SEN 1998

Table of Contents - SEN 1998

  1. Flapper
  2. FAI Proposals
  3. F1S
  4. Optimal Tracking
  5. Re SEN 1996


From:     Bernhard Schwendemann
(response on Aram Schlosberg's notes in SEN1995)

For most technical sports is a usual procedure to review and adapt the rules
if necessary from time to time. Same is currently ongoing for the free
flight classes, in focus are mainly the performance and the complexity in
Germany is proposing to ban flapper in the classes F1B, F1G, F1H, F1J, F1K
and F1P to become effective on 1. Jan. 2016.
For the classes, where currently a significant amount of models with
flappers are in use (F1A and F1C), Germany proposes to ban flapper on 1. Jan
2018, only, to allow a smooth transition.
But it is not only Germany, which is proposing to ban flappers. The CIAM
Free Flight Subcommittee propose to ban flaps on the classes which have not
yet started to use them: F1E, F1G, F1H, F1J, F1K, F1P.

The arguments in the German proposal are:
1.        Reduce the building complexity of free flight models
2.        Reduce the costs of free flight models
3.        Reduce the potential performance of free flight models
4.        The rule is easy to control
5.        Attractive power starts will be possible even under these rules
6.        More sportsmen may have competitive models
7.        Up to now the number of "flappers" and "folders" is still limited,
thus now latest window for this rule change, resp., aAs there are already
"flappers" in use, the modified rule should become effective 1.1.2018 only
to give enough time for the switch.

1.        not too complex to build
2.        not too complex to handle
3.        not too expensive
4.        to give a newcomer a lot of fun and satisfaction from the beginning
5.        to keep the gap between a good flyer and a high-end flyer limited

Some of the arguments of Aram Schlosberg in SEN 1995 I cannot follow.
If geared engines would have been banned for F1C many years ago this have
been avoided an increase of complexity and it would have avoided many
dangerous crashes of F1C models - but this would not have any impact a F1Q.
F1C and F 1Q are defined completely separated in the code sportive.
If boron would have been banned many years ago, this would not have any
impact on the use of glass, kevlar and carbon in the today's models.
Banning flappers would - of course - forbid one (!) aerodynamic approach -
but there will be many other possibilities for further development of the
aerodynamic of our models.

Bernhard Schwendemann

FAI Rule proposals

What we fly is the most technologically advanced flying machines in each of the three venues. We all do this because of the technology available. Killing these events because the innovators have advanced the sport is hardly the answer. If that was reason entrants have fallen then logic says nostalgia events entrees would be growing by huge numbers. Just take 1/2a as your base example. This was far an away the biggest entry event for decades.  Now, like most events very few entrees. If you look at the numbers the F1 events have had a much stronger holding of competitors than the one time huge AMA events. This says one thing.. It's not the technology that is the problem.. This cannot be any clearer.. Technology in fact has helped hold interest and has made models easier to fly for all of us. An yes the model are expensive but they last practically forever. And in F1b most of us fly nostalgia models. Alex model design is basically 20 years old. My stuff is 19 yrs old. Igors, Stefans, and most other producers are variations of models produced 20 yrs ago. The hubs that Alex produces or Igor produces are the same as Now.
So why say technology is the demise of free flight. The data is very clear. And for the most part completely opposite. If not, AMA events would be flooded with entrees every contest. The simple fact is they are not. The reason the events are losing contestants are lack of information about them. We have the internet but we don't advertise and get the info out to mainstream so people see what we do. We do but very limited approach. Go into any hobby shop in America and say you fly free flight and they look at you like your an alien. Or you get a reply like. What's that? Or do they still do that?  Freeflighters built the hobby shops. We built AMA.. Now they sell multi thousand dollar RC models, helicopters, ECT.. So is it the cost of the models? Yes and no. The real fact is nobody knows what we do.
Just some thoughts that have been on my mind. We have problems with our events, but killing the events with knee jerk proposals is not the answer.  An more flyers should write in to say so.  We have 1000's of active flyers worldwide, but only a handful write anything. Apathy will kill our sport quicker than model cost or technology.. Come on guys. Speck up..
Michael Achterberg


Please be noted that the AMA Free Flight Contest Board has submitted a statement opposing the F1S proposal.  The proposed F1S rules are not identical to the AMA E-36 rules.  The F1S proposal contains a major  difference that makes them seriously flawed. A major flaw that can lead to numerous protests.  That is the timing of motor runs on the ground. This will be an easy way for a competitor to cheat.
After several years of flying electric models in competition we have found that timing the motor run is not a problem.
The other concern is the past experience with the CIAM's management of the F1Q event.  .The present E-36 event is working well and stable rules
are required to ensure that this event continues to grow

Jerry Murphy
9 Via Escondido Valle
Manitou Springs, CO 80829

Just Follow the Red Arrow - to Optimal Tracking

Dear friends
The new GPS beacon from Optimal Tracking is now available.
The weight is 4 grams. You can connect it to the battery of your timer or add a separate battery.
To retrieve the model, just follow the red arrow displayed on the screen of the receiver.
Please take a look to for additional informations.

360 Chemin de Pauli
Tel: (33) (0) 4 42 38 05 32
Mob: (33) (0) 6 86 56 69 97

Re SEN 1996
From:     Ross Jahnke
Roger Willis,

I have the strong urge to stop all FAI modeling activity in order to devote
myself to developing a functional folding wing model for FAC competition.
The F-111 is a swing wing not a folder, and navy aircraft like the F4F and
Corsair unfold before flight not during. Are there any aircraft I should

A rule change proposal will be submitted to the FAC shortly.


Roger Morrell