SEN 864 - 24 Mar 2004
- Details
- Category: Archive 2004
- Hits: 1014
SCAT Electronic News 24 March 2004 issue 864
Table of Contents
=================
Holiday on ice - vereng- nuttgens- hines
inertial hook discussion - Barron, Coste and Parker
Rules for F1Q electric power - Linkosalo
America Cup results - with individual placings - Parker
What was the mime2TM.xx ?
Corrctions to America Cup points
Spar Sizing - Mattes
Thanks
holiday on ice
==============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
> From: A. Nüttgens
>
>
> Have a look on this FO-results - californian conditions , only 20
> degrees cooler !!!
>
> http://home.online.no/~vnereng/holidayonice.htm
>
Subject :Holiday On Ice 2004
F1A
placName Fornavn Nasjon Sum FO 1 FO 2 Total
1 MAKAROV SERGEY RUS 163 900 300 330 1530
2 LAZAREVYCH VLADYSLAV UKR 220 900 300 323 1523
3 CARTER JOHN E GBR 50520 900 300 318 1518
4 FINDAHL PER SWE 15125 900 300 261 1461
5 LIHTAMO MATTI FIN 359 900 300 258 1458
6 VALO JARI FIN 1654 900 300 236 1436
7 KLEMETSEN ANDERS NOR 3035 900 300 218 1418
8 KOSONOZHKIN MIKHAIL RUS 0373 900 300 206 1406
9 TROGEN GÖRAN SWE 54265 900 300 174 1374
10 TÄHKÄPÄÄ HEIKKI FIN 289 900 300 145 1345
11 CUTHBERT (J) MATTHEW GBR 19961 900 300 142 1342
12 OLDFIELD DAVID GBR 31734 900 300 141 1341
13 YABLONOVSKY IGOR UKR 307 900 300 136 1336
14 NERENG VEGAR NOR 5769 900 300 135 1335
15 BACHMANN CHRISTOPHE SUI 11858 900 300 111 1311
15 FAERBER MATHIAS GER 2063 900 300 1200
17 HOLMBOM MIKAEL SWE 6127 900 298 1198
18 HELLGREN ROBERT SWE 40391 900 294 1194
19 RONKANEN PEKKA FIN 3575 900 291 1191
20 ABERLENC FREDERIC FRA 23116 900 285 1185
21 STAMOV VICTOR UKR 121 900 284 1184
22 KLUNGREHAUG ATLE NOR 1496 900 283 1183
23 BACHMANN GOTTFRIED SUI 11562 900 277 1177
24 PERSSON ANDERS SWE 8335 900 275 1175
25 VARUSKIVI VESA FIN 1801 900 273 1173
26 SUNDSTEDT INGE SWE 240 900 271 1171
27 CHALLINE JEAN-PIERRE FRA 113 900 266 1166
27 VAN NEST BRIAN USA 23122 900 266 1166
29 CUTHBERT JOHN GBR 51781 900 245 1145
30 CHABOT SYLVAIN FRA 1558 900 241 1141
31 MOREAU FRANCOIS FRA 898 900 221 1121
32 NYHEGN BO DEN 1183 900 220 1120
33 HEIKKINEN JUHA FIN 2963 900 219 1119
34 VAN WALLENE ALLARD NED 62620 900 210 1110
35 COLLEDGE BILL GBR 65084 900 209 1109
36 PAJUNEN TIMO FIN 294 900 201 1101
37 NYHEGN JES DEN 2242 900 180 1080
38 STÅLHANDSKE (J) THOMAS SWE 61979 900 174 1074
39 FINDAHL (J) DANIEL SWE 48993 900 0 900
40 BALL PHILIP GBR 57180 890 890
41 SCHELHASE JÖRG GER 1439 885 885
42 KULMAKKO KIMMO FIN 1212 881 881
42 WITTKOWSKI PATRICK GER 2915 881 881
44 LEINO LAURA FIN 3932 879 879
45 FUSS HELMUT AUT 43006000 877 877
46 EDLUND ULF SWE 25387 871 871
47 HARSEM PETTER NOR 4163 870 870
48 PETTERSSON JOHN SWE 465 869 869
49 STEFFENSEN INGOLF NOR 3660 866 866
50 GIELEN MARTIJN NED 664701 863 863
50 VAN ELDIK ANTON NED 56530 863 863
52 BRINKS GERARD NED 401060 862 862
53 ROTTEVEEL BART NED 25686 839 839
54 EVDOKIMOV (J) YURI RUS 155 836 836
54 OLSTAD SVEIN NOR 753 836 836
56 ISOTALO TOMMI FIN 3655 830 830
57 HOLMBOM SOFIA SWE 20984 801 801
58 RUNNARI VALVE FIN 2284 773 773
59 AMLIE HÅVARD NOR 54753 741 741
60 DE BOER PIETER NED 35411 738 738
61 VARHOS DENIZ SWE 33987 737 737
62 WIJNHOVEN (J) NIELS NED 702742 601 601
63 KUIKKA PETRI FIN 2964 159 159
64 ARINGER GERHARD AUT 0134 21 21
F1B
PlasEtternavn Fornavn Nasjon Sum FlyOfFlyOfTotal
1 KHOUZIEV RADIK RUS 031 900 372 1272
2 WOLD JAN NOR 1897 900 329 1229
3 PEERS BRIAN RUSSELL GBR 27418 900 316 1216
4 SILZ BERND GER 459 900 315 1215
5 WOOLNER MIKE GBR 57957 900 305 1205
6 EIMAR BROR SWE 42 900 294 1194
7 ANDRIUKOV ALEXANDER USA 548719 900 292 1192
8 STEFANCHUK STEPAN UKR 102 900 290 1190
9 GHIO WALT USA 15325 900 284 1184
10 PRATT JOHN USA 136357 900 268 1168
11 TEDESCHI SERGE FRA 668 900 263 1163
12 WIVARDSSON GUNNAR SWE 10011 900 260 1160
13 BURDOV ANDREY RUS 168 900 255 1155
13 BATIUK GEORGE USA 10862 900 255 1155
15 ANSELMO ZERI NED 260626 900 248 1148
16 BUKIN ALEXEY UKR 103 900 243 1143
16 MÖNNINGHOFF PETER GER 26 900 243 1143
18 SALZER KLAUS W AUT 32001900 900 240 1140
19 GIRCYS LAURYNAS LTU 327 900 233 1133
20 ISOTALO JUHANI FIN 3629 900 231 1131
20 JONES RAY GBR 102918 900 231 1131
22 STENDAL HAGEN GER 2735 900 227 1127
23 ROHRKE RICH USA ROHRKE 900 224 1124
24 BORTNE TOR NOR 1323 900 222 1122
25 RUYTER PIM NED 59499 900 219 1119
26 EVDOKIMOV YURI RUS 541 900 215 1115
27 WOODHOUSE MICHAEL GBR 34262 900 213 1113
28 VAN HOORN HENK NED 655224 900 197 1097
29 DAHLIN MICHAEL SWE 19659 900 190 1090
30 ROSONOKS VIKTORS LAT YL-006 900 0 900
30 HOLLANDER NILSERIK SWE 77 900 0 900
32 ASLETT BERNARD GBR 65857 892 892
33 DÖRING LOTHAR GER 446 853 853
34 MACKUS ROLANDAS LTU 232 850 850
35 HOFFMANN MANFRED GER.619 828 828
36 KILPELAINEN OSSI FIN 275 813 813
37 YURTSEVEN ISMET TUR 007 788 788
38 WALTONEN YRJÖ FIN 621 742 742
39 MEUSBURGER HARALD AUT 52000301 709 709
40 CRINS ERIC NED 664942 458 458
41 LUCASSEN ROEL NED 664705 443 443
42 TORGERSEN OLE NOR 1016 340 340
F1C
PlasEtternavn Fornavn Nasjon Sum FlyOfTotal
1 KUUKKA KAARLE FIN 2651 900 292 1192
2 TRUPPE REINHARD AUT 712 900 280 1180
3 NIIRANEN TIMO FIN 2763 900 273 1173
4 ROOTS JURI EST 0039 900 241 1141
5 SUCHOV VOLADIMIR UKR 179 886 886
6 ÅGREN GUNNAR SWE 60 658 658
F1A jun.
PlasEtterNavn ForNavn Nat Sum FlyOfTotal
1 CUTHBERT MATTHEW GBR 19961 900 300 1200
2 STÅLHANDSKE THOMAS SWE 61979 900 174 1074
3 FINDAHL DANIEL SWE 48993 900 0 900
4 EVDOKIMOV YURI RUS 155 836 836
5 WIJNHOVEN NIELS NED 702742 601 601
inertial hook discussion
========================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Here is some discussion from Jim Parker and Andrew Barron in response
to a question from Jonah Costa with regards to what is an inertial tow
hook and whether he should use it. -- Andrew
From: Jim Parker
To: Andrew Barron , Jonah Coste
Subject: Re: impulse hook
Jonah and Andrew,
Very good write-up. I suggest you share it vis SEN.
My 2 cents.
Watching M&K at the maxmen, I believe they are getting the highest
launches- one flight in thermal was 35 meter gain per the altimeter.
What's interesting is they start higher on the line than most, use a
quick circular pattern.
So, should a Jr use a impulse hook? Your decision but note:
-It has taken M&K 2 years to perfect the technique.
-The model does launch differently and so having one model in the box
different than the others holds potential problems. Andrew is one of
the few flyers that has been successfull with multiple "systems"
-In the next year, M&K will have their electronic hook. It will measure
the impluse via a solid state acell, altitude and tension monitored by
software to determine a true launch from the false situations.
JIM
From: Andrew Barron
To: Jonah Coste
Cc: Jim Parker , Art Ellis ,
Andrew Barron
Subject: Re: impulse hook
Jonah,
Thanks for asking about the inertial hook. The inertial hook (also
called an impulse hook) is a completely different way of release of the
line from the model. The line stays latched, even with very high tension,
as long as you are still holding on to the line. There is a weight in
front of the hook, which is connected by a metal arm to the pivot point of
of the unlatch arm. Once you release the line under tension, two things
happen. One is that the model races up, and correspondingly, the inertia
of the weight is such that the weight swings down, which then lets the
unlatch arm swing back and lets the line fall down.
I like it, and have been using it on one of my models for a couple of
years (Extended Joy). There are advantages and disadvantages. One
advantage is that even in strong winds, you don't get premature unlatches.
Another advantage is that you can decide not to let go if the model is off to
the side, or if you change your mind about the air. You only let go when
you know it is right.
A disadvantage is that you have to very carefully check the alignment
of the unlatch arm before each flight. It needs to line up perfectly
with the bottom of the hook. If the hook is slightly bent to the side,
then friction between the bottom of the hook and the unlatch arm prevents
the arm from swinging back. So your model goes up with line attached
(which can be a major problem -- lost model, crashed model, or multiple
attempts). There is a place where one can tighten the hook in the proper
position, (the bolt on the side up near the top of the hook) and I find
that I tighten it before most flights.
Another disadvantage is that unusual circumstances can lead to the
undesired release of the model when it is still on the line. For example
at the Skyscraper Annual first round while towing the model for a long
time in strong wind, I inadvertantly stepped on the line as it came
around in the circle tow, that brought the model to high tension, and
I should have grabbed the line with my hand, before picking up my foot.
But instead, when I picked up my foot, the shock of tension release on
the model unlatched it. With regular hooks that doesn't happen (but
then neither would I have been able to make the high tension tows in the
wind).
Flying in rain is another problem, in that, depending on the type of
line you use, it might not move as smoothly through the fingers. Jerky
action during otherwise normal tow can lead to inadvertant release of the
hook.
So there are advantages and disadvantages with both standard hooks
and with inertial hooks. It depends on the situation which is better.
Andrew
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. wrote:
> Mr. Barron,
>
>
> I am in the process of ordering an electronic short M&K throgh Jim
> Parker. He told me I would need to decide if I wanted an impulse hook. He tol
d me
> that you were the best person to ask about this issue. Could you explain to m
e
> what exactly an impulse hook is and what advantages it has?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonah Coste
>
Rules for F1Q electric power
=============================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
[re-printed because it got corrupted in the editing last issue]
While I'm writing this I have not heard the outcome of CIAM March meeting.
Following are some ideas conserning the suggested electric free flight
class F1Q. My concern is how to restrain the motor power to reasonable
levels. The reasoning is a bit long, so I give my suggestion first:
Require a standard resistor installed in series to the power leads between
battery and motor. The idea is not mine, it came from Reijo Liljedahl.
So to the reasoning. I think there should be no limitations to the motor.
In true FAI spirit the motor should be open to developments and
inventions. There is no simple way as there is in other motor classes
(rubber weight in F1B, engine displacement in F1C) to limit the power of
electric motor, therefore no arbitrary limits here. Especially there must
not be rules limiting the motor to a certain brand or make, or limiting
the price of the motor or rules like that. They are more or less
impossible to reinforce. Banning gears is not wise, as for climbing a
small, fast-spinning prop is rather inefficient.
There should be no limits to the battery chemistry. Especially no
requirements to stick to NiCads. These are old techonology, cadmium is a
severe environmental thread which is likely to be banned in EU in the near
future. Even though there have been some raports of lithium batteries
causing fires, these have been due to mistreating the battery ususally
during charge. If proper methods for charging lithium batteries are used
they are as safe as any type of rechargeable cell. Limiting the maximum
voltage and weight of the battery is sufficient.
With the above rules the factor that is limiting output power of the power
train is mostly the internal resistance of the battery. Each make of
battery cells have a certain maximum current that they can provide, going
beyond that the voltage of the battery drops, and power output suffers
seriously. Thus for any given battery you can find the maximum power that
you can get out the battery. So far so good, that would work beautifully
to restrain the power of a model. The problem here is that the development
of batteries, especially lithium ones, is at very fast pahse at the
moment, due to strong demand of various electric gadgets (and indoor
RC) to get more power out of smaller cells. Thus a few years ago you could
draw 2C out of cellular phone lithium batteries (2C means twice the
capacity, i.e. out of 1000mAh battery you got 2 amps of current) before
the call voltage dropped to unusable levels. Today the value is around 5C,
with some cells already giving 8C, and there seems no levelling out of the
development. So without any further limits we should expect increase of
output power of electric models something like 20% per year. Not a good
situation...
Ok, here comes the serial resistor. From ohms law we know that voltage
equals current times resistance. Power, again is voltage times current.
With the above-mentioned rules the voltage of the battery is limited, so
power depends on the current. The current going through the circuitry
depends on the resistance. This consists of motor resistance and battery
internal resistance. The problem comes from the latter decreasing with
cell chemistry development, leading in higher currents and higher output
power. Adding a resistor in series with the battery LIMITS THE CURRENT and
thus output power to a maximum value dictated by the resistance of the
added resistor. There is no way going beyond that output power, with all
the development in the motor and battery technology you can only get
closer and closer to the limit.
It is straightforward for the flier and competition director to check the
resistance of the serial resistor with simple equipment. Should there be a
need to fine-tune the performance of the models in the years to come (e.g.
if motor efficiency increases to that model performance becomes too high),
it is straightforward to modify rules so that the resistance of the serial
resistor is increased.
I'm sending this letter to SCAT Electronic News and to Free Flight Mailing
List. Feel free to forward it to any other media where this matter might
be discussed.
-Tapio-
America Cup results - with individual placings
==============================================
[re-printed because it got corrupted in the editing last issue]
Key to competition abbreviations and number of sportsmen:
SWR 22 Southwest Regionals- Eloy ,AZ
MM 36 MaxMen 14 Rounder- Lost Hills, CA
SCA 22 SCAT Annual- Lost Hills, CA
F1A
1 Coussens, Tom 60 MM-1 SCA-1
2 Parker, Jim 45 SWR-5 MM-3 SCA-3
2 Busnelli, Ernesto 45 SWR-3 SCA-2
4 Diez, Hector 30 SWR-1
5 Brun, Pierre 25 SWR-2
5 Puhakka, Risto 25 MM-2
7 Brocks, K Peter 15 SWR-4
7 Zink, Don 15 SCA-4
9 Cowley, Martyn 10 SCA-5
9 VanNest, Brian 10 MM-4
11 Barron, Peter (Jr) 5 MM-5
Key to competition abbreviations and number of sportsmen:
SWR 16 Southwest Regionals- Eloy ,AZ
MM 34 MaxMen 14 Rounder- Lost Hills, CA
SCA 17 SCAT Annual- Lost Hills, CA
F1B
1 Batiuk, George 44 SWR-2 MM-3
2 Schroedter,Martin 43 SWR-1 SCA-4
3 Ulm, Allan 39 SWR-4 MM-2
4 Tymchek, Bob 38 SWR-5 SCA-1
5 Bradley, Jim 30 MM-1
6 Morrell, Roger 24 SCA-2
7 Emery, Jack 19 SWR-3
7 Sessums, John 19 SCA-3
9 Andriukov, Alex 15 MM-4
10 Rohrke, Rich 10 MM-5
11 Piserchio, Bob 9 SCA-5
Key to competition abbreviations and number of sportsmen:
SWR 6 Southwest Regionals- Eloy ,AZ
MM 22 MaxMen 14 Rounder- Lost Hills, CA
SCA 11 SCAT Annual- Lost Hills, CA
F1C
1 Archer, Randy 46 SWR-1 MM-3
2 Kerger, Terry 38 SWR-2 SCA-3
3 Kirilenko, Andrei 30 MM-1
4 Simpson, Roger 27 SCA-1
5 Gutai, Bob 25 MM-2
6 Shirley, David 22 MM-5 SCA-4
6 Gewin, Matt 22 SCA-2
8 Mennano, Guy 16 SWR-3
9 Morris, Gil 15 MM-4
10 Carroll, Ed 13 SWR-5 SCA-5
11 Warren, John 11 SWR-4
Key to competition abbreviations and number of sportsmen:
SWR 14 Southwest Regionals- Eloy ,AZ
MM 23 MaxMen 14 Rounder- Lost Hills, CA
SCA 15 SCAT Annual- Lost Hills, CA
F1G
1 Schroedter, George 67 SWR-1 MM-2 SCA-4
2 Clapp, John 43 SWR-2 MM-3
3 Pratt, John 34 MM-4 SCA-3
4 Booth, Bill 30 MM-1
5 Emery, Jack 29 SCA-1
6 Schroedter, Jeff (Jr) 24 SCA-2
7 White, Bob 18 SWR-3
8 Wood, Dick 13 SWR-4
9 Davis, Bill 10 MM-5
10 Schroedter, Martin 9 SCA-5
11 Vanlandingham, Ed 8 SWR-5
Key to competition abbreviations and number of sportsmen:
SWR 8 Southwest Regionals- Eloy ,AZ
MM 13 MaxMen 14 Rounder- Lost Hills, CA
SCA 9 SCAT Annual- Lost Hills, CA
F1H
1 McKever, Mike 67 SWR-2 MM-2 SCA-2
2 VanNest, Brian 62 SWR-1 MM-1 SCA-5
3 Cowley,Martyn 35 MM-3 SCA-3
4 Coussens, Ben (Jr) 27 SCA-1
5 Parker, Dallas (Jr) 25 SWR-4 MM-4
6 Archer, Ryan (Jr) 17 SWR-3
7 Thompson, Mike 12 SCA-4
8 Zink, Don 8 MM-5
9 Davis, Jon 7 SWR-5
Key to competition abbreviations and number of sportsmen:
SWR 5 Southwest Regionals- Eloy ,AZ
MM 15 MaxMen 14 Rounder- Lost Hills, CA
SCA 7 SCAT Annual- Lost Hills, CA
F1J
1 Shirley, David 45 SWR-4 MM-1 SCA-5
2 Carroll, Ed 41 SWR-2 SCA-2
3 Roberts, Mike 26 SCA-1
3 Mennano, Guy 26 SWR-3 SCA-4
5 Warren, John 25 SWR-1
6 Gutai, Bob 24 MM-2
7 Gunder, Austin (Jr) 19 MM-3
8 Ginder, Fred III 16 SCA-3
9 Poti, Norm 14 MM-4
10 Johannes, David 9 MM-5
11 Robertson, Tony 5 SWR-5
Key to competition abbreviations and number of sportsmen:
SWR 0 Southwest Regionals- Eloy ,AZ
MM 1 MaxMen 14 Rounder- Lost Hills, CA
SCA 1 SCAT Annual- Lost Hills, CA
F1P
1 Secor, Cody, Jr 50 MM-1 SCA-1
What was the mime2TM.xx ?
=========================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Dear Roger,
I did not open the file "mime2TM.xx" attached to SEN issue 863 (March 21)
suspecting it of virus file.
Am I wrong?
Keiichi Kibiki
[ No it is not a virus - but someting used during the internal preparation
of the SEN that should have been removed
Sorry about that.
roger]
Corrctions to America Cup points
================================
You sent it to Jim Parker - This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger
Spar Sizing
============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Spar Sizers
John Lorbiecki has been questioning what spar widths and carbon cap
thickness people have been using on their models. Since the real answer
is dependent on numerous other factors, I would like to suggest that
for new designs a few calculations be performed to determine what cap
thickness/spar widths are appropriate. I have a relatively simple Excel
spreadsheet that takes into account wing geometry, spar depth, weight,
and desired safety factors to arrive at suitable spar designs. It also
provides design data for the spars balsa core and sizes a wing joiner to
fail before the spar if that is desired.
I have used it on 3 designs and it has proven quite adequate. For
reference a couple of well known F1C designs are included to provide
verification of the process. If anyone out there would like a copy I
would be happy to email same to you. Please be at least a bit literate
in driving Excel and agree to share any results.
Bob Mattes
Thanks
======
Thanks to Jack Emery for his donation is support of SEN
..............
Roger Morrell
