SEN 2348 - 22 Sept 2017 - Altimeter Update
- Category: Archive 2017
- Hits: 488
Table of Contents SEN 2348
- Altimeter Update - Important
- Corners and Paint
- BOM, not really
- Perris Update
From: Ian Kaynes
Re your item about altimeters, I will update you on the CIAM situation. When the new rule for altimeters as a back-up source of flight time information. It was mandated by the CIAM President that devices must be approved by the CIAM EBDIC group. I had previously assumed that this would not be required for an optional application, but nowhere does CIAM specify the circumstances of EBDIC involvement. Ideally they should have been involved before the proposal was passed. I had a meeting with the EBDIC chairman, Paul Newell, at the end of July. The agreed view was that within the confines of the rule already passed it would be difficult to draft specifications and check devices in the available timescale. It was agreed that a specification would be drawn up for future application. but at first the application of the rule will proceed with unapproved devices.
It is impressive what is being used in some of the RC classes, including an altimeter with socket for interrogation on a standard device. Other classes include multi-model telemetry to a central receiver and display unit, and work on landing detection. In view of the larger numbers involved in some of these classes, devices have a cost benefit from larger production runs than for free flight alone.
In the short term I see benefits of having altimeters which have individual and identifiable serial numbers (to better associate competitor and altimeter) and a common and quick replay process. Longer term the potential is there to transmit back time and location to central control. The inclusion of GPS would benefit competitors and could also be used to limit flight distance, so that flights could be limited to visual contact range, – but that is all CONJECTURE at this stage!
Corners and Paint
From: Lee Hines
We have painted our selves in a corner, not only for F1C event.
BOM, not really
From: Michael Achterberg
F1c power. There are always comments about builder of model rule. Like it killed F1c! Really! Guess it killed AMA gas events also.?? Oops. Bom in AMA. I THINK???? F1c has died mainly from lack of flying sites and the cost of travel to fly them. You can buy a wing and cost is high, but not terrible and build the rest yourself. But no one does that. WHY???? Also the average age of flyers. The model cost is high. This is true. But the travel cost to fly the new toys far out ways the model cost. And one trip to Lost Hills from east or mid west is a new model. People seem to forget that even with high model cost it's pretty hard to total a new tier model. Wings get bang up but generally fixable. Remember aluminum balsa wings. Any crash or minor incident and there goes another $300/400 for a new set..Or build your for $100 and spend 20 _30 hrs making molds and another 20+ hrs putting one together. So what's 50 hrs of your time worth?????
We have No new flyers. We are all older and unfortunately the power flyers were older 20 years ago. And they have passed away or just quit.. The No BOM Rule havent seem to have Killed F1b or F1a and some cost more than most power models. Hummmmm. Next!! Oh there is nothing. Free flight quite simply is fading away like 8 tracks and cassettes. Just the way of the world.
National Sky Diving Championship this weekend at Perris – watch out for visitors dropping in. Except this weekend is also the USFFC at Lost Hills so all true blue Free Flighters should be out in there, so no problems.