SEN 732 - 30 Aug 2002
- Details
- Category: Archive 2002
- Hits: 1535
SCAT Electronic News 30 August 2002 issue 732
Table of Contents
==================
New Scoring System comments. - Blackam
Aeronut's FAI Invitational - Markos
Curved tip area - Mik
we showed up, we got wet, we flew - Coussens
2001 Team Tee Shirts - Bradley
Curved wingtips - Augustus
Projected area of a curve panel - Bradley
On PolySpan and contacts - SweepetteLee
Figure This - Andresen
Areas of wing tips - Worsely
Re: HLG wing break - Bennet
we showed up, we got wet, we flew - Coussens
Bunt Ideas - Bauer
New max rules - Kaynes
New Scoring System comments.
============================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Regarding Klaus Salzer's analysis of the Euro Champs and the new scoring
rules.
I would like to see the original spreadsheet Klaus refers to since I
found the results in the table somewhat confusing, partly because of his
terminology and partly in the figures.
For example in F1A, for case 3, where the same number are shown in the
flyoff, the item 'Placement improved' says, 31 people had there placing
improved? Which 31 people? The ones in the flyoff? All of them? Or were
they spread around? I don't understand.
> F1A F1B F1C
>Case No. 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
>Number in flyoff 31 34 31 31 43 31 9 11 9
>Placement improved 27 31 18 24 15 14
>Maximum improvement 4 6 3 12 6 9
>No place change*) 12 4 12 2 12 10
>Placement worse 9 12 5 22 10 14
>Maximum places lost 11 17 9 18 12 13
>
Also can I make a comment on Klaus' opinion:
>My personal opinion: the new rule is better than the old one, and it
>certainly is better than having a very long flight counted in full,
>which would allow a single lucky flight offset a couple of sub-maxes.
This is very subjective, emotive and misleading language. A single
'lucky' flight would suggest that those who made the morning super max
are lucky when the truth is that most have done their work well and have
good performance. It good equally be said that 'a couple of sub-maxes'
would be unlucky for many people.
It would be useful if we keep this debate to the cold facts. Some of us
may prefer the super-max concept and others not prefer it but let's
debate the facts.
My own preference is that we should have left the scoring alone. This is
not because I am afraid of the long max or afraid of change. It is based
on my observation of the impact of the sub-max on the few competitions I
have experienced it in and on my fellow competitors. Many of the fliers
back in Australia cannot make 5 minutes in F1B (for example), some of
these competitors announced that they would stop flying F1B as a result.
While I realise that the rules are essentially made for W/C's we are so
few in numbers now that I believe it is CIAM's respnsibility to avoid
rule changes which cause loss of competitors at the grass roots level.
Perhaps the rules should be more clear in their allowance of flexibility
for non World or Continental Championships.
One of the biggest problems is that organisers do not always take enough
care in assessing conditions prior to a contest. This may often be
because they have enough on their plate anyway. For example in the
Southern Cross Cup the wind speed in round 1 meant that if you made the 5
minutes and did not have motorised retrieval you would not return in time
to make the second round flight. If you did not have a radio tracking
system, even with motorised retrieval, you were in big trouble. Not many
people in Australia use motor bikes and most people do not have 4WD
vehicles either so this becomes a problem. Even with a 4WD vehicle AND
radio tracking system it took my father and I 1.5 hours to retrieve our
flights, which allowed us maybe 20 minutes left in round 2. Yes, the max
should have been reduced, but the organisers were very small in number
and quite busy trying to do what organisers do.
Following this we had a non-WC champiosnhips in my home state. This is
held on a very small field with many trees and forested areas surrounding
it. It was only moderately windy (maybe 4-5m/s) but in my opinion there
was too much danger of flights being lost in trees or behind them, so I
went to the organiser and put my view. Fortunately the organiser agreed
and we flew a shorter max. But there were some people there who felt we
should fly 5 minutes anyway. For what? To lose models or time in trees?
What is the value in that?
regards
Richard Blackam
[Rich
I have Klaus's Excel and will send it out in due course.]
Aeronut's FAI Invitational
============================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The 42nd FAI Invitational at the AMA field in Muncie was held over the
weekend of August 24-25, 2002 with 21 contestants flying. The F1A, B and C
events were flown on Saturday with a starting time of 11 am with rounds of 90
minutes in length overlapping time so that each round started on the hour.
Winds were quite mild, from 3 - 7 mph, but our 3rd annual thunderstorm
visited in the middle of the 5th round and caused a one-hour delay so that
only 6 rounds were flown. The max was 180 for all rounds. The mini events
F1G, H and J were held on Sunday starting at 8 am with the same round lengths
as for the A,B,C events. Again winds were light and variable but generally
Northerly giving us maximum drift direction for the field. Notable
performances were all three F1J flyers maxing out then flying a 4-min flyoff
followed by a 6-minute flyoff with Bob Gutai the only one to score the 360
for the win. In rubber, Greg Simon maxed out both F1B and F1G for two firsts
and in Glider, Bob Sifleet took both F1A and F1H honors, maxing out the
latter. In addition to the FAI contest, the Aeronut's also sponsored an
Oltimer/Nostalgia contest and an AMA contest simultaneously.
F1A 1. Bob Sifleet 983 Five flew
2. Chuck Markos 962
3. Tom Jones 926
4. Tzvetan Tzvetkov 882
5. Bill Schlarb 776
F1B 1. Greg Simon 1080 Seven flew
2. Paul Crowley 1020
3. Bill Shailor 976
4. Fred Blom 975
5. Richard Wood 968
F1C 1. Bob Gutai 1080 Two flew
2. Bob Sifleet 698
F1G 1. Greg Simon 600 Nine flew
2. Richard Wood 591
3. Ed Konefes 587
4. Fred Blom 578
5. Jim Ferwerda 563
F1H 1. Bob Sifleet 600 Six flew
2. Joe Mekina 542
3. Bill Schlarb 453
4. Jean Pailet 450
5. Tom Jones 395
F1J 1. Bob Gutai 1200 Three flew
2. Jim Haught 1069
3. Jean Pailet 968
Chuck Markos
Curved tip area
===============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hi Bill,
Now I remember why I flunked math in high school. Do you recall the old
fashioned method of figuring the area of curved surfaces...just wrap a
piece of string around the part, convert it into any square or rectangle
and calculate as usual. Works for us ordinary dummies every time.
Mik Mikkelson
we showed up, we got wet, we flew
=================================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
We have been back for almost a week now and not one of those days I
wished to be back. It has been very difficult to come back to the USA. I
am very thankful for what i have here, but i rather be on that tiny
airport in Lucenec any day than being in an air conditioned class room
back in Valencia. I was absolutely shocked when i first go to Europe and
not because of how rand down everything was. In fact i was shocked that
it is very similar to the US. Grant it they don't shove carbonated water
down our throats like they did there but i wouldn't trade a second of my
experience in Europe. When we landed in Hungary all i could think about
was how are my models. By the time I flew two days later i already knew
that I would always remember this trip. We then proceeded to sight see
which was nice but i just wanted to get out onto the field where we would
fly alone with fellow kids. When we arrived in Lucenec I was thrilled.
For the first time I was seeing my teammates that would later fly like
champions that next week. I had never met John Lorbiecki or his dad
before and i had no clue how everyone would act as a team. It absolutely
astounded me that kids that I don't know very well would treat everyone
as if they are in a big family. The next day the moments of truth began.
We started test flying. At first i couldn't keep my airplanes in the
air, but later that day I regained control. Now i had never seen Austin
or John fly before but i truly say to you guys that there is no greater
pleasure in freeflight than watching the two best F1J Juniors in the
world fly. The next two days were nothing but fun. We got to see
everyone on the team fly and we all had a good time. On Tuesday morning
i folded the wings on one of my airplanes but i shook that off and flew
the rest of the day until it was time to go to opening ceremonies. We
went and held our little signs as listened to a translated version of
everything the speaker said, which was quiet fun for me. That night we
went back to the hotel ate dinner and hit the sack. The next morning
looked promising as far as the weather conditions and even when we were
testing it looked like we would experience a little bit of showers(how
wrong we were). About 15 minutes before the first round i tested my
buntbone that got me to Slovakia and got a good bunt off right before it
spun in and shattered the boom. I will be honest i was shattered i
couldn't believe what i was seeing and i kept imaging i would wake up in
a few seconds from the worst nightmare i have ever had but unfortunately
it was as real as it gets. I then pulled out my calm airship and flew it
for a few rounds before i switched to an airplane generously donated by
our amazing team manager Brian Van Nest. We held our heads up hi and
eventually it paid off. As far as individuals go i was amazed by the
composer and strength that Dallas and Michael both had. Michael flew the
contest of his life and Dallas did something that i will never forget.
On his 7th round he started running to early in his launch routine and
the airplane never pulled around when it was unlatched. So Dallas being
the most amazing flyer pulled his airplane into the ground so he wouldn't
get a 20 something second flight. It ended up damaging his airplane
severely and he just held his head up high and flew like a professional
no one will ever know how much respect and admiration i have for him for
doing what he did for the team. They both flew like it was a routine.
As for me I was always on the edge and i only regret not listening to
anyone else when i was flying. I know I flew well but I darn well know
that I could have done better. I am not disappointed but I know I have a
lot to work on. One thing that everyone should know is that none of us
had ever competed in such conditions. It was the flyers nightmare. We
had a rainstorm 15 mile an hour winds all day and a field that stuck to
you like glue when you ran in it. I would like to extend all my thanks
to the case crew and to my teammates for making the time for me better
than anyone could ever imagine. I would also like to say that even
though we flew well this year we will continue to fly the way we have
been taught by our dads and mentors. I would like to thank my dad for
teaching me everything I know and teaching me how to deal with anything
that comes my way. I would like to congratulate the F1B team for flying
better than any team has ever flown at the champs. We Were the best team
at the champs on stats and on the field. Hats off to the F1J team for
taking Gold and Silver in controversial conditions. I would like to
conclude buy thanking my teammates and by saying I hope I see all of you
in France. thanks a lot
Ben Coussens
Jr. team member in Lucenec
PS: Thanks to Kyle Jones for making the time at the hotel an absolute
delight
2001 Team Tee Shirts
====================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger,
I still have some 2001 United States Free Flight Team tee shirts for sale.
They are new and I have 3 adult large and 3 adult extra large. Price is
$16.00 each and includes postage. First come, first serve.
Jim Bradley
1337 Pine Sap Ct.
Orlando, FL 32825
Phone: 407-277-9132
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Curved wingtips
===============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Bill,
For 70 years or more. we Luddites in SAM have used a simple technique
to determine the area of curved surfaces. We just get a piece of
corrugated cardboard from an old box and weigh a square foot of it,
thus providing the number of square inches per gram. Then we trace
the wing planform on another piece of the same material, cut it out
and weigh it. Voila, we have the wing area. Plus ca change, plus ca
meme chose.
BA
Projected area of a curve panel
===============================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger,
I have used a method similar to the one Martin described for measuring the
area of curved wing panels. One of the problems with the tracing and
weighing of a panel held flat is you don't get the projected area, but there
is a way around that.
1. Start off with poster board as this has some weight to it and makes the
scale variation less of a problem.
2. Cut out a piece of posterboard that is several inches bigger that the
panel you are measuring. Calculate the area of the posterboard and weigh it.
Calculate the weight per Square inch. I use grams/sq. in. (Hint) Write the
weight on the poster so you don't forget it.
3. Get, or make, a right triangle with a base on it that is both tall enough
to reach up to the tip of the panel when the inside panel is held flat and
remains square to the wing. (that's why you want one with a base)
4. Cut a notch in the right triangle at the base and inset a piece of pencil
lead, use tape to hold it in place. The notch is such that the outside of
the pencil lead lines up with the vertical edge of the right triangle in a
straight line.
5. Place the inside panel on top of the posterboard insuring several inches
are in contact with it to keep it flat. Mark the start of the dihedral break
at both the leading edge and trailing edge.
6. Slide the right triangle around the wing panel keeping the base of the
right triangle flat against the posterboard at all times. This will trace out
the projected panel. Note: you may have to readjust the pencil lead from time
to time.
7. Cut the panel outline out as close to the inside edge of the pencil
marking as you can. Don't for get to draw a straight line between the
dihedral break marks before you start cutting out the panel.
8. Weigh the panel cutout then use the area/weight calculation from step 2 to
calculate the area of the panel. You now have the projected area of the
panel.
Jim Bradley
On PolySpan and contacts
========================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hi Don,
Yes, nitrate dope(unplasticized!)works fine to secure PolySpan to CF structures.
Put at least one coat, preferably 2, everywhere you want adhesion.
You might like to use covering adhesive, which is like nitrate dope with
glue added.
About your query on responses from the Ukrainian carbon merchants, keep in
mind this is Eurolands high season for holidays.
I know both Vasily and Oleg Stoev have been away from home for some vacation
and/or competition time.
So just keep trying and be patient...I have found they normally reply,
but it may take some days/weeks to do so.
Lee
Figure This
===========
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger,
Wow the SEN's been coming fast and furious. Hope you have time for
important things like preparing for team select.
HLG VELOCITY: The EZ way is with a tripod mounted camcorder with frame by
frame playback from a VCR. 30 frames per sec is the usual recording rate so
the model should go about 3'/frame (more for Bernie Boehm) initially and
slow down fairly rapidly. The fuselage length or wing LE to tail TE can be
used as a ruler. Many digital cameras have video and rapid frame
capability. Shooting a stopwatch should verify the frame rate.
Used this for F1C acceleration and it worked fine but only got a few
straight drive models. Tried it indoors for HLG, CLG climb and glide but
had dead batteries (in the camcorder). Should work great for rubber also.
The slick way to do it is with a strobe at night using a camera with time
exposure. Takes a really potent strobe running about 100/sec. Harold
Edgarton pioneered this at MIT and had feature articles in Life Mag and NOVA
(TV). A classic was a golf ball being driven with both the club and ball
motions easily seen.
The variable strobe is standard gear for vibration testing. Makes valve
springs look like Slinky's and everything looks like it's made of Jello. A
few days in the Vib Lab and you'll kiss the ground after every airline
flight.
MIGRAINES: Not being an MD, I cannot provide medical advice. A co-worker,
while sharp, was quite incapacitated with headaches, especially on Mondays.
A trip to an allergist indicated sensitivity to everything in his
traditional Sunday dinner. A major change in diet made a major improvement
in his well being.
Since #1 son came home from school similarly wiped out by headaches, we ran
him by the same allergist. After testing he said to try eliminating milk
(which he could have suggested w/o testing). Another amazing
transformation. His grades improved and grandma took him out to celebrate.
Had a milkshake that almost wiped him out. After eliminating the offensive
substance from the bod, sometimes reintroduction will show it OK, but other
times can result in anaphylactic shock. Not good. Bad actor can be
anything, not just MSG and SO2 which get the most press. Best to be in
presence of a friend who knows way to nearest ER.
Many allergists are more into dispensing pills to mask the symptoms than
eliminating the problem. One book I found helpful is: "Dr Mandell's 5-Day
Allergy Relief System"
Good luck,
H (reporter, not doctor)
Areas of wing tips
==================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Just read Martin's suggestion. Good idea but if you do not have a scale that
weighs in tenths of a gram what about using thin card say 0.5 to 1 mm?
John W
Re: HLG wing break
==================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. wrote,
<>
You can't really throw a HLG too hard, but it's easy to throw in such a
way--with whip action at wind-up and release--that will rip the wings off,
esp. large wingspans, or very light wood. Consider catapult LGs. They may
be only 10 grams, are launched much higher than HLG, and the wings don't
break, due to an arrow-straight pull-back and release. I sometimes rip HLG
inner panels, and never at glue joints. Only tells me that my launch was
getting sloppy (too whippy.) Or that I shouldn't have used that 4.1lb wood
on a 22" span given my kind of throw.
Mark Bennett
Sacramento
Bunt Ideas
============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Thanks to Chris Edge for bringing up a good discussion topic. I want
to add some comments to keep it alive.
Although I haven't been doing much competition flying lately, I've
been doing some F1A bunt experiments on my local small field. I was
motivated by watching Rene Limberger get some really high bunt
launches last year. Upon investigation I was amazed to discover that
he was moving the stab TE down immediately after launch, rather than
up as I had been doing for a long time. Also unusual was that he was
putting the stab TE up extremely high, about 1 cm, during the launch
acceleration, which then explains why he would move it down at launch.
Anyway, I've been trying the same type of thing with some success.
Another change with this setup is that the model needs to be launched
sooner when the towline is at an angle of about 65 to 70 degrees. At
this point the model is near the point of maximum pull and maximum
speed, and the nose is pointed up, even though it is significantly
short of being at maximum towline height.
For a long time I've been thinking too much like the old days when you
want the triginometry of the line to give max height. Then I would
use about .2 sec of up stab for the "pitch up" phase to turn the model
to a vertical climb. Like Allard says however, this up elevator is
putting on the brakes. I've found now that when I launch just a
little sooner that there is no need for pitchup elevator at all, and
all the extra speed more than makes up for the lower towline angle.
So I'm trying to forget everything about towline height at launch, and
instead think of the towline as a big slingshot where max speed is the
only thing that counts. I can move the stab TE down to a 0-0 cruise
position immediately after launch. I'm also trying to cruise up at an
angle a little less than vertical, like 75 or 80 degrees. Allard is
right that the only way is up, but again I'm thinking speed is king,
not triginometry. It takes more energy to turn the glider completely
vertical, and then takes more energy to bunt it over a complete 90
degrees.
Along with these stab changes, I'm also trimming the gliders so that
they accelerate while turning on the line. Depending on wind and air
conditions, I start accelerating when the glider is still pointing
away slightly and is just starting to come around. The result of all
this is higher speed and higher bunt potential, but less consistency
because the launch timing is much more critical. When the glider is
moving fast and turning, the release has to be exactly right. Too
early and the glider goes left at too steep an angle. Too late and it
goes right at too low an angle. If there is a little wind you can
turn your head and look at the glider, but if it is calm you are
running full bore and need eyes in the back of your head.
One last note. My Father Andrew did some computer simulations of F1A
bunts right when we built the first electronic bunters in 1993. He
published papers in the 93 & 94 NFFS symposium books. I've looked
back and found that his numbers for bunt timing and angles are still
very valid. The 1.9 second total time he shows is almost exactly what
I use now, and he shows that the best towline angle is 70 to 73
degrees. Should have listened to Dad sooner!
Ken Bauer
New max rules
=============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The effect of new max rules on team places
Thanks to Klaus Salzer for his interesting analysis of the effect of
round one max rule on the Euro Champs results. Klaus looked at the
effects on the individual results and has prompted me to look at team
places. Under the new rules team order is determined on the total time
in the 7 rounds with all flights counted to a 180 max (super max
extended time not included). The anticipated effect of this was that it
would reward the teams more for consistency throughout the day rather
than rewarding putting great weight on the long max in round one. In
other words, there would still be the chance to fight for team honours
even if in round 1 all 3 flyers had made 180 but not the super max. The
final order when there is a tie is decided on the minimum total of team
places, and that prompted me to compare the order if that method was
used to determine the complete order.
F1A
The actual results order (listed in order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10) was:
HUN UKR CZE CRO SLO GER FRA SVK ISR POL
If the full first round max time of 240 was used to determine team
placings the order would have been:
HUN CZE CRO SLO UKR SVK ISR POL FIN ROM
If the 2001 first round max of 210 was used the order would have been:
HUN CZE CRO SLO UKR SVK ISR POL GER DEN
If the team order was determined solely by the minimum sum of team
member places in the results (the system used to decide the team order
when there is a tie on total basic time):
HUN SLO RUS CZE CRO UKR GER FIN FRA POL
F1A comments: Ukraine suffer when more of round 1 is counted because
Victor had dropped below 180 on that round. Also with one dropped first
round flight, France and Germany drop out of the top 10. The ordering on
places pulls Russia from 14th actual to 3rd, because of the benefit of
having the individual winner on the team.
F1B
Actual results:
NED SVK ITA FRA BIH RUS NOR GER SWE POL
With the full round one time of 300 counted:
NED ITA BIH SVK GER YUG CZE AUT RUS FRA
With the 2001 round 1 max of 210 counted:
NED SVK ITA FRA BIH RUS GER SWE LTU YUG
On total of team member places:
NED SVK ITA BIH FRA YUG RUS LTU CZE GER
F1C
Actual results:
GER ITA BIH RUS POL HUN FRA GBR YUG
With the full round one time of 300 counted:
GER RUS ITA BIH POL HUN GBR FRA YUG
With the 2001 round 1 max of 240 counted:
GER RUS ITA BIH POL HUN GBR FRA YUG
On total of team member places:
GER RUS ITA BIH GBR POL HUN FRA YUG
F1C comments: Russia move up when extra time is counted because of
having all 3 flyers make the full 300 in round 1
In conclusion, it is notable that the same nation wins each event under
all schemes. It would seem that the new system is successful in keeping
the team result more open through the day without putting excessive
emphasis on round 1 performance.
Ian Kaynes
......................
Roger Morrell
