SEN 1468

Table of Contents - SEN 1468

  1. 8% F1Q
  2. Finals proposals
  3. Missing Input

8% F1Q

The 8% motor weight proposal got a lot of negative comments as being too

Obviously people have not tried it. I have never flown more than 9.5% yet
and my climb height on 25s (that IS the rule at the moment!) is over 150m,
more when I do a perfect launch. If people consider this "wimpy" ...

All this is done with a balsawood plane, square wing, first design, no
improvements (yet), a 10$ Hongkong motor, a 50g 3S LiPo pack.. I intend to
ballast it to the 8% rule and make climb measurments.

Pim wants to fly vertical - that of course is not possible. But a decent
climb, comparable to old power planes definitely is. If you cannot achieve
it, try different motor/prop/battery combinations. I am pretty sure that if
Dick tries a 3S battery he will have trouble managing the power and get a
really fast climb!


Finals proposals

I received the results from the two team selection questionnaires from AMA and it appears that one of the questions may have resulted in a bit of ambiguity.  The question was: "In general are you satisfied with the current program format, a two-year program using qualifying times leading to a single 14-round final?"  A similar question has been posed every cycle prior to the FFTSC in-person meeting.  Each time the response has been overwhelmingly "yes."  This cycle is no different: 35 - yes, 7 - no.  I discovered, however, that some of those who were in favor of changing the format to two 7-round contests marked "yes" on the questionnaire because the total was still 14 rounds.  Further, some of those who indicated that they were generally satisfied with a single 14-round final have been voicing support for other formats over the past month.


This is a bit unusual, but for my own edification I would like to put a sharper point on the question by taking a straw poll.  Program participants, please pick A, B, C, D, E or F from the below list of questions and email me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..  For the moment don't focus on the logistics, just the concept.  Please don't spend time providing justification for your choices, I just need the letters of your 1st and 2nd picks.  Three days from this post should be enough time to collect the data.  Thanks. 


A)  Are you in favor of a single site, single event 14-round Final in which those who have maxed out 14-rounds (or as many rounds as have been flown) advance to the flyoffs (current format)?

B)  Are you in favor of a single site, single event 14-round Final in which each contestant is given a "mulligan" (dropped max) reducing the "sudden death" element of flying 14-rounds?

C)  Are you in favor of a single site, single event 14-round Final in which each 7-rounds are counted as a separate contest?

D)  Are you in favor of a single site, single event 7-round Final (similar to the World Championships format)?

E)  Are you in favor of a multiple contest format perhaps held in different parts of the country?

F)  Are you in favor of a multiple contest format combined with a single event finals?

Also, just a reminder, although sen is an excellent venue for discussion, it is not a channel for formal program proposals.  If you didn't submit your proposal with your questionnaires, you can send it to the Chairman of the Program Proposal Subcommittee, Chuck Markos.  If you need his contact information, please let me know.  You can also submit proposals to your FFTSC District Representative.  As Mike Achterberg so aptly articulated, multiple proposals turn into a dilution scenario.  The proposals that receive the most consideration are those that have been thoroughly thought out, the possible shortcomings addressed, and have been submitted by consensus.  My advice is to find others who are in general agreement with you about your proposed changes, work through possible problems/solutions and submit the proposal as a group.


Chuck Etherington

FFTSC Co-Chairman 


Missing Input:

I note that recent US Team Selection Program discussions have not included any commentary from those currently NOT participating in the TS Program (with the notable exception of EoB) ?  If one of our stated goals for revitalizing the TS Program is sincerely to increase motivation and participation in FAI events beyond its current level, then I would hope that any such proposals or questionnaires are therefore also broadly circulated to those candidates who may not currently be reading SEN, such as the entire membership of NFFS and SAM (being the next most likely pool of recruits, both young and old) either in their monthly newsletters or at the very least, for reasons of expediency, on their websites.  What inputs and new ideas might those currently on the sidelines of FAI F/F propose, or vote for, that would get them actively involved ?


Similarly, if we are really trying to reach juniors or newcomers to model flying, the AMA’s new special interest magazines, Sport Aviator and Park Flyer, and their regular Model Aviation, should also be used for this purpose. There was a time when AMA published such articles, written by the Junior Team members themselves.  I remember a particularly good article by Melissa Anderson, written from the perspective of the Junior Team.  For example, I wonder if AMA published ANY report in these journals on the recent highly successful and highly motivating Junior World Championships held in Romania, which illustrated the success, enjoyment and friendships of the US Juniors and other youngsters from around the world, with a profusion of stories and photos that really captured the joys of F/F, and then to include at least a footnote on the process for how those interested might join in and participate in the US Team programs in the future. If stories like this don’t motivate the next generation to have a go at Free Flight, then there is honestly little hope for the future of the sport.


—  Biggles


Roger Morrell