SEN 1057 - 6 Dec 2006
- Category: Archive 2006
- Hits: 573
SEN issue 1057 - 6 Dec 2006
Table of Contents
MOVING THE DEBATE ON - Bosdet
Let's define the problem - Schroedter & Raymond
CCCP models - the saga.
MOVING THE DEBATE ON
From: "Nick Bosdet"
Hopefully this link will work
I have read the discussions regarding model performance posted in SEN
with increasing amazement with the introspection and negativity in the
current debate. My comments are for general reflection, rather
than a critiscm of the messenger though.
One really has to ask the question what sort of message does the
current debate send to a newcomer to Free Flight? Is this tyro really
likely to invest his time and/or money in FAI free flight classes?
It does not exactly encourage one to place an order now does it ?
I don't know, but will the CIAM meeting consider the bigger picture,
the bigger competition - namely attracting new blood? Is it time
that the remit of the Committee was reviewed? Is it time the
Technical Committee became subservient to a Marketing Committee?
Is it time to consider what free flight competition should offer
in 15 years time? Then develop a proper marketing strategy to
deliver this vision, before any technical changes are made?
For those who really insist on technical change, perhaps it
is time for the FAI to issue invitations to tender against
new specifications to supply low cost, one design models
that can be massed produced in the Far East, and retailed
through Model Shops at a reasonable price.
The opportunity to adopt "sport" designs by the FAI was
never progressed a few years ago. Yes let technical
excellence continue with the existing classes, but recognise
that not everyone wants to compete via their cheque book.
Secondly, is it time to put a greater emphasis on training
and development right across the globe? The objective
should be to disseminate excellent advice to far flung
participatants. One such innovative training aid has
been recently launched by a Gus Miller from the USA.
What Gus does not know about encouraging youngsters
is not worth considering see next E-mail. And since
he has coaching since the mid eighties, this
development should not be ignored.
So in summary leave the rule tinkering to one side
for time being, and move the debate on to how
we like our hobby to look in 10 years time.
Good flying in 2007
Summary of Nick's Finn Class Attachment
The attachment was well presented with heading of the topics
covered in Gus Miller's training sessions.
Finn Sailing; Soup to Nuts
and, it helps to be nuts!!
Finn sailing wisdom for everyone -- beginner, club, and master level sailors.
Even the highest level Finn sailors will find important reminders here.
Click on image Topic Subtopics
Finn Sailing Organization and annotation by Gus Miller with
images from numerous clinics and regattas. Website development
and clinics in 2006 at West Palm Beach and ABYC were supported
in part by a grant from the US Finn Foundation. Thanks to all
who participated in these learning adventures.
Introduction Finn class culture, who sails Finns, how to learn
Rigging Up Boom, wind indicator, mast step, main sheet block
Safety Keepers, bungee returns, halyard stowage, gear,
capsize recovery, avoiding injury
Sail Controls Mast bend, main sheet, outhaul, inhaul, cunningham, traveler
Description of sail control videos Mast bend, outhaul, inhaul, cunningham
Sail Trim Beating, pinching, inversion, sheeting, traveler, reaching, running
Boat Handling Heeling, tacking, gybing, handling line, hiking, steering, waves
Rules of Thumb Traveler, measurements, concentration
Let's define the problem
After reading the many comments about reducing the performance of our
planes, it leaves me wondering who exactly is having a problem with over
performing models? Is it the competitors themselves or is it the CDs
running the contest or is it something else? What exactly is the problem
they want to fix? Everyone is rushing to a solution. If we don't clearly
define the problem how can we know that any of these proposed solutions
will fix the problem?
There has been a lot of talk about reducing the performance of our
planes but no data has been produced to show that the reduction of
performance is even necessary. It appears the only reason a change is
being talked about is because of the ever decreasing field sizes
available throughout our sport. I have yet to see anything stating that
planes are flying off the field at an ever increasing rate. What I want
to know is, how long does it take for these planes to go off of a field
and what is causing this to happen. The obvious reason is wind not the
performance of the planes.
To me there are other ways to adapt to these fields. I propose we
categorize each field depending on its size and location. Contest can
be run according to predetermined set of max times based on field size,
wind speed and wind direction. A given field would have a range of max
times for ground speeds and wind direction. The CD and the contestants
would be able to anticipate changes to max times as wind conditions
change during a contest. But let's face it a 5 minute max in dead calm
air can easily be flown on any field but once you add wind that changes
everything. To me it seems totally unnecessary to modify the planes when
we have the ability to just change the times of the max based on these
predetermined categories. I've read comments about how a CD may get
pressured into flying or not flying depending on the wind conditions.
If categories are enforced then no one can pressure the CD to fly if the
wind exceeds the limits of that category for that field. The rules
states what should be done. Rules are rules and should be enforced by
As many have stated our hobby is slowly dying for many reasons. If we
change the performance of the existing models, we will only increase the
speed that people will step away from it and move onto something else.
If performance is decreased that will reduce the number of people
competing at a faster rate than the fields reducing in size. We need to
do what we can to save and promote this hobby not bring it to and end
sooner. Not everyone is a Victor Stamov who can fly with a 40 m line
with great control in wind. Not everyone is an Alex Andriukov who can
easily design a new model to perform better using less rubber. And not
everyone can afford to stop using their geared motors and go back to
using something with less performance.
Let's be honest here, the reason we all invest so much time and money
into this hobby of ours is because we enjoy watching the performance of
the planes we are flying. If we reduce performance it's going to take
the luster off what we love to see.
My gut feeling is that we are all jumping the gun on this issue.
However, I'd rather state my opinion and have it heard rather than sit
back and hope things will be left untouched. I hope that the powers that
be will realize the effect any change would create by reducing
Since I only fly F1B I will only address that particular event. If we
are going to consider reducing the rubber weight to 20 grams we need to
consider the effects of doing so.
- Will require new and/or modified models to keep up with the
- Many average competitors will resist the change and drop out
of the program.
- Reduces the consumption of rubber being used world wide by up
- Lower rubber consumption will/may lead to fewer batches,
longer lead times, higher prices, and potential loss of manufacturing.
- Lower factory production volumes may cause the factory to
reconsider whether or not to continue producing the product. Keep in
mind there is only one supplier of rubber. We simply can't risk this.
- It is well known that manufacturing world wide thrives on
sizeable production quantities, and re-evaluates product viability when
production orders are reduced.
- F1B fliers will demand only "The Best" rubber batches that
could result in a longer wait.
- Lower customer shipments and thus longer inventory periods
will certainly result in price increases.
If the problem is planes are flying off the fields, then I would propose
that we don't change the rules that will eliminate contestants and
require new or highly modified models. The possible changes we should
- Local CD to set times based on wind speed and available field
size according to the categories established for the conditions.
- Schedule F1B to start 30 minutes after F1A and F1C 30 minutes
after F1B (could be reduced to 15 minutes) to minimize "piggy backing"
- Reduce intake diameter for geared engines.
- Eliminate folding propellers.
- Increase weight of F1A and F1B to an agreed upon amount if
- Fly-offs to be one flight to the ground 90 minutes prior to
sunset or 30 minutes after sunrise weather permitting.
- Keep current rules except as noted above.
These changes would:
- Allow the use of smaller fields for local contests.
- Minimize loss of contestants (may see a slight increase in
- Eliminate added cost impact.
- Minimize disruption for suppliers.
- Maintain our supply of rubber.
Our fate is in the hands of those that decide whether or not we need a
change. I hope they are listening to us all.
Marty & Aimee
CCCP models - the saga.
Our magazine "Vol Libre" celebrates its Thirtieth Birthday, my
friends. In this occasion we publish the history of the F1A-B-C as it
was lived in the USSR of the years 1970 to 1990. A true saga, as you
know. And 100 pages or so. The first part will appear in this end of
the year 2006, in the normal course of the subscription. This issue
was carried out with the welcome participation of Andres Lepp. -- The
not subscribed friends can acquire this issue for 10 euros, or 12 US
dollars, by the editor :
Andre Schandel / 16 chemin du Beulenwoerth / 67000 STRASBOURG /