SCAT Electronic News 15 February 1999
- Details
- Category: Archive 1999
- Hits: 841
SCAT Electronic News 15 February 1999
Table of Contents
==================
MaxMen International
The Max and the Home Run - Ramrod 250 aka Jim Haught
Zeri on F1B
FAI Rules to Save Free Flight Forever! or Bungees for AARP Members
FAI Rules - Bill Shailor
Mark Wood is Spurred on to write to us.
Last word from Rey
MaxMen International
====================
We have to much information to include the full Maxmen Results ..
so they will be out "Real Soon Now" in the next issue ..
However as a teaser [misleading at that] the Winners of the unoffical
Champagne flyoff on Saturday evening were ..
F1A Makarkov and Kocharev equal 309 seconds [sounds too good to be true]
F1B Jerry Fitch 457
F1C Charlie Stiles 475
The Max and the Home Run
========================
My twin passions of modeling and baseball have led me to a comparison of
similar elements, each of which has caused discussion in its own arena as to
merit.
In baseball's "dead ball" era, home runs were relatively rare. Then along
came the 1919 White Sox scandal, Babe Ruth, and the "rabbit ball" as a means
of keeping interest in baseball. Home run totals zoomed, fans turned out in
record numbers, and baseball was "saved."
Or was it?
In the early days of FAI free flight, maxes were not a "given." They were
supposed to be challenging, even difficult - much like hitting a home run.
Flyoffs were not always needed, and the mass flyoffs of today were rarer
still - about as frequent, say, as someone hitting 50 home runs.
Now, the 180-second max is nearly a "given." Most FAI models can far exceed
this performance level. Moreover, the max is almost looked on as a reward for
the effort put into getting the models ready to fly in contests. We don't want
to make the max too difficult early in a contest, or we scare off potential
competitors, who won't risk the time and expense that a first-round miss can
bring.
And now, virtually all major-league ballplayers can hit home runs. Like
180-second maxes, they're pretty common. With improved conditioning, poor
pitching, and substances like creatine, everyone's going for the fences.
But aren't both feats SUPPOSED to be difficult--by design? And aren't they
cheapened with their increased frequency? What's the point of a 180-second max
if models can easily do two or three times that?
For all the chest-thumping about "these are the elite models - they are the
most difficult and have the most performance," I don't see many people being
anxious to change the basic format of contests to make the difficulty of
making the goal - a max - something that is a challenge at all times.
And if every .220-hitting middle infielder can jack the ball out of the park,
aren't such feats as the McGwire-Sosa home run duel just a bit less
meaningful?
Many consider the FAI events to be the "major leagues" of free flight. And
just as almost all major leagues can hit home runs now, most "major league "
free flighters can get 180-second maxes pretty easily.
In both cases, the participants have "beaten the game;" the "house rules" no
longer work. Even in my current pursuit of F1J, we can see pretty clearly that
7 seconds is too long an engine run for modern unrestricted models; I imagine
we'll see five seconds pretty soon. When the F1J rules were established, the
Tee Dee was still the engine of choice. We have "beaten the game" with ADs MP
Jetts, and similar power plants.
The few flying sites that can hold FAI contests must be able to support
extended-length flyoff flights; it's virtually a given that flyoffs will be
necessary to determine winners in the vast majority of cases, so a large field
is needed.
If that's so, why not make the base max longer? Why not make it harder to be
"perfect"? What does a string of 180-second maxes prove anyway, if the "real
contest" doesn't start until the flyoff?
This would be the equivalent of backing up the fences in baseball, which is
the best alternative short of changing the baseball's coefficient of
restitution (which would be like adding weight to the models, or reducing max
rubber weight).
I'm at a point in my modeling "career" that I like the idea of flying models
that the average modeler can't; that they are more difficult to build and
trim; that they offer high performance. I would just as soon see rules that
are tougher too.
We have a base max time that's 40+ years old, yet the models' performance has
probably doubled or tripled, on average, during that time. As my 13-year-old
might say, "What's up with that?"
F1B rules, ongoing discussions
==============================
Good morning,
after letting the opinions run free and wild for a while, it's now time to
put them in perspective.
It's quite amusing to see that at this moment people talk about "rule changing"
without really stating what they mean with that.
It appears that for somebody the problem lies in the tendency represented by
the "italian proposal", toward 40-years-ago models, for others is just the
contrary: the problem lies in the tendency toward more and more efficient mo-
dels, represented by models capable of performing with reduced energy input.
Let's look into the two cases: the italian proposal first.
When I received a copy of the text, I couldn't recognize the opinion of my
friends, contest flyers, with whom I spoke in Portugal just a few months
before, so I simply took the telephone and got the fresh opinion of the flyers
I know, who are the members of the italian F1B team of the last few years.
The interesting and instructive experience was that half of those modellers
didn't know anything about the proposal, the other half did read it when pu-
blished (as complete and finished proposal) on the newsletter of the italian
free flyers.
Nobody of them had anything to say in it, they all rejected it, they all
clearly stated that they will stop flying if such a proposal will be adopted.
With this warm support from the modellers of the proposing country, that I will
clearly stress in Lausanne, I don't think that the "italian proposal" will
go very far.
Still there are interesting things in the proposal, for instance in F1C.
I will not comment here in the process behind the decision making at the
origin of the italian proposal.
Let me just clarify that the opinions (in relation to the rules) that I express
on these pages are the same I presented at the yearly Dutch free flight meeting
to the totality less one of the Dutch F1B flyers, from whom I got the permis-
sion to present my ideas as supported by them.
Let me now go to the second case of rule change, that epitomized by "the more
efficient " model.
There is quite an extensive reaction when the discussion touch reduction of
performances, the last exemple is expressed in the letter of Bob Piserchio.
Bob is a flyer I respect (this is the only parameter that counts for me), and
his letter brings some interesting comparisons, but those are really on the
simple side.
With the help of my friend Peter King, respected flyer and even more respected
"computer flyer" and of Ian Kaynes, even more deep "computer flyer", I could
recently use their flight simulation program for the climb and glide of F1B
models to simulate different options of rule changing.
The program is very accurate, it gives a good actual model as climbing to 97
meters and flying a total of 298 sec., this is very real, because the flight
times of 7+ minutes are normally from VERY good models in "thick" morning air.
The results of the simulation are:
30 gr. motor, 230 gr. total model climb to 82 mt., total time of 256 sec.
35 gr. " 260 gr. " " " 83 mt. " " 247 sec.
35 gr. " 280 gr. " " " 77 mt. " " 224 sec.
30 gr. " 260 gr. " " " 72 mt. " " 213 sec.
30 gr. " 280 gr. " " " 66 mt. " " 192 sec.
20 gr. " 230 gr. " " " 55 mt. " " 171 sec.
These numbers are not far from reality and are a good basis for discussion.
I share completely the reasons offered by Bob Piserchio about WHY he's flying
F1B, the pleasure of the planes performing as espected and of getting as much
performance as you can out of them (I took these words directly from his
letter).
I don't share at all the implied relationship between reducing the performances
and the end of the pleasure of flying F1B : the challenge of getting "as much
performance as you can out of them" will be still there exactly as before,
only it will be more demanding to extract the ultimate performance from your
design and trimming, the strive toward better efficiency will ask for de-
velopment and innovation (unless you let your suppliers fight for development
and innovation.....).
I don't understand the pleasure of flying to a 3 min. max with a 6+ minutes
model, there I find myself sort of cheated, where is the challenge ?
But this is, of course, a touch of personal view.
There are other interesting ideas going on, I've interesting talks with Ivan
Horejsi about possible Not Technical Models alongside the "complex" ones,
flying together but with a separated result list, a bit like junior today.
Those NT models could be also the models used by juniors (see the german
proposal about junior models).
Things must be developped more, but it's appealling to find a solution that
could make the life more simple, giving something to everybody: complex
challenging models if you like, more classic but still pleasant flying pos-
sibilities if you like it different.
That's all for now, brief your representative in Lausanne and try to fly
high, and this not only with your models.
Regards.
Anselmo Zeri
Anselmo Zeri
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
FAI Rules to Save Free Flight Forever! or Bungees for AARP Members
Instead of eliminating Wakefield and replacing it with coupe lets rename
all outdoor rubber classes (from embryo to unlimited) "wakefield". Then
everyone who wants to change the rules can fly what they want and still
be flying a wakefield.
For F1C lets keep the size and weight the same and require baby bee
.049's; preferably only those engines purchased used at a rummage sale.
For F1A which suffers from a lack of participation, lets outlaw auto
surfaces but allow R/C high starts for contestants who can present a
valid AARP card at registration.
Seriously, I think the ills associated with FAI are not rooted in the
rules but in the demographics of the existing Free Flight community. It
is understandably difficult for someone who has used the same technology
for 20, 30, or 40 years to change what they do or even accept change
around them. Realize too that subtle rewards of a good max ( seeing the
nose drop and the model rise as it centers in a thermal) are difficult
for todays youth to appreciate.
For those among us who don't want to adapt we need SLOP and while were
at it SLOR (slow open rubber) and SLOG (slow open glider). For the
uninitiated we need to look in there eyes for a sparkle when they see a
gliding model start to go up instead of down. When we see that sparkle
we need to put our arms around them and whisper in there ear "Do you
want to build a model like that?"
Ross Jahnke
Baton Rouge Free Flight Team
From: "wmpjshailor"
Subject: FAI RULES PROPOSALS
In all the years I have been flying competitive free flight, I have never
once heard a modeler complain that his airplane was flying too well. On the
other hand, I have heard flyers complain that somebody else's model flew too
well. I think the latter group is the driving force behind the current
attempt to "dumb down" FAI Free Flight.
The confused logic behind the Italian proposal does not stand up to
scrutiny. If organizers do not want to have to stick around for flyoffs,
then don't volunteer to run only half of a contest. If timers find it
difficult to time longer flights, then don't volunteer to time. As Bob
Piserchio points out, even three minute flights can be short-changed.
If field size is a problem, shorten the max. Coming from one who has to
drive 300 miles to test fly in Muncie, I would never be so presumptious as
to impose my geographic limitations on the entire FAI community.
For those who want to reduce the capabilities of models in hopes of being
able to become competitive, perhaps you are in the wrong sport. It's
unfortunate that Old Timers or Nostalgia events have not caught on by the
proponents of these new rules. Perhaps then they would have left FAI events
alone.
The Italian and Russian proposals would do nothing to enhance the sport of
FAI Free Flight, which has always been intended to be the leading edge of
competition and technology.
Bill Shailor
Hi Roger
First I would like to say that I side with Bob Piserchio on rules
changes in F1 events, DON'T. Personally the technology is what atracts
me to the sport. Why would we outlaw any one of the new technologies
from the sport ie carbon fiber, autosurfaces, electronic timers etc.
Why not go all the way and get Superglue while we're at it? No, the
current rules are quite ok. What makes this sport such a challange is
to find the next cool technology and apply it. Ruling out new
developements only hampers the fine effort of the inovative. If you're
not one of the inovators, get on the bandwagon and follow. If you can't
manage the technology then you're trying to do something where you
simply don't belong! There's other events in free flight for you.
BTW Here's a jpeg of my latest F1C project. It's a 2:1 reduction
gearbox using a pinnion and spur gear. I'm currently making a prototype
run of three. If anyone is interested they can drop me a line at
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and I'll fill in any details.
Mark Wood
Last word from Rey [and on Rey]
===============================
Martin:
You took my comment completely out of text. I was clearly referring to F1B and
went on to say "Tie down the wing, possibly build a new stab and fin, rethink
the prop and # of strands, and most F1B's would be useable. However, I don't
think it would be too long before a new generation of models would be designed
and built. I am not as sure how it would effect F1A, but I agree with Gil's
comments that were just posted on F1C."(emphasis added)
Tom:
Where did you get the impression that I am trying to limit construction
materials? My original post was concerning electronics with main reference to
F1B (see above). My follow-up post in response to Roger was to clarify that I
am not in favor of "simple" models, I am just in favor of keeping free flight
from becoming a quasi-r/c sport.
My flame suit is on and I promise to say or respond no more on this subject.
Thanks,
Rey
............................
Roger Morrell
