SCAT Electronic News Aug 29 1998
- Details
- Category: Archive 1998
- Hits: 1629
SCAT Electronic News Aug 29 1998
Table of contents
-----------------
SCAT Electronic News andd the SCAT Web site
Rules
More on rules - Jim Thornbery
SCAT Electronic News andd the SCAT Web site
As we mentioned a while back we are changing the way we are connected to
the Internet .. unfortunately the new supplier has let us down and we do not
know when it will become available. It should have been 1 Sept....
So the old connection is going away 31 August and we will
not be wired for a little while.
Rules [Editorial]
For F1B, and other classes it seems that rules changes should be
done as not to obselete current models. Obvious approaches are decreasing
rubber, increasing weight or changing the flying rules.
A disadvantage in decreasing rubber weight is that it places an increasing
emphasis on the quality of the rubber and reduces the challenge
in controlling the power. It intial climb of a modern
F1B is spectacular and has a certain appeal. it would be a pity to
lose that.
Any rule that limits materials, control surfaces, timers etc tends
to stifle innovation. One of the appeals to many F1X flyers
is the hi-tech aspect .. while the appeal to others is that
they can beat the hi-tech guys with a simple model !
In F1B wing span seems to be self limiting. Models with a 1.5 - 1.6 meter
span seem to be the norm. 2 meter models do not seem
to be so reliable. I assume that is why Andriukov does you
use his long model in important contests.
More on rules
I too found Jim Haught's wingspan proposal interesting. There certainly is
precedence in R/C glider such as the 2 meter class.
Stepping back from the problem, I think in the interest of keeping
reasonably high-tech FF viable we are faced with the problem that we can
make aircraft whose performance exceeds the size of most flying sites if
there is much wind. To keep models within sight and on the field, we put
various restrictions on the models or flying rules. These restrictions then
tend to promote more model development, complexity, and cost. At some point
we will arrive at a complex expensive model whose duration isn't much more
than a catapult glider with a bit more rubber, a P30, or PeeWee 30. This
doesn't encourage participation.
I do not think there are any simple easy answers to this dilemma which began
decades ago when a maximum time replaced unlimited flights with timers
following the model. We should continue to strike a trade-off between
complexity/high-tech aspects (which has appeal for us, myself included)
versus affordability/practicality (time, money, travel, etc). Furthermore,
a rule change that obsoletes exsisting models will not be adopted because of
the investment we all have in them. Starting a new class and, if popular,
changing over to it is more likely to succeed.
In the interest of promoting discussion on how to achieve a trade-off of
complexity vs practicality I would like to suggest some approaches with
particular attention to F1A, the class I try to fly.
1. Limit the ease of maxing by giving several short flying windows per
round. You must choose to use the window for either an attempt or a flight
before the window begins!
For example, have four 5 minute windows per round signaled as we do for
beginning and end of rounds. Flyer must decide prior to window if they will
fly or attempt. F1A timers would like this; no more 20+ minute tows in the
sun a quarter mile downwind, fewer maxes and perhaps more attempts with the
hope of good air on the second attempt. If F1B had to wind the motor during
the window, this could be very limiting and exciting!
Advantages: No model obsolescence, fly models in similar air even more than
round system, timing duties may be easier, applicable to all classes
(perhaps with different length time windows).
Disadvantages: More duties for contest management to signal the windows
2. Reduce F1A altitude gain on bunt by limiting wing wire diameter and
specifying its material .
R/C F3B gliders faced the zoom problem years ago and considered weak links
in the towline etc. before settling on limits on winch power. We could
limit altitude gain on launch by specifying material (no boron, etc) and a
maximum diameter of wing center wires (one for main wire, other limited to
much smaller) which must join wing within 2 cm(?) of wing center. No wing
bracing as the Dutch once did. Wings with larger holes could install tubes
to reduce the diameter or put limited length enlargements on smaller
diameter wires to fit the larger holes.
Advantages: No model obsolescence, simple, limits still air performance in
particular, potential for simpler lighter wings, relatively easy to check.
Disadvantages: Unfamiliar, novel approach; one more thing to check.
Or there are some more radical steps into the past we could take such as:
Limit circle towing by limiting to 2 position rudder only. No adjustable
ailerons, variable stab tilt, etc. Waiting on the ground and straight
towing might become the norm again. Or eliminate any control service
movement. With his offset towhook experience, Cowley might be unbeatable.
Prohibit folding propellers in F1B. Finally, a class for those 12" plastic
props that are too big for P30.
Use only diesel engines. Ignition would also be OK. F1C flyers start going
to MECCA engine collectos and talking to FAI team race experts.
James M. Thornbery, M.D.
General Medical Labs
36 S. Brooks St.
Madison, WI 53715
USA
..................
Roger Morrell
