circle I built!