SEN 1024 - 31 Aug 2006
- Category: Archive 2006
- Hits: 356
SEN issue 1024 31 August 2006
Table of Contents
Rules of the Future for F1B
Aug 19-20 FAI Invitational Results
25 Gram proposal
Rules of the Future for F1B
The past few remarks about future F1B rules are interesting reading
on the SCAT Web site. We have been flying with the same area rules
for a very long time. The rubber weight has changed two times in the
last twelve years. Rumor is that the CIAM will change the rubber
weight at the next meeting and also lower the required time period so
that the rule will come into use very soon. If for some reason the
talked about changes are from the manufactures of models then the
CIAM personal should not listen to them. The big question to myself
is why would fellow flyers or contest management want to change the
Lets look at the contest management side first.
I went to the CIAM web page and looked up World Cup results for 2005
and 2006 to see how many flyers max out compared to the total entry.
I then calculated a percentage. Looking at six contest for each
year, 2005; Kazan Cup 24%, Embalse 17%, puszta Cup 23%, Antonov Cup
37%, Sierra Cup 21% and the Eifel Pokal 22%. For 2006; Nordic Cup
26%, Australian Champs 4%, Stonehenge Cup 22%, Open International
13%, Swedish Cup 33% and Poitou 19%. I felt that six contest would
give an overall average for each year.
The most in any flyoff was the 2005 Eifel Pokal with 14 flyers and
the least was the Australian Champs with only one flyer maxed out and
no flyoff. Total contestants were 402 with 86 in the flyoffs for an
average percentage of 21.4%. This is a very manageable amount of
contestants for a flyoff and should not burden any contest management.
Looking at the 2003 and 2005 World Championships the flyoff
percentage is higher; 2003 35% and 2005 24%. The European
Championships percentage is; 2004 26% and 2006 21%. This works out
to an average of 27%. Even with 27% of the flyers maxing out the
contest management should not have any problems arranging the flyoffs
and conducting them. As Mike Woodhouse stated this is the top level
of contestants and you must expect a good amount in the flyoff as
long as the weather is reasonable.
I did not include the Max Men or Holiday on Ice results because I
felt they do not represent the correct information. The Max Men is a
fourteen round contest and the conditions in Norway are excellent for
The World Cup and World Championship listed above are a good mix of
contest to see the flyoff results. If you had a total max out of 33
to 50 percent of the entry, then I would say that we needed to make
Most of the above flyoffs results used two rounds to settle the
contest. You could change the flyoff window to five minutes and
reduce the amount of time that the contestant has to find lift. Doing
this may shorten the contest. If the window was reduced to five
minutes, the flyers should be allowed to wind their motors before the
Controlling the rubber would be a nightmare for organizers. I was
told that FAI Supply could produce the rubber with a color to it so
that you would know if somebody was using different rubber. Somebody
would have to make all the motors and give them out at a contest or
they would have to supply the rubber to the contestants and then they
make the motors. Very time consuming and not a practical approach
for holding an F1B contest. Those who have Tan rubber will be out of
it soon and then all F1B flyers will be using Super Sport. The
playing field will then be even for rubber use.
Some discussions have been held regarding making the models smaller
so they will stay on the small fields that we fly on these days. My
only comment is that an F1G model will go farther than an F1B model
with today's rules. Lost Hills is not big enough to hold F1G
during an afternoon flyoff. No matter what you do with the rules
within reason, you will still have trouble timing / watching the
models during a flyoff. The only rule change that would make the
models stay on a field is too increase the weight to a very high
amount and then none of us would want to fly the models. They would
be no fun. Also, if you changed the formula for the models, all the
models we have would be obsolete.
I have been to a lot of World Cup contest in the last few years and
have not seen any flyoffs that were hard to manage for the
organizers. To help all World Cup organizers, I believe they should
use the format of having the flyers time each other for the first
seven rounds and also require the flyoff contestants to bring a timer
to the flyoff timer pool. The timers names are pulled at random for
each flyer. This format has been proven and it is the best way to
hold a contest.
So if you wanted to lower the percentage of flyoff contestants, how
would you accomplish this? How about changing the rules and not
allow any thermal detection equipment. No poles with streamers. No
electrical equipment to check the temperature. No soap bubbles or
any form of light material to check the air movements.
Bernd Silz uses an electrical thermal detection meter with great
success. My guess is that if he were not allowed to use the
equipment his ability to make the flyoff would be greatly reduced.
Now lets look at the viewpoint from the flyers side.
Our F1B models are a joy to fly at this time. Yes, they perform.
Remember the FAI events are like racing Formula One cars. The FAI
model is the ultimate event of Free Flight models. Today's
are not as good as the 35 gram models we flew a few years ago. The
five grams less rubber has lowered the still air time. Even with
most of the flyers purchasing models we have a good selection of
models on the flight line. Using composite materials has allowed the
modern models to perform much better than balsa models of the past.
We should not revert to the past and just use balsa. Putting limits
on the wings span is not a good idea. One of my best models has a
wingspan of 61.5 inches (1.56 meters). Alex Andriulov's short
is an excellent design and performs great. FAI events should have the
freedom of pushing the limits. No restrictions on wingspan. Only
area as we have at this time.
I would like to see no model configuration / rubber weight rule
changes made and if needed only changes to the organization side of
the way contest are run. Remember, the above flyoff percentages are
not a burden to organizers. Just removing the thermal detection
equipment would reduce the amount of flyers in a flyoff. Once the
flyoff starts shorten the flyoff window to five minutes. These
changes will reduce the amount of contestants in the flyoff and also
reduce the length of the flyoffs.
I would like to suggest that the CIAM personal who will be involved
with making any new rules for F1ABC state them on the SCAT Web site
six months before the meetings so that a dialog could be held and the
voice of the flyers heard. Please keep the flyers informed. Do not
sit around a table making rule changes without first flying models
configured with the proposed changes. Also, only F1B flyers should
have input for any changes to their event. This also applies to F1A
and F1C events.
[actually Walt, my question is - Is there really a proposal to change
the basic rules for any of F1`A, B or C or are we getting wound up about
nothing at all ?]
Aug 19-20 FAI Invitational Results
46th FAI Invitational Results: August 19-20, 2006
It was a busy weekend at the AMA flying site in Muncie, IN. Besides the FAI
contest, three other sanctioned events were scheduled: The NOFFA Summer
Free Flight Contest, the Hoosier Dawn Patrol for giant scale WWI-RC models,x=
and a Rocket Shoot as well.
I arrived on Thursday, Aug 17 to get in some test flying and the weather was
ideal, light and variable winds, just enough for using an F1A self-launcher,
and not too hot. Friday started off the same way, but the wind direction
took a definite turn from the west by mid-day. Up to that time, Mulvihill
flights for the NOFFA contest were landing on the field after more
than 8 minutes
in the air. However, Walt Tomash put up a Mulvihill flight for a 5-minute
max that didn't DT until 7 minutes after the wind direction changed and was
over one mile off the field.
The FAI rounds started at 8 am on Saturday with a 3-minute max. By 8:45, it
was evident that 3 minutes plus would be off the field, so the max was
reduced to two minutes for the rest of the day. The turnout was quite low
this contest, as the Jr WCh in Germany took away 6 regular competitors. The
weather forecast and the proximity to the Nats just two weeks prior, as well as
the price of gasoline, also kept attendance down. By Chicago standards, the
price of gas in Muncie was a bargain, however, $2.69 per gallon.
There was some drama in F1A where Peter Barron took a one second lead over
his father, Andrew in the mid-rounds. Andrew is in the running for the 2006
America's Cup and a win in Muncie was one of his objectives in coming to the
contest. However, sportsman and good father that he is, continued to
encourage Peter to do well. By the 4th round, circle-towing was risky due
velocity and most F1A flights were straight tow and launch. However, Andrew towed
into some down air just after missing the max in the 4th round, then showed
a masters skill in circling and kiting until the thermal air arrived to max
in the 5th. In F1B, it looked like Paul Crowley had things locked up for a
win, but bad air in the last two rounds for his flights allowed John Seymour
to prevail with his low-tech model. John also flew F1C very well until he
broke a tailboom on his only model in the 6th round. The F1C rounds were
suspended after 6 rounds as the winds had picked up quite a bit and a 2-minute
max flight would not change the standings. Because of the windy weekend, the
F1C fly off was re-scheduled to the next weekend at the COFFA contest.
The early morning flight resulted in a win by Norman Poti, although Gil Morris'
email report mentioned that visibility was a problem all models flew OOS in
The mini-events were started on Saturday evening at 6 pm. However, only 4
F1G flyers showed up to fly as the wind speed and direction had not abated
much. Two rounds were flown and the contest was continued on Sunday morning
with an 8 am start. The wind direction was from the north and not too strong
early, but did pick up a bit by the last of the three Sunday rounds at 10 am.
However, as long as DT times were not excessive, there was no danger of
losing models. Because the numbers were down and the possibility of a flyoff
was minimal, the 5-minute 8 am max was reduced to 2 minutes.
Results: 46th FAI Invitational, Aug 19-20, Muncie, IN
Max per round
180 120 120 120 120 120 120 420 Total
1. Andrew Barron 145 120 120 77 120 120 120 822
2. Peter Barron 103 120 120 120 120 120 51 754
3. Chuck Markos 93 120 54 111 73 108 559
1. John Seymour 46 120 120 120 120 107 120 853
2. Paul Crowley 180 120 120 120 120 74 112 846
3. Dave Lacey 81 99 129 129 58 120 120 718
4. Jerry McGlashan 138 21 159
1. Norman Poti 180 120 120 120 120 120 403 1183
2. Gil Morris 180 120 120 120 120 120 305 1085
3. John Seymour 180 120 120 120 120 120 280 1060
4. Bucky Servaites 127 120 247
Max per round
120 120 120 120 120
1. Paul Crowley 116 120 120 93 120 569
2. Dave Lacey 60 101 120 93 120 494
3. Fred Blom 56 89 99 88 71 403
4. Chuck Markos 81 81
1. Lee Campbell 73 120 120 313
1. Lee Campbell 77 120 120 317
Chuck Markos, CD
I guess I'm on my own with this one but I have no problem with it at all. In
fact 20gms would be OK by me. The biggest problem facing lots of Free Flight
sites is urban sprawl, and as a result smaller flying sites furthur away.
How do we showcase our interest in F1B to potential newcommers if we need to
travel large distances to hold an event. Limit the performance and have more
choices in where we can conduct our activity which may be the best way of
ensuring it's survival. Each year I travel well over a thousand kilometers to fly on
a nice large flying site at Narendera (Australia). I don't expect a
potential newcommer to travel that sort of distance to see if they would like to
participate in this event. This I see as an important incentive for limiting
performance. Since many people already have high aspect models etc the alternative
suggestion of reduced wing span would make many models redundant. 10 minute
windows could also be an administrative problem particularly if most competitors
elect to fly at the same time ie when the milar streamers are all standing to
attention. When I flew 40gm models at the 1983 world champs I was using 1979
gold pirelli and getting a long prop run. Now I am using Tan super sport and
getting the same prop run and in most cases better times with 30 gms. As
time progresses models advance with what is often referred to as gadgets. Most
things like VIT, AR and delayed prop releases etc were around in the 40gm era.
I doubt if by reducing rubber weight by 5 gms will mean the end of the
current models or current technology. A friend of mine stated he would not fly F1B
any more if they dropped the weight from 40 to 35gms as he was only just
maxing with 40 gms. Guess what - he is now keener than ever and getting much
better performance out of his 30 gm models then he ever did out of his old models.
Forget the doomsday prophecies that will occur with 5 gms less of rubber.
More free flighters will leave the sport from dying of old age rather than of a
broken heart as a result of 5gms less to wind up. I don't believe 25gms of
rubber will lead to any noticeable loss of performance but hopefully it may
restrict an increase for a while at least. Hopefully not too many of you are
reaching for your medication after reading this. Just to stir the pot a little
more: I think F1J should be limited to a five second engine run as well.
[The reason why there is no significant drop in perfermance from 40 gram of Pirrelli
to 30 of super sport is because Super sport is better in terms of both energy
output and predictability as well as the airplanes being betterr than they were in '83.
The arguement should not be is it good or bad to change or what would be the effect of
changing but rather as with Walt's says above - why change ? Who really has a problem
with hte F1A, B or C rules ? The number of people in a F1A fly off is very similar
to F1B. If people want to have contests on smaller fields - we already
have an FAI class F1G to do that, or if that's too hard fly P-30 or an old timer