SEN 942 - 4 Apr 2005
- Details
- Category: Archive 2005
- Hits: 912
SCAT Electronic news 4 April 2005 issue 942
Table of Contents
=================
Autosurfaces on F1G - markos
Lost Hills Field condition report... - Leaper
HELP AGAIN - Zeek Mate
ANGLE FOR A GEARED F1C - manuel from Barcelona
Website update - Vasi from Karkiv
FAI Sporting Code - Kaynes
USA FF Team Members - Edmonson
.020 glow heads
Rubber for Argentina - FAI Model Supply
Membership Drive - More Responses: - Biggles
comment on the minutes of the recent CIAM meeting - Kerger
the minutes of the recent CIAM meeting
Autosurfaces on F1G
===================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
DeLoach brings up an interesting point in SEN 936. There has been no
clarification since his question. Are we, in our roles as contest directors and
contestants, then left with the task of interpreting the FAI rule which states,
"lift is generated by the aerodynamic forces acting on surfaces remaining fixed
in flight." ? The definition of such surfaces is not specfically noted in
the FAI rules, but there is an indication that both wing and stabilizer are
considered to be such by the inclusion of their areas in the calculation of
supporting surfaces in classes to which an area limitation is placed. If so, then
models which bear all the other characteristics of the F1G class using
variable incidence stabilzers should not be included in that class. If only the
wing, then models with wing wiggler mechanisms in operation are definitely not
included in that class.
Without official interpretation (was the omission purposeful or typographical?) we are obliged to follow the letter of the rule in the
strictest sense. hat is, any model with a VIT or wing wiggler cannot compete in the F1G class.
That's OK with me since my F1G models are not equipped with such. Should I hen as a contest director DQ models with VIT? Should I as a contestant rotest models which have VIT and/or wing wiggler mechanisms in use? It should
not have to come to such on-field decisions. We need official interpretation.
Chuck Markos
[Chuck
before you break out your Swiss Francs - read Ian Kaynes below]
Lost Hills Field condition report...
===================================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hi All,
I just returned from a weekend at Lost Hills, training with Happersett.
Short Story: Entry Road smoothed out, field was green...now Sticker Weed brown!
So gaiters were required apparel to save socks, shoes and ankles!
Some areas of higher weeds: yellow and pollen-bearing, so bring allergy medicine!
Atchoo!
Weather was good, track fast, horses slow[Oops! wrong sport, sorry].
Where was I? Oh yes.
No one else was there but Ken & I, and the animals[rabbits, coyotes,
hawks, meadowlarks, crows, lizards, owls, mosquitos, etc].
Be warned: even larger planes might be hard to see and find until you are
close , due to the dense sticker weeds and colors.
So be careful not to run over an airplane, even your own!
Ciao,
Leeper the Scribe
[now where did I put the Allerest tablets?...]
HELP AGAIN
==========
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
THEY MUST BE NOTIFIED AND CHASTISED. I just returned home from the
great 51st Annual Toledo Model Exposition. I had much fun as usual. Upon
reviewing the beautiful models displayed in the competition, the hair
stood up on my neck. I always pay special attention to the Old Timer
models. There was a great pair of models by brothers from Canada. The
Schoocey brothers from Ontario. The brother David built a magnificent
airplane he mistakenly called the "Diamond Zipper". It was about double
original size. I know about it since it hung on the wall over my head as
I helped design and produce Carl Goldberg's famous "Jigtime" models.
Also that with the help of Otto "Toot" Curth we re-drew up original
plans for the model from the original. It really hurt that 1.) A fine
builder does not bother to research a very important "Historical" model
that he is building. 2.) That our very hallowed history means very
little or nothing to him. 3.) That his very prestigious Canadian model
club saw no error in his ways thus condoned it. Their name proudly
displayed on the beautifully built wing. (They do not deserve mentioning
here.)
The model is in fact the "Prototype Zipper". In many years later it was
hastily named the "Gas Bird" by Carl. I say hastily because Dick Korda
had already named his very similar gas model the "Gas Bird". Double
shame on him Schoocey and his club is that there actually was/is a
"Diamond Zipper". It was published in one of our magazines who's name
also will not be mentioned since they abandoned Free Flight. The
original "Gas Bird" still resides in a museum. It was restored by a
famous modeler who's name escapes me at the moment. Certainly one of my
frequent and most embarrassing "Senior Moments". Thanks, Ed (big mouth)
Mate
ANGLE FOR A GEARED F1C
=======================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hello ROGER
One of my friends ,have a geared F1C engine
He want to know if the tail boom , it is necessary to put a little down
no strike, and of course ,the tailplane with more positive angle on climb
than no geared engine
He have a Verbitsky model kit, Who know the correct angle for
that kind of model? in climb and gliding
best regards MANUEL from Barcelona
Website update
==============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Dear friends and customers,
Due to US dollar devaluation during last 2 years we 've
got to raise a bit our prices for some items and
parts.Unfortunately we have to do it to get the sens back
with FF and RC model production.Quite a bit of
improvements for our technologies took places also.
An alternate TV watching with doing nothing gives us
more profit sometimes.
We promise to trim all prices down after the situation
with the rate USD compare to EURO will get back.
You 're welcome to visit the website
www.vasi.scana.com.ua
You will find a lot of new images overe there, some new
designed parts and elements for our models.Our website is
open for visitors but some more info will be installed
soon.
MAC the Bigot suggested us the slogan:
Don't be silly-
Buy FF from Vasily!
Will think about it..
See you at the field!
Vasily's workteam.
FAI Sporting Code
=================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger
Please note that new versions of the 2005 Sporting Code were published
on April 1, both volume F1 which covers free flight and volume ABR which
has the general rules including relevance to free flight. The link to
download them is:
http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/documents/sc4.asp
The new ABR includes the ban on forward folding props which was agreed
at the CIAM Plenary meeting last month to become effective from April 1.
The new version of F1 is changed to bring the F1G model definition into
line with the other classes by including variable incidence and camber.
The history of that peculiarity is that in 2001 a number of editorial
changes were made to the Sporting Code (after it left my hands) with one
aim being to standardise the wording in class definitions. Previously
some classes had specifically excluded ornithopters and rotary wing
aircraft and others had not. However, the standardisation was applied to
all classes except F1G which was not completely updated. Since the F1G
anachronism resulted from a failed editorial change - not an intentional
rule change - the opportunity has been taken to bring the class into
line with other classes and with the usual interpretation to allow
variable incidence and camber.
Ian Kaynes
USA FF Team Members
===================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hi Roger
I thought it would be fun to learn about team members preparation for
May 2005 Argentina World Championships.
How many models each member is bringing, model cases, test flying, chase
equipment, etc??
I have always wanted to be in that position, maybe someday?
Dave Edmonson
www.glideTEK.com
[Dave
I fly Vivchar F1B models - with BlackMagic electronic timers of course!
The rules permit 4 models, I will take 5 to Argentina.
I try to fly very weekend between the selection contest and leaving for
the champs. Chase equipment is a good pair of boots..! I also
run and go to the gym. As befitting someone who lives in CA
I have a trainer, a blonde young lady who is a serious
beach volley ball player. .. and no she is not going to Argentina.
Roger]
.020 glow heads
===============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Terry Thorkildsen suggested I contact you regarding a possible source
for TD .020 glow heads. Getting back into FF after a 30-year absence I
want to fly .02 Replica and small NosGas (in addition to my passionate
involvement with CL Stunt). Any recommendations as to where I might
fine a couple of those glow heads? Thanks...
Mike Keville
4225 N. 1st Ave, #1321
Tucson AZ 85719
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Rubber for Argentina
=====================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
FAI MODEL SUPPLY is currently planning to ship rubber to the 2005 World Champs.
It would be most helpful if each F1B team that is planning to attend
the WC would e-mail us
if they would like to purchase rubber in Argentina. Please state team
member and quantity desired.
We need this information as soon as possible as the shipping date is
close at hand. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Thank you and BEST WISHES
to all! John
Membership Drive - More Responses:
==================================
From: Martyn Cowley
It has been very encouraging to receive the many responses on the
subject of trying to find more ways to publicize F/F in general, and
the NFFS's role in promoting wider participation (Although I do wish
more modelers would choose to share their ideas through SEN to create
a broader ongoing dialog, rather than by replying to me directly,
much as I have appreciated hearing from all of you. Don't be shy,
send your thoughts, or a copy of the ones you sent me, to Roger at: ).
Some agreed, some disagreed - but the best result is that several new
ideas are beginning to surface. Eliminating the BOM rule for the
small F/F Classes (in FAI, the BOM has already been defused), in
order to open up participation for newcomers and Juniors, is one
unexpected yet strongly held viewpoint voiced to date by many who
have replied (OK, so an old idea that was not yet implemented can
still be a new idea who's time has come).
Perhaps this could be simply accomplished by creating a new entrant
category, called a Mentor Team entry or Partnership entry, or some
such term ? We all have a few extra old models in storage that we
will probably never fly again. No longer fully competitive, but
still quite flight-worthy. Why not team-up with a newcomer (young or
old) and permit them to enter the contest under the guidance (or not,
as they wish) of the Builder / Owner-of-the-Model and let them fly
with everybody else ? No need to arrange any additional special
contests. Just let them come fly with us at the next event. CD's
can just begin doing this at the local level. The SCAT Club already
tried this concept a few years ago and it was quite a good success at
the time, but has not yet been widely adopted. It's not a radical
concept at all - the R/C Scale guys do it all the time. The expert
craftsman builds the model and, typically not being a proficient
flyer himself, has his expert pilot buddy fly it at contests as a
Team entry (yes folks, its true - read all about it every month in
Model Aviation !).
However, I am convinced that the future of F/F and its very existence
remains solely with Juniors. Otherwise, by definition this WILL BE
the last generation for Free Flight. Most active participants today
started when they were Juniors and have stayed with F/F ever since.
There may be some cross-over between other Classes, but that works
both ways, and there can be no net gain from C/L or R/C enthusiasts,
probably the opposite. So how can we maximize our publicity and
interest to young people, while they still have time to enjoy it ?
If they never hear about F/F and never try it for themselves, then
they will surely never join us.
Unfortunately this dilemma grows more difficult as modeling become
more diverse. At the recent AMA Show, nearly all of the crowd of
indoor R/C 3D flyers were Juniors. It was incredible to watch young
teenagers casually flying lithium battery powered electric aerobatic
models under a 20 ft ceiling, and performing continuous rolling
circles only 3 ft off the floor, and then deliberately trying to fly
even lower ! At the large screen computer flight simulator
demonstrations in the main hall, 12 and 14 year old youngsters would
step up from the crowd to take the transmitter and fly R/C
helicopters: take-off, immediately flip inverted at near ground level
and then push up inverted into indescribable aerobatics, as a
ten-deep crowd watched and cheered appreciatively. If they crashed
(occasionally) the simulator quickly re-booted and this youngster
would simply try again until he could master that extra-trick
maneuver (perhaps we need a F/F trimming computer simulator for some
people - and I don't just mean for the newcomers ! OK Joe, just one
more turn of the screw, and =8A)
So there is no doubt, the Juniors are out there. We are lucky that
ANY Juniors are still interested in F/F. But the fact is that the
challenge of F/F can be equally as rewarding if kids get to
experience it for themselves, with the right encouragement, support
and facilities.
But if some ideas do not appeal, then let's throw them away and start
afresh. Come up with ten more ideas, and then ten more. We all know
the ultimate outcome, if F/F is allowed to simply wither away with
our present generation. One approach is to take those ideas that
appear unworkable and turn them around. Instead of saying this
cannot possibly work, try saying how could we make this work, and see
what other new alternative ideas emerge.
=46or example take the undeniable success of the Science Olympiad - how
many school kids participate in this program nationally each year in
the US: 50, 150, 500, 5,000 - does anybody out there know the answer
? (and how could we actively make it more ?) So how many of these
kids, who are already interested in, and are actually flying F/F (at
their own school !) are already members of NFFS: 50%, 15%, 5%, 1% -
does anybody know this figure ? (it certainly can't be more than
2,000). But really this question should be rephrased, how many
Science Olympiad students have joined NFFS at the current
subscription rate of $10 (if under 19). Or how many students even
know we exist and can help them understand the subject they are
trying to tackle at school ? Versus how many would join if the
annual membership through these ongoing school science programs was
only $1, or even free for the first year ? (Yes I read Hank's piece
about statistics and lower entry fees, but we must not stop trying
such ideas).
Now the glass-half-empty brigade will say that we cannot possibly
sustain new membership at such a low annual fee - But the
glass-half-full supporters might say OK, then what could we offer
these youngsters for just $1 ? Here's one idea. Whether or not we
continue publication of the full monthly printed edition of Free
=46light Digest, or go to AMA SIG pages, or whatever - let's scan the
monthly contents and post an electronic version of all the pages on
the NFFS website. Then for $1, give each of the Student Members
their own password to access this content (so they will not receive
the more expensive printed edition). If we did have 1,000 kids sign
up as student members, then for $1,000 you could cover any additional
cost of password implementation for the website. And you could also
give the existing full members their own password too, as a bonus
service from NFFS.
And perhaps the NFFS website could host an Online Discussion Forum, Q
& A notice board specifically for these Science Olympiad members,
with questions from Students and inputs from NFFS members - now that
might be something worth joining ?
What is the worst that could happen ? One student might print out
two copies and give one to his classmate for free. And this $1
Student discount rate (note subtly different and unfamiliar usage of
that word "discount") would only apply for those of school age years,
ie. by the time they grow up and start work, then if they are still
interested in F/F (and if it still exists) they can become full
members too.
- Biggles
comment on the minutes of the recent CIAM meeting
======================================================
From: "Terry Kerger"
So the free Flight Sub Committee can make rules without consulting or poling
the modelers who participate in this sport? And when they do, they
sufficiently butcher up the structure of the sentence so it is still
ambiguous? Of course, I am referring to the folder rule effective 1/4/05?
Could they just say "propellers which fold forward in the direction of
flight"
I also see that the Germans got the approval of Synthetic Oil in the F1C
fuel.
Looks like 3.2.8.c specifies that the F1B guys wind and launch in the 10
minute window. Why did the USA proposal get withdrawn?
You getting ready for the WC?
Terry Kerger, P.E.
Principal Engineer
Terry's comment was to me after reading the CIAM meeting minutes below.
As you can see Terry was a little suprised ... as were a number of others
that I spoke with at the Sierra Champs this last weekend about submissions
from the USA without what has been the usual process over the
last few years in consulting particpants in the FAI tean "program".
For whatever it's worth most serious F1B sportsmen do not want to be able
to wind before the start of the round. The general belief is that it
is fairer and more straight forward if all can start winding at the
same time. I've heard various arguments in favour - all bogus.
I'm not sure who put this proposal in this time, but in the past it
has been made by a person who did not fly the event. Maybe
it was in anticipation of his retirement ?
.. and I'll be ready for Argentina when I finish making all those motors !
Sporting Code Proposals
=======================
Below is an extract of a report on the recent CIAM meeting
Becuase of the size the document has been abbreviated.
Applogies if it lost something in the "translation". Some
of the nice and colored formatting has been lost so be sure
to go to the FAI web site to get the offical interpreatation
before maing a big decision.
General Rules for CIAM Activities
SECTION 4A
Part One - CIAM Internal Regulations
a) Chairman Subcommittee Information & Education
Rename the existing Subcommittee Information & Education to "Education"
Reason: To deal with various aspects of education is quite a challenge. In practise, the
SC did not cover the item information properly for several years now. Concentration on
its main interest may improve the work to be done.
b) Chairman Subcommittee Information & Education
The Chairman of the S/C Information and Education may visit the CIEA Plenary
Meeting if invited. Travel costs to be covered by the CIAM budget.
Reason: The S/C Information and Education is to improve contact between CIAM and
the FAI Education Commission. Exchange of experiences would be valuable for both.
c) A.6. Proposal submitted to CIAM - UNITED KINGDOM
Insert new sentences in paragraph A.6.1. (c) and (e) as shown below. This also to
be included on the official proposal form to be re-inserted into Annex A.2.
Paragraph (e) infers inclusion of this form but it is no longer the case. Replace
semi-colons at end of paragraphs with full-stops.
A.6.1 Each proposal must conform to the following requirements:
a) State the page number(s) in the Sporting Code, or its relevant approved
amendments, on which the proposal will appear;.
b) Quote the relevant paragraph and/or heading from the Sporting Code;.
c) Detail exactly what the alteration or addition to the wording is to be;. Deleted
text should be shown as strike-through, new text as bold underlined format.
d) Give the reason(s) behind the proposed alteration in a short separate paragraph;.
e) Proposals must be submitted on a special form, designed for this purpose,
available from the FAI Office (See Annex A.2), or downloadable from the FAI
website.
f) Submit any and all proposals for each category of rules on forms separate from
those for other categories, i.e. Free Flight proposals separate from Control Line, RC
aerobatics separate from RC soaring, etc.
See also paragraph A.12
Reason: It is difficult with some present proposals to determine just what is being
changed. Existing text is frequently shown in bold type such that differences can only
be realised by time-consuming word-by-word comparison with the original documents.
d) A.12. Effective Date of Rule Changes - UNITED KINGDOM
Add the following text to the end of the second paragraph:
.
Reason: The 2003 and 2004 Plenary agendas contained proposals for official classes
that should not have been eligible in those particular years. Likewise significant changes
to provisional classes have been included that require discussion and the convening of
unofficial Technical meetings. These defeat the purpose of the new CIAM biannual
arrangements as detailed in ABR A.2.
Section 4B - General Rules For International Contests
a) B.6.5. Contest Information and Entry Fees - UNITED KINGDOM
Add sentence to end of existing paragraph as follows:
B.6.5. Results must be despatched to the FAI and NACs taking part in the event within
a month. For events included in a World Cup, the results must be despatched to the
relevant World Cup organiser within a month. The results must include the full name
and nationality of those listed and for Scale events must also include the name of the
prototype air- or spacecraft subject flown by the competitor. Results submitted to the
FAI or World Cup organiser must be in electronic form to allow for publication on
the official FAI website.
Reason: The FAI website is the obvious medium for the collation and promulgation of
international contest results. With the exception of Free Flight, for which the F1 SC
Chairman maintains a comprehensive and up to date link, the current results page of the
FAI website implies that no World, and only two Continental Championships, have
been held in the last three years.
b) FREE FLIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE
1) B.13.1. Interruption of Contest - Change first sentence:
.
Reason: 1) By changing "may" to "should" changes the option of allowing the
contest to be interrupted to a non-mandatory recommendation to interrupt the
contest. 2) To give the jury the additional freedom of action to interrupt the
contest in exceptional circumstances which are not in the list of foreseen
reasons.
2) Add new item (f):
(f) Any incident affecting safety or requiring access for emergency services
Reason: To confirm that the contest should be interrupted for any matter
affecting safety
3) Change the final sentence in B.13.1.:
.
Reason: To make explicit the power of the jury to decide the action to take after
an interruption. There are circumstances when it may be preferable to cancel or
repeat the entire round instead of completing it (e.g. if conditions would be very
different for the completion and this would lead to unsporting results). It is
imperative that the jury make the decision but there is compulsion on which
action to take, the decision should be based on the specific circumstances.
4) Change B.13.1.a: WITHDRAWN
a) The wind is continuously stronger than 12 m/s (9 m/s for Free Flight 8 m/s
for Free Flight, 9 m/s for Scale and Space Models) measured at two metres
above the ground at the starting line (flight line) for at least one minute (20
seconds for Free Flight), unless specified otherwise in category rules."
Reason: To place the limit for free flight closer to conditions which are more
reasonable for flying free flight.
c) B.15.10. Processing of Model Aircraft - FREE FLIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE
Delete 2 words from this paragraph:
.
Reason: The word "preferably" renders powerless the rule on placing the numbers on
the wing of the model. Removing this word will ensure that numbers have to be given
on the upper surface of the wing. The requirement for the numbers to be on the left wing
is removed as a pointless restriction
d) B.17.3. Safety Precautions and Instructions - FREE FLIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE
Add new prohibited item:
i) Propellers which fold forwards to have exposed propeller tips pointing
forwards in the direction of flight
*** EFFECTIVE 1/4/05
Reason: There is a clear safety hazard in the new style of forward-folding propeller
used on some F1C models. With sharp carbon fibre blades facing forwards at the front
of the model these are a significant danger. While the model is only gliding in this
configuration, it does pose a real danger. For example, when gliding downwind the
model may be travelling silently at over 12 m/sec and could cause serious injury to a
retriever (or member of the public) who does not see it coming. With doubts about the
interpretation of other safety rules for these props (on minimum radius of curvature, etc)
it is considered advisable to introduce an explicit rule which leaves no doubt that these
props are not allowed.
SECTION 4C - MODEL AIRCRAFT
General Regulations and Rules for Contests and Records
Part One - General Regulations for Model Aircraft
a) Lighter than Air. Hot Air Balloon (Provisional Rules) - FRANCE
Add a new paragraph 1.3.6.
1.3.6. Category F8 - Radio controlled Lighter than Air
Class F8A - Hot Air Balloons
Rules F8A -Hot Air Balloons are at ANNEX 7.
Reason: Following the modification of Model Aircraft in order to recognise "Lighter
than Air", we need to open a new volume for this category of model aircraft.
Note: "F6" is already used by the "Promotional aero musical", and "F7" was used by the
"Records" which are now included in Volume ABR, but the records rules are still
numbered "7". In order to make no confusion, the "Lighter than Air" must be included
in a new volume "F8" numbering starting by an "8"
Part 7 - RECORDS
a) 7.1.4. Categories of World Records - FREE FLIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE
Change free flight record category definitions:
There are three categories of World Records, viz:
1) Records performed with special record model aircraft under the specifications given
in paragraph 7.2.; (Open Records)
2) Records performed with model aircraft built to competition specification but with
flights not necessarily in a competition; (Specific Model Aircraft). These records
can be set in classes F1D, F1L, F1M and F1N and in these classes the record may
belong only to one person, not a team..
3) Records performed in regular competitions with model aircraft and competitions
defined in Sporting Code section 4c, parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; (Competition Records)
In Free Flight competition, duration records can be set in classes F1A, F1B, F1C,
F1D and F1L and in these classes the record may belong only to one person,
not a team.
In Control Line competition, speed records can be set only in World or Continental
Championships in class F2A subclass 1B.
In classes F2C, F3D and F5D, records can be set only in World or Continental
Championships."
Reason: The operation of competition model aircraft is the activity of a single flyer and
is not appropriate to view as a team activity. This proposal applies only to the
competition model records and not to FF models in the special record (category 1).
VOLUME F1 - FREE FLIGHT
Section 4c - Model Aircraft
Part Three - Technical Regulations For Free Flight Contests
a) 3.1.2 Characteristics of Gliders F1A - USA (from Deferred Section Plenary 2003)
Add the sentence:
.
Reason: Remote Dethermalization (RDT) offers an important safety feature when a
model is flying off the field, is about to hit an obstacle (a high voltage line, a tree or a
busy road) or is in a very strong thermal. RDT cannot offer an advantage to
clandestinely acquire a second attempt because second attempts are already banned if a
model dethermalizes with 20 seconds of launch. Frequencies used for this radio
function are short in duration and pulse coded. This option has been legally available to
the F1C class for several years.
b) 3.1.7., 3.2.7., 3.3.7. Duration of Flights - FREE FLIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE and
NETHERLANDS
Removal of supermax for F1A, F1B, F1C. This requires the following linked changes
1) Remove from 3.1.7, 3.2.7 and 3.3.7 the sentence:
"For any flights with a maximum duration greater than three minutes the additional time
over three minutes is used only to resolve any tie."
2) Remove the existing item (b) from 3.1.8 and related word changes in the existing (a)
and (c):
a) The total time for each competitor for each of the official flights defined in
3.1.3. is taken for the final classification subject to a limitation of three
minutes for each flight. This total time achieved is also used to determine
team classification.
b) In order to decide the individual placings when there is a tie, the total time
achieved in each of the official flights defined in 3.1.3 will be taken without
limitation at three minutes.
c)b) In order to decide the individual placings when there is still a tie after the
procedure in (b), additional flights shall be made after the last flight of the
event has been completed. The maximum time of flight for the first of the
deciding flights shall be five minutes and the maximum time of flight shall
be increased by two minutes for each subsequent flight. The time of the
additional flights shall not be included in the final figures of the
classification for teams; they are for the purpose of determining the
individual placing.
d)c) The organiser will establish a 10 minute period during which all fly-off
competitors must tow and release their glider. Within these 10 minutes the
competitors will have the right to a second attempt in the case of an
unsuccessful first attempt for an additional flight according to paragraph
3.1.5. Starting positions will be decided by draw for each fly-off.
e)d) If for meteorological reasons or poor visibility or glider recovery
problems, a fly-off must be postponed to be flown in the morning, it will be
flown as early as daylight and visibility permit in order to avoid thermal
activity. The maximum duration of the first flight will be a minimum of ten
minutes.
f)e) In the event of exceptional meteorological conditions or glider recovery
problems, the Jury may permit the maximum for a round to be changed.
Such a modified maximum must be announced before the start of the round.
3) Change 3.2.8 for correct cross-reference to 3.1.8
a) See 3.1.8.a.
b) See 3.1.8.b.
c) See 3.1.8.c.
d)c) The organiser will establish a 10 minute period during which all fly-off
competitors must wind their rubber motor and launch their model aircraft.
Within these 10 minutes the competitor will have the right to a second
attempt in the case of an unsuccessful attempt for an additional flight
according to para 3.2.5. Starting positions will be decided by a draw for
each fly-off.
e)d) See 3.1.8.e.d.
f)e) See 3.1.8.f.e.
4) Change 3.3.8 for correct cross-reference to 3.1.8
a) See 3.1.8.a.
b) See 3.1.8.b.
c) See 3.1.8.c.
d)c) Starting positions will be decided by a draw for each fly-off. The organiser
will establish a 10 minute period during which all fly-off competitors must
start their engines and launch their model. Within these 10 minutes the
competitor will have the right to a second attempt in the case of an
unsuccessful attempt for an additional flight according to para 3.3.5.
e)d) See 3.1.8.e.d.
f)e) See 3.1.8.f.e.
Reason: The "supermax" was introduced 4 years ago as a way of allowing a longer
maximum on some rounds without biasing the results completely to high still-air
performance since consistency through the rounds was still required. However, it has
proven unpopular with some competitors mainly on the grounds of "taking away time
already scored" when the supermax extended time is lost when a later flight is dropped.
It has also been unpolular with some organisers for some additional workload in score
preperation.
c) 3.1.7., 3.2.7., 3.3.7. Duration of Flights - FRANCE WITHDRAWN
1) Change in the first paragraph the last sentence:
"for international events" to " for specific rounds".
Reason: Contradiction with the next paragraph where "the jury may permit the
maximum for a round to be changed"
2) Change in the second paragraph:
After: "the maximum to be changed." add a new sentence:
.
Reason: If the maximum time is increased by more than 1 minute, then, it may
decide the winners of a competition only on that one flight.
3) Delete the last paragraph:
"For any flight with a maximum duration ... used only to resolve a tie.
Reason: This system to resolve tie was not well accepted either by competitors
and organisers. A large majority would prefer to return to the standard system of
counting all flight times in the round flight.
4) Paragraph 3.1.8.a), 3.1.8.b). Change as follows:
3.1.8.a): Delete: "subject to a limitation of three minutes"
3.1.8.b): Delete all paragraph and renumber c)d)e)f).
Reason: Same as for 3.1.7.
5) Paragraph 3.2.8., 3.3.8.. Change as follows:
Delete paragraph b) in 3.2.8. and 3.3.8. and renumber the following paragraphs
c)d)e)f)
Reason: Same as in 3.1.7.
d) 3.1.7, 3.1.8, 3.2.7, 3.3.7. Duration of Flights and Classification - UNITED
KINGDOM WITHDRAWN
Amend paragraphs relating to Procedures for Scoring in F1A, F1B and F1C as follows :
1) Delete the third paragraph in 3.1.7, 3.2.7, 3.3.7 :
For any flights with a maximum duration greater than three minutes the
additional time over three minutes is used only to resolve any tie.
2) Delete the following text in 3.1.8 and renumber subsequent paragraphs
accordingly :
3.1.8. Classification
a) The total time for each competitor for each of the official flights defined in
3.1.3. is taken for the final classification subject to a limitation of three
minutes for each flight. This total time achieved is also used to determine team
classification.
b) In order to decide the individual placings when there is a tie, the total
time achieved in each of the official flights defined in 3.1.3 will be taken
without limitation at three minutes.
c) b) In order to decide the individual placings when there is still a tie after the
procedure in (b), additional flights shall be made after the last flight of the
event has been completed. ..................
Reason: The revisions which are generally referred to as the 'Supermax' were
incorporated into the 2002 edition of Section 4 of the Sporting Code, and
comprised two sections:-
1. The first round maximums were increased to 240 secs. for F1A, and 300 secs.
for F1B/C in order to reduce the excessive numbers in fly-offs that had been
experienced in recent World and European Championships. 2. The procedures
for totalling the competitor's scores were changed to provide a method for
determining 'tied positions'. Item 2, the procedures for determining 'tied
positions', has proved to be unpopular with the majority of competitors, and
some International Event Organisers ignore the present rules when collating
results. The effect of the present procedures is that part of the scores gained in
the first round can subsequently be lost if a competitor does not achieve perfect
scores in subsequent rounds. The result of this is that competitors can lose (say)
1 second in rounds 2 to 7, and find that they place lower than a competitor who
lost (say) 50 seconds in round 1. Existing rule 3.1.8c already provides a
procedure for determining tied placings. The effect of the UK proposed rule
change set out above aims to result in all time scored in the rounds counting
towards final placings in the event.
e) 3.1.7 Class F1A, Duration of Flights - USA (from Deferred Section Plenary 2003)
1) Eliminate the last sentence: WITHDRAWN
"For any flights with a maximum duration greater than three minutes the
additional time over three minutes is used only to resolve any tie."
2) Amend the first sentence as follows:
.
Reason: The present "supermax" rules are causing unjust results at contests.
Our sport is about accumulating flight time to decide the winner. Similar
adjustments proposed for classes F1B and F1C: paragraphs 3.2.7, 3.2.8 (F1B)
and paragraphs 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 (F1C)
f) 3.1.8 Class F1A, Classification - USA (from Deferred Section Plenary 2003)
WITHDRAWN
1) Change 3.1.8.a to read:
.
2) Eliminate 3.1.8.b:
."
3) Change 3.1.8c to read:
.
Reasons: The present "supermax" rules are causing unjust results at contests.
Our sport is about accumulating flight time to decide the winner. Similar
adjustments proposed for classes F1B and F1C: paragraphs 3.2.7, 3.2.8 (F1B)
and paragraphs 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 (F1C)
g) 3.2.2 Characteristics of Model Aircraft with Extensible Motors F1B - USA. (from
Deferred Section Plenary 2003)
Add the following sentence:
.
Reason: Remote Dethermalization (RDT) offers an important safety feature when a
model is flying off the field, is about to hit an obstacle (a high voltage line, a tree or a
busy road) or is in a very strong thermal. RDT cannot offer an advantage to
clandestinely acquire a second attempt because second attempts are already banned if a
model dethermalizes with 20 seconds of launch. Frequencies used for this radio
function are short in duration and pulse coded. This option has been legally available to
the F1C class for several years.
h) 3.2.7 Class F1B, Duration of Flights - USA (from Deferred Section Plenary 2003)
1) Amend the first sentence in paragraph 3.2.7:
.
2) Eliminate the last sentence of 3.2.7: WITHDRAWN
Reason: The present "supermax" rules are causing unjust results at contests.
Our sport is about accumulating flight time to decide the winner. Corresponds to
changes proposed to 3.1.7 and 3.1.8
i) 3.2.8 Class F1B, Duration of Flights & Classification - USA (from Deferred Section
Plenary 2003) WITHDRAWN
1) Amend 3.2.8.c as follows:
.
Reason: Having an unduly long first round max is discouraging to new flyers.
Also, generally toward the end of the first round, thermal activity becomes
apparent making a longer max easier thus penalizing those flyers that flew in the
beginning part of the round. Starting the flyoff rounds at six minutes instead of
the traditional five may allow the contest to be over 2 flyoff rounds.
2) Amend paragraph 3.2.8.d) and add sentence: WITHDRAWN
.
Reason: Under the current rules it is not specifically stated that the competitor
may wind his/her motor before the round starts during the 7 rounds that are
normally flown before the flyoff (note: there seems to be a "gentleman's
agreement" that winding does not start before the rounds). The current F1B
rules do specify that the competitor must wind his/her own motor after the start
of the flyoff rounds. This places unnecessary stress on the flyer, as a blown
motor can take several minutes to remove and replace. This sport is about flying
and not about the ability to wind in a flyoff. This rule dates back to when F1B
motors were processed before the contest and the timer had to witness the
installation of the motor in to the airplane.
l) 3.3.2. Characteristics of Model Aircraft with Piston Motors F1C - GERMANY.
Amend Fuel specification:
The composition shall be as follows: 80 % methanol, 20 % castor or synthetic oil.
Reason: no influence to performance, but engines and models are easier to clean.
m) 3.3.7 Class F1C, Duration of Flights - USA (from Deferred Section Plenary 003)
1) Amend the first sentence:
"
2) Eliminate the last sentence: WITHDRAWN
.
Reason: The present "supermax" rules are causing unjust results at contests.
Our sport is about accumulating flight time to decide the winner. Corresponds to
changes proposed to 3.1.7 and 3.1.8.
n) 3.3.8 Class F1C, Duration of Flights & Classification - USA (from Deferred Section
Plenary 2003) WITHDRAWN
Amend 3.3.8.c as follows:
.
Reason: Having an unduly long first round max is discouraging to new flyers. Also,
generally toward the end of the first round, thermal activity becomes apparent making a
longer max easier thus penalizing those flyers that flew in the beginning part of the
round. Starting the flyoff rounds at six minutes instead of the traditional five may allow
the contest to be over 2 flyoff rounds.
o) 3.5.8. Class F1E, Classification - FREE FLIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE
1) Add a new sentence at the end of 3.5.8.a:
.
Reason: The current technique used for producing a junior classification is to
produce new scores normalised on the basis of the maximum or the highest
junior score if this is less than a maximum. A much easier method to score this is
simply to extract the scores made by the juniors within the general classification.
The proposal also serves to emphasise that the juniors are included in the general
results and open internationals are not two separate competitions for juniors and
seniors.
2) Add a new sentence at the end of 3.5.8.a:
.
Reason: The World Cup rules have not specified that the organising country must fly
an event in their own country. Established practice been established to allow countries
which do not have suitable facilities in their own country to fly their contest in a
neighbouring country. Examples have included Denmark flying F1ABC contests in
Sweden and Hungary flying F1E contests on a hill in Slovakia. This proposal clarifies
the situation and rules out "countries of convenience" where an event is entered on the
calendar in the name of one country but is flown in and completely organised by
another country - a situation which circumvents the number of World Cup events
allowed in any one country and which competition results can be counted.
q) Proposal for electric free flight model - FREE FLIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE
WITHDRAWN
Introduce new provisional class with specification given in ANNEX 8.
Reason: To establish a new category of electric powered free flight model. This will
add interest to power free with a new motive power with many new design challenges,
and the further advantage of having a lower noise level than i.c. powered models. The
proposal has been developed by the Free Flight Subcommittee and a majority of
members have supported the idea of the proposal, but with different preferences on
various key options. These options are shown in the proposal to aid understanding of the
alternatives considered and for discussion of the concept in advance of the Plenary
meeting and at the Free Flight Technical meeting.
r) Proposal for electric free flight model - FRANCE
WITHDRAWN
New Provisional class: F1Q : Model Aircraft with Electric Type Motor(s). Rules
are at ANNEX 9.
Reason: In several countries, Free Flight models are flown with Electric type motors. It
is time now to recognise these models in a new FAI class with common international
rules.
s) Proposal for electric free flight model - USA
WITHDRAWN
New Provisional class: F1Q/R: Electric Powered Free Flight Rules.
Rules are at ANNEX 10.
Reason: The two classes, F1Q and F1R, correspond roughly to the size of a Nordic and
Wakefield, following developments in the USA and Europe. The large/small format
follow a similar development in F1A/H, F1B/G and F1C/J. The size and battery weights
of F1R correspond to batteries fliers currently use for F1B sized models. Only minimum
area requirements are made, to encourage diverse designs, like the ones in F1G.
Designs could range from small fast climbing models with a fair glide performance, to
large slow climbing models with better glide performance. The stepped down flyoff
format will also encourage diverse design approaches.
ANNEX TO MINUTES -NEW PROVISIONAL CLASS F1Q Electric Powered Free Flight, based on USA proposal
Q.l. Definition
Model aircraft which is powered by (an) electric motor(s) and in which lift is generated by aerodynamic forces acting on
surfaces remaining fIXed in flight, except for changes of camber or incidence.
Q,2. Characteristics
Nickel Cadmium (NiCad), Nickel Metal Hydrate (NiMH) and Lithium Ion/Polymer (Li) batteries can be used. Batteries should be wrapped in a transparent covering to allow their classification. The battery pack will power the motor(s) as well as the controller(s) if they are used.
Maximum weight of battery pack (including connectors on the battery): 125g for NiCd or NiMH batteries 90g for Li batteries
External Battery packs are required to have a safety tether to the fuselage.
Safety locks must be used to prevent unintentional restarting ofmotor(s) after motor(s) have been stopped.
Rule B.3.1. of Section 4b does not apply to class (No builder of the model requirement. )
Maximum duration of motor run time to be specified by the organisers up to a maximum
duration of 25 seconds from release of the model
Motor runs may be timed statically on the ground by timing the motor cutoff. The motor run will also be timed from the instant of launch until it becomes apparent from the model attitude that the motor has stopped. If the motor run cannot bedetermined by observation of the model in flight then the static ground run time is taken, if that had been demonstrated.
Q.3. Number of Flights
7.
Q.4. Definition of an Official Flight
a) The duration achieved on the first attempt unless this attempt is unsuccessful under the definition of Q.5. If the attempt is unsuccessful under the definition of Q.5 and a second attempt is not made then the duration of this attempt is recorded as the official flight.
b) The duration achieved on the second attempt. If the second attempt is also unsuccessful under the definition of Q.5.a or Q.5./b, then a zero time is recorded for the flight.
Q.5. Definition of an Unsuccessful Attempt
An attempt is classed as unsuccessful if the model aircraft is launched and at least one of the following events
occur. If this happens on the fIrSt attempt then the competitor is entitled to a second attempt.
a) the time of the motor run from the release of the model aircraft exceeds the time specified in Q.2 or Q.8.
b) when a part of the model becomes detached during the launch or during the flight.
c) the duration of the flight is less than 20 seconds and the flight was not terminated by dethermalising.
Q.6. Repeat of an Attempt
An attempt may be repeated when the model aircraft collides with another model in flight, or a person other
than the competitor himself while being launched. Should the model aircraft continue its flight in a normal manner,
the competitor may demand that the flight be accepted as an official flight, even if the demand is made at the end of
the attempt.
Q.7 .Duration of Flights
The maximum duration for each flight is specified by the organiser up to a duration of three minutes.
In the event of exceptional meteorological conditions or model aircraft recovery problems the Jury may permit
the maximum for a round to be changed. Such a modified maximum must be announced before the start of the round.
Q.8. Classification
a) The total time for each competitor for each of the official flights defmed in Q.3 is taken for the final classification.
b) In order to decide the individual placings when there is a tie, additional flights shall be made after the last flight of
the event has been completed. The motor run allowed for the first of the deciding flights shall be 5 seconds
shorter than that used in the runds. The motor run will be reduced further by 5 seconds for each subsequent flight,
subject to a minimum run of 5 seconds. The maximum time for the deciding flights will remain at that defined in
Q. 7.
c) The organiser will establish a 10 minute period during which all fly-off competitors must launch their model.
Within these 10 minutes the competitors will have the right to a second attempt in the case of an
: unsuccessful first attempt for an additional flight according to Q.5. Starting positions will be decided by draw for each fly-
off.
d) The Jury may permit the maximum for a round to be changed and/or the motor run to be changed from that
given under Q.8.b according to conditions.
e) The motor run and maximum must be announced before the start of the round.
Q.9. Timing
a) See Section4b,para.B.ll.
b) The timing of flights is limited to the durations specified in Q.7 and Q.8. The total flight time is taken from
the launch of the model aircraft to the end of the flight.
c) The motor run must be timed by two timekeepers with quartz controlled electronic stopwatches with digital readout,
recording to at least 1/100 of a second. The motor run is determined as the average of the two registered times, and this
average is reduced to the nearest l/10th of a second below.
Q.10. Number of Helpers
The competitor is entitled to have one helper at the starting pole position.
Q.ll. Launching
a) Launching is by hand, the competitor being on the ground (jumping allowed).
b) Each competitor must start and regulate the motor or motors and launch the model himself.
c) The model must be launched within approximately 5 m from the starting pole position.
8) WORLD AND CONTINENTAL CHAMPIONSHIPS.
This is the up-to-date schedule for World and European Championships:
2005 World Championships:
F1A, F1B, F1C: Argentina
F1E Seniors and Juniors: Slovakia
F3A: France
F3B: Finland
F3C: Spain
F3D: France
2005 Continental Championships:
F1A, F1B, F1P Juniors: Romania
F1D Seniors and Juniors: France
F2A, F2B, F2C, F2D Seniors and Juniors: Hungary
F3J Seniors and Juniors: Croatia
F4B, F4C: Portugal
F5B, F5D: offers invited
Space Models Seniors and Juniors: Romania
WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS
YEAR
WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS
BIDS FROM
AWARDED TO
2006
F1A, F1B, F1P Juniors
GERMANY
F1D (Seniors and Juniors)
ROMANIA
YEAR
WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS
BIDS FROM
AWARDED TO
2007
F1A, F1B, F1C
Ukraine (firm)
F1E (Seniors and Juniors)
Romania (firm)
YEAR
WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS
BIDS FROM
AWARDED TO
2008
F1A, F1B, F1P Juniors
Serbia and
Montenegro (firm)
F1D (Seniors and Juniors)
Offers invited
YEAR
WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS
BIDS FROM
AWARDED TO
2009
F1A, F1B, F1C
Serbia and
Montenegro (firm)
F1E (Seniors and Juniors)
Offers invited
CONTINENTAL CHAMPIONSHIPS
YEAR
CONTINENTAL
CHAMPIONSHIPS
BIDS FROM
AWARDED TO
2006
F1A, F1B, F1C
UKRAINE
F1E (Seniors and Juniors)
ROMANIA
YEAR
CONTINENTAL
CHAMPIONSHIPS
BIDS FROM
AWARDED TO
2007
F1A, F1B, F1P Juniors
Serbia and
Montenegro
(tentative)
F1D (Seniors and Juniors)
Serbia and
Montenegro (firm)
(Germany withdrew
its bid)
YEAR
CONTINENTAL
CHAMPIONSHIPS
BIDS FROM
AWARDED TO
2008
F1A, F1B, F1C
Romania (firm)
F1E (Seniors and Juniors)
Slovakia (firm)
...............................
Roger Morrell