SEN 1390
- Details
- Category: Archive 2010
- Hits: 1313
Table of Contents SEN 1390
- SEN DElayed
- Bauer Reports from Tustin
- Micafilm Success
- Sidus F1Q Update
- NZ Flash
- Southern Skymen
- French position on FAO categories
- Muklticlass electrnic for sales
- Canadian Concerns on Britsh proposals
SEN Delayed
Because of travel to the NX World Cup Events some SEN reports were delayed.
Bauer Reports from Tustin..
This weekend we are in the midst of a great indoor flying session at the legendary blimp hanger in Tustin, California. The event is going very well with great conditions and lots of people. There are even some guys from Romania and Hungary I believe flying rubber models with Bud Romak. There is still one more day to go, but history was made Saturday evening in the hand launch glider event. Jim Buxton came from Ohio with a box full of new foam core wing vacuum bagged composite gliders to challenge Stan Buddenbohm who recently broke the 35 year old record of just over 90 seconds per flight. Jim warmed up Friday and early Saturday with some very nice flights but when the air seemed to get better late Saturday I don't think any of us realized what was about to happen.
It was an epic battle between Jim and Stan Saturday evening. At one point both Jim and Stan threw up 102.0 second flights virtually back to back. Jim was flying his glider with the conventional "stanfoil" type airfoil, as early indications were that these were better than the Ishii airfoiled versions so he stuck with them. Stan was flying his balsa "Holy Grail" type glider of course. Both guys were throwing incredibly hard and just seemed to keep cranking it up and finding more energy. Making it even better Ron Wittman, the guy who had the record for 35 years, was there timing Jim and kept giving him the same advice - "just throw it higher!". I had Jim's best flight at 106.0 seconds, but it was officially recorded as 105.9 and this was combined with a second best flight of 103.5 seconds for a new record, beating Stan's recently set record by several seconds. This is also world record time but unfortunately I don't think Jim came with the proper FAI license so this may be an AMA only record. We'll see if either guy does anything more today, the last day, but there may not be a lot of gas left in the respective tanks. The air seemed to be better late which was the reason for the showdown at dusk. Sorry I don't have much news on the rubber guys, but saw many great flights there as well with models centered very high.
-Ken
Encore ..
The historic indoor session at the Tustin hanger is over. Jim and Stan did not throw any more on Sunday as expected and the weather outside was colder so conditions were not as good for the rubber fliers. Ralph Ray had some fantastic flights with his 12 inch catapult gliders however and set a new record with flights of about 1:57 and 1:58. That's almost 2 minutes for a 12 inch balsa glider! He did it with altitude by getting the thing close to the 160 foot ceiling and gliding above the catwalk without getting hung up. I heard that one flight landed on the catwalk but then kept flying! He deserves credit for patience and persistence as several gliders were lost or damaged in the girders of the building which is going to happen when one flies so high.
Stan and Ralph were the guys that made this entire event happen by spending countless hours negotiating with the owners of the building and by putting up their own money to pay the rental fee necessary for us to legally fly in the building which was not cheap. They tried to break even with the entry fees but the rumors are that they ended up losing money so please try to support them in any way possible now and for any future events which may happen. Norm Furutani also deserves much credit for unselfishly serving as the contest director.
Finally here are further observations on the now legendary glider showdown Saturday evening:
Jim had new models with the Ishii airfoil and tried them but was not impressed and put them back in the box and concentrated on the flat bottomed airfoils. The record setting glider had an airfoil very close to Stan's I believe, which is also very close to Ron Wittman's Supersweep airfoil and the sections that Lee was using in the 60's, so it is remarkable that not much has changed in 40 years regarding indoor airfoils! I had new HLGs and cat gliders with the undercambered BE5615 airfoil but the negative pitching moment at very high speeds was killing my launch altitude and I could not compete with these guys despite the great glides.
On one flight Jim and Stan's gliders came down together and it was evident that Stan was gliding slightly better. Both guys were throwing very hard and launching very high but Jim was getting slightly higher and had some smoother transitions at the top which made the difference. This is where Jim's very strong foam core fiberglass wings paid off. The extra strength and stiffness probably helped the launch and the slick finish might be lower drag. There were reports that Stan's balsa wing was fluttering slightly which obviously would slow him down. I walked to the end of the hanger to judge the launch height. Both guys were peaking about 10 or 20 feet below the catwalks (130 feet) but really didn't start to glide until they were around the top of the hanger door which is about 100 feet. But Jim might have had a 5 foot advantage which is all he needed.
-Ken
Micafilm Success
Ramiro González <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
I'm a friend of Lucas Cuffia and I'm writing to inform to Leeper and other people who thought that the message of Lucas was a joke. Lucas bought 6 meters of clear micafilm, thanks Roger for posting the Lucas's message.
Best regards
Sidus F1Q Update
my Sidus 7 function e-timer for F1Q is now ready.
Beyond various standard features already present in my e-timers (e.g. wireless programmer and built-in RDT), it also includes F1Q-specific features like "radio motor cutoff" and "motor safety start lock". It drives any electric motor through a standard ESC and can control up to separate 3 servos. It can also be used to work with a single servo that is conventionally stepped to release levers. In this case I can supply an optional ready made 5-function mechanical assembly.
Information is available on my website at this link: http://www.ffelectronics.com/TimersF1Q.htm
Could you please publish this note one one of the next issues of SEN.
Thanks
Regards
Massimo
NZ Flash
Great series, results soon. The only regular missing was Henning and Shona says that and Xmas card and sending best wishes is not the same as seeing you in person.
Southern Skymen
Southern Skyman winners - Across the 2 Australian and 2 New Zealand World Cup events. Organized by Phil Mitchell.
F1A Brian van Nest
F1B Terry Bond
F1C Alan Jack
3 Sportsmen, 3 Continents , One World.
French Position on FAI Categories etc
Dear Roger,
This letter has been sent to Ian Kaynes in order to make clear before the CIAM meeting what will be the position of our country regarding the restricted tech classes. Please feel free to publish if you think it may add to the debate.
1 –FAI vision
Restricted technology categories don’t fit the idea of what FAI categories should stand for, i.e. state-of-the-art in aero modelling and air sports practice. Categories under FAI regulation should not be spare-time activities.
Nothing prevents a country to fly restricted technology classes if it helps promoting locally free flight. We made this move in France last year. In our national glider category, bunt launch is not permitted anymore.
2 – The problem
It looks like a wrong answer to a good question, as if going back to dandy horse would solve doping in cycling. The real issue is to attract young (and less young) aero modellers, and from this point of view, some countries are performing better than others.
On the top of that, we are not exactly a high-profile activity; does it really make sense to multiply the number of category and dilute the number of flyers?
Is there any action plan at the CIAM level in order to promote aeromodelism?
3 – Implementation
Having both categories side by side in the same competition will seriously complicate the task of the organisation when it comes to controls.
Moreover, why mixing both categories in the results? The comment is valid as well for the curious F1P/F1C melange. Different specifications, different class, different results, different world cups.
4 – Added value
Same arguments have been put forward when F1P and F1Q have been created: attract new people, especially juniors, models with fewer constraints… Few years later, can we honestly consider that those categories are successful? How many new comers?
However, if « low tech » categories would eventually be created, going back to middle-age might not be necessary. A minimum of involvement and investment should still be required from competitors!
Some general comments:
- Maximum wing span? What is the high level technology hidden behind building long wings? Do we need to restrict creativity as well as technology?
- No function at all? F1B models are far easier to trim with VIT, avoiding acrobatic climbs. And in F1A, well, VIT might be useful too considering the targeted group of flyers JVIT exists since years, even when most fliers were building models from scratch.
With best regards,
For the French free flight subcomittee
Anne Besnard.
For Sale - Multiclass RCDT Systems
I have two complete RCDT systems for the Multiclass (Danish) timer. These are the earlier 35MHz units and consist of a transmitter and three recievers. To clarify there are TWO sets, each of one transmitter and three recievers and this system can ONLY be used with the Multiclass timer.
Further details from chris.edge [@] jordonlaw.com
Canadian Concerns regarding the British Proposal:
Members of the Canadian Free Flight group would like to note their objections to the recently discussed British Proposal of adding parallel F1 classes to the existing structure. The concerns can be summarized on a number of dimensions.
While we sympathize with issues of dropping participation in free flight classes, we feel that the proposed rule changes will do little, if anything, to help the situation.
Primarily, as was stated numerous times by others on this forum, there are already so many existing free flight classes under the FAI umbrella, that it is difficult to understand the need to further create another set. If someone is interested in participating in free flight, then surely they can find a class for themselves that will fit their skill level and budget. It is hard to accept the argument that there is a large group of enthusiasts just waiting to join our sport, but are kept away from it this whole time because of the advanced technology involved. If it’s a question of attracting juniors, the advanced technology involved is in most cases an attraction, not a detriment. This is well reflected in the popularity of radio control classes.
Further, while it is acknowledged that the F1A, F1B, and F1C classes are advanced classes, both technically and technologically, there is no real reason to believe that the new parallel classes will be much less complicated at all, or much less expensive for that matter. They will continue to require carbon components, and advanced materials – albeit without the advanced electronics. (“lighter and stronger” will continue to hold true).
Fundamentally, the biggest problem with the proposal is that two classes competing under two unique sets of parameters at one competition cannot co-exist, because by definition one of the two classes will have an advantage over the other. There is no perceivable way to regulate the classes such as to allow the existing ones to hold the technological advantage, and the new ones some counter-advantage (longer towline, for example), and to have these advantages “balance out” completely fairly and equally. One model will always have a competitive performance advantage over the other, and it is only logical that modellers will always gravitate towards the class that gives them the greatest advantage (whether real or perceived). In some ways the proposal is akin to allowing an amateur athlete to have an arbitrary head start in a sprinting race against a professional - we will never know what that advantage should be to makes things “fair” for both – and this in itself will make the final result of such a race rather meaningless.
We all hope for higher levels of participation in free flight, but rule changes are not a substitute or short cut for organizing grassroots programs and developing interest through teaching the fundamentals of model building.
Chris Lenartowicz on behalf of Vidas Nikolajevas, Tony Matthews, Ladislav Horak, Doug Rowsell, Fritz Gnass, Peter Allnutt, Leslie Farkas, Norm Beattie, Jerry McGlashan, Shlomi Rosenzweig, Yury Shvedenkov and many others.
........
Roger Morrell