SCAT Electronic News May 16 1999
- Details
- Category: Archive 1999
- Hits: 854
SCAT Electronic News May 16 1999
Table of Contents
=================
Banco no Bunko
Mufflers
Tenth NorCal Champs Results
Hi-tech FF
Banco no Bunko
==============
The SCAT Banco
A number of people wimped out because of expected windy weather,
[you believe everything you read on the Internet !]. It was windy during
the night, it was breezy in the morning such that CD Pierre reduced
the first round max to 3 minutes .. Then as the hooter sounded the wind
stopped and it stayed calm all day. Pierre, you have been doing something
right !! Very very tricky thermals, but a clear blue sky and temperatures
in the 70's.
F1A
Pierre Brun M + 300
Hector Diez M +177
Terry Kerger 1106
Ken Koval
Lee Hines
Don Zink
F1B
John Pratt M
John Sessums 1244
Roger Morrell 1210
Chuck Dorsett
Larry Norvall
Tim Sessums ZZzzzzzz..
F1C
Doug Joyce
Terry Kerger gets a podium finish in his first F1A contest with a Stamov
Simple model. Terry was wearing his Nike Air [Stamov's ?] but draws the
line at shorts.
John Pratt continues his hot streak from the #2 spot at Norcal, apparantly
all due to Chuck Dorsett's mentoring! Tim Sessums falls asleep
between rounds and does not wake up until the contest is over.
Also seen at Lost Hills, Martyn Cowley with a collection of "HLG's" from
about 6 to 30 in wing span, A couple of guys from Aerovironment ? with
a tailess towline glider and a couple of thermal jelly fish and Daryl Perkins
back from a layoff getting his F1Cs going again.
Mufflers
========
Author: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Every so often, proponents of mufflers, or some other means of noise
reduction, gear up and attempt another run at compromising our sport.
Although I am sure to be corrected if wrong, I am unaware of any instance
where a Free Flight field has been lost due to noise produced by a Free
Flight model. Instead, fields are lost because Radio Control models, with
long-range receivers and large fuel tanks have flown too close to
residential areas and have been in the air for long periods of time.
Contrast this with Free Flight. A power models engine runs, from start
to finish for, perhaps, 15 to 20 seconds. Rounds, if flown, involve a great
deal of activity in a relatively short period of time. This is then followed
by a long period of calm. Consider also that Free Flight fields are, by
their very nature, not found in heavily populated areas.
Attempting to draw similarities between Radio Control and Free Flight
models is misplaced. Until F1C/ F1J models are equipped with receivers for
directional control and seemingly endless supplies of fuel, there is no need
for mufflers.
Bill Shailor
Tenth NorCal Champs Results
===========================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Here are the results as tabulated using both existing (not all of them) time
cards and sheets from the processing table. If there are any discrepancies
in both times and placings, it is because they were recalculated and
verified using the above information.
This should not make any difference for both America's Cup points and the
FAI finals program.
The FAI events will be slightly different than what was recently published
in SCAT Electronic News.
Fred
TENTH OAKLAND CLOUD DUSTERS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA FREE FLIGHT CHAMPS
MAY 1ST AND 2ND, 1999
Saturday Events Sunday Events Both Day Events
F1A Towline Glider F1G Coupe d'Hiver 1/2A Gas R.O.W.
1 Ernesto Busnelli 1050 1 Bruce Hannah 600 1 Juse Pinto 50
1 Martyn Cowley 1050 2 Chuck Dorsett 565
3 Jim Parker 1035 3 Maria Pinto 560 Small Rubber Cabin
4 Pierre Brun 1029 4 John Kamla 534 1 Bill Langenberg 337
5 Hector Diez 1013 5 Richard Wood 418
6 Risto Puhakka 1010 6 Henry Smith 240 Large Rubber Cabin
7 Mike McKeever 983 1 Ernie Johnson 360
8 Brian Van Nest 920 F1H Towline Glider
9 Lee Hines 919 1 Anne Halsey 575 Small Rubber Stick
10 Dallas Parker 822 2 Glenn Grell 347 1 Mark Bennett 540
11 Fred Terzian 740 2 Ernie Johnson 360
12 Anne Halsey 718 F1J Small Gas Power 3 Bill Langenberg 307
1 Jim Haught 600 4 Chas. O'Donnell 286
F1B Wakefield Rubber 2 Dave Parsons 427
1 Herb Sessums 1456 3 Bill Vanderbeek 142 Large Rubber Stick
2 John Pratt 1407 1 Jerry Rocha 360
3 Walt Ghio 1401 Dawn Mulvihill 2 Dan Heinrich 315
4 George Batiuk 1396 1 Henry Smith 425
5 John Sessums 1380 2 Mark Bennett 150 Mulvihill R.O.W.
6 Rich Rohrke 1280 1 Henry Smith* 1035
7 Bruce Hannah 1261 C-D Gas 2 Bud Romak 360
8 Dick Wood 1027 1 Juse Pinto 360
9 Allen Brush 893 A-B-C Ignition Old Timer
10 Jerry Fitch 747 Mulvihill Rubber 1 Bud Romak 360
11 Chuck Dorsett 651 1 Stuart Bennett 792 2 Nick Bruschi 240
12 Dick Myers 562 2 Mark Bennett 780 3 Dan Heinrich 228
13 Mark Bennett 474 3 Robert Hodes 679
14 Larry Norvall 176 Early 1/2A Gas Nostalgia
Hand Launch Glider 1 Bob Stalick 280
F1C FAI Power 1 Mark Bennett 294
1 Doug Joyce 1072 2 Glenn Grell 129 A Gas Nostalgia
2 Juse Pinto 685 3 Bob Stalick 125 1 Bob Stalick 114
4 Juse Pinto 123
B Gas Honey Bee One-Design
1 Fred Emmert 360 Moffett Rubber 1 Bill Vanderbeek 335
2 Lynn Pulley 195 1 Bud Romak 360
2 Stuart Bennett 120
1/2A Gas *Henry Smith established new
1 Bill Davis 330 A Gas AMA Rise Off Water Record
2 Albert Grell 310 1 Albert Grell 120 with original "Drip Dry" design
3 Bill Vanderbeek 302
4 Paul Karr 120 1/4A Gas
1 Dan Heinrich 243
P-30 Rubber 2 Bob Stalick 180
1 John Kamla 360
2 Len Sherman 341
3 Mark Bennett 305
4 Robert Hodes 271
5 Chris Borland 247
6 Bob White 120
.020 Replica
1 Odell Marchant 360
2 Dan Heinrich 284
3 Jerry Rocha 239
4 Bob Stalick 169
5 Albert Grell 148
O.C.D. Catapult Glider
1 Carl Rambo 207
2 Norm Smith 186
3 Stuart Bennett 144
4 Dick Douglas 82
Hand Held Catapult Glider
1 Martyn Cowley 281
2 Sterling Davis 234
3 Fred Terzian 212
4 Lynn Price 141
5 Dick Douglas 139
6 Chris Borland 93
7 Mark Bennett 73
Old Time Hand Launch Glider
1 Mark Bennett 243
2 Norm Smith 137
3 Chas. O'Donnell 113
Hi-tech FF
==========
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
HHB, 4-27 Field Artillery
Unit 23732 Box 37
APO AE 09034
May 13, 1999
Dear Chris, [i.e. of the FFdigest but it was sent here too]
I've got some thoughts on the direction that hi-tech and multifunction timers
have taken F1B and also the BOM debate. I also have a request for a future
article in the Digest.
I personally haven't succumbed to the temptation to buy a model. The primary
reason is that the purchased hi-tech models make a mockery of getting a max.
Where is the challenge of making a two minute max with a Coupe that will do 4
minutes unassisted? Where is the challenge of getting a three minute max
with an F1A or B model that will do 5 minutes unassisted? I just can't
imagine people who bowl having any fun if they could use a ball 9 pins wide
until the last frame. To me that is what the FAI and some AMA events have
become with the hi-tech models.
The rules were originally designed to prevent people from building models
that could max in dead air. To me that is what FF is all about: having to
pick good air, not just avoiding bad air and praying all five functions
function. To my way of thinking, the rules must be changed to prevent people
from building or buying models that can easily max in dead air. Or answer me
this, who in their right mind would propose a new event with rules purposely
designed to produce models that can double the max time in dead air?
Bob Piserchio says in the 12 Feb 99 SCAT Electronic News (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)
that what he loves about Wakefield is the tremendous performance the models
now have. He also stated he would rather quit flying F1B than go back to the
lower performing models.
I agree with Bob that keeping the hi-tech, multi-function models and trying
to limit performance by cutting back on the grams of rubber would simply make
Wakefield and Coupe indistinguishable. However, the point Bob misses is that
Wakefield has become indistinguishable, performance wise, from our AMA
event #120, Mulvihill. Wakefield is no longer Wakefield. F1B flyers have
abandoned the precept of a limiting performance in order to force skills in
picking air to be the deciding factor. Wakefield flyers no longer want the
challenge of a model that must struggle to max. They want the guaranteed max
of a 5 minute machine. So, if spectacular climbs and 5+ minute flights are
what make Wakefield so appealing why not make things a lot simpler and
replace the F1B rules with the AMA's Mulvihill, event #120's rules.
It seems to me Bob is as short-sighted as our live-for-the day president. If
we don't do away with Hi-tech multi-function models now it will only get
worse. The present rules do not limit the number of functions, so someday
soon the number of positions the rudder, wing wiggler and stab assume during
a flight will be limitless. Someone will start building models with
temperature sensors, rate of climb/descent sensors, altitude sensors, and
microprocessors driving servos to change the flight path and start and stop
the motor. Such a model could be programmed to: 21) hunt for a thermal, 2)
fly out of a downer, 3) adjust to the optimum glide circle diameter in a
thermal, 4) hold a preset altitude in a thermal, 5) after launch, stop the
motor when the rate of climb and altitude insure a max and later restart the
motor if conditions change and a max is no longer assured.
What I would bring to Bob's attention is that the difference between the
limitless function model and the 5 function model is not one of kind, only of
degree. The hi-tech limitless function model will seduce many of the
performance- at- any- price crowd. They will defend and extol the limitless
function model the same way they defend carbon fiber and 5 function timers
today. They will be extolled as progress, the inevitable next step in the
search for ultimate performance. Anyone in the 5- function, carbon crowd who
tries to resist will have no leg to stand on. He will be hoisted on his own
petard. He will be told the same thing he used to tell others about his 5
minute machine. He will be told, "It's just sour grapes to complain that
your model isn't competitive anymore. If you want to win you'll just have to
get on the bandwagon and buy your own new, latest and greatest, hi-tech F1B."
So you see, unless the attitudes and rationalizations that allow and justify
people to build or buy 5- minute machines are rejected the limitless
function model is inevitable. And the death of F1B as a free flight event is
inevitable as well. And other events will follow F1B into the abyss.
Even AMA events have been perverted by hi-tech. Hank Sperzel's letter on
page 20 of the March 99 Digest discloses just how much FF has been perverted,
warped, and twisted by models that can easily max without a thermal. He
tells us about people in AMA gas events intentionally avoiding thermals
because their models don't need thermals to max. The rules for an event have
become more than worthless when the winning strategy is to play it safe and
avoid the time of day when thermals are present.
Whether one builds or buys his models isn't the real issue for me. I prefer
the BOM rule, but dropping it doesn't threaten the heart and soul of what FF
is all about (except for scale events). Models that can easily beat the max
in dead air are a real threat to the heart and soul of FF.
I consider myself a dabbler in FF. When I do fly, my only goal is to try and
catch thermals with models that must catch a thermal to max. I don't fly to
collect trophies, but if I were to place or win with a model that needs a
thermal to max I have accomplished something. I just can't see how the
person whose model will max as long as all five functions function has
accomplished much or has earned much.
My question for a future article concerns thermals. On page 21, the second
column at the top of the page (march 99 Digest) Randall Hopkins writes, "You
are ready to fly at the 8:00 a.m. starting horn. Winds are light ad dew
thermals are strong... At your fourth launch you note the approach of 10:00
a.m., dew thermals are gone, real thermals are growing with the wind." I've
read a few articles about thermals but had never heard of "dew thermals."
Hank Sperzel writes on page 20, first column first paragraph. "Put up lots
of flights early in the day while the air is relatively neutral, avoid flying
after 10 a.m. or where there is a chance of downers, then fly again late in
the day, after 3:30 p.m. or just before the end of the meet. Now you are
flying in neutral air again 'till sunset." What is the best way to avoid
downers? So maybe we could have a thorough article or perhaps a list of
articles that touch on all the aspects of thermals based on season, time of
day, wind conditions, etc.
Thermals,
Joe Ed Pederson
[Editorial comment
It is our policy to to publish all mail that we get that is
relevant to Aermodelling and remanins with the bounds of decency.
We get some correcspondence from people who do not participate event
but have suggestions on how it should be fixed. I think that it
is important to listen to suggestion from all.
However I consider that the above letter is critcal with making
any new positive suggestion.
The letter is saying .. Your event is all messed up, you are mistaken and short sighted in what you do, you should thow away everthing that you are
doing and start again, any by the way I do not fly the event.
It is inaccurate in that :
1. a max is not assured in F1B or F1A, for example in the SCAT Banco
contest, only one person maxed out in F1B, no one had mechanical trouble
so it was all in the air picking.
2. the rules for Mulvihill and F1B are significantly different,
F1B is much more restrictive in terms of the model specification
and difficult in in the way the event is run. The reason why
people get more performance from the F1B is because they work harder
at it, both in terms of model innovations and hours spent trimming.
3. Previously Bob Piserchio explained what he likes about the event.
Other people feel the same way. These are people who participate in the
the event and support it. Saying that these feelings are wrong
or mistaken is not a productive approach
4. We have had the discussion in the past about on board electronics.
Firstly at the recent CIAM meeting the FAI passed a rule
forbidding any closed loop device that would adjust the flying surfaces
based on the imput from a sensor.
Secondly as someone who has worked in the field for a long time
such an automatic device is a long way from reality given the
constraints of size, weight and money we face. ]
...........................
Roger Morrell
