SEN 664 - 9 Jan 2002
- Category: Archive 2002
- Hits: 789
SCAT Electronic News 9 January 2002 issue 664
Table of Contents
America's Cup 2001 Final Report - Parker & Coussens
F1C & F1J MODEL AIRCRAFT REGULATIONS - The Alien, Sifleet, Pimenoff et al
G/K Hummer - Dukie
High Priced F1 Event? - Morris
....ing gears - Brokenspar
Hot Pink Spectra Line - Limberger
fai meet - Wilkinson
Sabola e mail adress - Wilkinson
Virus - Pennington
America's Cup 2001 Final Report
The year 2001 was a banner year for Free Flight in the USA. The
international community showed its heart and resolve to stay the course
in holding the World Champs in Lost Hills barely three weeks
after 9/11. And the American community stayed fast in its relentless
pursuit of what has become the Gold Standard in American FAI Free
Flight, the America's Cup.
The contest calendar was extended yet again to accommodate a resurgence
in eastern contests, and overall participation has actually increased
this year. But to reach to Top Five, fliers had to demonstrate
consistent excellence, both in competitiveness and equipment. This year
was perhaps the greatest cliffhanger in terms of down-to-the-wire
performances. The King Orange determined the winner in three of the six events!
In F1A, Brian Van Nest started the year with a bang, winning or placing
second in his first three contests, and continued strong showings throughout
the year. Lee Hines had the year of his life, placing highly in multiple
contests. Especially noteworthy was their fly-off duel at the US Out door
Champs, each flying at the top of his game with the best-trimmed ships
in the country, with Lee winning and Brian placing second. It all came down
to the KOI, with 1 point separating them. Brian managed second place
and Lee placed in the middle of the pack, out of the money; thus Brian
held onto the Cup, his third, by one point! Jim Parker, always in the
hunt, had a shot but the Patterson pretty much sealed it for him, and he
took third place only four points back. Fourth and fifth went to Omer
Erguner, a newcomer to the Top Five, and Andrew Barron ,who as in
many years past, had a good run.
In F1B, Bill Booth and Paul Crowley traded the lead during the course of
the year, alternating with Bent Box award winner Dick Wood, and perennial
strong runners Walt Ghio, George Batiuk and Alex Andriukov. The year held
some awe-inspiring moments throughout the year in some fly-off flights
which exceeded 8 minutes! Paul scored big where it counted, and Bill made
a late charge which got him to thinking that had a shot at it. Thus the stage
was set for Decision Number 2 at the KOI. The last flight was between
Bill and Paul, one-on-one, for all the marbles. They scored 1 and 2
respectively, which tied them at 105 points. The tie breaker was Bill's
points in a sixth contest which made him the 2001 Wakefield Champion! Dick
Wood scored points in 14 contests (although he flew quite a few more)
and finished 8 points back in third place. Wakefield 2001 USA team
member Walt Ghio and World Champs CD George Batiuk placed fourth
In F1C, the incredible performance of these ships was showcased with
multiple ten-minute morning rounds. Bob Gutai and Andrei Kirelenko
ping-ponged the lead throughout the year, but it was pretty clear after
his Sierra Cup win that Bob was going to take the America's Cup home
this year. Faust Parker placed well, but the lack of bonus points kept
him out of the hunt. Randy Archer placed fourth with scores in only
five contests, and the "guy with the red wings", Doug Joyce, gave it a
go with points in 8 contests, placing fifth with his top four finishes.
The mini-events held their share of suspense right up to the end,
although Bob White put Coupe away pretty early with three wins at
large bonus-point contests at the beginning of the year, then sealed
it at Tangent with his final win for the year. Dick Wood proved that he
does it for the love of it, as he flew at KOI with no possibility of a
win, and settled for a strong second, only three seconds back. Ever the
competitor, Ralph Cooney brought up third place. Hank Cole nipped at
Ralph's heels, only 2 points back, with only four scoring contests.
And finally, America's Cup rookie Dick Ivers achieved fifth place.
The 2001 F1H Cup was a story of surprises indeed! Going into KOI, 6-time
winner Martyn Cowley held a 4-point lead over Lee Hines and Bob Sifleet,
with Norm Smith just two points behind them. Both Bob and Lee had a
numerical chance of beating Martyn IF they either of them won, and for Lee,
IF enough contestants flew to add at least two bonus points. Well,
12 contestants showed up which yielded three points. As Martyn did not go
to KOI, the Cup was Bob's and Lee's to lose. The day and the Cup went to
Bob, who in fact did win the KOI! Lee had an uncharacteristically so-so
day, thus Martyn retained second place, with Lee third. Brian Van
Nest's second place at KOI vaulted him to fourth place, just one point
ahead of Norm!
In the screamer F1J event Faust Parker placed either first or second in
all of the contests he scored in, and his victory required all first
places. Well-traveled "Alien" Gutai wore out the hyperdrive in his spaceship,
scoring in eleven contests, but had to settle for second place. Northwestern
flier Mike Roberts barely beat out current Junior World Champion Austin
Gunder for third place, and perennial competitor Jean Pailet brought
up a distant, but still respectable fifth.
So the America's Cup demonstrated a strong start for the New Millenium.
New f aces entered and scored well; veteran competitors continued the
quest, and even with 29 contests, the winners of three of the cups were
not determined till the last round of the last contest. The high
standards of the Top Five require at least a first and a second place,
and to win requires at least three firsts with bonus points. The honor of
placing in the Top Five and the honor of Champion will be shared indeed at
the America's Cup banquet on Saturday, 16 February at the Wasco Valley
Rose Country Club.
Tom Coussens and Jim Parker
F1C & F1J MODEL AIRCRAFT REGULATIONS
I believe this warrants immediate attention on the SCAT page. I will have
some comments to follow on some of the gross exaggerations in Mr. Sifleet's
----- Original Message -----
From: Sandy Pimenoff
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 7:53 AM
Subject: F1C & F1J MODEL AIRCRAFT REGULATIONS
This is a message from the FAI 'Aeromodelling Information'
When posting to this list, do not attach any file to your message.
They are automatically deleted by our server.
CIAM Home Page: http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/
I recently received the message below from Robert Sifleet
of the United States.
He is concerned about recent developments in F1C, and what
implications that may have on the future of that category.
I have myself been concerned about the future of both F1C and
F1J for some years because of the ever decreasing interest
enjoyed by these categories, and I have stated my views in my
reply to Robert, with copy to the CIAM Bureau.
As this question undoubtedly commands fairly wide interest I
have decided to circulate these messages to the broader
audience of the CIAM info address as well.
It seems obvious to me that F1C and especially F1J need to
be made more attractive to the flyers, if we want FAI FF Power
to prosper in the future.
I urge all of you who are interested in FF Power, to discuss
this item and come forward with constructive feedback.
We need your good ideas, and we need them now.
From: Sandy Pimenoff
Reply-To: "CIAM Bureau Email List"
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 21:07:52 +0200
Subject: Re: F1C GEARED MODELS
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:02:11 +0000 (UTC)
> It is now apparent there is now 2
> classes of F1C. Those with gears and those without gears.
> I am strongly reccomending the propopsal to ban the use of geared engines
> F1C be passed. Failure to do so will result in the number of f1c flyers
> the U.S.A. will drop from 38 ( those who participated in the last team
> selection) to about 15. The rest of the world I imagine will loose
> an even higher percentage.
> As I stated last year,this must be done as an
> emergency basis at the next CIAM meeting.There is a precidence for this
> action. The banning.of tuned pipes in 1970 was done for the same reasons
> geared engines present.
> 1. Excess performance. The engine run for F1C was recently lowered
> to 5 seconds to reduce performance. now the geared engine models have
> greater performance capability than previously obtained with 7 second
> runs with conventional models. If geared motors are not disallowed, what
> will be done do reduce performance in the future? A further reduction of
> engine run will make geared engines a requirement to be competitive.
> 2. Availability. There are only 2 sources of the geared engines which
> cannot be made by the average modeller on a unimat. complex machining
> capability ts required to make units. Even nelson enfines will not not
> produce the gear units.Verbitsky makes the units but wants to sell
> models, not just the geared engines. I made an inqury as to when I could
> obtain 2 of his geared models, and was told the earliest delivery would be
> October of 2002. Doug Galbreath made a limited production run of gear
> for Nelson engines. he has sold all of them and does not plan to make
> in the near future. Here in the U.S.A. those who do not have geared
> engines now will not be able to compete effectively against those who do
> our team selection next september. Is this the reason nearly 1/2 of our
> modellers may just quit flying F1C.
> 3. Cost. The cost of the
> geared engines is nearly prohitive here in the U.S.A. and in many other
> countries the price is most likely unaffordable. The cost of a
> F1C model is about $500.00 to $600.00 usd. the price of Galbreath's
> engine is $800.00 + $80.00 for 1 propeller + $100.00 for engine mount &
> This is nearly $1000.00 for a complete unit. ( $750.00 more than an
> engine) Verbitsky's price is $2100.00 for a complete model and he will
> reluctancy sell just a complete fuslage with geared engine for $1500.
> (These are prices that were quoted to me) The increase of cost of a model
> 2 to 3 times what we were spending 2 years ago is just too much for
> modellers budget for this hobby.
> 4. Safety. There have been reports of
> the vibration from the engines running up to top rpm with the large heavy
> pitched propeller has caused structural failures in the models The
> fin came off of a model at a recent contest and caused a crash on the
> line. Also the large carbon fiber propellers are subject to damage on
> landings and there have been several reports of propeller fialure the next
> time the engine is run.
> I urge you to convince the free flight sub
> committee to pass a rule to ban the use of geared engines in class F1C on
> emergency basis effective imediately, and reccomend to the ciam to pass
> Respectively Submitted,
> ROBERT SIFLEET
> COPY : Ian Kaynes
Thank you for your message. I did approach Ian Kaynes in the
"geared" matter before the 2000 Bureau meeting.
He did not see any need for action: "Peformance
only marginally improved" or words to that effect.
The fact is that the F1C specs have not been much modified
in fifty (50) years!!
Except for a moderate power loading increase some 30 years ago
and the pipe ban, only the engine run has been shortened
So the obvious answer to your question, in order to maintain
progress as seen by the FF subcom, is that we will go from 5
to 3 sec, and later 2 sec; with perhaps 1 sec in flyoffs.
Is that what we want?
Personally I would not call that progress, on the contrary it
is stagnation. The 2,5 cc motor size has been stubbornly
maintained over 50 years, a situation which to my
mind is nothing but ridiculous. In Formula 1 auto racing, a
comparable situation would be that we still had 12 liter motors,
now developing over 3000 hp. But many competitors, especially
in the subcom, have fanatically supported this policy.
The two most frequent arguments have been "There are no suitable
1,5 or 1cc engines" and "We have invested so much in our motors,
it would be grossly unfair ....".
The answer to the first argument is simple: There will be motors
as soon as the specs require it.
The latter argument is utter rubbish, as if comp. motors would
go on for ever. The serious competitor will have to invest
regularly in new powerplants.
But of course this attitude prevents any action to eliminate gears:
"We have invested so much, it would be an outrage..."
Concerning a proposal on prohibiting gears, I am not aware of one
(deadline was Nov 15). The Bureau could accept/produce one at the
meeting immediately preceding the Plenary in March, and the
President could put it on the agenda if considered urgent.
Implementation definitely not before 2003.
But I doubt there will be any change in the foreseeable future.
FIC competitors have consistently refused to accept any reduction
in engine size, which is the real cause of excess F1C performance.
In that sense, gears are not decisive except in the context of
cost and availability.
I can only guess that the subcom. sees no problem in that, otherwise
they would have reacted more than a year ago.
Excess performance I define as a serious safety problem: reliably
controlling the power phase is too difficult even for the best
experts, I have personally witnessed two near-fatalities, and
the lack of suitable flying sites in relation to performance, a
problem that will only grow in the future.
The most serious consequence, however, is that it has become
extremely difficult for beginners to get started in F1C.
Result: Less and less Juniors take up F1C, only the silver-haired
flyers are left. When they retire finis F1C.
But I'm afraid that the flyers will not change their attitudes.
F1C competitors have brought this situation on themselves, they
have not been worried about the fact that F1C trails far behind
F1A and B. Beginners hardly exist any more, many countries
can't even produce a full team anymore, on the national scale the
number of flyers has already dwindled alarmingly in many countries.
I see this development as very sad, but even worse is what has
happened to the Juniors within the F1J category.
The intent of introducing this Junior category, conceived by the FF
subcom, was to make it easier and more attractive for Juniors to
get started in and fly FAI FF power.
Alas, the effect has been exactly the opposite.
And the reason is obvious: There are no restrictions on functions.
The Junior has to master all the gadgets used in F1C, with all the
associated difficulties of producing them, making them work reliably
and function properly when trimming and flying.
Requirements that many seniors have not been able to accomplish
And flying F1J, especially in a wind, is if anything more difficult
than flying an F1C.It is a smaller aircraft and hence more "nervous",
more sensitive to launch attitude, gusts etc.
This has led to poor and declining support for this category,
most sadly demonstrated at the European FF Junior Champs
in Romania 2001: an appallingly low entry of only four (4)
countries in F1J.
And interest and entries are bound to go down even further if
and when "gears" hit this category, there are no restrictions.
So much for progress.
In light of these developments I am not very optimistic about the
future of FAI FF Power. For the category to survive and prosper
we need new, young flyers to come into the sport - many of them.
This will not happen under the present rules, on the contrary,
interest is going down. Soon only the veterans will be left,
and what then?
Changes are a must, but to achieve this we need the active flyers
themselves, and their representatives in the subcom. to have a
change of hart.
I appeal to you all < we must look at the situation without
prejudice and come up with regulations that restore the
attractiveness of this category. Otherwise F1C/F1J will go,
not with a bang but a whimper.
Bob, I have tried my best to state how I see the situation.
Ian certainly is aware at least of the problems in F1J. As you
are concerned I dare suggest you start the ball rolling.
Contact your fellow FF Power fliers and subcom. members. The
initiative must come from the active fliers and penetrate the
thinking of the subcom if we are to have positive results.
Certainly you will have my full support.
This is to inform the F1C world that I still have enough parts to make about
25 more G/K Hummers. The price is $790 for the complete engine without props.
An additional item of a prop installation tool plus a prop balancing hub is
$85. Props are available from McBurnett and Poti as of now.
An ill-informed letter is circulating about our "small run of engines" being
sold out and not making any more, is BS at this point. After the present
supply of parts run out, then we will make the decision of whether to go
ahead or not depending on demand.
It does seem like we will be able to supply those who need them for the next
cycle with no problem.
The price difference is more like $380-$400 more than a conventional unit,
rather than the $750 quoted in the letter.
The kind if disinformation contained in "the letter" does no one any good,
and is obviously intended to persuade competitors to fall in line for the
"ban" idea. If people are to make these kind of decisions, they should at
least be fed proper info.
High Priced F1 Event?
I got a chuckle out of Daryl Perkin's write-up on our coin toss at King
Orange. We had our reasons but it's misleading to refer to F1J as a high
priced F1 event. I was flying a little stick and tissue model called
"Pop-Up". Here is what I had in it:
AME .061 $39.95
Texas Micro Timer 25.00
Fuse DT 0.10
Oliver F1J fuselage 50.00
All Strings No Levers VIT 0.59
Verbitsky folding prop 30.00
Silkspan, balsa, Mylar 20.00
TOTAL $165.64 + tax
I wouldn't really call it high priced. Anyway, it was 40 degrees warmer down
there than back in Ohio. Boy was it nice!
All this rhubarb..
It's a good thing I don't actually fly these things..
( yet )
Hot Pink Spectra Line
We plan to order a large amount of "Hot Pink" Spectra line (0.7mm
150lbs). We plan on a batch order to bring the price down for all of us.
For those of you who have/are using this line, you know it is great. For
those of you who have not used it yet, this is one of the best lines
arround! Use it! Anyone who wants to order line, please e-mail me
meter. Our goal is to decrease the original price of $16 per 200feet and
to offer each pilot custom line length as reqested.
We will order late january so we can hand of lines to domestic (US) &
international pilots at the MaxMen contest (saving postage)!
there is a lot of discussion about having big fai
meets at munci.
now i have never been there but from what i here this
field is to small for that.
several years ago when tom mcgloflin was still alive
and ama was looking for some land to buy for thr
tom was advised of a large piece of land in the fla
pan handle near niceville fla on highway 331.
tom was asked to contact ama about this land but
nothing ever happend.
i have driven buy this land many times and the area
going along the road is over a mile long and there is
no telling how far this goes back .
several miles at least.
sure would have been a good spotfor ama headquarters.
you could fly year round down there.
no snow to mess with.
Sabola e mail adress
rodger do you or maby sombody else out there know
dan sabola e mail adress.
please send it to me.
After receiving the last SEN regarding the e-mail virus I sent the file off
to Norton for analysis and the results confirm that it is not a virus.
The text from Norton is given below:
"This message is an automatically generated reply. This system is designed
to analyze and process virus submissions into the Symantec AntiVirus
Research Center (SARC) and cannot accept correspondence or inquiries.
Please contact your Technical Support representative if more detailed
information about your submission is required. Do not reply to this
Below is a status update on your virus submission:
Date: Thu Dec 27 15:13:45 PST 2001
Dear Julian pennington
We have analyzed your submission. The following is a report of our
findings for each file you have submitted:
result: does not appear to contain malicious code
Our automated system has performed an extensive analysis on the file(s)
that you have submitted and found no evidence of malicious code. If you
have additional evidence to suggest that a malicious program still resides
in the file that was submitted to us, please contact Symantec Technical
Support for assistance.
C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\Sulfnbk.exe does not appear to contain malicious code."
You may wish to publish this on SEN.
Happy New Year