Outside Triangles.

Is it time to move toward adding the Outside Triangle to the AMA pattern?


I understand the traditions of the event, I understand the history ;However surely this must be something we look at.

The AMA has seperated itself to soem degree from the FAI as a means to establish a true world class champion.


Im not suggesting this as a way to start tinkering with the pattern, however Outside triangles only I beleive is something that is a glaring ommision from the Schedule.

Place it after the Inside triangles before the Horz 8


I know alot of guys are practicing it already ; Id advocate Flat bottom - Starting from 45' ( x 2 )

Thoughts from all? -

This would be fairly simple to impliment surely, with a rules proposal during the next cycle.

No.

You can put them in the Australian pattern if you want. Come to think of it, as seen from here you already have them.

Howard Rush
Bellevue, WA

Id like to see it for one.. - However we run FAI and getting the FAI to change anything is almost impossible.

I figured the AMA was far more progressive and open to change - with 8 Minute times, BOM ,pattern points and so forth it clearly has the scope to impliment change.


If it ever came to a vote for the fliers - as a current AMA memeber - i'd vote Yes.


Id be interested to know what others think. - Or am I the only one who thinks it should be added [photo not recovered: sipcof.gif]

Excellent observation, Howard. And there's that "progressive" word again.

..only if they're point down



USER, n: The word computer professionals use when they mean "idiot." -Dave Barry

What would be the "point" of having it point down? If you have it with the flat bottom, its more in line with what we are already flying.


On a seperate note - Id like to know why it was never included originally.. anyone know?

I would not like to see point down. I regularly use outside triangles (flat down which is probably harder) as a practice maneuver, I also use 1/4 wing overs. They both help with recoveries at the 4 to 6 ft bottoms.

BUT.. there is no reason to add these to the current pattern. I have seen only 2 patterns in 40 years that I would say were CLOSE to perfect. Never perfect.

The better flyers could do any maneuver you throw at them, so there is no point in adding to the pattern.

A person with an independent spirit, who likes symmetry, can unwind the lines with two outside triangles between the clover and landing.

Whichever way it is flown, the pattern does need some upgrade. The level of flying (at least around here) is such that nearly everyone can turn in a good to great flight! The poor judges have a tough time because everyone is crowded at or very near the top.

I'm in favor of a tougher pattern, or else implement a "SuperExpert" class.

Floyd
AMA 796
SAM 188
LSF 020

there have been "so many" perfect patterns flown i can see the need for a super expert pattern....

BTW i'm known for sarcasm....

I have long advocated for expanded maneuver list. Keep the current pattern except use a "freestyle" pattern chosen from the expanded list for 1 round for experts Another possibility would be to use it on top 20 day. Would need a lot of thought but could yield interesting results.

Just my .02cents worth

Carl

>What would be the "point" of having it point down?
>If you have it with the flat bottom, its more in line with
>what we are already flying.
>
>
>On a seperate note - Id like to know why it was never included
>originally.. anyone know?


1) Only if we can enter the outside triangles from inverted. I kinda learned outside triangles before inside triangles. Long story, that.

2) It would extend the program to the point that my SV-11 wouldn't hold enough fuel.

3) You could ask George. If I see him first, I'll ask. Steve

I don't see the need for outside triangles or anything new. I have seen many very good patterns flown but, never a perfect one. They have now eliminated the 5' radius in the corners and while no one comes close to that --- it was something to shoot for. A REALLY tight corner,all else being equal, should out score a "good" corner. Now it is left to the judge to decide, with no guide line, ---which now can easily very greatly through out the country.

Cheers,
Bart

The " noone has ever flown a perfect pattern" is flawed logic. In golf, noone has ever shot -18 in one round yet there are always changes to courses, rules, equipemtent ect..


I was thinking more along the lines of instead of being locked into a steadfast tradition - how about making it fresh and new - progressive.

Freestyle is pointless... Outside Triangles a change is as good as a Holiday.


Id rather be debating this than Electric vs Pipe or BOM...


There seems to be a real push for the next big thing - be it building techniques, plane design, or engines.. why not look at adding in 1 more manouver?


The recent US OPEN tennis - steeped in tradition, USA is the only place where they hold a 5th set Tiebreak - everywhere else they play advantage rule in the 5th.. So there certainly is precident for USA to be progressive.. I think the tennis rule is brilliant ! it adds pressure and sets the USA apart from everywhere else, and most consider that event one of the best.



Another alternative - Include outside triangles in the Nats only !

I think the models now are more than cabable of being able to do the manouver. For me its nothing more than adding freshness ,progressive thinking and adding in 1 more challenge. For me thats what the AMA and Pampa stand for.



Obviously I seem alone in the desire for the addition of this manouver?

Nah , we need Square Clovers , and Triangular Overhead Eights .

They should add TWO more flying stunts and do away with TAKEOFF and LANDING.

Takeoff and landing are NOT aerobatic stunts, just BASIC flight operations. If we dumped TO & landing, we wouldn't have to be so fussy-fussy-fussy about surface conditons.

Moreover, the judges could take break after that last stunt instead of staring like zombies for 1.5 minutes (2.5 in the US) while the plane runs out of fuel.

Points down would be more interesting. There could be arguments over the length of the top segment and its elevation angle. A sharp 120 degree outside turn approaching the ground inverted at 60 degrees, smartly done at 5' elevation would be exciting. And we could make it a wide rectangle with rounded sides, like we do now on outside squares!

Actually, what we need to do is promote more "freestyle" events, even if only for our amusement.



"You can't touch this.." -M.C. Hammer

Beating a dead horse. Its not going to happen. The old saying of "its always been done this way" will be embraced. I don't fly competition because watching the same thing flown over and over and over is boring to me. Maybe if I competed I would see it in a different light but that is not likely to happen anytime soon.

>Points down would be more interesting. There could be
>arguments over the length of the top segment and its elevation
>angle. A sharp 120 degree outside turn approaching the ground
>inverted at 60 degrees, smartly done at 5' elevation would be
>exciting. And we could make it a wide rectangle with rounded
>sides, like we do now on outside squares!
>
>Actually, what we need to do is promote more
>"freestyle" events, even if only for our amusement.
>
>
>
>"You can't touch this.." -M.C. Hammer

More exciting than the identical turn contained in the existing inside triangle?

One could make a case that with the addition of Appearance points you have effectively added in one more new manouver anyway.

If you're going to add maneuvers without removing any, then we'll need to carry more fuel. Some people have room for extra fuel, and some people won't. Personally I would have to find some way to shoehorn in bigger tanks.

-Chris

>One could make a case that with the addition of Appearance
>points you have effectively added in one more new manouver
>anyway.

What??? What kind of logic is that? Does having appearance points require more fuel?

I like doing outside triangles to unwind my lines but what is with your campaign to change the pattern?

I am very much against adding outside triangles to the pattern.
Pete C. in NorCal

>What would be the "point" of having it point down?
>If you have it with the flat bottom, its more in line with
>what we are already flying.
>
>
>On a seperate note - Id like to know why it was never included
>originally.. anyone know?

I am a traditionalist, and yet I will joint you in accepting the idea. Although I may not put on a big campaign for it, I would certainly be open to seeing it included in the pattern (schedule). And, why not? We have inside and outside round loops. We have inside and outside square loops. Why don't we have inside and outside triangles? It only seem logical and it does away with the twisted lines at the end of the pattern (schedule).

As to which way should it go, I, too, would strongly suggest point down. Why down? When we do eights--horizontal round eights, horizontal square eights, vertical round eights--there is no sense of direction in the inside and outside loops involved since there is symmetry. But when we do the hourglass, what we have is an inside triangle and an outside triangle, point to point. Now I see a lot of the "snowman" varieties--I saw a lot of these at our FAI trials--where the bottom triangle is large and the top triangle is very small. This is hardly what is described in the pattern. They are to be two identically sized triangles with the point intersection at 45 degrees.

So if we were to separate these two identically sized triangles, the inside one is pointed up and the outside one is pointed down. As in the outside square it could be (and probably should be) started at the 45 degree level with the 120 degree turn and with the point 5 feet off the ground. That is actually easier to do (when you think about it) than to do the bottom turn of the inside triangle and hourglass which are also 120 degrees, but where the 120 degrees must be accomplished to level flight.

Adding the outside triangle would then make the pattern symmetrical, leave out lines unwound, and add but 15 seconds to the pattern (scdhedule). I think it is the latter that caused the FAI to reject the idea more than anything, making it more difficult to complete the schedule in the required 7 minutes. But we have got some other rules changes, so let's think about it. Having just come back from the FAI trials here in the US, most everyone got an immediate start no their engines (or had electrics). It is not difficult to get to the handle in 30 seconds and off at 40. Most were then able to complete the schedule in 5 to 5 and a half minutes (from the time of signalling the start). They then ran out their fuel or the electrics simply shut off. Even if you fly a slow pattern and it takes you 5 and a half minutes to complete the schedule, add another 15 seconds and it is now 5:45. That still gives you a minute to accomplish the shut off and land to a complete stop. And if it is a problem:

With the advent of electrics using timers, they have no problem. But to keep them from having an advantage, timers are now allowed for all flyers. Why not add a timer and shut off such as used in free flight models--very small, extremely light--to our models if we are afraid of over runs and have it shut down with sufficient time to complete the landing and roll out? With that you could add a little more fuel (ah, more weight) to keep the engine running clean to the end and problem solved. You could time it such that you come out of the clover, complete a couple of extra laps (make it five if you want) and now have a clean shutoff and you are done. No worries of overruns, no worries of underruns, no engine "burping" in the clover. This is the technology age. What are we waiting for?

Add the outside triangles--point down. Add timers to infernal compustion engines (pun intended), and be done with it. I'm in.

Point down. But this is how I would do the entry / exit.
After inside triangles, fly 1/4 lap, then half loop into inverted flight, fly 1 lap inverted, start outside triangles at bottom point, exit also at the bottom point inverted flight for 1/4 lap, half outside loop recovering into level flight.

Allan Perret