While I do 100% agree with this, it unfortunately does not work in all cases. The last 2 guys that I tried to help out just simply did not want to put forth the required amount effort to see any success. The last guy I was unable to get him to put in any amount of time trimming his airplane and after his second contest he looked at his round two scores, pitched a fit and bad mouthed the judges because of a few 2-3 point differences between the two judges fornthe same maneuver then packed up and left the contest. Haven't seen him fly his pattern airplane since.

I will spend any amount of time with someone who genuinely wants to learn and will accept the information. Unfortunately those guys are very few and far between which brings me back to my original statement. If anyone genuinely wants to fly Pattern, they will.

Let's face it guys, You cannot make every sport pilot a pattern flyer wannabe. If they want to fly and compete in pattern, they will find a way. An enthusiastic pattern student is hard to find. I feel it is mostly because of the discipline required and lack of instant gratification. This is true of most activities, "If I cannot do this immediately, I am going to quit trying." All we can do is be encouraging and as helpful as we can. I seldom get asked anymore what I am doing when I practice now, but if they do ask I immediately concentrate on being as informative as I can to try and recruit the person asking. My two cents worth.

Sheldon

Gyro's have pro's and cons. I've flown air frames setup with both (not pattern ships and not my planes). I don't really like the feel of a Gyro personally for aerobatics, feels un-natural to me for precision. Pattern and IMAC are awesome in there raw forms. The satisfaction comes from the hours of time and experience that comes with fine tuning an aircraft to fly the way we want them to (Gyro's make things generic). Gyro's can be setup to enhance some areas of performance, yet hinder other areas. Are we talking about Gyro's with head locking and/or a Gyro that just dampens. A Gyro that just dampens servers very little purpose in precision aerobatics. The addition of most Gyro's greatly affects ones setup, most of the time you have to disable functions that are fairly critical to trimming and mixing and you let the Gyro take over. Most Gyro's do not compensate well for adverse yaw or pitch with rudder inputs (rolling loops or combinations thereof. I believe they have a place in the market share, not sure it's with aerobatic precision other than jets, EA or foamies. There are some great products out here and a certain radio brand is building Gyro's into their receivers. I have found that extreme aerobatics benefit the most as do jets and then some foamies.

I tend to lean toward setup and the 80 or so flights it takes me to fine tune an air frame for all aspects. I will will say this, if Gyro's become legal in the future it puts everyone at the same level playing field of setup, setup, setup...., and that concepts doesn't change regardless.

Bill

So I guess you don't see any reason to ban them from competition?

Jim O

Jim,

I'd say if the rule on Gyro's change in competition, I'll worry about it then. My opinion will not change the future outcome either way. I like things the way they are, if it changes I will adjust to it.

Bill

Well put; I share your sentiment and couldn't have said it better myself.

Gyros added to current pattern plane designs may not make much difference. They will reduce the effects of wind turbulence, especially on more tail heavy setups. A purpose programmed fly by wire system could do more for you by compensating for coupling automatically or even correcting for wind drift. What's scary though is the airframe changes that gyros would make possible. Planes wouldn't need to be aerodynamically stable anymore, so a whole new generation of planes would come out in short order. It wouldn't take long before non-gyro planes would lose their ability to compete, necessitating either a special gyro class or simply relegating the current planes obsolete. Think of how purpose built fly by wire systems improved fighter jet performance, or look how the modern super car stability systems have made older designs seem slow by comparison.

Yep, just like I wrote in my post.

Gyros and stabiliser systems in F3A won't mean gyros and stabiliser in current designs, it'll mean a shift to electronically stabilised designs just like flybarless heli's and quad-copters rely on their electronics for stability.

Hard to say if it'll be a good or bad thing for F3A, but it'll be a massive change. Like all those changes in the past that promised to lower the costs of F3A I can't see a change like this lowering the costs either ;)

I do not believe the FAI rules committee will ever permit gyros in F3A pattern, but they've made other 'interesting' decisions in the past. If it did happen I would guess it would not be for at least a few rules cycles. If the AMA rules committee allows gyros in pattern without it happening at the F3A level, I think that would put rising US pilots in a quandary as they would probably want gyros to maintain their competitive edge in the lower classes, but the jump, or should I say leap, to F3A will become more difficult.

Since the FAI rejected the proposal for 12S, I would think allowing something as germaine to aerobatic competition as a gyro would be beyond highly-unlikely! Which leaves this an AMA question. The most natural 'break' in difficulty levels between the classes to me is after Intermediate. Guys who can fly Intermediate well woudln't benefit much (-depend on) from a gyro in their competition, and should be generally pretty accomplished. Those that aren't make it a destination class. Those that are would not realize any more of a difference in difficulty stepping to Advanced than they do now. This is also probably measurable/determinable, based on the average percentage of available points earned between classes, if we had a proper database from which to pull scores.
Interesting discussion.

Personally I do not think we need to follow FAI on anything. If AMA approves gyros in AMA pattern so be it. We really shouldn’t be making decisions based on the 50 or so FAI pattern pilots we have in the US. Future decisions should be based on the 500 potential pattern pilots we have in clubs spear throughout the country.

"Personally I do not think we need to follow FAI on anything."
I would agree with that regarding several of their decisions! I don't have a problem with the size & weight restrictions. Bigger will just cost more. I think they should have capped the displacement at 20 or 25cc (and e-power equivalent), kept the weight restriction and never gone to the 2 meter rule, but that's just wishful thinking. How many pattern contests are held that actually adhere to the F3A competition regulations where 'P', 'F' and 'U' schedules are flown? Just the Nationals. I don't think there are that many that even fly 'P' and 'F'. Of course there probably aren't that many contests where there are more than 3 or 4 F3A competitors.
I think to really 'sell' the idea of allowing gyros in pattern airplanes, especially in the lower (or lowest only) classes there will have to be some hard data to support the claims that it will attract and keep more competitors. I do not believe that gyros would be approved simply to make it easier to fly a competitive model as it is heretical to the basic principle of man & machine versus nature (models or full size). Perhaps the NSRCA can encourage CDs to allow gyros in the sportsman class provisionally for a contest season either nationally or in a 'test' district. Then results can be tracked comparing gyro to non-gyro equipped models as well as numbers of entrants and repeat entrants (to be compared to previous years). I would suggest that district 7 be the 'guinea pig' since the idea originated there and they have a long contest season to provide a better sampling of data.
Ironically, I am not sure there is a specific mandate to determine if a competitor is actually using gyros. It is certainly in the rule book, but will CDs now have to check every airplane to ensure a level playing field? Gyros can have a much bigger impact on contest results than flying an overweight or oversized airplane.
More food for thought....

That's a good suggestion on an outcome basis (ie: the information would be very valuable). At the onset, I don't think anyone thinks "I'd love to go fly pattern, but my plane has a gyro, so I'll find something else to do". The one thing we (NSRCA) have 'lightly' discussed is using the Club class for gyro use. That way, we avoid the rule book constraints. I know Club hasn't really caught on, and may not, as an entry to an entry level class. But is it truly there for "Club" members to join a contest on a whim (when they show up to fly Saturday to find their field closed...), so it's set up perfectly for a gyro to be used. These guys are also the ones most likely to have a gyro, rather than a regular circuit competitor.
I for one don't feel comfortable with the NSRCA weighing in on the CD's responsibilities; they are officials of the AMA in their role, and this could put them in a sticky (read - protest worthy) situation. No right minded, serious Sportsman pilot with his Contra powered Galactik would want to be clipped by a gyro equipped styrofoam 900mm T-28 come game day!!
..nor would an Advanced pilot! ;)

I don’t think that a contra equipped Galactik has any business in sportsman to begin with but that is just my opinion. In most cases I feel that a sportsman pilot with that setup is too much over his head for the airplane to be much of an advantage anyway. I saw the same thing in IMAC with 40% airplanes in basic class. I saw a bunch of busted up airplanes and frustrated guys wasting a bunch of money. Don’t get me wrong, I like the high end equipment just as much as the next guy but in the bottom two classes a well practiced guy with a well set up Kaos has a chance of winning. One think that has been brought up at the field is sequence complexity. 3/4 of AMA population will never be able to fly up to advanced class level let alone fly it well. How many guys can we attract when most of them know they can never get past intermediate class?

Tim and Shawn, you both make excellent points.
Personally I don't think gyros are the solution to increased pattern participation.
I think that the 'trickle down' effect has really negatively impinged on pattern growth. The complexity of the pattern sequences at the top level has increased astronomically in the past 15 years or so and every sequence below it has gotten more difficult as well. When I started practicing pattern in 1971 (with a Fox .25 powered S-Ray) it included: take off; straight flight out; procedure turn; straight flight back; 1 stall turn; 1 inside loop; 1 horizontal (hopefully) roll; possibly an immelmann turn (relying on memory here...); landing pattern; landing perfection and spot. While the S-Ray was not really competitive (and I never flew it in competition) I learned how to fly parallel to the runway; how to center maneuvers; and the basic elements of all pattern maneuvers. Back then, the Kaos, Super Kaos, or equivalent was very competitive, inexpensive, easy to build and fun to fly. Now, there are only 2 meter designs available as the smaller sizes (70, 110) were not cost effective to produce, though they seemed pretty popular, especially the 70 sized models. Not only is the cost of the airplane high, even if bought used, but the space requirements for transportation are significant.
In the past 6 or 7 years I have seen several new R/C flyers appear at the middle school behind my house. All were flying small e-power planes or drones with gyro assist. Their success rate was high, but none were AMA members. When informed of the nearest AMA sanctioned club field (25 miles away) they were not enthused about joining a club. This is an aside to the primary issue, but indicates some of the problems our hobby has with growth under the auspices of the AMA.
Do I have a 'solution'? Maybe... First, I don't think the current AMA/FAI pattern should be changed. While an increase in pattern participation would be nice, the days of local contests having 40-60 competitors are gone and not really practical under the current rules. Nobody wants to fly more than 1 flight line at a small contest venue as the risk of mid-airs is pretty high. This was a BIG issue years ago when all the sequences were being converted to turnaround and the box definition limited the available airspace. Pre-turnaround you could fly a lot closer and with multiple flight lines you could choose airspace to avoid other fliers, an option eliminated with Aresti style aerobatics.
I think that classic pattern may provide the best option to attract new 'blood', especially on a larger scale. The designs are all much smaller 60 sized airplanes; so cheaper, easier to transport and, with enough demand, e-powered ARFs would become readily available. This provides an easier (from a sequence perspective, too), lower cost introduction. Once hooked, some may move on to current pattern competition. Ideally, a more youthful demographic will find pattern appealing. I hate to say pattern is dying, that is depressing and somewhat untrue, but I do think the average age of the participants is a lot older than it was in the '70s and '80s.
One final thought: any discipline that requires significant practice to achieve success is going to be somewhat self limiting. Watching the winter Olympics I see lots of very young competitors who have dedicated many hours of their youth practicing for that potentially 'golden' moment. I think pattern (or any model aircraft competition) can still achieve that, but we really need better marketing!
-Will

The community made a major screw up when SPA, CPA and a couple other old school pattern groups got started. Our hobby tends to fracture, which makes it hard to grow. Had AMA pattern been paying attention to what the community wanted, they would have made a classic class using essentially CPA rules. CPA planes could have flown at the same event as 2 meter planes, giving pattern both an inexpensive entry level class and something to grow into. As it is, turnaround pattern has steadily declined, and classic pattern has mostly fizzled out due to competitors getting bored once they've made it to master class. It's hard to say if there is still time for AMA pattern to incorporate the obvious interest that is there for old designs and non-turnaround flying, but if they want to try and increase numbers that's probably the best way to do it.

I can tell by many of the comments that practically no one posting has actually installed a currently available gyro system, set it up and tuned it. I work a lot with the club members at my field and I have installed gyro systems in several members models. We allow them in Classic pattern models and I know for a fact it has helped keep several club members to remain active and enthusiastic about RC Aerobatics.

The comments that gyros will drastically change airframe design are also, IMO, incorrect. To get a full flight control system that would mimic systems in current day fighters takes a whole slew of sensors that could be easily legislated. I'm not even sure the servos today are good enough for the task. Update rates for those kind of systems are really high. Maybe it's a direction the event could go but it's a long way from that with today's available systems. Someone made the comments about helis and quads. Well, helis grew quite a bit with the switch to flybarless and the reduction of parts count and cost. I fly helis a lot and I sure wouldn't want to go back. Quads are probably the largest segment in the hobby today and they wouldn't exist without gyros. I fly FPV race quads a lot and I sure do enjoy them.

I do agree with the post that says we should seriously be looking at following the example of Classic and SPA and promote a section of RC Aerobatics to one-manuever-per-pass style of flying. This along with restrictions to the equipment to control costs is really the only thing that might bring some to competition. The way it is now is certainly not doing it. As I wrote in my article I see the inclusion of gyros as a way to reduce the cost of a competitive model. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. All I know is doing nothing like the current state is not going to help.

There are a lot of good points mentioned in this thread. MANY that I never considered or even knew could exist.

My club is going to host a pattern primer event in late June. From reading this thread I think I will strongly promote that ANY sport plane can be used at the primer. Heck I flew my first pattern contest with a Pulse XT40 and did much better than I could have ever imagined!! I think the Club Class is a doorway to increase new pattern participants. Gyros, well, I think as time goes on will be a given in any type of contest. When it happens I don't know but I feel it will happen. I also feel being an ambassador can/will be a very large factor also. Start by promoting pattern on on a very basic level. Sport planes large or small, standard servos, glow or electric depending on what the person is comfortable with. Steer away from the 2M airframes and $100 servos, $800+ propulsion systems etc, etc. When we get a new pattern flyer at a contest, take them under your wing and hold their hand for as long as it takes.

Keep talking about how to increase participation. There will be many ideas but only a few will be implemented. At some point talking will cease and doing will commence. That is when we will start to see results of our efforts. Yoda says "Do or do not, there is no try". Good advice!

Ken