SEN 2023

Table of Contents - SEN 2023

  1.  F1C Rules re-visited
  2. For sale - stuff
  3. More F1C observations

F1C rules revisited

From:     Allard van Wallene

-Flappers/folders (geared or non-geared) have lower drag and as such attain higher speed than fixed wing models and get higher. Hence the altitude penalty by cutting away the last second of a 5 second run is bigger than a fixed wing ship : penalty 1

-Because flappers/folders (geared or non geared) get higher, the sound of the engine cut-off takes longer to reach the time keeper and the engine cut in the timer must be set / programmed shorter accordingly : penalty 2

-Geared models have a higher drag of the prop blades than straight-drive ships: penalty 3

-Flappers and folders have a higher inherent risk of mechanical failure : penalty 4

These are not my opinions, but statements I have collected from active F1C flyers and to which I can agree because they make sense.

So the question remains, why have over 100 flyers signed a petition against the 4 second engine run?

The only conclusion I can draw is that a fixed wing straight engine ship at 4 seconds will have a problem of reaching the 3 (4) minutes during the regular rounds without thermal assistance. Flappers/folders/gears get higher and have more chances of reaching the fly offs, possibly even without thermal assistance.
This is the reason of "forcing many flyers to upgrade their models to the latest and finest with the corresponding price tags and rendering straight fixed wing models obsolete".

So if we can all agree that "it is no fun anymore because I won’t be able the get to fly offs with a simple model", we can skip all other arguments. Thermal picking in regular rounds was apparently no longer part of the game so it seems.

As a side note I am surprised to see many petition votes against the new 4 second rule from flyers who’s country actually came up with this rule proposal in the first place.

I have read some responses saying that non-F1C flyers should not get involved in the discussion as neither they have the required knowledge nor are personally affected. I respectfully disagree. There are many well respected aerodynamicists and engineers out there who do know their business, even not being C flyers.
Furthermore, those having been nearly impaled by an F1C ( I also had the unfortunate experience) should have a saying in the matter as well.

Nevertheless, the majority opinion of F1C flyers as reflected in the petition should not be ignored.


 For Sale

1) Walston Tracker System: 3 ch receiver, two Lite 4 battery transmitters, folding 3 element antenna and transmitter batteries. 
2) Carbon Fiber dry braided sleeving and  
3) Kevlar cloth. 
 See Ebay, items 261911642105, 261911441889 and 261911463557. 

 CF and Kevlar from Martyn Cowley's workshop, just re-discovered in my garage clean out. 

Thermals, Jim Parker
FAI F1C Rules

From:     John O'Sullivan

F1C New Rules
I feel I am imposing , making suggestions related to F1C rules as I am not an active flier at this time in the class.
As for my background, I flew FAI Power (now F1C) from the mid 50’s to the late 70’s, including two World championships for Ireland in the 60’s (using 1.5 cc models).

Although, living in eastern Canada since 1979, where little or no free flight is flown, I have solidly maintained my Free Flight interest and am currently flying electric duration models. I also am active in R/C sailplanes both pure and electric and also Multicopters and Aerial photography.

I have followed the new rules in F1C and am convinced that they will be the demise of the class. The support from the active competitors is non-existent.   Surely these are the people who have the most to benefit from realistic rules.
I have noted that F1b has developed from the early 50’s when 80 gm motors were the norm, through reductions to 50gm, 40 gm and now 30 gm motors. Maybe the same approach in power reduction in F1C would be a realistic solution.
In the late 60’s or early 70’s, there was a movement to reduce motor size from 2.5 cc to 1.5 cc, using the same airframe size as for the 2.5 cc models.  This fell by the wayside, but it is something that may now be worth considering. There is a sad lack of potent 1.5 cc motors, but I feel that with the expertise of motor manufacturers, they could be very quickly developed.
OK, we would have a large number of obsolete 2.5 cc motors resulting, but the transition would be a much less of a cost than discarding current airframes.

The motor technology today would produce 1.5 cc motors with more than comparable performance to 2.5 cc motors of the late 70’s or early 80’s.  A 7 second motor run would be a good place to start.

These proposals would bring F1C to a more realistic competition class without resorting to misguided missiles.
John O’Sullivan

Roger Morrell