SEN 2301 May the Forth be with you

Table of Contents – SEN 2301

  1. The flyoff dance
  2. SEN 2300 Winding  the motors
  3. Not clear to me either
  4. I’m starting to wind now
  5. conductive glue
  6. Q rewound stream of consciousness from FB


The flyoff dance

From:Klaus Salzer

I would like to see a movie of the first flyoff according to the altimeter rule:
  A group of people with "toy airplanes" in their hands bending, stetching, lifting them up, putting them down according to the dancing master (aka contest director).
  FAI should also have defined the music to which this dance is to be performed!
  Maybe we can have that for the next rule change?

SEN 2300 Winding  the motors.

From: Stepan Stefanchuk

This rule is not very specific. We can be interpreted in different ways.
There are many questions. I agree with Peter Brown.
Almost always (or very often) the fly-off does not start at the announced time. They delay the beginning, because there are problems with the Timekeepers.
For new rules, this is a big problem for F1B pilots.
More correctly determine the time when you can winding  the motor.
Or more simply remove the restrictions on the winding.
I support 7 minutes for the start.


Not clear to me either

From: Ross Jahnke

I also would like clarification on the one-motor question. I assume that it
means you can have one wound motor in a model before the start of the
round, and that if you break a motor you can wind another before the round
opens, as long as there is only one wound motor before the horn. What I
assume and what a CD or another competitor assumes could be different and
still within the letter of the rule.

If I have a wound motor in a half tube left over from the previous round
must I discard it or remove it from the flight line? Its likely no too good
after sitting for an hour but is that my one wound motor?

Why not just say that we can wind before the round opens? So what if I have
two models wound and ready to go? An F1A or F1C flyer could do the same. I
think the spirit of the rule is to compress the launch window to limit air
picking and level the conditions under which everyone flies, not promote
mechanical failure as a means to elimination.

I’m starting to wind now

From: tony mathews

F1B pre flyoff window motor winding et al:
I read the rule as there is no time limit as to when one can pre-wind the
motor before the flyoff window. You could wind the motor in the morning and
keep it hanging around until the flyoff. Of course that may be undesirable
from an energy storage point of view. ;-) I'm sure you could wind as many
as you wanted before the flyoff window and chose the best one for the
flyoff. In a way it will be self limiting. The longer before the window you
start winding, the older the motor will be.
It would possibly be an advantage to have several motors ready to go at the
start of the flyoff round to be able to take advantage of any thermals that
may be present at the start of the window. But again, having a quiver full
of pre wound motors, while tactically advantageous, would be obvious to any
observers and not maximize the available energy from a fresh motor.

Tony Mathews - starting to wind a seasons full of flyoff motors now .......

conductive glue


Hi Roger,

Does anyone know of a glue for use in miniature heat sensitive electrical circuits?

Gil Morris

Editor’s comment

CHEMTRONICS   CircuitWorks? Conductive Epoxy cw2400 sold by Moauser and other claims to do this . I have never used it in my electronics works and have found an accurate fine point high quality soldering iron and the appropriate flux  good for soldering of sensitive parts.

Q rewound stream of consciousness from FB

started by Aram Schlosberg

May 2 at 7:24pm
The EL mandate. CIAM has just decided to drop option (a) of measuring energy for Q models without ELs – by measuring their Wattage statically at the midpoint of their motor run. (5-3 decision in the FFTC, 6-4 in the planetary meeting). The rule is effective on Jan 1st 2018. In the States this will eliminate all the Q models without ELs, as well as all the crossovers: A and B-electric and E36/S. It’s well known that a static Wattage test puts you at a disadvantage, but it also allows many to participate in Q without having to wrestle with ELs. Option (a) has been there since ELs appeared. So precision has trumped participation. :-(
Jack Murphy

  Tell Dick Ivers to get soldering.....[to make EL]
Mike Richardson
  Jack, when the time comes talk to Mike P. he sells them.
Jack Murphy
  How much? I have two of Ivers'. They work well with Hank's timers. I really like the micro dials on Texas Timers timers and the programming features. You can program different times and multiple servo functions with a Windows PC.
Jack Murphy
  Looked on the net, Aeris EL is $125, Dick wants $100 for his now...
Mike Richardson
  Hi Jack, I purchased a Sidus EL from Mike. I don't recall the price but it was no where near the prices you quoted. I don't know if they interface with Hanks timers or not. I use Mike's timers.
Mike Richardson

  CIAM just can't leave Q alone, another knife in the back.
Mar Ci
  Are there any documents about the results of decisions yet? I just heard about the 3J but nothing about the motor Max and an obligatory EL
  Ian Kaynes' report is in the latest issue of SEN. Write me if you do not receive it!
Chris Edge

  The logic for this rule change is really odd as using the mid-point Wattage is a disadvantage, yet it has, at a stroke, disenfranchised those who want to cross over from the mini classes. Certainly any thoughts I had to fly E36 in F1Q are now totally scuppered. CHE
Omri Sirkis

I agree that the mid point wattage shouled stay as an option for those who want to do it .
But it is a bad idea to use an e36 against a proper F1Q
F1q is about efficiancy and e36 is a limited run class with no energy limitations.
Its like a heavyweight box fighter traying to run a marathon
Aram Schlosberg
  Omri, The precision versus participation debate is important. Cross over fliers rarely “win” Q contests, but they constitute about 85% of the participants in the States. I have always subscribed to a “Q-light” variant to allow novices and AMA fliers to experience Q flying. Free flight is about participation, not winning and this is in my view a significant setback for the event.
Chris Edge
  Aram has it spot on yet again. What's more, the thermal doesn't care about efficiency. CHE
Omri Sirkis
Please think for moment!
An E36 weighs about 150 gram
And a 75 watt motor
It has 450 joule energy limit.
This means 6 sec motor run.
You will need a strong thermal Chris...
Don DeLoach
  Aram and Chris are correct. With this rule change CIAM shows that they don't don't care how few flyers participate in F1Q.
Jack Murphy
  I enjoy F1Q but think it is very esoteric. FAI should consider a couple of straight up electric power classes. I have written the proposed rules but did not get any support from the powers that be. As time goes by that may change. These rules are similar to AMA A and B Electric.
Jens Larsen
  Yes, E-180cm could be fun.
Per Grunnet
  At national contests we can allow F1S-models (and electric A and B) to participate with a calculated engine run. This is a decision for the national aeroclub.
I have with pleasure used my F1S-models in several Q-contests and every time placed last. The last time cost me the model - I realized that serious thermal picking was the answer to do better, so I launched in a monster thermal - and the model is probably still flying. The D/T worked, but the model continued upwards into the cumulus cloud ...
Aram Schlosberg

  Per, That's a rational solution - allowing models without ELs to fly in Q using option (a) (== A static motor test.) But, in the States, we lack a national body that can decide on free flight rules deviations. The closest thing is the team selection committee - whose task is to select US teams. So it falls to individual contest directors, provided they announced it advance. This simply does not work, so we are at the mercy of CIAM. ;-(
Allard van Wallene

  It is interesting to note that some complained that F1C performance was reduced too late and now to read comments that F1Q performance is reduced too early.
Tony Mathews
  Allard, I don't see too many people complaining that F1Q performance is reduced. Rather, the complaints seem centred on the removal of the non EL option. I don't understand how the vote carried when it was suggested that retaining the non EL option would allow F1S models or other non specialized electric models to participate. I don't understand what was to lose by still allowing the non EL option?
Mar Ci
  Is 2017 the 5th or 6th year with energy limit rule?
Teppo Sarpila

  The first year with EL was 2012
Mar Ci
  Wow, what a long time to get an EL :D
Aram Schlosberg

  Allard, In C there is a dominant model (folders). By not allowing different engine runs for flappers and fixed wing models (“in case we won’t get it right”), cements a non-design event.... Q, in contrast, is designed for models with different motor runs. I don’t have an issue with the reduced energy multiplier when models reach over 150 meters. But do have a problem when precision (requiring ELs) trumps participation.
Ray Elliott
  I'm in total agreement with Aram. Q is an event that is struggling to get participants so to do anything that reduces the likelihood of more people flying the class seems to be an acute case of shooting oneself in the foot. I can appreciate the need for precision but we're not talking about Formula 1 racing. What's more important - precision or participation? I feel that the mandatory use of EL's will put many people off on cost grounds alone, never mind any increased complexity. It's interesting to note that the Danes, who submitted the proposal, actually don't seem to have a problem with the calculated method being used at a national level,or will that change come next January?
Don DeLoach

  The next F1Q rule change will likely involve no flying at all, because there will only be two flyers left. The pair will meet at FAI HQ and have their equipment tested. The one with the best energy limiter will be awarded the World Cup.
Aram Schlosberg

  If we are wise, the Team Selection Committee should issue an advisory encouraging CDs to retain option (a) for Q in contests after Jan 1st 2018. The rep of district II (NY and NJ) supports this already.
Don DeLoach

  Sounds perfectly reasonable Aram, but will Americas Cup committee approve it?
Mar Ci
  Im happy with the changes. Energy reduction is fine, flyoff solution is nice too and I bought a limiter at the moment I started with Q. Still cheap class compared to A B and C
Ross Jahnke

  Perfection is the enemy of the good.
Don DeLoach
  Precisely correct.
Ray Elliott
  Absolutely spot on.
Yuda Avla
  It's time for revolution!
Lee Hines

  Drain the CIAM Swamp!