SEN 1989

Table of Contents - SEN 1989

  1. SAM
  2. FAI Power Section
  3. 4 SEN and tapping rubber 
  4. re 1988
  5. ditto
  6. Ed comment

Play it again, SAM
From:     Gil Morris

To Ross Jahnke: "Evidence of this phenomenon (referring to old roots) can be found in the SAM
events which reverted to the rules of the early 20th century and are nearly
extinct in the early 21st." These are your exact words. How wrong can you be? SAM is strong and healthy. It's surprisingly progressive with Nostalgia and a down to earth electric program. It has active chapters all over the world. I met Bob White at a SAM Champs in 2005 and asked why he was there. He responded because he was fed up with competing with F1B flyers that did no more than buy there models. The SAM guys die with there boots on.


For SEN and Twin Pushers
From:     Bernard Guest
Dukie and Gil are waaaay too progressive. I say we need to get back to the real golden age of free flight. Ignition engines, silk and bamboo. None of this new fangled glow engines, aluminium and balsa stuff. Balsa is way too high tech folks. Plus really good balsa is expensive and hard to find. Actually, on second thought, I am being way to liberal with my ideas too.  Lets get back to our roots. Real free flighters fly rubber! twin pushers to be exact. If it aint a twin pusher then it should be BANNED!!! Anything more complex than a TP is too difficult to learn and hurts free flight. Builder of the Model!!?? Hell no!!. I say we bring back the grower of the tree (GOT) rule. If we don’t got GOT then we got nuthin!!! Don’t even get me started on TOR (tapper of the rubber rule) and MOS (miner of the sulphur; you need sulphur for the freshly tapped rubber). Boy! We gonna need lots of new old rules!!

But seriously folks … have any of you looked at the RC world lately? Gil?? Duke??? Notice how noisy, messy, glow engines are  going the way of the dodo there too? Is that because of carbon and flaps and price tags?? Hmmm… I wonder?? could it be that electric motors are damned simple to deal with, effective, and quiet to boot?? Have you noticed how the electric events are gathering steam despite the FAI’s best efforts to ruin them with rule debacles?? Could the death of F1C simply be a function of old outdated tech being replaced by new tech. Could it be that your young would-be power flyers see electric as a way more interesting and attractive option?? F1C is going the way of the typewriter people. Soon it will be dead and F1Q will replace it. Get used to it, enjoy it while it lasts, and move forward.

Hey! and don’t kill the messenger!! I am just telling it like it is.


SEN 1988

From:     Jim Mayes

                                     If the Duke were right then why has
there been  such poor participation in the NFFS FAI Classic Power  event.
There is much talk to dumb down our sport while the higher tech branches of
model aviation flourish . I have to agree with Ross Jahnke's previous post,
and I might add, that if you can afford to play golf , you can certainly
afford to fly a state of the moment F1C, F1A,,F1B, or F1Q.
        Jim Lars Mayes.

SEN 1988
From:     Douglas Galbreath
Hi . . . it's Dukie again.
How about incorporating the shortrer simpler models, calling it F1C-2, using a longer engine run to make them competitive. The real fact is, if we do not do something , F1C will be gone in the next 4 years. What was it, 8 at the US finals? Man that is a real crowd ain't it? Next finals will probably be less. Reminds me of Rome and Nero.

Douglas Galbreath
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Editorial Comment

There is no question that participation is falling off in all classes and that F1C is probably the worst off.  We see new people flying F1A and F1B but very few flying F1C.

The problem is the failure to attract young people.  The reason is not technology because young people have no problem in embracing the technology used in F1A and F1B.  Certainly all classes require some special skills and for whatever reason those power skills are not being passed on. The F1P was devised with all the luddite/retro attributes - restricted wing span so carbon was not needed and restricted functions so a good old mechanical timer could be used.  In fact a F1P with a 1 cc engine is very close to a F1C aka FAI Power model of the 1960s or 70s that had a 2.5cc engine.  But it did not attract any more juniors, but rather participation dropped off from when the more sophisticated F1J models were used. The net effect of this retro step was to hasten the demise of both junior participation in power and the F1J class for all.

There are some successful "Junior Programs" in some countries, maybe we need to hear more about what's working rather than making more retro proposals. Certainly we need some entry level program with a pathway to bigger and better things.  Maybe we need a parallel "non-professional" class.

The infamous BFMA retro- proposal, which a number of BFMA members disavow all knowledge,  is correct in saying  that something need to be done, but way off track in sending everyone to the 1960s with proposal that they had not even validated.. Many years ago young members of the SMAE, like the O'Donnell's,  West, Drew, Smith  etc. executed prodigious aeromodelling feats at very young ages.  But these days participation of UK youth* in Junior let alone World  Championships is dismal when compared their European neighbors and even the former colonials across the Atlantic.  Maybe BFMA should fix their own house before executing arbitrary changes on the rest of the world.

*Apologies to Mr Jack Jnr and Mr Cuthbert Jnr

Roger Morrell