Chris,
I have been know to fly "competition stunt" so I will explain what I "think" of this idea.
Some of the ideas that Chris mentioned above have been suggested before. There may be some nuggets of some good ideas here. With concern that I will sound like a naysayer, I offer the following thoughts. Many of the following points may sound like objections and may sound familiar as I have responded to these kinds of suggestions before.
First, I think it is necessary to understand that our CLPA models perform in a rather constrained environment. The only maneuvers our models do are all based on changes in pitch around the lateral axis. There is no rolling about the longitudinal axis and there is no turning about the vertical axis of our models, at least as little rolling or turning as we can hope for. Therefore, any maneuver that can be devised will be based on changes in pitch, either in terms or round maneuvers or sharp corners (however corners could be defined). Any maneuver now in the rulebook is based on loops or sharp corners in various combinations. Any "free style" portion in our pattern would be nothing more that a different sequence of loops and sharp corners. The only variation to this would be to impose tighter restrictions on altitudes and sizes or the parameters in which these maneuver are performed and/or to perform these maneuvers in portions of the hemisphere that would pose some degree of difficulty for the pilot and capability of the model. For instance, most of our current maneuvers are defined by 45-degree segments of our hemsisphere. Maneuvers could be defined to perform current or newly designed figures in 30-degree segments of the hemisphere. This would certainly prove challenging since very few flyers now come close to consistently performing within the 45-degree parameters of the current pattern.
In all due respect to the Mirror Meet Pattern, it certainly represents a challenge to be flown. But it still is nothing more than a series of our current loops and sharp turns in different combinations that we already have in our pattern. It does have a lot more of them. I am not sayging that it is less difficult.
Now, it is fairly easy to come up with some maneuvers that would pose great difficulty for even the most capable pilot and model to perform well. It seems we already have some maneuvers that even most capable pilots and models cannot perform well. Some do a remarkably good job at making those manevers look better than other pilots, but they still are far off of the mark of the specified maneuver description. It is incongruous that some even want to make the 5 foot radius larger or a more lenient parameter because it likely will never be achieved, at least with current equipment, while others are suggesting to incorporate some sort of a free style portion that perhaps adds a degree of more difficulty into the pattern.
I think that most who propose a free style portion in our pattern will agree that there would have to be a catalog of maneuvers, with carefully written descriptions for each maneuver. Otherwise, a pilot could fly his own "super special custom wifferdopple", and say that he flew it perfectly, but the judges have no idea on what basis to judge it.
So, who is going to come up with a catalog of optional maneuvers and an understandable description for each maneuver? That is not an impossible task, but it will be rather daunting to say the least. We have been trying to refine our current maneuver descriptions (the AMA and F2B patterns) for the past 40 years and we still need refinements. We have judges guides to help with the evaluation of each maneuver, yet many complain that the current judge's guide is too lengthy while suggesting at the same time that the guide needs to give the judges more tools to judge accurately. (That complaint/suggestion sounds reasonable until you think about it.)
A K-factor system has been suggested for the free-style portion of the pattern. This will prove interesting as I am sure there would need to be a long and tedious period to refine that K-factor system as well as the free style catalog. This is not to say that it could not be initiated, and perhaps there are groups out there that are willing to put such an effort together and to see it to some workable system of maneuvers, descriptions and properly weighted K-factors.
The Tulsa Glue Dobbers have initiated a worthwhile effort with their resurrection of the Mirror Meet pattern. A lot can be learned from their experience running their first meet this past year. Some variation of this could be tried by a group willing to take on the effort to devise a catalog, a set of rules/maneuver descriptions and then organize a contest to see how it works. Whether a free style portion is used or not, or just come up with a different sequence of maneuvers, like include all of the current rulebook maneuvers, then add two or three maneuvers from the catalog while not announcing those maneuvers until just before the contest starts. It sounds like fun, but there is an administrative leading edge to this that will prove quite formadable.
Before there is any formal rules change proposal to incorporate any such ideas, there would or at least should be a demonstrated system, actually flown in several contests to show that the system is workable as well as showing that there is interest for such a system by an acceptably broad segment of the CLPA community. It may take a while for any such system to be developed, tried out, refined and to get any kind of following. Such stuff is how new events are created.
(Look at OTS and Classic stunt - both had rather modest beginnings, both are now quite popular and have been for a number of years, yet both are still "unofficial" events. Furthermore, it took years before the PAMPA classes were incorporated into the AMA rulebook now known as AMA classes.)
I think that if the idea to not announce the "pattern of the day" until the contest starts will have several results. One, the better pilots who really know their airplanes and really know how to fly will still win. And in the their effort to even compete at the same level, less capable pilots will over extend themselves and their airplanes and a lot of airplanes will be lost. I do not see this as a positive move. Furthermore, there will still be the grousing that those that win do so only because of their "halo". Any of these proposed systems will put additional burden on the judges to score accurately and fairly. We have enough perceived problems now with people complaining that judges are not familiar with the rules which have been around essentially for 40 years. Now we want new rules and new patterns ever couple of years or even at every contest. Any such program will have a lot of built-in headwind.
Really, I am not trying to throw cold water on what may be a really good idea. In fact, I would look forward to participate in a contest in what may be many variants. I would caution that our event does not need to have a proliferation of sub-events. Yes, we now have OTS, Classic, Profile 40, 1/2A, AMA classes and age categories. Some people are proposing to have a Classic 70's event of some kind. And we hear talk of a Masters event or a Tournament of Champions with a different kind of judging format and maybe even a different pattern. Maybe there is room in our event for more. But experience in some of the other events (RC Pylon and CL racing) has shown that a proliferation of categories has not necessarily contributed to growth in the event.
I know this is getting long winded, but I will relay a bit of background that is pertinent to this discussion. This is factual, but I have not gone into the forum archives to give a direct quote. I know for a fact that two individuals threw out a proposal several years ago (before 2000) on the SSW forum. The proposal was that these two individuals would show up at the next Nats, each with an airplane built to the rules for an event that these two individuals would sponsor as an unofficial event at the next Nats. The event would be called something like "Formula 2.5 Stunt". The rules basically would be:
No BOM.
No appearance points.
Total displacement limited to 2.5cc (.15 cu in)
line sizes and pull test per AMA rules.
LG required.
Pattern: Same as the AMA pattern with two exceptions.
1. Instead of most of the maneuvers being defined by the 45 degree parameters in the current rulebook, the maneuvers would be defined by 30 degree parameters. In other words. horizontal eights would have to be flown in a 60-degree segment of the circle (vice 90-degrees), the tops of the vertical eight and hour glass would be at 60-degree elevation and the 4-leaf clover nearly the same.
2. There would be two maneuvers selected from a catalog of new and "challenging" maneuvers that would be announced at the beginning of the contest and added to the flight sequence. The catalog would contain maneuver descriptions and how they would be judged.
There was no idea about what the configuration of the model that could be built for this. With no appearance points, it would be interesting to see what some might think would be an optimal design to perform this kind of pattern.
This proposal was posted several times on SSW. I also think that the idea was published in Stunt News. I also know for a fact that not one response showing any interest or question was received by the two people who proposed this idea. Needless to say, the two people who could have pulled this off did not pursue the idea further.
What I am saying is that it is not enough for somebody to have a brainstorm and then just point the way. Somebody will have to do something. I am just tring to point out that some people, somewhere, will have to do a lot of work to bring this idea to some workable system. There are some pitfalls that need serious consideration. I have only tried to point out some of the enertia that will need to be overcome.
Topic: Changing the pattern on a yearly or multiple year cycle (Read 2595 times)