SEN 1052 - 17 Nov 2006
- Category: Archive 2006
- Hits: 82
SEN 17 November 2006 issue 1052
Table of Contents
Reply to "Changes for 2007" - Biggles
Limited Span F1B (aka Wakeing up ugly) - King and Zeri
F1C Model Performance - Watson
Terry Kerger's F1J Survey
2006 Autumn Cup Results - Simpson
Tymchek Getting Going again
My thoughts on rules field size etc. - Jensen
Reply to "Changes for 2007"
* I didn't realize EoB was in Odessa last week with the rest of the
lads, working out these important new details. However, great timing
on proposed rules changes in SEN 1049, right up there with the FAI
and US Finals !
* In the words of the Grand Negus and Gourmet Authority, are you now
going with the Dream Team nominations to decide the UK Team, or will
you choose the best 6 of 8 past Food Ordering results, from a 2 year
cycle, not counting Gala's or Decentralized events ?
* Or perhaps you plan to adopt that old chestnut of deciding a Daily
Winner ? If so, I'm still not clear on what happens to resolve a tie
? Will you automatically go to a 10 minute early morning breakfast
round, or will you try to squeeze in some late evening rounds of
dessert tie-breakers, until you get a result ?
* Although it may be true these days, that there are very few menus
large enough to match the performance of the International food
sports person, what about all these new proposals from the Intstitut
Américain Food (IAF) to deliberately limit Food Ordering ? No good
will come from a further reduction in the size of menus, from 30
pages down to just 20, in a feeble attempt to limit orders to match
the smaller tables we are faced with these days at restaurants in
many countries. It'll take all the fun out of the event. Surely
this will ruin it for the mature food sports person, who will soon
look elsewhere to other challenges, like the Bring More Food
Association (BMFA) unrestricted class, all-you-can-eat Open events ?
And next season, with the new BMFA Combined Open format, you'll have
breakfast orders competing right alongside lunch and dinner - how are
you going to score that on a level flying field ? I note that an
attendee (name not recorded) asked frequently about the adverse
effects of wind, and was promptly escorted from the meeting.
* Surely the Meals Abroad Internationale Connesseurs (MAIC) French
Fries subcommittee, cannot be serious when they propose increasing
the minimum wait ? Especially at establishments like Dennys, Lost
Hills, where even the mild mannered Brokenspar was heard to mutter,
* And what's all this about having to put two ping pong balls in
your mouth while placing an order. I predict this will be a real
drag ! This is a thinly disguised attempt to prevent sportsmen from
launching into a jolly good order, by limiting their accents by an
estimated 87%. And it will penalize juniors and beginners more by
the increased difficulty involved. Where is the outcry from la
Société Fast Food Non (SFFN),
* And now we hear that they are already testing shorter chair legs
at the Odessa Denny's, down from 50 cm to only 40 cm. Next thing you
know they'll want to shorten the tables too. Where will this all end
? Soon we'll be trying to order sitting on the floor, from a one
page menu, at a table the size of a match box ? Although, that just
might encourage more participation from juniors and beginners.
Limited Span F1B (aka Wakeing up ugly)
Limited Span F1B (Peter King & Anselmo Zeri)
My good friend Amselmo Zeri emailed me for my opinion on limiting span for
F1B in order to limit the performance. He suggested I try some simulations to
get some hard(?) facts about the possible effects. We both agree it is not
a good way to go as it simply doesn't have enough effect, unless you go as
far as reducing the Aspect Ratio to something like 9/1. That would result
in a hideous looking Wakefield! A more reasonable limit of 1500mm Span and
an AR of ca 14/1 would only knock 15 seconds off a 5 minute flight and would
still look ghastly for anyone who loves our elegant current designs. A
reduction to 1400mm (AR 12) would remove a further 15 secs. I guess that
would be the best, but even less attractive solution, as it would arguably
knock 30 sec off a 5 min flight. But is an ugly 12/1 AR model worth it,
just to reduce a 5 min still air time 4 1/2 min ? I always believe in model
design being dictated purely by efficiency and strangely enough, in my view,
this usually also leads to aesthetically pleasing layouts.
We don't all share the same view on what constitutes an elegant model and
for me efficiency is all important, but in my own humble opinion let's not have
"ugly" models, just to reduce duration by a few seconds.
Below are the results of my quick simulation runs. I offer them just to
add to the data bank in case they are of help in shaping any new revisions to
the F1B regulations.
(mm) AR Dur (sec)
1200 8.9 229
1350 11.3 262
1500 13.9 285
1600 15.8 294
1700 17.8 300
1800 20.0 300
1900 22.3 297
F1C Model Performance
Ref. the correspondence from Tapio in SEN issue 1051, I quote the last paragraph,
For F1C,that is a can of worms that I do not want to open. I have my view what would be needed
for that class, but you do not want to hear it, so I do not say it aloud...
I was interested to know what Tapio's views are. Perhaps the time has arrived when we should
at least mention the unmentionable. I have certainly heard it said that F1C would be better
if folding wings, and geared engines had been banned, the second that they were conceived.
I am aware of all the arguments against such a ban, and have 5 geared models , and am
currently building a folder myself. I find them both very interesting, and challenging.
Banning them would certainly reduce performance, although I would not propose such a ban.
It would be interesting to know the outcome of such a hypothetical ban.
Would it be the final death of F1C ?.
Would it make little difference to entry numbers ?.
Would it increase participation ?.
I apologise to any F1C flyer who's blood pressure has just gone of the scale on reading this !.
Terry Kerger's F1J Survey
ovember 15, 2006
These are the tabulated results of the survey
This tabulation is for the flyers that indicated they were active
participants in the F1J event.
The following distinguished modelers submitted responses to the F1J
Ed Carroll, Alan Abriss , Reid Simpson , Bob Hanford, Mike Fedor,
Buckey Serventes, Walt Rozelle, Lee Cambell, Louiedafly5, Randy
Archer, Peter Watson, Bill Lovins, Faust Parker, Lynn Pully, Ken Faux,
Dave Johannes, Stafford Screen, Norm Poti, Doug Galbreath,
And the results are
Are you a current active participant in the F1J event Yes 19 No____
Are you primarily a contest organizer Yes 5 No 13
Have you organized or managed a FAI contest including F1J Yes 10 No 8
Do you have more than 10 years of Free Flight Contest Experience Yes 17 No 1
Have you participated in the F1J event in the past Yes 19 No 0
Do you fly a high performance composite F1J Yes 13 No 5
Do you fly a non-composite F1J Yes 8 No 10
Is your F1J powered by a 0.061 high performance Cyclon engine Yes 3 No 5
Is your F1J powered by a ½ A engine TD or equivalent Yes 5 No 13
Is the F1J event in the current FAI format fun for you to fly Yes 15 No 4
Does the current motor run need to be reduced to achieve sporting Results Yes 16 No 7
Is a reduction in the motor run allowed to 5 seconds appropriate Yes 12 No 8
Is the current increase in fly off times by 30 seconds per round appropriate Yes 1 No 13
Is a 1-minute increase in fly off times per round appropriate Yes 10 No 9
Is an extended first round maximum appropriate Yes 12 No 7
Should the contest format guidelines be revised Yes 14 No 5
Is a formal proposal to the FAI to revise the current format appropriate Yes 15 No 4
Should the contest management be allowed to modify the contest format Yes 14 No 5
It is interesting to note that the majority of the flyers enjoy the event as
it is, but they also appeared to have supported reducing the engine run to 5
seconds and are in favor of the extended first round when weather conditions
permit. They are also in favor of a formal proposal to revise the format.
These are the tabulated results of the survey
This tabulation is for the modelers who indicated they were not active
competitors in the F1J event.
The following distinguished modelers submitted responses to the f1J
Martin Gregorie, Joe Mekena, Fred tersian, Daryl Perkins, Don
Delaoch, Bruce Agustus, Jim Bradley, Bob Stalick, Herman Andresen,
And the results are
Are you a current active participant in the F1J event Yes No 10
Are you primarily a contest organizer Yes 5 No 5
Have you organized or managed a FAI contest including F1J Yes 6 No 3
Do you have more than 10 years of Free Flight Contest Experience Yes 15 No 0
Have you participated in the F1J event in the past Yes 15 No 1
Do you fly a high performance composite F1J Yes 2 No 8
Do you fly a non-composite F1J Yes 6 No 3
Is your F1J powered by a 0.061 high performance Cyclon engine Yes 5 No 3
Is your F1J powered by a ½ A engine TD or equivalent Yes 3 No 6
Is the F1J event in the current FAI format fun for you to fly Yes 7 No 1
Does the current motor run need to be reduced to achieve sporting results Yes 2 No 7
Is a reduction in the motor run allowed to 5 seconds appropriate Yes 6 No 3
Is the current increase in fly off times by 30 seconds per round appropriate Yes 3 No 5
Is a 1-minute increase in fly off times per round appropriate Yes 7 No 3
Is an extended first round maximum appropriate Yes 5 No 3
Should the contest format guidelines be revised Yes 5 No 3
Is a formal proposal to the FAI to revise the current format appropriate Yes 6 No 4
Should the contest management be allowed to modify the contest format Yes 7 No 4
It is interesting to note that the majority of modelers who do not fly in the
event enjoy the event as it is, but they also appeared to have supported
reducing the engine run to 5 seconds and are in favor of extended first round
maximums when the weather permits. They are also in favor of a formal
proposal to revise the current format.
2006 Autumn Cup Results
Will you please be kind enough to post this on SEN.
The 2006 Autumn Cup weekend at Seguin was good, bad, good. Since this
was the weekend of "Veterans Day", we were able to have the field for
test flying Friday.. The temp was in the high 80s and the wind was
light. Great flying for those who arrived early to take advantage of it.
The forecast for the weekend was very very accurate. The expected cold
front hit at 3:00 am Saturday and the winds reached 30 MPH with a high
of 60. All flying was rescheduled for Sunday when a return to Southeast
winds of 5 -10 was predicted.
Sunday's flying started at 8:00 AM with light winds. In order to get all
eleven events flown on one day, only 5 rounds for F1A,B,C were scheduled
and flown. The wind direction only changed one time and that one move
only cost us 45 minutes of a delay before the rounds were resumed.
We also had the pleasure of having 2 competitors from Russian joining us
to compete. Sergie Lissotchenko, who now lives in Houston flew F1J. And
a friend of his, Igor Terenchuck, who was his mentor in their modeling
club in Russia is now visiting him and flew F1P with us.
It was good to see Faust and Julie Parker come over from Houston to
compete. With only a few weeks since his knee operation Faust was moving
pretty slow, but was still able to get off 5 max flights to win F1J.
All events were completed and the awards handed out by 3:30 Sunday
afternoon. Considering the weather forecast, we had a good turnout. 22
years of flying the Autumn Cup at the Seguin field. Come join us next
November for our 23rd annual.
Autumn Cup Contest Director
2006 AUTUMN CUP RESULTS (NOV 11 - 12)
Mike Fedor 120..080..120..074..000.394
Bob Hanford 120..120..058..000..000.298
Mark Troutman 032..000..000..000..000. 32
Eddie Vanlandingham 120..120..120..120..120.600
Dick Wood 120..105..120..120..120.585
Mark Troutman 089..061..115..000..000.265
Gerald Brown 084..095..000..000..000.179
Bob Hanford 052..037..060..000..000.149
Don Chesson 120..120..120..120..120.600..049..649
Dick Mathis 120..120..120..120..120.600
Mark Troutman 078..118..074..000..000.270
Bob Hanford 021..000..000..000..000. 21
Dick Wood 120..120..120..120..120.600
Pete Reinhart 120..113..091..120..120.564
Eddie Vanlandingham 120..115..090..120..090.535
Bob Hanford 042..000..000..000..000. 42
Mike Fedor 113..105..120..120..098.556
Mark Troutman 077..000..091..095..110.373
Gerald Brown 120..099..120..003..024.366
Dan Berry 060..120..058..069..000.307
Bob Hanford 075..000..000..000..000. 75
Faust Parker 120..120..120..120..120.600
Bob Hanford 120..120..120..080..077.517
Dan Berry 120..120..120..095..000.455
Sergie Lissotchenko 120..120..028..000..000.268
Jackie Sheffer 120..120..072..120..120.552
Mike Fedor 120..120..090..120..077.527
Igor Terenchuck 120..055..120..010..000.305
Mark Troutman 047..120..000..000..000.167
Bob Hanford 009..000..000..000..000. 9
Gerald Brown 006..000..000..000..000. 6
Open Gas (4)
Bob Hanford 120..120..120..120..120.600..142..742
Dan Berry 120..120..120..120..120.600..112..712
John Irwin 120..120..042..000..000.282
Mark Troutman 053..115..000..000..000.168
Dan Berry 120..120..120.360
Craig Hollier 072..120..080.272
James Thornton 067..120..073.260
Pete Reinhart 120..060..043.223
NFFS One Design (4)
Reid Simpson 114..112..120.346
Bob Hanford 105..120..120.345
Mark Troutman 114..087..120.321
Lary Kruse 116..120..120.236
Cat Glider (3)
Dan Berry 120..120..111..107..000.458
Larry Kruse 074..060..040..043..052.269
Jackie Sheffer 024..038..018..007..012. 99
Tymchek Getting Going again
Hi Roger. I talked to Sue Tymchek today, and she reports that Bob has
had his back surgery (on Wednesday), and he is recovering well. They
got him up to walk today, but she says that the preparation for the
walk took longer than the 10 steps he took. Sounds like his is pretty
ornery, so I think he's going to be fine. Just a long recovery time.
Will keep you posted. gb
My thoughts on rules field size etc.
I understand the drive to accommodate our models to smaller fields.
But, before jumping on the performance-reduction bandwagon, I thought
I would have a look at the performance of F1B over the last year. I
was very surprised to see how low the number of max-outs actually
was. I found that out of the 38 World Cup contests flown this year,
11 of them required no flyoff at all. Eighteen contests had between 2
and 5 perfect scores, 6 contests had between 6 and 9, While only 3
out of 38 World Cup contests had double-digit competitors in the
flyoff. Some of these were large contests, some examples: 6 clean out
of 27, 8 out of 66, and only 1 out of 27. Of the contests in which a
flyoff was required, 19 out of 27 were settled with one flyoff round.
In fact, only one World Cup contest this year required three flyoff
rounds. Even the easy to max contests were quickly decided. At one
contest 19 out of 46 competitors had a perfect score but a 5-minute
round followed by a 7-minute round decided the contest. I noticed
quite a number of contests had canceled rounds or shortened maxes,
even most of those had only a few with a full house at the end of the
I believe that the performance of the 30g F1B is being
overestimated. A 5-minute flight in true still air is not an easy
task. I have flown more than two dozen flights with an altimeter
over the last year. All of these flights were made just after sunrise
or just before sunset. A 280 to 300 feet maximum altitude is pretty
common and 315 feet is the highest flight that I have attained thus
far. That flight was with a good Tan 2 motor, and judging by the rate
of descent, I would say that the air was not up but was very nice. I
think I had at least 10 flights that did not quite make 5 minutes,
the others were more than 5 minutes, and I think only one or two made
6 minutes, and those had good motors and nice air.
The timing of the flyoffs and, at least in the US, a push to get the
contest over as soon as possible has gotten us to the 7-minute flyoff
earlier in the day, when winds are higher and thermals are present. A
7-minute flight with a little wind is where things begin to get
tricky with human eyesight and binoculars. Back when we flew flights
of 4, 5, 6, 7 minutes, the 7-minute flight was not reached until
later in the day when the wind was less and the models could not make
the max. Recently, CDs have tried going directly to the 7-minute
flyoff or cutting the window to 5 minutes, or even trying to pick a
hole and then open the round. What usually happens is a confused
scramble to begin the flyoff right after the last round is over.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I can think of many
times when a contest has ended and I have stayed on the field to test
fly afterward. I usually will get in two or three flights to the
ground in perfect flyoff weather by myself. I would like to see more
contests run like the 1997 World Championship. They found the time of
sunset and scheduled the beginning of the 9-minute flight one half
hour before that time, then scheduled the start of the 7-minute round
one hour before that, and the start of the 5-minute round on hour
before that. Every contest that I have attended that has been run
that way has ended with a fair result and a memorable event. This
also allows a more relaxed time between the end of the regular rounds
and the beginning of the flyoff. Competitors have a little time to
have lunch, prepare backup models, set timers, or test fly.
I do not like reducing the flyoff window to 5 minutes. I think that
time is too short to allow for strategy, in other words, people need
to be allowed to screw up. Should I go now or will it be better in 6
minutes? Also, if there is a larger flyoff field with a long line, 10
minutes would be more fair to all. If a thermal comes through on one
end of the line and the window is only 5 minutes, the people who drew
the other end of the line most certainly would not have a chance to
fly in good air.
I also do not like the idea of removing the 20-second attempt rule.
We have been there before and brought it back. I agree that it can be
discouraging to make a small mistake and be out of the contest while
someone who makes a large mistake gets another chance. Removing the
rule entirely does not encourage experimentation. I don't think the
DPR front end in F1B would have come about as quickly or at all
without this rule. How about changing the attempt rule to 5 seconds?
This would be a short enough time not to excuse a mistake like
hooking up the lines to the timer incorrectly, which could result in
a 6 to 12 second flight (No VIT coming in) or a 15 to 20 second
flight (DT line on VIT arm). But, an F1B flyer who had a prop-start
failure would get a re-flight. These props sometimes just don't start
no matter how much preparation is made to prevent such an occurrence.
I think it is not fair to send someone home with a 2-second flight
who has traveled a long way to a contest and has not really made a
I think some recent technologies, affordable image stabilized
binoculars and radio DT, will help things get better naturally. I
encourage discussion of empirical data on these matters. This way I
sincerely hope that we can make rational changes, if needed, rather
than rushing into changes that could ruin our sport.