SEN 1764

  • Print
Details
Category: Archive 2013
Hits: 1038
Table of Contents - SEN 1764

  1. 2013 FFF Report
  2. Q from Austria
  3. Q from Italy
  4. Ed Q
  5. Other CIAM items

HOT OFF THE PRESS - THE 2013 FREE FLIGHT FORUM REPORT

 The new 2013 BMFA Free-Flight Forum Report has just been published. It's the 29^th year that these Reports have been produced and this one is again packed with useful information on new developments in a wide range of free-flight activities, as the following contents list shows.

John O'Donnell, an Appreciation, by Andy Crisp; A Knotty Problem (Rubber Winding), by Peter Hall; Stability of Scale Indoor Free Flight Models, by Andy Sephton; The Role of Radio Transmissions in Free Flight, by Stuart Darmon; A Propeller Copying Mill, by Peter Brown; Model Aircraft Technology with an Emphasis on F1B, by Neil Cliff; CatapuIt Launched Glider Technology, by Phil Ball; Electric Bikes for Free Flight Model Retrieval, by Brian Baines; Wrestling with a Slippery One (LDA Airfoils), by Chris Edge; Free Flight in Britain -- What's the Future? by Phil Ball; F1A Development and Contest Success, by Stuart Darmon; Indoor Model Steering for Dummies, by Mark Benns; Around (Model Aircraft) Construction in 80 Seconds, by Neil Cliff. In addition there are plans and articles on six of the most successful free-flight models of 2012, - Pilfered Pearl, Peter Watgson's take on a classic US gas design, Skumkiller, Adam Beales's 50gram BMFA Rubber model, Dinah-Mite, Norman Marcus's highly successful Mini Vintage model, Fuithirty, Peter Tolhurst's E-30 electric design, 201, Mark Benns's Cat. 3 ceiling Fid record holder and Mr. Blue Sky Phil Ball's advanced catapult glider with a string of successes.

 The UK price is £12.00 including postage; to Europe it's £14 and everywhere else £16. Sales of the Forum Reports help to defray the heavy expenses of those representing Great Britain at World and European Free-Flight Championships. Cheques should be payable to 'BMFA F/F Team Support Fund', in pounds sterling only and drawn on a bank withb a UK branch; you may also order by credit card, which is far easier (and cheaper).

 Copies are available from : Martin Dilly, 20, Links Road, West Wickham, Kent, BR4 OQW, UK   or by fax to: (44) + (0)20-8777-5533, or by e-mail to <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>




Q from Austrial


So this time the FAI knuckles down to manufacturers interest ... banning in effect one of the two commercially available EL's: the italian one only sends a signal to the timer and does not stop the motor itself. Not allowed any more.
Furthermore, any development COMBINING EL and E-timer is also banned - the "timer must be independent". Why???
And still no clarification on the male/female connector question. Still would mean I have to carry 8 adapter cables to be able to connect my T-connectors to all possible combinations of male/female 3.5mm plugs.
They are doing their best to prevent F1Q becoming a manageable category! Shame on them.

Klaus W. Salzer
J.-Hönigsberger-G. 5
2540 Bad Vöslau
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Q from Italy [From the NFFS forum}

Guys,

I have already available a new Sidus EL prototype that is capable to directly stop the motor through the ESC (so fully compliant with the new rules). Notice that the reason why I developed the new device was to have it working also with simple e-timers, not certainly to comply with a rule (strongly pushed only by two or three incredibly stubborn people) that pretends to impose a technical solution to limit the consumed energy and rule out any other different implementations both current and future. Currently, this clearly favors one product and strongly penalizes the competitors who have invested on a different one.

In the last few days I have been discussing in depth the issue with Cesare Gianni, CIAM FFSC member from Italy who attended the meeting in Lausanne where the changes were decided. He has already asked CIAM to suspend/reconsider the new rules until a deeper discussion will take place on the subject.
I invite you to read the letter (copied below) Cesare has sent to Ian Kaynes and all the CIAM FFSC members that I have been authorized to distribute to all the interested people.

Massimo
ffelectronics

Ian,
the recent CIAM Plenary Meeting approval of Germany change proposal for the electric class F1Q was wrong on several counts. During the FFTM I have elaborated the reasons for my dissent which I hereby outline and reiterate:
- The FAI CIAM rules define the general characteristics and limitation of the model classes but in no case should be prescriptive of the technical solutions adopted in compliance of the stated rules unless for particular reasons such as the means to verify such a compliance or others (safety, environment etc.) not applicable in this case.
- For F1Q class the rules are simple: basically an energy limit commensurate with the model weight and a maximum engine run time. How to comply with these limits is up to the competitors to engineer and the contest organizer to check with approved and effective procedures and instruments.
- Pretending to dictate the engineering solution and the architecture of the system to control and confirm the energy used and engine run time is arbitrary and fallacious. The Germany approved change calls for the energy limiter to cut of the energy supplied without interaction with other devices. Would a newly developed system fully integrating the timer, the limiter and the ESC functions (thus saving weight, cables and connection) be considered illegal in force of the approved change ? I don’t think so. It would mean to limit ingenuity and development.
- The approved change is also impracticable to the end of checking purposes. Would anyone be capable to effectively ascertain on the field whether the installed limiter is separate from the timer function?
- The newly introduced change prevents competition between different solutions already on the market since some time and penalises a number of F1Q fliers who have invested significant resources in a solution which would not be any more legal in January 2014. Several of them have already raised their justified protest against the adopted change There is room to suspect a conflict of interest case.
- The controversial nature of the decision is revealed also by the FFTM voting: 3 in favour, 2 against, 4 abstain, 5 no vote.
I regret that my proposal to defer the decision until a panel of expert would have reconsidered the issue was not accepted in the FFTM meeting.
For the above reasons I intend to present CIAM with a proposal with the request to reconsider or suspend the decision until a more in depth discussion will take place on the subject.
I would be grateful for your advice on the procedure to be followed.
Regards.
Cesare Gianni



Editor on the Q Kerfuffle

In the last SEN we published an extract from FFn that talked about some of the changes to F1Q and other items from the CIAM meeting.  Since then there has been some kerfuffle.  While the new rule about how the energy allocation when not using an energy limiter was welcomed there were also changes in the EL rules.  It required that the EL be a separate item and that the EL not the timer or any part of the power train cut the motor.  There are some ELs that comply such as the Dick Ivers open source EL and if one uses the Unilog in some configurations it will work too however many people had chosen the Sidus EL because of it's ease of use and good documentation. This would be not permitted..  While Sidus has come up with a new version that would comply, that is not really the issue.

We did a change to the rules without broad discussion that obseleted probably the most popular commercial device and work that some people had done on developing their own personal solutions.  In addition the introduction of the EL last year had already caused a lot of negative publicity for electric power and all this is makes it worse.

It appears that this change with important implications was pushed through without due consideration and notice. Note that I say appears, I'm not suggesting any inapproprate behavour by anyone but this is an important change that was not discussed in full and even further  most people were not aware of it.

Looking at the change itself, rather than the way it was introduced,  As a systems designer my biggest concern the one mentioned by Cesare above in that this rule describes a solution not a requirement.  One of the challenges and appeals of FAI Free  Flight is that it is leading edge and people are encouraged to innovate and come up with new solutions.  This rule precludes that. It is not clear why the rule was introduced but it does not measure properly the energy consumed by the models power train.

It does appear, and I stand ready to be corrected, that this change was not really made available before the meeting with sufficent time for those interested to contact their National Aero Club to give their country's representative input on how to vote.  Note that the specialist press, both electronic and print is always ready to publish and information of discussion on proposed rule changes.  This would let someone proposing rule change explain it to the community as a whole rather than springing it on people just before the CIAM meeting.

Other CIAM Items

In addition to the rules chnages and Championship info there was also a discussion around the items below.  This is important for model airplane flyers and you need be involved with thsi through your National Aero Club . It will affect how we do things.

Friday evening’s Open Forum discussion included:

  • reducing the number of championships, including a moratorium on new championships or combining several into one event.
  • new formats of championships which were more attractive to media and also new participants
  • prohibiting the use of technical aids (gyros, telemetry etc.) when it was considered that most young flyers enjoy the use of such technology. Resisting change and remaining with long time existing regulations was seen as a barrier to new entrants
  • Several delegates, not least AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) President Bob BROWN, emphasised the need to adopt a new approach to championships and competitions in order to encourage new participants and attract more attention to these events


...................................
Roger Morrell