Using the F3A Pre-Turnaround rules in classic pattern. - RC Groups
Thread Tools
Jun 03, 2012, 09:17 PM
Registered User
AURORA60's Avatar

Using the F3A Pre-Turnaround rules in classic pattern.

OK everyone, I mentioned this topic in another thread and found that it merrits its own.
This is to see how many of you out there would like to see contests using the old F3A rules to govern the planes that are used in classic pattern contest. This is ultimately up to the CD discretion of course.
I for one am all for the idea. I has been pretty much accepted in some BPA events, it just hasn't been offered as "The Rules to Follow". I like the idea so other modelers who wish to design some new classic pattern planes can do so. They can take them to the meets, show them off, and compete with them.
Allowing these set of rules cant disqualify the planes that are being used today, since they were designed using these exact set of rules.
I'm hoping this would make this part of the hobby grow even more and maybe even bring back the pre-turnaround to the AMA giving us a sanctioned schedule like F3A.

So.. Tell us what you think.

Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jun 03, 2012, 11:02 PM
Registered User
Roguedog's Avatar
Vertigo II (form the "What is CPA "leagal"" thread)
Exactly. Why new (or upgraded) designs? Here is just one valid reason to consider. As many of you have found, either by ARF or kit built aircraft that the newer engines are much heavier than some of the old ones. Consequently, we are coming up with nose heavy aircraft. Now if you were to stretch out the tail moment a bit, you wouls have 1) an aircraft that will balance with little or no tail ballast. (lighter too). 2) a smoother aircraft in the pitch axis. Nothing wrong with that.
The SPA guys have been doing this for some time now, a stretch here or there to accomodate heavy four stroke engines. An inherently creative activity that is stifled will die. Just something to chew on.
My two cents FWIW,

One of the things that always bugged me about this hobby is the smells like vinegar mentallity that developes after one gets use to things the way the are. The SPA guys want to relive their youth. I have no problem with that. They want to fly and compete with planes from their time. I have no problem with that either.

What I do have a concerns about is when CPA representatives start saying things like "Allowing other more modern designs are only a means to allow people to participate until such a time they can have a classic pattern ship of their own to participate with. "

So in other words "Allowing other more modern designs" only until the PTB at CPA determine there's a large enough membership to change the CPA in another version of SPA."

This is the main reason I have not joined BPA or CPA. I love the old designs from my generation 1970,s and 1980's for clarification. But I also want to share these exciting airplanes with my grandson and hope that he will have a chance to enjoy them as well without a smells like vinegar majority complaining about tuned pipe noise and retracts and well whatever else the CPA powers to be deem appropriate or more importantly inappropriate.

I agree with limiting the size of the aircrafts to under the two meter size otherwise it's just aother version of the current two meter competition which again would lead to what's happening now in current Pattern. High priced planes and high priced engines that keep a majority of RC flyers from participating or wanting to participate in competition. I can by a new car for what some of the these planes would cost after fitting them to fly. I have not been impressed with the new or current pattern planes other than now-a-days they look like pregnant versions of the jet style of pattern plane I love so much.

I've been attending as may current Pattern Competitions as I can recently and one thing that I overhere alot is how in the 'olden days' they used to have up to four competitors flying at a time and as many as 50 competitors waiting in the ranks to fly. Could this be because the planes were more afordable? Or is it because the hobby has been overrun with the well to do who have the disposable income to lobby for what they want? I don't know the exact answers to these these questions but I'm a reasonably intelligent person and don't think that it's to hard to figure out. And BTW i don't buy iinto the idea that they had to make the pattern manuervers harder as to keep things competitive. Personally I believe it was just another way to limit who could compete IMO.

OK done with my rant. I agree with Vertigo's statement above. Mods should be allowed and already are allowed as far as updated radio equipment, servos, etc., so why not for th airframes as well. New sleek designs should be encouraged IMO. I also want to say that if the CPA is just goin to become another SPA. I want no part of it. If the CPA wants to be inclusive to new designs that could maybe keep this type of flying going for generations to come, well then I'm all in.

BTW a stretched out Dirty Birdy is not ridiculous its a UFO!

Last edited by Roguedog; Jun 03, 2012 at 11:18 PM.
Jun 04, 2012, 12:03 AM
Registered User
AURORA60's Avatar
I can see where you're comming from. However the BPA and the CPA are not recognized by the AMA and therefore cannot hold sanctioned events. The contest are governed by the CD or contest director. SPA Is recognized and does hold sanctioned events with an annual points standing.
So if the CPA or the BPA or even You for that matter what to hold a contest with what ever rules you want, as long as it falls into the safety rules of AMA, then All 3 of you have an equal right to do so. Heck, You and I could start the APA (Awsome Pattern Association) and it'll be the exactly the same thing as CPA and BPA. Afterall, that Is how both started out.

Personally I love the old turn-around rules, because it is those rules that All these ballistic pattern designs were made for. I dont see the planes changing into the current F3A models of today because those are based on a completely different set of rules, the current F3A.
This post is to see if there is anyone interested in the idea of lifting off the "old designs only" phrase and offering new blood to come up with some other designs. The rule book is still the same, so no one would loss out. You like the MK planes fly them, You like the Bridis fly those, if you want to see what you can come up with, your welcome to. For the purist, this Is how it was back then. Flyers designing there own planes to there own liking played a big part in Pattern back in the 70s, 80s, 90s, even today.

Someone here put it very well by stating the obvious. It makes no sense to strangle a barely existing program with foolish restrictions.
Allowing others to participate in what was a crucial part of pattern in the 70s and 80s only makes our pre-turnaround pattern community more attractive to others.

As far as what the SPA, BPA and CPA will allow isn't the issue. You guys are. If you want to design planes or allow others this opportunity then we can. I for one dont think I'll ever have the time to venture into this, I have too many kits to build as it is, but I would love to see the community grow and others enjoy another aspect of "how it was".

Jun 04, 2012, 01:26 AM
CPA# 39
EscapeFlyer's Avatar
What I do have a concerns about is when CPA representatives start saying things like "Allowing other more modern designs are only a means to allow people to participate until such a time they can have a classic pattern ship of their own to participate with. "

How is this exclusive?

I am not ashamed to hold the men that have designed these classics in the highest regard, and celebrate the impact they have made by staying true to their designs. I am proud of the stance the CPA has taken to this regard. The CPA is about the old airplanes, and the old patterns. Emphasis on the historic tone to that.

Brian Lundberg
N Central Region Representative
Classic Pattern Association.
Last edited by EscapeFlyer; Jun 04, 2012 at 01:44 AM. Reason: I removed a statement that seemed argumentative once I read it.
Jun 04, 2012, 01:37 AM
Registered User
AURORA60's Avatar
Lets all try to stay on topic please.

Jun 04, 2012, 01:56 AM
Registered User
Roguedog's Avatar
It's well meaning to say "Allowing other more modern designs are only a means to allow people to participate until such a time they can have a classic pattern ship of their own to participate with" at the beginning of an organization but you clearly stated in post 3 of the What is CPA "leagal" thread "At the higher levels such as Masters, we are strongly "encouraging" the use of a vintage design..... being 1960's through 1996."

So here it starts already. This is different than what is advertised as CPA's purpose on the home page

To revitalize classic pattern sequences and aircraft designs currently relegated to obscurity while welcoming innovation and new technology.

To foster an inclusive environment with simple rules where pilot skill is the ultimate arbiter.

To facilitate the sharing of new and old ideas related to pre-turnaround pattern.

To preserve RC Precision Aerobatics' rich heritage, one maneuver at a time…

I've heard this music before. Say 1000 people join. You already are saying, as a rep of CPA that they, the CPA, would prefer only Classic designs in the top or Higher levels of competition. This is what you posted right? This clearly means exclusive not inclusive.

Ok now say 200 are competitive and 10% have new or newer airframes not consistant with Classic Pattern planes will you penalize them points for not having a "Classic Pattern Plane." Sorry to bring this up. I'm just questioning what has been said.

I believe David's point is about old F3A vs Current F3A rules. We were chatting about a new designation for BPA, CPA, and even SPA that would utilize the one manuever per pass style with a new acronym other than Classic or Pre-turnaround or old style pattlern. That way it might appeal to all and possibly allow for a whole new Class of flying or competition.

Otherwise this the style we like is just our version of what the SPA has done.
Last edited by Roguedog; Jun 04, 2012 at 02:12 AM.
Jun 04, 2012, 02:40 AM
Registered User
AURORA60's Avatar
Now now..
The main topic is wether or not we, as a community (not a group) should drop the restriction, if any, of only allowing dated planes to compete in events.
CPA or the BPA has no regulation on this. WE do as a community. We did it before and we can do it again. I'm referring to the great debate of retracts or not. Fought by the SPA and the founding members of BPA. The guys lost the debate and the BPA was formed.

This is simply to see if you, the classic pattern community, feel that going back to a purist state of pre-turnaround and letting someone design his/her own ballistic style plane for compitition.
Ultimately, everyone has a say in it. if they agree they have 1 vote. Disagree another 1 vote. Doesn't matter who or what you represent, if any.
These are non recognized, come out and play if you like, type events. There are NO set of rules other than what the CD of that event expects, because the events are not sanctioned. Doesn't matter what I say, what you say, or what the CPA says. We all have an Equal vote on the subject. Heck this Vote doesn't even matter if we never do anything about it. That is the reality about it. The pre-turnaround events don't matter right now. Its just for fun and bragging rights. Why, because we are not recognized by the AMA.
This is a big deal. Its why we fought so hard to get into the SPA. That is why I would like to see the ballistic style pattern flying recognized again by the AMA. Offering a morre attractive venue is a start.

I feel as a community allowing this will benifit us by providing more options to contestants, without spoiling the initial idea, flying our planes in events. I dont know if I'm wrong or right. If there isn't an interest in just going back purely to the way it was decades ago. Then we shouldn't. But that doesn't mean Bryan cant hold the only event that allows new designs based on the old rules. He can still do it and we can participate if we'd like, that is if he wishes to do so.

quote:I am not ashamed to hold the men that have designed these classics in the highest regard, and celebrate the impact they have made by staying true to their designs. I am proud of the stance the CPA has taken to this regard. The CPA is about the old airplanes, and the old patterns. Emphasis on the historic tone to that.

Actually the classic pattern community didn't need the CPA. We already formed the BPA. The BPA was a Group effort to allow pre-turnaround events with retractable gear and pipes. That was the only thing that the SPA and the rest of the classic pattern community couldn't agree on. The CPA was an individual venture.
But thats a whole other topic.

Last edited by AURORA60; Jun 04, 2012 at 03:27 AM.
Jun 04, 2012, 02:46 AM
Suspended Account
As an old man that flew pattern back in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, It wasn't the plane that dictated the pattern. It was the Pattern manuevers, set by the AMA, that dictated the style and design of the plane.

The rules were simple. No engine larger than a .61. No retracts or pipe in Novice. There was no mention as to maximum wing span or fuselage lenght.

I was contest director for the Fort Worth Thunderbirds for several years. The Lone Star Areobatic Convention as it was called. We would have 60 + contestants and fly 4 plane at once and do our best to get 3 heats over a period of saturday and sunday.

Every year there were new designs. You could fly anything you wanted to. Only a couple of things remained the same. Size of the engine, no retracts or pipes in Novice.

The cost of the planes didn't affect the attraction to the sport. A kit would cost around $79.00. A candy bar cost a quarter. A J R Century VII with 4 servos, receiver, battery pack and switch harness, cost about $300. A Burger King cost about $0.75 with a large drink.

If we want more people to get into Pattern, we need to minimize the rules (with the exception that engine size should be no larger than a .61. And you can fly any kind of plane you want to. (As long as it could be powered by a .61 or smaller.)

We get enough people interested in the Classic Pattern, AMA will come around to please the masses.

I think we should drop the requirement that the plane has to be a pattern plane of the 60s, 70s, or the 90s.

If you can fly it with anything less than a .61 let's go fly.

My own opinion.

AMA 5810
Jun 04, 2012, 02:54 AM
Registered User
AURORA60's Avatar
Thanks for your input Frank.
I vaguely remember the name "Lone Star Aerobatic" back when I was sneaking in R/C magazines in school to read during class. That name came up a bit if I remember correctly.

Jun 04, 2012, 05:53 AM
Bo Edström, Sweden

What was one of the greatest thing of the old classic pattern era was, execpt for the flying itself, that it was so many new designs all the time. Now we have only the old planes/drawings/kits from the past and no new classic planes since there is not much point making new classic pattern designs today. And it was amazing what broad base of pattern flyers that existed back then that will never be again.

One thing I do not understand is what manuevers should be flown at classic pattern meetings/contests depending on what period the plane is from in a more non restricted way if that would a a path in future?

A 1960th designed plane, 1970th, 1980th and early 1990th has different designs depending on the FAI manuvers they had at various times.

If You have a Kazmirski designed Orion from early 1960th You compete in class - what? And fly manouvers from that time I suppose?

If You have a Chidgey Tiger Tail from early 1970th You compete in class - what?
And fly manouvers from that time I suppose?

If You have a Prettner Magic from early 1980th You compete in class - what?
And fly manouvers from that time I suppose?

And if You have an early-mid 1990th design like Hyde Dr. Jekyll You compete in class - what?
And fly manouvers from that time I suppose?

I'm just curious how the wide span of 35 years (1960-1995 if that is the accepted period) of classic pattern planes and manouvers could be handled at classic pattern plane meetings/competitions in a more non restricted way if that would a a path in future. (in US - in Europe we have not, as far as I know, any classic pattern "organizations" like You have in US)
I suppose one had to sit down and study all the FAI manouver lists that existed from 1960 to 1995 and try to divide into some common classes that planes will belong to depending when it was designed. I know You had more classes in US, I just use FAI as an example.
Like 1960 - 19xx, 19xx-19xx etc. Just so planes in same class was designed to fly at least the majority of the manuvers back in the days.

If one restrict to max .61 2-stroke and some suitable 4-stroke size - and some max watt rule for electric powered planes (if electric power should be included that I see no reason to exclude) with no more rule (except noice rules had to be there also today so no third party get disturbed around the flying field) I think people would start to slowly be more interested in classic pattern flying and maybe start new designs.

As it is now it is little to much "living in the past" thing in my opinion. In maybe 20--30 years many of the classic pattern flyers today will be to old to fly and the whole classic pattern era may just die out. How to get new people to fly classic pattern? We can not for ever rely on people that was active themselves in the heydays of classic pattern to bring the old traditions forward.

Last edited by bossee; Jun 04, 2012 at 06:07 AM.
Jun 04, 2012, 07:12 AM
Registered User
AURORA60's Avatar
This is exactly what I was hoping for. You bring up some really good questions that I wasn't thinking about.
I'm just curious how the wide span of 35 years (1960-1995 if that is the accepted period) of classic pattern planes and manouvers could be handled at classic pattern plane meetings/competitions in a more non restricted way if that would a a path in future. (in US - in Europe we have not, as far as I know, any classic pattern "organizations" like You have in US)

Honestly, I dont know. Obviously everyone needs to accounted for. I think that at the present time, the involvement is so little that everyone flies together. But I'm not sure how the advanced manouvers are handled with the older designs. But I'm just guessing. Maybe a past CD can comment on this.

So, you're thinking to drop the restriction of dated designs, but also create classes based on generation to keep everything fair?
Maybe each pilot flies their manouvers based on generation of aircraft, but the class they fly in is based on the experience of the pilot. So a Tarus can compete with a New Pilot design, a Jekyll, a Magic and an Aurora. All in the same class, but performing a schedule that is representative of the planes' era.
I kind of like this idea. Way more than what I was talking about. This could really make a lot of people excited about the old pattern style.

but we all know the Aurora would win...
Jun 04, 2012, 02:21 PM
Suspended Account
Deleted by poster
Last edited by countilaw; Jun 05, 2012 at 12:02 AM. Reason: not important
Jun 04, 2012, 03:39 PM
patternpilot1's Avatar
HI All,

Need to step in and I will admit I have not read past the first two post and will read more as I can in between other work problem solving.

1) CPA is recognized by AMA as we get Sanctions for events just like AMA & SPA.

2) The AMA and other AMA Representatives have been working with CPA as they provided us (CPA) with a full set of rule books from 1960's thru the mid 90's.

3) I keep seeing F3A in these post, those who think we are flying F3A again have not visited the CPA website and read the rules nor the patterns being flown. 4 classes thats it.

4) What is so hard about keeping a stock design of a plane ( old school / classic) and flying the old patterns with it. Why do people need to change airfoils and datum lines etc. look what has happen in SPA.

5) CPA members vote and have a voice unlike many other groups.

DM, who ever you might be, If you would like to talk and here all the info, feel free to pm with a number and I will be more than happy to talk with you as I do with many others.

The other thing I will mention as I did skim read more of the threads is the CPA was formed after hours of talking with the founder of BPA (Gary) and about a dozen others on a conference call one night and Gary did not have the time to promote classic pattern competitions or get togethers. As Gary and the group only held on contest a year, that is it, no others till CPA was started now we are having contest and social events west coast to east coast and about 12 last year and we will have the same or more this year. CPA name came from a marketing person to not have such a harsh name so others might join. Which we are in the high 60"s for paid membership.

We are in the process of becoming a official SIG with AMA but there are item that need to be in place.

I do have on question some made mention of AMA contest, so do you not let someone fly the AMA contest because they did not show up with a 2Meter plane ? If a father and son show up with a kaos 40 and compete is that not where the start is from. Same for classic as long as it is with in the limits why not let them fly the war bird or the sport plane. It is called very simple advertising and letting someone get there feet wet....How many of you pattern guys from the 70's - 80's never saw a pattern contest but went and bought a pattern plane and went to a contest with out any knowledge.. I know i saw my first contest and was hooked, Indy cars in the air was how I saw it.but started with a trainer and worked up thru the classes.

That invite to DM is open to anyone, just PM a name and number and a good time to call and I will get with you when able.. I work in corporate aviation so i work strange hours.

Here is a another way to look at it... 2 cars

Car 1 - 1968 xyz car....stock 200 hp

Car 2 - 2012 xyz replicate of 1968 - 600 hp

What one do you want to drive for the true feeling of that xyz car..

well guys have to run....I don't sit at this forum much , but will check it from time to time..

Scott Anderson
Jun 04, 2012, 09:47 PM
Registered User
edh13's Avatar
Is the CPA more about classic models or classic competition?

If it’s more about the models:
All you need is a multiplier score for authentic representation of a pre-turnaround classic on the bottom of each score card. This multiplier can be adjusted by the CPA to find a “sweet pot” for the right mix of classic models but still reward superior flying.

If it’s just about the competition:
Join SPA

Okay that was easy... Lunch!
Jun 05, 2012, 12:28 AM
Registered User
AURORA60's Avatar
Firstly, this is a bit off topic but here it goes.

I do remember when you took over the BPA. and then started the CPA. But to me, the BPA wasn't Garys to offer. We all worked hard to get what we had back then as a community. The only problem there was, was the SPA didn't allow retracts or pipes. That wasn't ok with most of us. For some it was fine, and they joined. But the rest of us talked about starting a group of our own and so the ball rolled. Gary started it with signing everyone up on a list. Most everyone was content with what we had. Just wanted to fly Ballistaic Planes with other like people, retracts up of course. But the fustration that it took to get there was a lot. We lost to the SPA, but we are flying BPA planes together, finally. But really it all came down to the hard work on RCU by people like, 8178 who actually helped create a forum on RCU titled "Classic Pattern Forum". Then all the others who helped fellow modelers on that thread so the interest grew. Some stayed in the threads that didn't even care for Pattern, they just like the "inclussive" feeling they got from these guys, like Atlanta60, Raindave, and more importantly, all the International guys that were just as passoionate about this as we were. Even though they might never be able to attand one event, they still gave their support. this is what made me want to stay. Unfortunately all those guys are pretty much gone. Including myself. I stayed away from the forum because it lost that feel. But thats just me and my own problem.
With all my gripping about "how we got here" reality is that the community has grown in numbers. That Is really what I and the earlier guys wanted all along. I'm sure this has much to do with your, and many others hard work. And I do see your possition on the subject of NOT allowing non dated models to compete. But the feel of this community has changed to benefit a few (again this is just my own feelings about this) and others are left on the side. Before and After the BPA was started, we all did bring up this exact topic. There was a lot of people for it. But we never followed through with it. We mainly were excited to share talks about what we finally had, and also focus on build threads. Then the CPA and much of us left.
This feel I'm saying is not one thing, thats why its hard to pin point this. Threads have changed, names are called... and so on. Just the disrespect of others... In the threads that is.

Now more to the subject.
Scott, you say "4) What is so hard about keeping a stock design of a plane ( old school / classic) and flying the old patterns with it. Why do people need to change airfoils and datum lines etc. look what has happen in SPA."

These were the questions the SPA gave us before we started the BPA. It was this mentality that "I dont like it... why should you" If you have to tell someone Why you want to design your own classic pattern plane, they'll never get it. It was like this with the Pipes and Retracts to some of the SPA, and it seems this topic is like this for some here.
Personally I dont understand Why Not? I wouldn't take away anything from the already inclusive planes that the CDs allow now. So They can still fly their plane. I guess I'll never get it. Heck, I myself dont even want to design a plane right now, I have too many kits that I cant even find time to build.
With no disrespect to the SPA, they are a fine bunch of guys (my favorite is Bruce Underwood), but They want to do what They want to do. Nothing wrong with it. But we still fought them.. We lost, but then again we matured on our own and was able to form the BPA because a few guys didn't understand why we needed to fly our planes with Pipes and Retracts. This feels the same.
Nothing happend to the SPA, if you guys reading these post are thinking of joining them, They will welcome you.
The SPA does allow some changes yes. Like the allowed modified 91 4 strokes. I still dont understand this. And the adding fixed gear not shown on the original plans. I still dont really see this changing the design of this plane, but thats my opinion.

Well this has gone on longer than I wanted to.
I brought up the topic of this thread (not so much of my rambbling in this post.. agai, sorry) just to see if anyone out there even wants to do this.

Please guys keep posting, I will stay on topic from now on.

I will leave you with an AWSOME plane IMHO


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Classic Pattern in Bakersfield TonyF Classic Pattern Flying 4 May 02, 2012 01:39 PM
Wanted F3A pattern plane dojet Aircraft - Electric - Airplanes (FS/W) 0 Jan 11, 2012 10:11 PM
Discussion F3A PATTERN option for park / f3P epwierman F3A Pattern 12 Oct 28, 2011 01:48 PM
Sold CARF Impact 2M F3A Pattern Airplane with YS 140 DZ and servos, $750 LPU in Chicago lgibjones Aircraft - Fuel - Airplanes (FS/W) 3 Oct 20, 2011 01:55 AM
Sold Great Planes "Sequence" F3A Pattern Plane Flatusboy Aircraft - Electric - Airplanes (FS/W) 4 Sep 13, 2011 06:18 PM