SEN 689 - 4 Apr 2002
- Details
- Category: Archive 2002
- Hits: 999
SCAT Electronic News 4 April 2002 issue 689
Table of Contents
=================
REPLY TO TONY MATHEWS Re Cold Rubber - King
F1Puppie - The Alien
More San Valeers Stuff - Coleman
F1C proposal - Boutillier
Re: Aram Schlossberg's comments on F1P. - Dilly
[Puppy editorial]
Various - Malkin
F1P or F1000? - Achterberg
CIAM Meeting and F1P - Segrave
More on Rubber Temp, - King
VD Props - Murphy
Omarama comments - Murphy
Photos from BC2002 and HOI2002 - Kiljunen
Holiday On Ice Results
REPLY TO TONY MATHEWS Re Cold Rubber
====================================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Tony, I use a figure of 13 ft/lbs/lb per Deg F, which is close to Pearce's
and my own tests. However when I did a simple calc on the height and
duration, using that figure I did get a slightly lower performance for Zero
Degs C. I will check the sim again to see if I have altered something in
the later versions. My rough calcs gave this result.
Temp (deg C) Flight time
30 372
0 323 (Not 348secs as from the sim)
A difference but not that much(?) Let me know if you have a significantly
different different conversion figure.
All the best
Peter King
F1P
===
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger,
Been watching with interest some of the comments on the new event.
It seems like there is a lot of negative stuff out there and some that
is totally wrong. And this is before anyone has even seen one of these
Puppies, (Must be where F1P came from), fly. I have been flying F1J
models for about three years now at 330-340 square inches and 8.5- 9.5
oz. Anyone who has seen them knows they are rather quick. F1P models
will probably be on the order of 9-10 oz. and the extra 70 square inches
should not slow them down that much. An extra 3 sec. of engine run
should put them higher than the present F1J's. Also with a lighter
loading, they should glide better.
Wherever the event came from, I feel that the intentions were good.
Trying to get more people involved is something we all need to do if
freeflight is to continue. How we do it is the difficult part. What we
need is more programs like Art Ellis has going in Connecticut. I only
wish I had the patience and teaching ability that Art does. Exposure to
flying is what got me hooked and I am sure it would get some of todays
kids started too. Finding people with the talent and the time to spend
will be tough.
I, like many others feel that without some sort of huge effort on the
part of the modeling community, freeflight as we know it today will
cease to exist. We somehow have to come up with some ideas.
This is not meant to be a Doomsday letter. Hopefully it will shake
loose a few talented people who can get some interest stirred up with
our youth.
Bob
More San Valeers Stuff
======================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
San Valeer Annual....additional info for T, Thorkildsen's SEN 688 note on
this event.............
The FAI evenys on Saturday are flown in 1 hour rounds beginning at 9am and
ending at 4pm , flyoffs begin at 4:15pm. First roun times are: F1A @ 210
seconds and F1B&C @ 240 seconds.
No long rounds in the F1G, H, & J classes on Sunday.
Thermals,
Roger C.
F1C proposal
============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
I am rather disapointed by the F1P rule that was adopted in the last
CIAM meeting which can lead to very slow models lacking of the
necessary thrill.
In January I made a proposal to Ian Kaynes which would have given
more exciting models.
Please find there attached a copy.
Any comments?
Bernard Boutillier
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrée Bernard Boutillier
To: Ian W. KAYNES
Cc: Sandy PIMENOFF ; Pierre CHAUSSEBOURG
; Alain ROUX
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 2:16 PM
Subject: F1C proposal
>
>
>
> Dear Ian,
>
> I send you as an attached file a proposal for a new F1C class intended
> to overcome all the drawbacks of the curent specification. This is not
> a one's man proposal as I am in close relationship with Pierre Chaussebourg
> our delegate to CIAM and with Alain Roux the chairman of our National
> Free Flight Committee.
> I believe that you are a reader of Scat Electronic News, so you have
> probably read all the debate about cost of F1C.
> The cost is not the single reason of this proposal, the reasons are:
> -Excess performance of the curent models, the reduction of motor run
> becoming useless with the geared engines. For sure we cannot shorten
> again the motor run, it is already ridiculous now.
> -Safety: The current models are so heavy, so fast, so streamlined that any
> misfunction leads to a disaster, for the model or worse for attending
> persons.
> - Cost, availablity of parts, attractiveness for new competitors. The
> current models are so expensive that the competitors do not dare to risk
> them in anything but perfect weather or field conditions. Furthermore
> the total investment in money and time discourages newcomers.
> For instance in France we are only 6 competitors, only one being less
> than 30 years old. When the elder will stop flying, they will not be
> replaced if the current class is not replaced by another one.
>
> Analysing this reasons a new formula becomes necessary with, in mind,
> the following guidelines:
>
> Add simplicity.
> Add lightness.
> Keep a reasonable rate of climb.
> Get a sensible motor run.
> Reduce impact energy.
> Get a good sized model (avoid the toy image).
> The new rule should make unnecessaty hi-tech building.
>
> Fo these reasons and to be homogeneous with a F1A& F1B classes
> the surface requirement is the same as F1A (32 to 34 dm2) with a minimum
> weight of 450g giving a surface loading only marginnally higher than
> F1A-F1B, thus giving a slower flying speed.
> Low speed + low weight low impact.
> The maximum engine capacity is fixed to 1.5cm3 to retain the current power
> loading, with a ban from the very beginning of exhaust extensions,
> gear reductors and radio DT.
> The climb rate would be much lower due to increased drag of flying surfaces,
> thus making unnecessary hi-tech building and associated gadgetry.
> In the light of earlier experience with building/ flying 1.5cm3 models
> according to the current rules and with F1A sized models with .049 engines
> (Motorsegler in Germany, Monotype in France) 10 sec motor run seems a
> good duration to start with. The length of motor run is the easier
> parameter
> to ajust after building/testing prototypes, or when would appear fully
> developped racing engines.
> At first sight one can consider the extended max as non necessary.
>
> I believe that this proposal can be an answer to the situation and to the
> request made by Sandy Pimenoff to find quickly a solution to have more
> attractive FAI FF Power.
>
> With very best regards.
> Bernard Boutillier
> This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>
> In his answer to Bob Sifleet, Sandy Pimenoff expressed a concern about
> F1J being hit by gears.For further information about F1J: In Lost Hills
> an Ukrainian modeller has presented in the "black market"area a F1J
> engine fitted with a gear reductor and a three-bladed folding carbon
prop.
> Not really a Junior's engine.
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Aram Schlossberg's comments on F1P.
=======================================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Oh dear, oh dear ! If we agree that the present F1J class is unsuitable for
juniors (as evidenced by the appearance of only four nations at the last
Championships) by virtue of the need for carbon structures, brakes, bunt
and maybe gears, then clearly some change was needed very quickly. The
reason we have free-flight technical meetings is to discuss both agenda
proposals and anything else that the Bureau meeting the previous day feel s
necessary. It's not some sort of sinister conspiracy, Aram ! Any FAI member
can send either a delegate or a specialist observer or, indeed, both. On
this particular occasion the United States had two F/F specialists and a
further observer at that meeting, out of a total of fourteen attending, and
the vote in favour of the new class was unanimous. I was at that meeting.
I'm not sure how Aram regards an aircraft weighing 8.8 ozs (250 g.) as
heavy, and he seems to be confused as to the moving surfaces rule.
"Aerodynamic surfaces to remain fixed in flight, except for changes in
camber or incidence" are Aram's words, not the F1P specification's; the
actual wording is "Only one change may be made to the wing or tail
incidence or camber during the flight before dethermalising". While that
would certainly allow the aircraft to bunt, but not, of course to
'un-bunt', the resulting glide would probably preclude any need for a
dethermaliser, as that bunt would constitute the single permitted incidence
change.
It would be nice if we could get away from some of the second-guessing and
anti-CIAM carping that, thankfully rarely, comes from one or two quarters;
we need to get more young flyers competing in free-flight, and the people
at the meeting in Lausanne last month are trying to achieve that aim. I'm
sure that within the AMA the mechanism exists for Aram to put his proposals
for consideration in good time for inclusion on future CIAM agendas, and
we look forward to discussing them.
Martin Dilly
New Zealand Delegate to CIAM (but UK resident)
[Martin
As you can there are a number of Puppy comments in this issue.
Some are for and some against. It is interesting to see that
both the Alien and Achterberg feel that the model can be made to
perform very well. However it looks like Taylor Gunder, Austin's
younger brother will not embarque on the same Odessey as he flies
F1B! .. but we digress.
There is no dispute that the low level of Junior participation needs
to be addressed.
But as I said in a previous issue there is not universal agreement
in the way this came about. While the proceedings were carried out
according to the rules, it just did not look good to the FAI FF community
that no one one told about the proposed F1P event before the meeting.
As Martin points out the US delegates took part in the meeting, as we would
hope they would. But they did not have the advantage of being able to
consult their constituents before hand. As we can see from the above
some do have opinions on this Puppy. ]
Various
=======
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
F1P.
I must say that our FAI group has quite a nice little cosy arrangement
going. No, we cannot change the Rules to suit us but surprise ,surprise, if
it suits the small coterie, wow, the worlds your oyster.
Its about time that this organisation, FAI was brought back into the real
World and stop trying to cling onto the shirt tail of the Olympic
Organisation. Why can't we vote these people out and install some who
have the modelling fraternities interests at heart?.
Super Maxed.
Mike, you could have been like Anselmo Zeri who arrived at Omarama
SANS models and just enjoyed our country as he obviously does.
Regardless of the very stupid Super Max rule I am sure we could have
kept you happily entertained in Omarama (pop. 321).
VD Prop.
Louis, the diameter was controlled by a geared disc ( approx. .5mm pitch)
which operated on the shafts holding the prop. blades. These shafts had
teeth cut into them for about half the diameter of the shafts allowing both
the diameter to vary (approx 20mm) and also the pitrch of the blades to
change. This was in addition to the obvious pitch change caused due to
the increase in diameter. I could imagine all sorts of headaches if he had
an arrival and benmt one of the shafts.
Andrei did not use this prop. in the flyoff, but I had asked him the night
before if he would and he intimated he may if it was very calm, which of
course it was not.
John.
F1P or F1000?
=============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hello Roger;
Well, a new event! The thought was nice, but the approach leaves something
to be desired. I agree with Arum on "only" one point, it should have been
put out for discussion, before starting a new event.
What we have is basically a 403 sq. in wing with a 59 inch span. Basically
a fat Maverick at 9 ounces!
I have seen Doug Galbreathe fly an 11 plus ounce Maverick with an APC prop
and my guess is that in 10 seconds it would get 700 plus feet. Wow!!
Now, thin the airfoil down, put a 10% stab on it and reduce the weight 15%
and I believe the first one to a 1000 feet wins!! These models will not be
slow even with the large wing area. The short span, with its reduced induced
drag, will more than make up for the area.
Next, what about the small field criteria? 3 minute max? What's up with
that?? In short this new event does not address anything that needs to be
addressed! A suggestion, if I might, scrape this one and start over. Define
the goals, objectives and purpose of a new event. Let's start this one over
and please get some input from power designers-flyers. Glider and Wakefield
flyers really should not design this one.
Since, it really has not started yet, lets put this one back on the
drawing board. If you want junior flyers, then advertise the event.
Advertise it in Kite Magazines and all the Aero Modeling magazines.
If they know about it, there will be a % that will be interested. Pretend it
is a brand new product and you are looking for customers. Then run an ad
campaign that is directed at the youth and you will see new flyers. Remember
what kids are interested in; high-tech, speed and racy looks!! Short, fat
nostalgia is not their bag!!
Just another opinion, not meant to upset anyone!
Thermals'
CIAM Meeting and F1P
====================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Urgent?? URGENT??? Don't make me laugh!
What happened between the last Junior Champs and this Meeting? They were
held in July 11th,2001 and presumkbly the entries closed one month
before,early June 2001 That's almost NINE moths before the Meeting. Repaet
NINE MONTHS!!! As Kaynes says, Pimenoff was concerned by the low level(or
number) of countries participating. If this is so, I assume that he was
monitoring the level of entries in these Junior Champs. Note that in the
last three 4,5 and 4 countries entered, the 5th being made up of Austin
Gunder as the sole representative of the USA. So it was almost 4,4 and 4!!
So the problem(if there really was one) was not new, not "urgent" as
claimed. I'm trying not to laugh,still.
Since there was no urgency, why were not all the member Aeroclubs not
circulated with this question of poor country participation?? so that a
sound proposal could be formulated. Why? and Why again? Answer: the "Bureau"
was saving up to spring on an unsuspecting meeting where it would be rubber
stamped by the 19 dumbies there,as happened. Just like Joseph Stalin's
Russia.
When the Junior question comes up, those not too lazy or who are a little
concerned draw up and publish a plan for the "Junior" modeller. Or produce a
"new"specification to promote the junior class. But it has been pointed out
that Junior interest is promoted by direct coaching of the juniors
concerned, like they do in France where there is a thriving junior movement.
But only in the F1A and F1B classes.
A better way than producing a "new" 1/2Ac classwould be to have made some
rules or set up a means(monetary if necessary or a committee) to find a way
to do this DIRECT promotion of the Juniors in the F1J power class in the
various non-competing at present countries.
Like Finland.
Questions: What EXACTLY took place vat the CIAM Meeting. Were the delegates
coerced in some way into a unanimous approval of this so-called "new" class,
19 for, none against and no abstentions. I find it very difficult to believe
that 19 adult intelligent people colud agree with something so blatantly
undemocratic. Just by telling them that it was "urgent" and otherwise a year
would be lost??? As John MacEnroe used to say, "You can't be serious!" Or
Were they in awe of the "Bureau" whoever "they" are? The "bureau" is made up
of human beings with all the relevant foibles:hopes dreams, jealousies and
spites.
Second question : who are the "Bureau" members?
Third question:Who voted in these clauses that say thyat the "Bureau" are
exempt etc,so that they can override and produce new classes at will. Was it
another set of dummbies again???
It looke to me that the CIAM is a law unto itself, like a dictatorship, or a
banana republic. The sooner these "special attributes of the Bureau are
rescinded the better for modelling, the better. And the so-called "
urgent"
decision to creat another 1/2A class. Urgent? Don't make me laugh!
More on Rubber Temp,
=================================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
I have reworked my Temp data in the simulation as there were some oddities
that had crept in. I checked the actual Er of each case and they now are
close to the 13 ft/lbs/lb per deg F, hat seems the average figure used. The
interesting thing was that the effects on Motor run, Height and Duration were
all different. The Er loss from 30 to zero deg C was 13.2% but the effect
was more severe on the height achieved and less on the absolute duration. I
think the extra motor run helps to prolong the duration slightly but, even if
there are some minor errors in the simulation, it does show that the outcome
of reducing temp is more complex than at first would appear.
Here are the new results:
TEMP (deg C) Run )sec) Ht (m) DUR (sec)
30 44.2 107.1 385
20 45.1 100.6 365
0 47.7 91.8 340
Drop in Dur. from 30 to zero deg C 45 secs
= 11.7%
Drop in Ht. (m), from 30 to zero deg C 15.2 m
= 14.2%
The respective difference is :-
Run gains 7.9% 3.5 secs
Ht loss 14.2%
Dur. Loss 11.7%
Peter King
VD props
=========
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger, expanding on your response to Lious joyner's query on SCAT 688,
Andrei Khrebtov had two different VD prop assemblies with him-the first
altered diameter by 28mm (and obviously pitch as a direct consequence of the
alteration in blade diameter), and the second newer type used an Andruikov
type cam system to alter pitch over a 10 degree range. This one also altered
diameter, but over a 20mm range. How he controlled the proportioning of the
variable pitch effect from both mechanisms was not clear. Mechanically, what
I saw was based on a rack and pinion mechanism, operating against return
spring tension (ie at high torque levels the spring force was overcome
allowing the diameter to increase, as torque fell off the spring acted to
reduce diameter)
I have photos of the units, and a full report of the contest will appear
in AMI in due course. Others did likewise, so perhaps the info will appear
in FFONZ NEWZ, FFDu and the NZMAA website.
Chris Murphy
From some of the questions posed to Andrei in the seminar (his english
was fairly limited) I gathered that the change in diameter is continuous
rather than stepped. As far as I can ascertain, he did not use the newer hub
at Omarama
Omarama comments
================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger, a few comments on your report in SCAT News #687.
(i) we ended up with a total of 38 competitors in the Omarama Cup (a few
less in the Kotuku Cup, due to some people being unable to get time off
work). This was well down on the 55 competitors of 1998, but understandable
in the light of a.) Sept 11 and b) the proximity to the recent World Champs
in terms of people's travel budgets. Personally I was a little disappointed
in the attendance (or the lack of it) from Western Europe. However your
second visit and Brian Van Nest's third would suggest that we are doing
something right!
(ii) Rob and I, being suckers for punishment, will do it again in 2004
[there should have been an event in 2000, but that coincided with my TOD
with the UN as some will know, and no other South Island FFer was prepared
to organise and run the series in my absence.] The intent has always been to
run the event(s) on a bi-annual basis
(iii) Scheduling. I apologise for the weather, which though better than
1998, still made life difficult at times. When we set the dates we try to
synchronise with the two Australian World cup events-either setting ours
before or after theirs, which are centred on the Easter break.This year we
were caught out by the early Easter, and the atumn equinox, which fell on
March 20-right in the middle of our events. In NZ, and especially at
Omarama, the equinox is notorious for bringing winds and gales for around a
week either side. As it turned out we got off relatively lightly (compared
with other parts of the country) but we will take the equinox into account
when scheduling future events.
(iv) we will continue with the technical seminars, providing we can find
suitable speakers
(v) I have discussed extending the access track from flightline 4 SW to
flightline 5 with the landowner, and received clearance to do so. This will
markedly improve vehicle retrieval for that vector for future contests.
Apart from that, I believe we have now evolved the organisation and site
layout to the point where it will need no further development
Chris Murphy
Photos from BC2002 and HOI2002
==============================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Please add this information to SCAT electronic news:
Some Photos from Bear Cup2002 and Holiday On Ice 2002:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~kiljunen/bc2002.htm
http://www.helsinki.fi/~kiljunen/hoi2002.htm
Harri Kiljunen
-----------
F1A, Holiday on Ice 2002
=========================
PlaceSurname Name NatiOmg1Omg2Omg3Omg4Omg5Sum FlyOTotal
1 MAKAROV SERGEI RUS 210 180 180 180 180 930 300 1230
2 DE BOER PIETER NED 210 180 180 180 180 930 292 1222
3 ARINGER GERHARD AUT 210 180 180 180 180 930 291 1221
4 KULMAKKO KIMMO FIN 210 180 180 180 180 930 288 1218
5 NYHEGN JES DAN 210 180 180 180 180 930 287 1217
6 YABLONOVSKY IGOR UKR 210 180 180 180 180 930 286 1216
7 VALO JARI FIN 210 180 180 180 180 930 284 1214
8 HEIKKINEN JUHA FIN 210 180 180 180 180 930 277 1207
9 FINDAHL PER SWE 210 180 180 180 180 930 275 1205
10 SCHELLHASE JÖRG GER 210 180 180 180 180 930 272 1202
11 PAJUNEN TIMO FIN 210 180 180 180 180 930 268 1198
12 KOSONOZHKIN MIKHAIL RUS 210 180 180 180 180 930 266 1196
13 NYHEGN BO DAN 210 180 180 180 180 930 264 1194
14 VAN DIJK MAARTEN NED 210 180 180 180 180 930 256 1186
15 TÄHKÄPÄÄ HEIKKI FIN 210 180 180 180 180 930 254 1184
15 LIHTAMO MATTI FIN 210 180 180 180 180 930 254 1184
17 HELLGREN ROBERT SWE 210 180 180 180 180 930 252 1182
18 KUTVONEN ARI FIN 210 180 180 180 180 930 251 1181
18 VARUSKIVI VESA FIN 210 180 180 180 180 930 251 1181
20 ABERLENC FEDERIC FRA 210 180 180 180 180 930 248 1178
21 RONKANEN PEKKA FIN 210 180 180 180 180 930 246 1176
22 KUNINGAS JUHAN FIN 210 180 180 180 180 930 237 1167
23 ISOTALO TOMMI FIN 210 180 180 180 180 930 233 1163
24 EDLUND ULF SWE 210 180 180 180 180 930 217 1147
25 TRACHEZ BERNARD FRA 210 180 180 180 180 930 216 1146
26 KREETZ IVO NED 210 180 180 180 180 930 210 1140
27 KLUNGREHAUG ATLE NOR 210 180 180 180 180 930 207 1137
28 TROGEN GÖRAN SWE 210 180 180 180 180 930 205 1135
29 CROGUENNEC VINCENT FRA 210 180 180 180 180 930 184 1114
30 VARHOS DENIZ SWE 210 180 180 180 180 930 182 1112
30 HOLMBOM MIKAEL SWE 210 180 180 180 180 930 182 1112
32 NARDIN MATEJ SLO 210 180 180 180 180 930 180 1110
33 HEIKKONEN TIMO FIN 210 180 180 180 180 930 0 930
34 LEINO LAURA FIN 210 180 180 180 178 928 928
35 SUNDSTEDT INGE SWE 210 180 174 180 180 924 924
36 RUNNARI VALVE FIN 210 180 180 180 166 916 916
37 WIVARDSSON SOFIA SWE 210 180 180 171 173 914 914
38 TÄRNROTH MARTIN SWE 189 180 180 180 180 909 909
39 OLDFIELD DAVID GBR 210 180 180 155 172 897 897
40 AMLIE HÅVARD NOR 207 180 170 163 175 895 895
41 PERSSON ANDERS SWE 210 180 125 180 180 875 875
42 KLEIN RALF GER 160 180 148 180 180 848 848
43 VAN ELDIK ANTON NED 210 180 180 180 70 820 820
44 NERENG VEGAR NOR 210 180 64 180 180 814 814
45 FÄRBER MATHIAS GER 90 180 180 180 180 810 810
45 CHALLINE JEAN PIERRFRA 210 180 180 60 180 810 810
47 KUEHN JENS GER 210 180 55 180 180 805 805
48 CARTER JOHN E. GBR 210 180 165 112 90 757 757
48 KUIKKA PETRI FIN 210 180 180 85 102 757 757
50 STEFFENSEN INGOLF NOR 135 180 140 180 103 738 738
51 KLUNGREHAUG(JRGYRI NOR 127 180 168 129 120 724 724
52 OLSTAD SVEIN NOR 191 180 99 120 128 718 718
53 KILJUNEN HARRI FIN 104 125 180 135 155 699 699
54 AXELSSON (jr)ERLAND SWE 136 123 0 150 160 569 569
55 KLEMENTSEN ANDERS NOR 182 161 11 0 0 354 354
56 HEIKKONEN ILKKA FIN 142 180 0 0 322 322
F1B Holiday on Ice 2002
=========================
PlaceSurname Name NationOmg1Omg2Omg3Omg4Omg5Sum FlyOFlyOfTotal
1 ANDRIUKOV ALEX USA 210 180 180 180 180 930 420 424 1774
2 WOOLNER MICHAEL GBR 210 180 180 180 180 930 420 390 1740
3 EIMAR BROR SWE 210 180 180 180 180 930 420 353 1703
4 GHIO WALT USA 210 180 180 180 180 930 407 1337
5 STEFANCHUCK STEPHAN UKR 210 180 180 180 180 930 403 1333
6 WIVARSSON GUNNAR SWE 210 180 180 180 180 930 388 1318
7 PEERS BRIAN RUSSELLGBR 210 180 180 180 180 930 384 1314
8 ROSONOKS VIKTOR LAT 210 180 180 180 180 930 376 1306
9 SKJULSTAD PER TH NOR 210 180 180 180 180 930 363 1293
10 WALTONEN YRJÖ FIN 210 180 180 180 180 930 360 1290
11 BUKIN ALEXEI UKR 210 180 180 180 180 930 353 1283
12 MÖNNINGHOF PETER GER 210 180 180 180 180 930 351 1281
13 BROBERG HÅKAN SWE 210 180 180 180 180 930 330 1260
14 SEIFERT ROLF GER 210 180 180 180 180 930 328 1258
15 HOLLANDER NILS ERIK SWE 210 180 180 180 180 930 326 1256
16 ISOTALO JANNE FIN 210 180 180 180 180 930 323 1253
17 STENDAL HAGEN GER 210 180 180 180 180 930 317 1247
18 RUYTER PIM NED 210 180 180 180 180 930 311 1241
19 ISOTALO JUHANI FIN 210 180 180 180 180 930 306 1236
20 LINKOSALO TAPIO FIN 210 180 180 180 180 930 303 1233
21 KUTVONEN ARI FIN 210 180 180 180 180 930 298 1228
22 KHOUZIEV RADIK RUS 210 180 180 180 180 930 296 1226
23 WOODHOUSE MICHAEL GBR 210 180 180 180 180 930 293 1223
24 FORSMAN JANNE SWE 210 180 180 180 180 930 292 1222
25 CHIK ARTHUR UKR 210 180 180 180 180 930 291 1221
26 MEUSBURGER HARALD AUT 210 180 180 180 180 930 288 1218
27 ÅKERMAN JOHAN SWE 210 180 180 180 180 930 279 1209
28 BORTNE TOR NOR 210 180 180 180 180 930 265 1195
29 OSCHATZ ALBRECHT GER 210 180 180 180 180 930 264 1194
30 VAN HORN HENK NED 210 180 180 180 180 930 248 1178
31 WOLD JAN NOR 210 180 180 180 180 930 160 1090
32 HOFFMAN MANFRED GER 210 180 180 180 180 930 108 1038
33 GIRCYS LAURYNAS LAT 210 180 180 180 180 930 0 930
33 ROLANDAS MACKUS LTU 210 180 180 180 180 930 0 930
33 MIRONENKOV VLADIMIR RUS 210 180 180 180 180 930 0 930
36 TAYLOR IVAN GBR 210 179 180 180 180 929 929
37 ROHRKE RICH USA 210 157 180 180 180 907 907
38 PRATT JOHN USA 210 180 153 180 180 903 903
39 ASLETT BERNHARD GBR 197 180 161 180 180 898 898
40 LUCASSEN ROEL NED 209 180 180 146 180 895 895
41 TORGERSEN OLE NOR 155 180 180 180 180 875 875
42 SALZER KLAUS W AUT 61 180 180 180 180 781 781
43 KILPELÄINEN OSSI FIN 179 106 145 180 144 754 75
F1C Holiday on Ice 2002
=========================
PlaceSurname Name NationOmg1Omg2Omg3Omg4Omg5Sum FlyOTotal
1 KUUKKA KAARLE FIN 240 180 180 180 180 960 382 1342
2 CUTHBERT JOHN GBR 240 180 180 180 180 960 342 1302
3 NIIRANEN TIMO FIN 240 180 180 180 180 960 312 1272
4 LINDNER ANDREAS GER 240 180 180 180 180 960 311 1271
5 GRETTER JOHN GER 218 180 180 180 180 938 938
6 ARINGER GERHARD AUT 128 180 180 180 180 848 848
7 ÅGREN GUNNAR SWE 224 180 0 180 180 764 764
Smalliday on Ice 2002
Resultater klasse P30
PlasEtternavn Fornavn NasjoOmg1 Omg2 Omg3 Sum FlyOfTotal
1 NERENG VEGAR NOR 120 120 120 360 206 566
2 SKJULSTAD PER TH NOR 120 120 120 360 201 561
3 AMLIE HÅVARD NOR 120 120 120 360 181 541
4 FORSMAN JANNE SWE 120 120 120 360 145 505
5 WOLD JAN NOR 120 99 120 339 339
6 KLUNGREHAUG(JR) FRID NOR 49 52 65 166
Resultater klasse F1G
PlasEtternavn Fornavn NasjoOmg1 Omg2 Omg3 Sum FlyOfTotal
1 BUKIN ALEXEI UKR 120 120 120 360 304 664
2 BROBERG HÅKAN SWE 120 120 120 360 235 595
3 STEFANCHUCK STEPHAN UKR 120 120 120 360 219 579
Resultater klasse F1H
PlasEtternavn Fornavn NasjoOmg1 Omg2 Omg3 Sum OFlyOfTotal
1 KOSONOZHKIN MIKHAIL RUS 120 120 120 360 224 584
2 LINKOSALO TAPIO FIN 120 120 120 360 158 518
3 WOLD JAN NOR 120 120 88 328 328
4 STEFFENSEN INGOLF NOR 70 120 120 310 310
5 AMLIE HÅVARD NOR 120 120 47 287 287
6 NERENG VEGAR NOR 101 0 0 101 101
..................
Roger Morrell
