SCAT Electronic News 25 September 1999
- Details
- Category: Archive 1999
- Hits: 1047
SCAT Electronic News 25 September 1999
Table of Contents
=================
25th Livotto California FAI Inviatational
RCDT - Andresen
RC in FF - Kaynes
Radio-Controlled DT - Schlosberg
R/C DT for FAI Free Flight - Bradley
Radio Rules ? - Ackery
1999 Hoosier Cup Results - Wood
F1C engine runs (Phil Smith) - an observation - Godzilla and Davis
FAI Rule Book - Simpson
25th Livotto California FAI Inviatational
==========================================
This event is Oct 9 and 10 at Lost Hills.
The flyer is on the web page - from www.aeromodel.com/scat
There is a section on contest calenar and Announcements.
the flyer is there.
the actual URL is
www.aeromodel.com/TM/E19218T16
[In both cases the capitailaization is important]
RCDT
=====
Roger,
The R/C D/T or is it RCDT is interesting. Even small, quality
RC systems are cheaper than trackers. A 2 channel used for rudder
elevator can shorten the chase even more than the pop up stab RC
as the model can be pointed back to the starting point in a slight dive. It
could even avoid trees, Kitty Litter factories and other
hazzards. Having grown up when changing out leaded pencells was
sometimes used to lighten an ignition model, etc., I'm well aware
of possible abuses and major controversy, but, like Ken Bauer,
would appreciate a ruling on the subject. Also, if that won't fly,
how about GPS control AFTER a max with no person to model connection?
You know you're doing a good job when a non-FAIer like Terry Thorkildsen
requests back issues. Keep up the good work.
H
RC in FF
========
Sender : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger
A quick response (just going to Stonehenge Cup) to Ken on radio control
rules.
The FAI rules mention the possibility of radio control in the model
definition part of free flight (para 1.3.1 of the sporting code). Here it
says that radio control is not allowed unless specified in the class rules.
The only class rules which allow it are F1C. Thus F1A and F1B do not allow
it by model definition - not definition of what happens during a flight -
and so any model containing the capability contravenes the rules even if
it is not used.
[this last point of Ian's is interesting - because if say a piece
fell off the model after it D/Ted following a MAX this would be OK
because the flight had terminated. But you could
not use a RC DT at this point because it was in contravention
of the rules to have it on board during the flight ?]
However, I agree with you that with onboard electronics it would be
difficult either to tell if there was some hidden radio controlled function
or, in the case of F1C, if there was any use of radio to control other
functions than motor stop and DT. The main tool against such tricks is
watching. If other competitors, the timekeepers, organisers or jury saw a
model repeatedly defying normal trim patterns it would be investigated!
Ian
Radio-Controlled DT
===================
Sender : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The advent of a new-old technology of radio-controlled (RCDT) on a free
flight model, raised by Ken Baur, is intriguing.
Dethermalization is irreversible, whether it is programmed or triggered by
a radio signal, and is consistent the basic notion of free flight. Once a
model dethermalized, it continues to accumulate flying time as long as it
is airborne and visible to the timers.
The next question is how one could take advantage of this technology.
There is an historical precedent of Thomas Kostar dethermalizing his power
model after an over-run, picking it up and and flying a second attempt. A
variant is a model being dethermalized following a poor bunt or motor run ,
in an effort to get a second attempt (a flight under 20 seconds). These
examples can be classified as using the RCDT to obtain a second attempt.
This advantage, however, could disappear if the rules preclude a second
attempt for RCDT models that were dethermalized. In other words, if you
dethermalized your RCDT model and got 19 seconds, you would have no second
attempt. The only case were a RCDT would have an advantage is for power
models that have an overrun.
The intent of RCDT is to end the flight safely. Many times I wished that
my models would dethermalize at 2 minutes, to avoid a long chase-and-search
mission. Using a RCDT one could even dethermalize a model safely into an
opening in a wooded area. On September 9, in this newsletter, Ken
described his practice flying on a sport facility near home. Over time,
RCDT could revolutionize timers, which would only run until the transition
to glide has ended.
But a wide spread usage of RCDT raises the technical issue of the
protecting the privacy of the dethermalizing signal. We should avoid a
situation were others can dethermalize your model unintentionally or
intentionally. (Just imagine pressing one button and dethermalizing all the
flying models out of the sky!) If the RCDT signal could be digitalized,
with an appropriate personal code word, it could be widely used. We could
even use it practice a bit in the field-less Empire State (NY).
[The item Ken Bauer is proposing is different than a conventional
R/C device. All can work on the same frequency. Each transmitter
has a unique digital signature that it shares with the reciever.
The reciever would reject any commands i.e. signals coming
from another person's TX. This is the system already in
use by Koster et al. There is a risk that one TX could blanket all
the others but as the transmission time required is very short,
if all TXs are well behaved then there should be no problem or
even need for frequency control like in an R/C event. There may be a
need to control the TX to certify the moment it is used.]
Aram
R/C DT for FAI Free Flight
==========================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger,
In reply to Ken Bauer question concerning DT'ing his F1A during a contest.
The FAI rules only allow it in F1C. This was put in sometime in the late
80's and the reason only F1C was address is because Tom Koster was already
using it for test flights. Reference section 3.3.2 in the FAI Sporting Code.
However, it is not addresses (outlawed) for F1A or F1B. One could use the
argument that it is not prohibited so therefor I can use it with no penalty.
Personally I see no reason to not allow it as it's only advantage is to
control not loosing models.
Does this fall in the rule that outlaws "active" controls? Could one not
incorporate an altitude sensor coupled to the electronic timer so that if it
sensed that the model was at 500 feet and had been flying for 2 minutes to go
ahead and DT since it would take more that 1 minute to DT from that altitude?
Again I feel nothing should be outlawed that would aids us in not loosing
models as long as it is a non-reversable function. I.E. you can't DT the
model for a while and then resume normal gliding when it got lower.
Jim Bradley
Radio Rules ?
===========
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Can we use radio to activate the DT ?, the answer is quite clear if we read
the rule book.
For FAI classes,
"
1.3.1 Category F1 - Free Flight
This is a flight during which there exists no physical connection whatsoever
between the aeromodel and the competitor or his helper. Radio control
functions are allowed only when specifically stated in the rules for that
particular class. "
(The only class that does allow radio control is F1C.)
When does the restriction on radio control apply ?. The rule gives no
specific circumstances, or time period when it applies (eg only on
Tuesdays, or when the wind is blowing from the East, etc), so I think we can
say that it will apply at all times.
David Ackery
1999 Hoosier Cup Results
========================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hi Roger
Here is the results from the 1999 Hoosier cup held on Sep 11,12 at
Muncie, In. This was a good weekend for flying although the wind was a
bit stiff on sunday. The main problem on sunday being the drift
direction which was carrying the models toward the houses just off of
the field. In all every one had a good time from what I could tell.
My apologies to everyone for being delenquent at submitting the results
but I had a slight operator malfunction with my palmtop and lost the
data for the event. I have reconstructed the data as you can see here.
Thanx
MArk
Results:
F1A Glider Rd 1 Rd 2 Rd 3 Rd 4 Rd 5 Rd 6 Rd 7
Chuck Marcos 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 1260
Bob Sifleet 180 180 65 180 104 68 103 880
F1B Rubber
Chris Matsuno 180 180 180 180 84 109 160 1073
Richard Wood 129 62 180 161 180 180 180 1072
Tom Ioerger 155 180 110 141 150 180 113 1029
Bill Kozak 180 180 152 180 692
John Watters 102 180 0 0 0 124 180 586
F1C Power
Norm Poti 180 157 180 180 180 180 180 1237
Bob Gutai 180 180 180 180 128 180 115 1143
Bob Sifleet 180 180 127 180 105 171 153 1096
F1G Rubber
Richard Wood 104 67 120 120 120 531
Chuck Marcos 120 79 120 120 86 525
Chris Matsuno 120 63 91 120 120 514
Ed Konefes 120 60 44 105 52 381
F1H Glider
Bob Sifleet 120 45 61 120 100 446
Jean Pailet 24 120 62 92 92 390
Chris Matsuno 115 115
Chuck Marcos 50 39 89
F1J Power
Bob Gutai 120 120 120 120 120 180 780
Austin Gunder 120 120 120 120 120 111 711
Steve Frazier 120 120 118 120 120 598
Jean Pailet 120 120 120 67 120 547
Craig Gunder 120 120 240
Gib Robbins 114 114
F1C engine runs (Phil Smith) - an observation
================================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject : Re: SCAT Electronic News 23 Sept 1999
F1C engine runs (Phil Smith) - an observation
I tend to believe that the 1/2 second variable on the engine run timing is in f
act
very realistic. If the total engine run is 5 seconds then 1/2 second is 10% whi
ch
is a huge number when you look at the fact that many contests are won in the
flyoff's by a spread of less than 60 seconds over a 5 or 7 minute flight. The 5
second engine run dictates that any competitive modeler has to push the engine
run
to the absolute edge if he hopes to win. It's a set up for a messy situation. E
ven
though I don't fly F1C I time a lot of flights and there is and ENORMOUS tenden
cy
to give the flyer the benefit of the doubt and not give him an overrun because
you
don't trust what you are hearing given all the other ruckus and noise around an
d
our reaction time to stopping the timer varies from person to person as well
(remember the "hit the brake" timing test that was done in drivers ed classes?
some
people had fast reaction times and some had very slow and
this was in a controlled
situation!!) Bottom line to me is that if in a fly off one participant gets an
extra 1/4 second engine run then that translates into 5% overall better flight
to
those who were right at 5 seconds. 5% of a 7 minute fly off flight is 21 second
s.
Many contest have been won and lost with a much smaller margin than that. In t
he
words of one of my heroes Edward Deming, the QC guru, quality is a function of
the
process and can not be "inspected" in a the end. The 5 second engine run with a
variety of timers who have varying levels of eyesight, hearing, and
reaction times
is right up there with a machinist who says that plus or minus 1/16" is close
enough for precision metal work! The quality of timing an
F1C model now is a joke
that we all sort of scoff away as "that's just how it is".
Something has to giv
e
here if we want to stay in reality. The performance of F1C has surpassed the ru
les
limitations and the engine run has been squeezed down to a level of absurdity i
f we
are truly wanting to have have accurate timing of the engine runs. My opinions
of
course are coming from a person who flys F1B and F1C but as a timer for F1C it
doesn't take a mental giant to see there are some inherent problems in
the current set up.
One last clarification on my comments several months ago where I compared F1C
flying to "women in mud wrestling". To all the power flyers who took offense at
that ( and let me know it!) I apologize and I need to clarify it a little bit.
I think what I was trying to get across is that while F1C is a very graceful and
beautiful class of models (that's where the women part came from, very
sexist of course) but that under it's current noisy, stinky, and
dust blowing configuration
it's akin to mud wrestling. Perhaps what I should have said is that F1C as now
flown to me is like going out with a beautiful woman on a date who turns out to
have bad breath like Godzilla, she is awfully pretty but you just
can't get close.
Hope that makes you power guys understand me better and that I WAS JUST TRYING
TO MAKE A POINT!
Opps, almost forgot, one last thing. To the power flyer who wrote me and said t
hat
my mother was probably a mud wrestler I take great offense. To set the record
straight my mother was a kick boxer with kangaroos in traveling circus and as a
group they are considerably up the social ladder from the mud wrestlers, who sh
e
never socialized with except to occasionally kick box one of them into their pl
ace.
Jon Davis
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
FAI Rule Book
=============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger, reference Don Long's inquiry about obtaining a complete FAI rule
book, I sent him the following information. To get a complete FAI rule book
here in the States, contact headquarters AMA to buy the book. Should cost
$5.00. Call Teressa Mckee, competition Department, 1 (765) 287-1256,
extension 231. Roger
.............
Roger Morrell
