(Clip)
Can anyone envisage a quantum leap in design or powerplants or should the schedule be changed, in some unspecified way, to present a fresh challenge to designers?
(Clip)
Andrew.
Almost on a regular six to twelve month schedule, the idea comes up to change "the schedule". This time, it is an open suggestion to change the pattern "in some unspecified way". Interesting idea but some thought needs to be given to it.
First, let's remember that the pattern was recently changed to eliminate the specified turn radius of the corners in those maneuvers that required a 5-foot minimum turn radius. These corners are now all specified "to be of a tight radius". In my own humble opinion, I think this was a change for the good of the event. No CLPA stunt ship is capable of even coming close to the proverbial 5-foot corners unless the stunt world is ready to accept the freakish design excursions like Rich Porter's "Ridiculous" in 1985 (aptly named) and some other ideas from him. Time has shown that the CLPA community is not ready to accept that design approach as a norm for our event. However, tight corners are still important. With proper judging, two flights which are similar regarding size, overall shape, intersections, and bottoms, the pattern with the tighter corners will still get a higher score because not only are the corners tighter, the shapes of those maneuvers with tighter corners will be closer to the rulebook criteria. And my experience as a judge over the past several years, I think it is easier to judge and assign a score with the new "of a tight radius" requirement.
Next, consider what makes up our pattern. It is a series of inside and outside loops in various combinations and locations, plus various square inside and outside loops with something resembling right angle turns in various combinations and locations, and a couple of maneuvers that require something that resemble (but actually less than) 120
o turns.
So, what could be added to our pattern that in one form or another is not already incorporated in our pattern? Yes, for example, we could maybe use "outside triangles", but they are still triangles requiring no new technology to perform well. And yes, we could put together any number of imaginative maneuvers (and I can provide a list of dozens) including the ideas used many years ago in the New York Mirror meets (and recently resurrected by the Tulsa Glue Dobbers if not others), but all of those are still various combinations of loops and "tight" corners. The only thing that would really start to push the performance envelope of our CLPA models would be to make these maneuvers that consist of combinations of loops and "tight" corners all smaller. Instead of the specifications for the current maneuvers where most are defined to be performed within 45
o and 90
o parameters, put that series of loops and tight corners within 30
o and 60
o parameters. That would be a real challenge for most designs and pilots today where a true 45
o/90
o pattern is seldom seen except at the highest level of competition and when good judges are used.
What I am saying is if there is to be a "fresh challenge to designers" as well as a "fresh challenge" to pilots, the first step would be to have a universal understanding of how a true 45
o/90
o pattern is to be flown and judged.
We have had this set of AMA maneuvers for over 50 years. Has there been improvements in our equipment over that time? The answer is a resounding
YES!, albeit rather slow. Much of this evolutionary process can be mapped with the improvements in readily available power plants and how to operate them. We have materials and construction techniques available now not even dreamed of 50 years ago. The trial and error process over that 60 years has pretty much evolved to a set of design parameters that work better than designs that venture beyond that sphere of influence (the Ridiculous notwithstanding). Knowledge of how to trim these models has also been a significant influence on how well our models can be flown, (though again in my humble opinion, there are only a handfull of true golden arms that can quickly and accurately diagnose and correct trim problems, though those procedures are known and published for all to learn.)
Unless I am missing something here, I do not see that there would be much interest or need to seriously change our pattern unless we truly want to require our models to perform maneuvers much smaller than what is now required. But before we do that, I would suggest (in my humble opinion) that more emphasis should be given to fly our maneuvers to the current requirements.
Keith