SCAT Electronic News 8 Dec 1999
- Details
- Category: Archive 1999
- Hits: 1291
SCAT Electronic News 8 Dec 1999
"SCAT - 40 Years of FAI Free Flight Competition"
Table of Contents
=================
Interesting Stuff - Andresen
F1B Settled ? - Shailor
Brokenspar - Malkin
Mini-BOM - Augustus
F1 performance - Ruyter
Right On - Editor
Looking for the Zero Plans - O'Reilly
Interesting Stuff
=================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger,
See some interesting stuff coming thru the SCAT site.
As to VP on F1B, I think the claims are based on comparison of an Andruikov
with VP vs a weekender with FP (fixed pitch) where motor selection, number
of turns, javelin launch, trimming and air selection are more significant
factors. If banned, there would soon emerge 2 things from the few remaining
Wakefielders:
1. A skewed hinge small hub prop (ala Ed Lidgard, SYMPO 88) which would do
about the same thing. Flaring type props ala Bob White also get around VP
rules.
2. A gearbox or constant torque transmission which would provide even more
benefit than VP.
As to flat bottom, it wouldn't take long for the few remaining F1Bers to
cover a thin flat bottom wing, having few ribs, with thin indoor type
covering and end up with a thinner, more undercambered airfoil in flight
than is current practice.
As a broken record, a better solution is longer flights flown earlier in the
AM. 3, 5's or 3, 7's starting at dawn is more meaningful than the marathon
7x3 flown all day to weed out 20% of the misfortunates and start a frantic
flyoff, which strikes me as total nonsense.
H
ps, I can break this down into words of one syllable or less if needed
F1B Settled ?
=============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
I thought the whole F1B controversy was settled at the last CIAM Meeting
when 30 grams of rubber and additional weight to the airframe was voted on
and will come into effect with the 2001 program.
Without even trying this, some folks seem to still want to push their own
agenda to make the rest of us fly "coupe-like" models. It's too bad we
don't have a builder of the model rule anymore, otherwise, maybe these
people would be busy building instead of flooding forums such as this with
premature and self-serving rules proposals.
I guess I still don't understand why some people are troubled with models
that perform well. Maybe theirs don't.
Bill
Brokenspar
==========
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
I well remember watching Brokenspar struckling his power model
vertically up and watching it struckle down even better at the last US
finals.
To tackle such a project as P30 is braver than joining the Luddites so
from now he shall be named " Brokenspar the Struckler"
John.
Mini-BOM
========
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Is there anyone else out there in FAI land who would like to see the
Builder Of The Model rule reinstated for the mini events?
BA
F1 performance
==============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Building and flying F1 models is an individual sport. This is most
apparent from reading all the suggestions to reduce the performance of
models.
It seems to me that modellers who suggest all these changes to reduce
performance of F1B models are riding their own hobby horse and It must not
be that rules have to be altered just to satisfy individuals. For me
typical examples on this subject are suggestions given during the last
couple of SCAT bulletins. Suggestions which to my idea are impossible to
apply.
I started flying Wakefield in the 80 gram era, at that time communication
was not so sophisticated as it is today, one E-mail and you get the whole
Free Flight Society at the rim of their chair.
Evolution is getting faster and faster a typical example is the performance
of F1B, but you can not stop evolution. Today even before a new rule is
effective even more drastic rule changes are suggested.
There is a rule freeze until 2001. At that time the rubber weight for F1B
will be reduced to 30 grams. Wait and see what happen. Do not start
serious model performance reduction discussions until we have sufficient
data after the rule change in 2001.
What maybe can be done, to reduce the number of flyers in the fly-off, is
to give more freedom to contest directors and/or Jury to change the length
of rounds (first and/or last round). This year we have seen contest where
the conditions during the first or last round where so good that the
majority of the contestants could fly a max. with two fingers in their
nose. As a Matter of fact 3.30 min for the first round in F1B at still air
conditions is to easy, just because of that do not change model rules in
order to reduce performance but give contest directors the freedom to
change the first round time to 5 min. for F1B (as an example). Up to now
max. times have to be announced in advance in the contest bulletin.
Pim Ruyter
Right On
========
I agree with Pim whole heartedly. My reaction on hearing the
proposal to further reduce the rubber with out even trying the
30 gram was one of complete discouragement. [I even considered
dusting off my R/C pylon racers, except those guys are in a
similar predicament to us Free Flighters.] Many other
F1B flyers expressed the same disappointment. It appears to me
that rule change should not have that effect. We are supposed
to be increasing particpation not making a rule change that
discourages the existing participants and make it harder for
beginners.
On Pim's second point I think that this is a good idea. While
a good F1B will easily exceed 210 seconds, there are often
conditions where 5 minutes would be very difficult. At Lost Hills
for example at the MaxMen contest in many years the first few
rounds are very calm but represent a transition period between
the morning calm and thermal part of the day. During this period
flying at the end of the first round it can be hard to make the 210
and I have seen many sportsmen breath a sigh of relief that they
did not have to do 210 in the second round. Yet in terms on retrival
the models were only going a couple of hundred yards maximum.
Editor
Looking for the Zero
====================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger,
Could you please pass on my need to borrow a copy of the Tosh Matsuda "Zero"
plan? I will need it for a month or so and plan to add it to my list of CAD
plans. When the plan is done Bob Holman will be able to laser-cut parts for
it.
Also, I'd be interested in hearing from readers about sizes for larger or
smaller classes that they would like to see plans and parts for.
Regards,
JO'R
....................
Roger Morrell
