SEN 1947

Table of Contents - SEN 1947

  1. MaxMen
  2. NFFS @ AMA Expo
  3. F1A World Cup Resolved
  4. Response to Mike
  5. USA Team selection ?
  6. USA Team Selection Proposal 
  7. Response to Aram
  8. F1ABC - lateral think
  9. FFQ 54

2015 Bob White Memorial Max Men International
An FAI World Cup and Americas Cup Event
February 12–16, 2015
Bissonette Mirage Field, Lost Hills California, USA

F1E: Thursday February 12
Organized and run by SCAT
(7) 45 Minute Rounds + Flyoffs - Check-In and Entry at 9:00 AM
Round 1 Start Time: 10:00 AM on Holloway Hill

F1A: Friday February 13
(7) 1-Hour Rounds + Flyoffs - Round 1 Start Time: 8:00AM on Flight Line to be Announced
First Round Extended Max 210 Seconds (Weather Permitting)

F1B, F1C and F1P: Saturday February 14

(7) 1-Hour Rounds + Flyoffs - Round 1 Start Time: 8:00AM on Flight Line to be Announced
First Round Extended Max 240 Seconds (Weather Permitting)

Americas Cup Banquet: Saturday February 14
Dinner and Americas Cup Awards Presentations - 7:00 PM at Wasco Elks Club

F1G, F1H and F1J: Sunday February 15
(5) 1-Hour Rounds + Flyoffs - Round 1 Start Time: 8:00AM on Flight Line to be Announced

F1Q: Sunday February 15

(7) 1-Hour Rounds + Flyoffs - Round 1 Start Time: 8:00AM on Flight Line to be Announced

Reserve Day: Monday February 16


2015 Bob White Memorial Max Men International

NAME ____________________________________________________________________
ADDRESS _________________________________________________________________
CITY, STATE, ZIP ______________________________________________________________________
COUNTRY _________________________________ FAI LICENSE NUMBER __________________
_____ F1A ($30) _____ F1B ($30) _____ F1C ($30) _____ F1P ($30)
_____ F1G ($15) _____ F1H ($15) _____ F1J ($15) _____ F1Q ($30)
_____ Adults x $22 = __________ _____ Under Age 17 x $17 = __________
TOTAL ENCLOSED $ _____________________

Mail Entries to Max Men International Contest Director:

Bill Booth Jr.
325 Carlsbad Village Drive, Suite D2
Carlsbad, CA 92008, USA
Phone: (760) 842-1079 Fax: (760) 434-8596 e-mail: <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

US Contestants must mail this entry form with fees to the Contest Director
(Please no e-mail entries from US Contestants)

Non-US Contestants may e-mail this entry form to the Contest Director and pay at Registration Tent on the Field
Non-US Contestants must pay $28 AMA Affiliation Fee or show receipt from prior payment

Please include a copy of your FAI Sporting License and for US Contestants, your AMA Card
Entries are considered LATE if received after Thursday February 5, 2015 - LATE Entries will be DOUBLE Fees
Contestants must pick up Registration Package at Headquarters Tent before Round 1 of their first event

Lost Hills Motels: Motel 6 (661) 797-2346 and Days Inn (661) 797-2371

NFFS @ the AMA Expo

This year NFFS will have a booth at the AMA Expo.  The Expo will be held at the Ontario California Convention Center the week end of January 9 - 11.  Free Flight modelers attending the Expo are invited to stop at the booth.  If you can spend some time and help us explain the diverse world of Free Flight modeling your help would be appreciated.

Brian van Nest
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

F1A World Cup Resolved

From Allard van Wallene on FB.

All has been said and it now appears the facts have surfaced. In conclusion, no FAI rules appear to have been violated and no protests have been filed. Ian Kaynes will proceed to accept the results and announce Jama Danier as winner of the 2014 World cup.

Response to Mike's comments

From:     Marty Schroedter
After reading what Mike wrote it pointed out a big issue we all face, the down
time in between finals.  Down time means the length of time between finals which
may equate to lack of interest and people dropping out. What I like about his
thoughts on going to a multi contest format is, once the finals are over, you
only have to wait a few months and you can begin the process again. To me this
keeps people interested and gives people more motivation to enter the contests
throughout the year. There's no question  the attendance has come down
dramatically at both the contests and at the finals. Will this be the way to
bring the interest back up?

At this point there’s no need to go into details about what a new multi format
would consist of I think we all need to voice our opinion and let the TSC know
this is what we want to do, then sit down and figure it out. It may take some
time to do but it can be done if we put our minds to it. It is important that we
let them know as they represent us and make decisions based on what each
district wants, not the other way around. If you received a questionnaire you
had the opportunity to voice your opinion on what format you wanted for the next
cycle. But there are still a lot of people that either didn’t enter the finals
or did but didn’t send in their questionnaire. These are the people that need to
let their representative know what they want. If nothing is said then those
people have to live with what is voted on. Now’s the time to speak up, let’s
show them there is interest in a multi contest finals and then let’s figure out
how to do it. Remember their meeting is next month so we don't have much time.
If nothing is said, it will revert back to how it was done this year. Let’s make
a multi contest format a reality not just talk.


Marty Schroedter

Team selection format

From:     Gaetano Vaccaro

Mike Achterberg's post regarding the multiple contest format as the basis for team selection makes a lot of sense to me. In fact, I don't think I've ever had a conversation on this subject with anyone who disagreed with the concept of multiple contests in principle. Usually the conversation evolves to the practical reasons why such a format won't work. Such things as travel, organization and timekeeping always come up.

I think Mike's point that those really interested in being on the team already attend all of the major contests is right on. The exception to this is the Nats, which I believe, must be included.

The remaining issues are admittedly difficult and if we keep speaking in generalities they will never  be resolved. I believe that the process to finally put this issue to rest, one way or the other, is to get a group of like minded individuals together  (virtually) and come up with a DETAILED proposal for the consideration of TSC and program participants.

I'm not sure about the best way to facilitate the process for the development of the proposal. Any suggestions regarding this are welcome.


Team selection proposal outline
From:     Gaetano Vaccaro aka Tom
Hi Roger,

I've given this topic more thought and here's a strawman offered as a starting point for discussion:

People wishing to participate in the program pay a $200.00 entry fee  by the middle of 2015.

75 minute time accumulation is no longer required.

Team selection contests are combined with:  2015 Sierra Cup, 2015 Livotto, 2016 Isaacson,  2016 Maxmen,  2016 Nats. and 2016 Bill Booth contest at Boulder City. Participants pay $30.00 in addition to the normal entry fees for each of these contests.

Timing is done as it is now by program participants. A times B etc. If there aren't enough participants to cover timing requirements then additional timers are recruited at the venue and paid as they are now.

Representatives  from the TSC are present at each of the contests to assist the  main contest director and attend to matters specifically pertaining to team selection. A participants results are calculated in the normal way for the main contest and only with respect to other program participants for the purpose of team selection standing.

The team is selected based on a participants best results from four of the six contests.

Still need to come up with something to handle pole assignments and I'm sure other administrative issues I haven't thought of.  At least this is  a start with some specifics to get the ball rolling.


Re: SEN 1938

From:     Michael Achterberg
As to Arums suggestion to drop the free entry to team members is a good idea. If we go to multiple contests we can save $3000/ $3500 which is what it cost to run the Finals. Big savings. Then have the TSC meeting in Febuary at the Maxmen week. Instead of paying airline tickets for the committee members. Another $2000/$4000. Or use Go Daddy and video conference. Either way we save a lot of money. Just some thoughts on how to save money.Thermals, Michael

Re: SEN 1945 - Solution to the F1A,B,C problem.

From:     Ross Jahnke
Solution to the F1A,B,C problem.

1. Keep the model specs as they are.
2. Drop to six rounds
2. Drop the max to 2 minutes for ALL rounds
3. Flyoffs: first is 5 minutes, second is 10 minutes

1. Lots of AMA style models become competitive, while current models still
work. Silkspan and Super Tigers re-emerge.
2. Drive for high performance tapers off. Timer problems cut by 1/3 or
more. Uptight type A modelers more relaxed and sociable during rounds,
maybe help AMA guys with fuse lighting.
3. Flyoffs are exciting but decisive. Type A modelers find satisfaction.

Jokes aside, sometimes the way to achieve a desired change is to relax
rather than restrict.

FFQ#54 for January 2015 has appeared

From:     Sergio Montes
Here is the summary of the articles in the new FFQ for January 2015.It is a little long, but that is what is included in the new issue. I hope that several of the articles will be of interest to your readers.
Could you please publish it in the next SEN?


Articles in Free Flight Quarterly for January 2015

The Editorial describes the new proposals in front of the CIAM, related to important changes in the
rules for the F1 category, as well as some of the early reactions to them.
The Australian Scramble event is a fairly unique FF event of considerable difficulty, involving
keeping a FF power model in the air for the longest possible duration inside of an hour. This
duration has to be accomplished with individual flights no longer than 120 secs, so that quick
retrieval of the model and fast starting of the engine is crucial.  Tahn Stowe, one of the
recognized aces of this event, describes  the rules  that govern the event, the type of models that
are suitable and the engines (no bigger than 1 cc) that perform best.
Manfred Koller  continues in his evaluation of Mylar 25 and Mylar 40, a rough Mylar with inset
threads, as an improved material for covering glider wings. His first test, published in FFQ#50
have been extended with more than 40 hours of flight using 5 different models. They had
conventional undercambered airfoils, as well as LDA's. Manfred also reports the reactions of
veteran modellers Horst Wagner and Ossi Czepa to the first article on the use of the rough Mylar.
Marcel Lavoie from New Brunswick, Canada has developed a number of useful tools for the keen
builder. In this short article, he describes a device for measuring the pitch distribution of a
propeller, and also an easily adjustable  tool for accurately forming the motor of a rubber model.
Jean Pierre DiRienzo concludes the portrait of the outstanding French modeller, theoretician and
designer Jean Wantzenriether, covering the years from 1975 to 2014, with a careful description of
his more relevant models and the also of the flight trimming systems for rubber models  PGI and TOP
that brought well deserved fame to Jean.

Andrew Longhurst  has turned to small power models after pursuing with considerable success the
small rubber categories, Coupes and English Lightweight.  After similar episodes with the models of
the LSARA group described in past issues of FFQ, Andrew has built  one of the models designed by
Bill Dean for Keil Kraft, the Keil Kraft Pirate, powered by a 1cc ED Bee engine. Ed Keil and Bill
Dean engage in a bit of apocryphal dialogue that probably explains the origins of this lovely
little model.

Gurney flaps at model Reynolds numbers received a careful study by  Brown and Filiponne in the
wind tunnel  of the Mechanical Engineering Department of  Manchester University. Here we conclude
the study initiated in  FFQ#53. The authors found a method for predicting the optimum height of a
Gurney flap that brings the greatest increase of lift, while keeping the drag increase to moderate
limits, and published a relatively simple formula that summarizes their findings. The article
contains a very useful reference list on this topic.

Chris Stoddart has presented a series of studies on the performance of electric motors used in  FF
models. In this article, the seventh of the "Electrifying Development" series, Chris  deals with
the selection of the propeller of the highest efficiency for these motors. He finds that a simple
and very powerful method of performance estimation is the " Speed-Power" method invented by Fred
Weick in the 1930's. He shows, by means of an example, that the best propeller predicted by this
method is in close agreement with that used in the Apache E36 design by Ralph Ray, recently
featured in FFQ.
Steffen Jensen and Jes Nyhegn  made a great number of  measurements of the height attained after
bunting in F1A models. These flights took place during February 2014 at Lost Hills, and involved
ten different models with conventional and Low Drag airfoils, with and without flaps. The
measurements extended also to the height lost after the bunt, to the sinking velocity of the models
and to the evaluation of certain types of turbulators. There seems to be a slight edge in the
gliding performance of the conventional airfoils, but the LDA's bunt highest. Their results,
contained in a couple of tables, are indeed of great interest to the F1A people.

Low Drag airfoils, mainly for F1A models, are the subject of an article by Sergio Montes, in which
the reason for the peculiar shape of the LDA's is explained and a simple geometrical method of
designing such airfoils is suggested. The resulting LDAM series of airfoils is shown to have
comparable performance to those of Eggleston and Midic, at least when evaluated by the XFoil
program. The Bulatov flapped airfoil is also compared with these LDA's  and is shown to have a
small  performance edge on them, at the price of added model complexity.

The next article, by Paul Rossiter,  deals with LDA's used in the F1B category. Paul comments on
the extended tests on this type of airfoils by Tony Mathews and by him. These tests  have been, so
far, less positive than in the F1A category. However, patient development  by Mathews and by
Rossiter, development that has included adding turbulation to the LDA foils, has resulted in a much
improved behaviour of the model both in the climb and in the glide, and such airfoils should now be
closely competitive with the flapped airfoils used with such success by Russian flyers. The author
recognizes that additional work is needed to establish a clear-cut answer regarding the benefits of
the LDA airfoils for this category.

We remember George French, who did so well in the FAI World Championships in Power category during
the 1960's with his beautiful Night Train design. Martyn Pressnell has written a detailed portrait
of George French and of the long development of the Night Train design, one of the first to use VIT
in this category. French  died in April of 2014, aged 89.

The final story is one of great success and concerns the acquisition of a splendid large flying
field for Free Flight in New South Wales, Australia. Tahn Stowe tells us of the difficult process
of locating the field, dealing with the relevant model authorities and obtaining the funds, a huge
task solved in the end by the most generous intervention of Adrian Bryant and Mrs Bryant, who
bequeathed a large sum to the NSW FF Society. The inauguration of the field last September brought
an enthusiastic group of competitors and was beautifully captured by the photos of Malcolm Campbell.

As usual, the cover of this latest issue as well as the Table of Contents is available from our
website ( For this last issue those interested in the LDA
topic can  download an Excel file for the construction of the LDAM airfoils mentioned above.

Sergio Montes

Roger Morrell