Wayne mentioned something on FG about new noise restrictions that would require all aircraft competing to use 3 bladed props and canisters or tuned pipes. I'm not saying Wayne is for this but was just mentioning it.

Does anyone know anything about this?

You can read the RCP here:
http://modelaircraft.org/files/RCSA11-12Candito1.pdf
Since this was submitted directly to the AMA Scale Aerobatics board rather than IMAC, your only chance to offer input or share your concerns is to contact your AMA district's Scale Aerobatics Board member directly.

Here are the current members.

SCALE AEROBATICS
I: Bill Lairsey, 40 Spar Ln., Portland ME 04102
II: Richard Proqueddu, 42 Eagle Ln., Levittown NY 11756
III: Kurt Koelling, 8454 Daventry Ct., Powell OH 43065
IV: Roy Barrow, 1315 Kepley Rd., Salisbury NC 28147
V: H.A. Fred Johnson, 8504 S.E. 72nd St., Ocala FL 34472
VI: Daniel Knippen, 251 Euclid Ct., Bloomingdale IL 60108
VII: Tom Wheeler, 655 Sheffield Rd., Auburn Hills MI 48326
VIII: Dan Rathbun
IX: Brian Pesch, 9 Vista Rd., Englewood CO 80113
X: Tim Attaway, 252 Sea Vale St., Chula Vista CA 91910
XI: J Bruce Hanley, 4734 225th Ave. SE, Sammamish WA 98075

Thread about it here
http://www.mini-iac.com/TheForums/tabid/55/aff/30/aft/1171/afv/topic/Default.aspx

All RCP's are posted here:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals/rcscaleaerobatics.aspx


The specific one that you are referring to that was sent direct to AMA without any contact to the IMAC BOD is this one:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/RCSA11-12Candito1.pdf

Can't say that I think very much of a couple of members' effort to bypass the established RFA procedure by submitting RCP's directly to the AMA Scale Aerobatics board! The IMAC membership should have the opportunity to discuss rule changes in a public forum and this effort is depriving us of that opportunity.
James Taylor

Hmm, interesting stuff.

Posted By james taylor on 07 Mar 2010 11:16
Can't say that I think very much of a couple of members' effort to bypass the established RFA procedure by submitting RCP's directly to the AMA Scale Aerobatics board! The IMAC membership should have the opportunity to discuss rule changes in a public forum and this effort is depriving us of that opportunity.
James Taylor

There is not enough time for any further RFAs concerning rule changes. That process can take 45 days. The AMA must receive any and all RCPs before Mar 31st.

I applaud anyone for trying to resolve our noise / footprint problems.

This issue has been discussed perhaps more than any other (except maybe ACS)! I like the proposed bonus system. It makes a lot of sense to bonus proven systems that reduce sound, and take the subjectivity out of the process.

ITS ABOUT TIME....BUT IS THIS NOT WHAT WE DISCUSSED 8 MONTHS AGO AND GOT SHOT UP ALL TO HECK AND GONE.......EMPHASIS ON QUIET AND IN THE PILOTS HAND NOT THE JUDGE AND A BONUS FOR THOSE WILLING TO COMPLY...

Indeed...... It's overdue......

Excellent way to begin resolution of the sound issues !!


DR

... Lets not think that the RFA process always reaches a common sense solution. I applaud the guys who have sent in RCP's without the "entire" BOD support.
Jim W.

Posted By jim woodward on 08 Mar 2010 15:59
... Lets not think that the RFA process always reaches a common sense solution. I applaud the guys who have sent in RCP's without the "entire" BOD support.
Jim W.

Isn't that the truth! I've been told by one BOD member, that there are others on the BOD who believe there are no sound or footprint issues.

Isn't that the truth! I've been told by one BOD member, that there are others on the BOD who believe there are no sound or footprint issues.

Well, I we do not resolve it from "within", some enity from "outside the organization" will fix it for us, then, we can pull our heads out of the sand and realize, "It would have been much better to do it for "ourselves".

Here's an idea, perhaps ask you regional director what he thinks, and where he stands on sound. This might enlighten this thread a bit more.
Don

Perhaps this is a better idea.


Why not have each and everyone of them come here, identify themselves, and tell us what their views are on the "sound" situation.

So many pilots using bigger (and subsequently louder) engines are already using cans and tuned pipes. What would this mean for everyone running DA 200's on standard mufflers?

They are practicing throttle management to cut down on noise already but will that be enough?

Ben,

My 200 setup is stock mufflers and a 2 balde. With proper throttle management. I'm quiter then the guys with 150/170 on pipes or cans.

Cool, I saw Mark L. fly with one of the pre-production 200's. It was loud but he was using a Mejzlik 32x10.

Posted By Rick Byrd on 08 Mar 2010 22:46

Ben,

My 200 setup is stock mufflers and a 2 balde. With proper throttle management. I'm quiter then the guys with 150/170 on pipes or cans.

I have seen this to be a true statement However, not everyone can manage the throttle properly to keep these machines quiet They have the coolest sound If your not on top off your game, the 200's w/ stock mufflers will be ran away from some (not all) club fields.

Posted By FLPilot on 08 Mar 2010 17:57
Perhaps this is a better idea.


Why not have each and everyone of them come here, identify themselves, and tell us what their views are on the "sound" situation.

I like this idea.... Transparency... hummm where have I heard that before?

Interesting Thoughts Gentlemen. Really quite Simply Kent, I Supported, endorsed, and pushed very hard for Ty's RFA, however my one Vote in Favor was not enough ! Democracy rules, thus one vote is not going to "CARRY"!
Second, perhaps more than 8 hrs plus has gone into discussions, and more discussions. To no avail, as the majority of BOD members feel that throttle mangement, props etc,is the solution, not and rfa, or rcp as we had before us.
Of note the majority of Regional directors also are reporting "NO SOUND ISSUES IN THE REGION". Thus my plea for more stringent self policing policies, has gone by the wayside.
So at this point ; we now have a RCP going directly to the AMA SAB, as there are folks that would like to be proactive, and self police, before the "Sound Police" showup, and give us something that none of us wish to hear!
With the option to eliminate sound testing with meters, and apply for a contest deviations, you really have no sound policy, further more CD's seldom if ever send there buddies packing home with a a noisy airplane. True ground testing is not a true indicator of a planes in flight DB's, however it did serve a very useful purpose,and did help,abet the throttle curve tampering. Last year's NATS had the highest l sound levels ever, to my knowledge this is not acceptable to the AMA.
As for the 200's, we have the technology to make them perhaps the quietest of all, Mr. John Schroder has clearly demonstrated that, with his DA 200 setup.
I'm not here to to cause a problem, Kent you asked brother and here you have it.
Foot note:
This is in no way an attempt to throw fellow BOD members under the bus, as this entire BOD has worked very hard to bring many major improvemnets to this Organizarion. When we had our first meeting we all agreed to do the best for imac, and to respond to the needs of this org., and exclude our personal agendas.
Indeed, your elected BOD has done just that.
Don

Don,
Thank you for your speedy and straight to the point reply.

Kent

Anyone else? There are nine more board members. Maybe they will chime in here.

Been there and done that !

Posted By Kent Porter on 09 Mar 2010 7:21
Don,
Thank you for your speedy and straight to the point reply.

Kent

Anyone else? There are nine more board members. Maybe they will chime in here.

The NC Director has spoken for the entire BOD on FG. You can view his comments here. post # 31.

http://www.flyinggiants.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51683&page=3

"The current IMAC board has discussed this issue for as long as we have been a Board and EVERY RD except the NE RD agrees that our sound issue isnt a "issue" at the fields we hold contests."

Guys, another point, i do agree and support the logic, three blades, & canisters have been "HEARD" RIPPING!! Cans, and three blades can be louder if the wrong prop is used and no throttle mangement is used, agree 100%
Perhaps a better question for Kent, and Mike, is can we see your proposal for a better Sound policy?
You might have the secret FELLAS!!!
Bring it on brothers,
GET'R DONE
Don

This is my thought an the propsed sound rule.

Yes we need to make sure we manage our sound. Do we need to mandate that someone purchase equipment to become quiet? NO! It is true a pilot can rip and 3 balde and cans/pipes. We know that. For someone to get a bouns, they are going to have to spend several hundred dollars but could be louder then a guy on mufflers and a two blade. It's bad enough IMO that you have to have a $100 pilot sitting in you plane for looks so you don't get penalized! go figure.

Has anyone thought about the kit manufactors? What about the 50cc class. How many of them can have a can or pipe system in place? Is this rule proposal: if passed, going to allow these types of planes to fly? Think about it! A manufactor is going to have to redesign his plane for a can or pipe setup. They may already do, I don't know the answer to that. TheRE are some older designs out there that don't. I have one sitting in my garage.

Has anyone thought about the muffler manufactor? Al Young of Jtec made the statement that they make some of the quietest systems on the market that are mufflers.It's true, I've seen them in my club. Who is going to call him and let him know that his product won't work in an IMAC plane because of a bonus. What about the Chinese cans?

I can go on and on about the economic impact of small business. Anyone thought about this? What about the little guy!

These are my concerns about this issue. We need to be teaching throttle management to our pilots. I've personally have done that at our schools and at contest. Our planes are getting bigger, the motors are getting bigger. This issue will never go away, but we need to start the foundation at the Basic level and work it up from there.

I know we should be the leader, but how many fields are being lost because of the sport flyer side of our hobby? Everyone is so sure it's the IMAC guys, but do we really know that.

I agree RByrd. As someone moving up to Sportsman, I would rather not be required to update my plane. Furthermore, I'm learning throttle management in order to maintain that constant speed the judges like so much!

Well how will we get any new people in IMAC when we tell them you will have to spend a few $100 bucks on your plane to try IMAC. The easy way may not be the best way. Equment does not = sound

That is why the IMAC BOD voted to send in the RFA that we did.

Where does the proposal state this is required equipment? I think some are overthinking this. This proposal simply bonuses proven setups.

Posted By Kevin Wilson on 09 Mar 2010 16:32
Where does the proposal state this is required equipment? I think some are overthinking this. This proposal simply bonuses proven setups.

Kevin....You are perfectly correct. No where in Mr. Candito's RCP does it state that this is required equipment. There is a "bonus" of 1.5% of the score for each.
Wayne

Posted By Kevin Wilson on 09 Mar 2010 16:32
Where does the proposal state this is required equipment? I think some are overthinking this. This proposal simply bonuses proven setups.

"Proven setups"? Proven to do what? By whom?
I think that I can prove that having a canister exhaust and a 3 blade prop will not automatically make a plane quieter!
James

I personally will use a canister to soften the "bark" of the exhaust on my planes. Whether or not I use a 3-blade prop depends on how the can/plane/prop combo flys. On my AW 42% Extra 260 I don't like the way a 28.5 x 12 Mejzlik flys the plane - I went back to a 32 x 10 2-blade Mejzlik. My AW 35% Yak with cans I use a Biela 3-blade prop because it is perfect for the combo - I received lots of "10s" on sound over the last 3 years with the combo.

I DO use throttle management with whatever I fly!

Bobby

Kevin,

Bonus or mandate.. Its the same thing to anyone who has a competitive nature and flies IMAC.
Nobody is going to give up a 3% bonus and with that being said, you can very easily look at it as a mandate.
The people who wrote this proposal know that and chose their wording very carefully.

As I said in the FG thread. We do not have any contests in the NC Region currently that have sound or footprint restrictions. The fields that we hold our contests are capable of fully supporting an IMAC event.
The Sequence committee has done a fabulous job in providing us with more compact sequences for 2010.
That in itself will help imensely in reducing flyover footprint and sound footprint.

I would love to see the sound score go away for a "standard" IMAC contest. I would also like to see the sound score be available in the scoring program and used by any CD who feels he needs to use it at his event. From what we have heard within our BOD discussions, those events are in the minority around the country. Not the majority as some people would like you to believe. Have them apply for the waiver from a "standard" IMAC contest. Not the other way around.

I have a real problem with the wants of a few dictating the actions of the entire IMAC community.

The other real problem with this RCP is that I know I can be much louder with a 3 blade and cans/pipes as compared to a 2 blade standard muffler set up. You can show me charts and graphs but the reality is what is loud and what isnt is proven at the field when a plane is in the air. Not in a chart. Not on a ground sound check.
So with that being said, how are the people who support this going to feel when I rip the snot out of my 3 blade and pipes, am the loudest plane at the event and I receive a 3% bonus.
Seems pretty silly doesnt it?
We all know no CD is going to stop me from flying because I have a loud plane. They are supposed to do that now. Ask yourself how many times you've actually seen that happen.
In my experience that number is ZERO.

This proposal is silly and does nothing to reduce sound footprint.

Rick and Wayne (the tall one),

Thank you for posting.

Kent

OK 1 1/2 point bonus for cans 1 1/2 for 3 blade unless your too loud then you take it away, but mufflers and a 2 blade and your quieter than one with cans and 3 blade then you get nothing? Now all we have to do is to keep from getting so loud that we get pull out for being too loud. Lets grab our ear muff and go fly.

With the BONUS point system the pilot that bolts on cans/tune pipes and three blade will have 29 nomalized (i repeat normalized) points added to their score.

Posted By Kevin Wilson on 09 Mar 2010 16:32
Where does the proposal state this is required equipment? I think some are overthinking this. This proposal simply bonuses proven setups.

Actually it punishes people who are already quiet without specific items.

Curtis you are 100% right !!!!!! I get 10's on sound now with cans and a 2 blade if this goes through then I will loose points unless I go to a 3 blade, and with the power system I have now the 3 blade will not get the job done so either I quit flying contest or I MUST go buy a bigger motor and that is just what I will do and then the 3 blade will be enough power to get the job done but I will be one of the loudest one there intead of one of the quiest ones there so How did this help the sound problem ?

Mark,

Thank you fro your reply,

Kent

I MUST go buy a bigger motor and that is just what I will do and then the 3 blade will be enough power to get the job done but I will be one of the loudest one there intead of one of the quiest ones there so How did this help the sound problem ?

It did nothing to help the perceived sound problem.

Beyond a few people trying to dictate how IMAC is run, this proposal accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Posted By james taylor on 09 Mar 2010 19:32

Posted By Kevin Wilson on 09 Mar 2010 16:32
Where does the proposal state this is required equipment? I think some are overthinking this. This proposal simply bonuses proven setups.

"Proven setups"? Proven to do what? By whom?
I think that I can prove that having a canister exhaust and a 3 blade prop will not automatically make a plane quieter!
James

At any given RPM, it is proven that a prop with a smaller diameter will have less tip speed, thus less ripping sound. It is proven that at any given RPM, a cannister exhaust system will produce a softer exhaust note.
Can a pilot rip a 3 blade? Of course he can. The pilot will still need to manage throttle to be very quiet.
I have done much experimentation with my own plane, and been to many contests over the last couple of years and, to my ears, planes with cans and 3 bladed props ARE quieter than those with standard mufflers and 2 bladed props.
I think one of the fundemental issues may be that we are not in agreement that noise is a problem. I know at our field it was never a problem until last year when the VA moved in next door. Ours is still a wonderful venue for IMAC as long as we aren't ripping up the sky.
I am not saying this is a perfect proposal, but I am not sure that exists. No matter what is done, there will be a bunch of folks who disagree with it. The good thing about this proposal, in my opinion, is that subjectivity is taken out of the equation. To me that is always a positive!

Kevin

Posted By Wayne Geffon on 10 Mar 2010 0:24

As I said in the FG thread. We do not have any contests in the NC Region currently that have sound or footprint restrictions.

I would love to see the sound score go away for a "standard" IMAC contest.

Oh really?!?!

Below is a photo taken at the field of a long standing and "current" IMAC contest in the NC region.



So once all of the sound rules are removed as you suggest, let's all go back to stock mufflers and CF Bolly props on our big gas powered planes, use them nationwide all IMAC contests, AND all the local fields we all fly at to practice the sequences. Who needs or wants to spend the extra $ for headers and canisters when they are not needed...

Let's just all "Let em rip"... What harm can it do...

UNBELIEVABLE

So once all of the sound rules are removed as you suggest, let's all go back to stock mufflers and CF Bolly props on our big gas powered planes, use them nationwide all IMAC contests, AND all the local fields we all fly at to practice the sequences. Who needs or wants to spend the extra $ for headers and canisters when they are not needed...

Let's just all "Let em rip"... What harm can it do

Cool then I'll be able to use my wood props again on my IMAC airplanes. I'm not sure I'm following you on the sign thing you posted above Mike? Looks like a pretty old sign to me..........

As to the rules proposal I'm all about trying to make our planes more "neighbor friendly" but to what extent are we really willing to go to do this? Why would I want to shell out several extra hundreds of dollars on 3-blade props/cans/pipes if my plane on a 2-blade stock exhaust sounds just as quiet IN THE AIR when using proper throttle management. If I were going to being giving out "bonuses" instead of giving bonuses to guys for using "proven setups" lets give "bonuses" for guys that use proper throttle management instead (regardless of motor/prop setup).

Let the CD's be the ones to police their own contests......not the voice of a few in the IMAC community. The CD's know their home fields better than the rest of us and I'm sure they would know if any noise issues exist.

Guys.... If we step back a few paces & look at the REAL situation, you will see that at this particular time the ONLY thing you can do to make any difference, is to contact your AMA District representative on the Scale Aerobatics Board & tell him what you think.

If you do not do that, then all of this discussion is for naught.

There is one of three possibilities that could materialize:

(1) SACB's acceptance of the IMAC BOD's proposal.

(2) SACB's acceptance of Mr. Candito's proposal.

(3) Neither of those being accepted and we continue with what we have.

So...there you have it in a nutshell. I'm glad I still have a plane to fly at all. We could all be in the same boat as Bobby Hawthorne & still be picking up the pieces.

So...let's call our representative, then go charge up & go FLY...
Wayne

Posted By Mark Mcclellan on 10 Mar 2010 7:36
Curtis you are 100% right !!!!!! I get 10's on sound now with cans and a 2 blade if this goes through then I will loose points unless I go to a 3 blade, and with the power system I have now the 3 blade will not get the job done so either I quit flying contest or I MUST go buy a bigger motor and that is just what I will do and then the 3 blade will be enough power to get the job done but I will be one of the loudest one there intead of one of the quiest ones there so How did this help the sound problem ?

Bingo! that is the exact spot I'm in... I consistently get tens and usually have one of the quieter planes at just about any contest...

and I will be punished for it????

How does this make sense?

Mike,
It appears that field, wherever it is, is not suitable to hold an IMAC contest.
Would you care to share what contest is normally held there?

Nowhere have I said that if the sound rule goes away I think people should TRY to be as loud as possible.
Please read what people are writing before you come to a conclusion about what they are saying.
My example of putting on a 3 blade and letting it rip is merely to point out how ridiculous this specific RCP is.
You could be awarding someone for equipment and at the same time they could be extremely loud by using no throttle management. Mike, Even you would agree that is silly right?

IMAC pilots in general are noise conscious. I think our SIG does a very good job of trying not to be as loud as we can while at the same time squeezing every last bit of performance out of our planes.
I dont see this changing with or without a sound score or an equipment Mandate / Bonus
We are far quieter than other aspects of the RC hobby. Wheres the big push to quiet them down?

I have run Cannisters, Pipes, Mufflers, 2 blades and 3 blades.
My current set up is a 200 with a 2 blade and stock exhaust. I am finding its very easy to throttle manage and keep my airplane quiet because the plane has the power needed at lower RPM settings because I am not restricted with cans or a 3 blade. I am getting the desired pull with a 2 blade prop AT A LOWER RPM.
As Kevin said, more RPM equals more tip speed which in turn means more prop noise.
Limit the hardware and you will find guys using way more power to get the desired pull and those guys will have more noise than me simply because they are moving the throttle stick up further than I am.

Posted By Wayne Matthews on 10 Mar 2010 8:45
Guys.... If we step back a few paces & look at the REAL situation, you will see that at this particular time the ONLY thing you can do to make any difference, is to contact your AMA District representative on the Scale Aerobatics Board & tell him what you think.

If you do not do that, then all of this discussion is for naught.

There are one of three possibilities that could materialize:

(1) SACB's acceptance of the IMAC BOD's proposal.

(2) SACB's acceptance of Mr. Candito's proposal.

(3) Neither of those being accepted and we continue with what we have.

You neglected to mention one other possibilty Wayne.

The AMA will accept any other RCP's submitted by ANY AMA member, BEFORE the March 31st deadline.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/ruleschangeform.doc

Have at it guys.

Posted By Mike Clemmens on 10 Mar 2010 8:55

Posted By Wayne Matthews on 10 Mar 2010 8:45
Guys.... If we step back a few paces & look at the REAL situation, you will see that at this particular time the ONLY thing you can do to make any difference, is to contact your AMA District representative on the Scale Aerobatics Board & tell him what you think.

If you do not do that, then all of this discussion is for naught.

There are one of three possibilities that could materialize:

(1) SACB's acceptance of the IMAC BOD's proposal.

(2) SACB's acceptance of Mr. Candito's proposal.

(3) Neither of those being accepted and we continue with what we have.

You neglected to mention one other possibilty Wayne.

The AMA will accept any other RCP's submitted by ANY AMA member, BEFORE the March 31st deadline.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/ruleschangeform.doc

Have at it guys.

Yes, Mike... I did forget about that. Maybe you should submit one yourself?
Wayne

I find it truly amazing that one or two members are proponents to their own agenda. These members seem to be on a crusade and have habitually denounced and challenged the efforts to make improvements or take proactive action. We have gone over this problem many times in the past .Yes there are a few that have problems but it seems to me that the problem is unique to their field.As a body descisions need to be made for ALL concerned not just those few..Sorry that some are losing fields, which is never a good thing..but have they tried to compromise with their neighbors or was the closing of the field a forgone conclusion.Mandates and change are never popular..We are all resistant to change in some shape fashion or form.I dont like being told ..I must have this or that in order to get more points..I always thought ..let the best pilot win..Granted deeper pockets buy more equipment but what does that have to do with pilot skills...How many time have we said or heard...damn He is so good he could make a brick fly great..Bottom line it will always be in the pilots hands as to how he or she manages the aircraft..I would like to eliminate the sound score all together and take the subjectivity out. I would think It WOULD be in all of our best interests to let our representative know our wants on this matter...POPS

Posted By Wayne Matthews on 10 Mar 2010 8:58

Yes, Mike... I did forget about that. Maybe you should submit one yourself?
Wayne

As you know Wayne, only AMA members are permitted to do that.

Anyone outside the AMA, has the option of paying the fee to join, or having a current AMA member send it on their behalf.