SCAT Electronic News July 30 1999
- Details
- Category: Archive 1999
- Hits: 1014
SCAT Electronic News July 30 1999
Table Of Contents
=================
Wool and Rubber Knots - Rozelle
More Wool - Andresen
F1B Front Ends
Mulvihill Rules change proposal - Perkins
Wool and Rubber Knots
======================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The recent discourse on using wool fibers to secure rubber knots is intriguing:
This subject immediately brought to mind a scenario from the Palm Bay Team
Selection Finals in 1984.
I was F1B director and had badgered George Batiuk Sr. to help me process models
and weigh motors. (You may recall the 1984 Finals was the last tiemm officials
and contestants had to endure the drudgery of pre-weighing and bagging motors.)
George and I used a statistically sound random-selection method for weighing a
portion of a contestant's motors. We processed about 1,100 motors by inserting
each motor in a plastic sandwich bag and including a short (1-in.) length of
unusual-colored wool hand-knitting yarn (for verification of processing) and
then sealed the bag.
After the Finals, one of the contestants-who shall remain unidentified-roundly
criticized me for using the wool yarn to identify processed motors. He was
positive that fibers from those little lengths of yarn were responsible for him
unexpectedly blowing two motors. I responded, toungue in cheek, the idea was to
dispose of the yarn BEFORE inserting the motor in the model. He did not
appreciate my levity.
Although he was the only contestant to voice such a complaint, he continues to
remind me of the situation at every opportunity. And I am not one to doubt this
happened as he said, because this person has a long-standing reputation when it
comes to his knowledge of testing rubber and of rubber characteristics.
A wool fiber or two-anything, for that matter-could possibly have became
imbedded in the strands of his motor and could have caused sufficient friction
while winding for a strand to abrade and eventually break. (Granted, it's
difficult for most people to even SEE a single wool fiber). But if that's the
case, some wool fibers imbedded in the knot could certainly restrict slippage
and thus deter its coming untied.
Wool fibers could also exhibit entirely different characteristics when in an
"unmoving" situation (inside a knot) and when "moving" (between strands being
wound). I am a textile engineer, but I cannot unequivocally say the fibers woul
d
perform in either manner. But I do know that, depending on its grade, wool can
be abrasive (ever worn a wool sweater directly over your skin?) Under
magnification, the fiber surface appears as a series of sheaths which, "against
the grain," could possibly act like small barbs and thus impede slippage of the
strands in the knot.
Walt Rozelle
More Wool
=========
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
What a stroke of genius. In a country with 20 sheep per person, to find a
major new market for wool. Now if every F1B flyer were to
buy an ounce of New Zealand wool...
Actually, the major market may be F1D where knot weight is much more
critical. Move over Bill Gates.
Just when I thought I'd been exposed to every knot & glue combination
along comes wool. Whoda thought?
Thanks John,
H
F1B front-ends
==============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger,
Is there any source of information comparing and contrasting the F1B
front-ends from Andruikov, Vivchar, Gorban, W-Hobby, etc.? This kind of
information is easily available for engines, but not (that I could locate)
for F1B front-ends. I am sure there are differences in quality, operation,
parts availability, etc. Any help would be appreciated.
If this information is not available, it may be a good source for discussion.
Thanks,
Rey
[ Rey - I'm not prepared to comment on the quality / differences
but some are a matter of personal preference. What is important
if to be able to get local support and help.
The first 3 you talk about are obtainable and
have support in the USA - possibly at 'your' local
site. ]
Mulvihill rules change proposal
================================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger
I have prepared a Mulvihill AMA Rules Change proposal that makes the first
three flights 2,3,4 and 3,4,5 and 5,6,7 minutes for Category III, II and I
sites, respectively. Progressive one minute increases for flyoffs. At
Category III sites, the current three 2 minute flights are just a waste and
too much wear and tear to prove nothing. I have the support of Bud Romak,
Bob Bienenstein, Jim O'Reilly, Joe Williams, Larry Willis and others.
The detailed wording of the proposed Rules changes and additions are in red
print in the attachment, along with two pages of related logic, I hope
fliers at Western Category I sites will look at this proposal and provide
some opinions.
Thermals
Bob Perkins
text of Bob Perkins - this a word document
that has been converted to ASCII. It lost the color
in the translation. The original word document is available
on the SCAT Web site for
those who want to look at it more deatil.
Rules Change Proposal.
(Type in red print indicates the specific proposed revisions or additions made to the current
Rules; type in black print represents existing wording.)
FREE FLIGHT OUTDOOR RUBBER
4. Categories. The following types of models may be flown in the established contest
categories: Mulvihill Rubber, Autogiro, Ornithopter, and Helicopter.
4.1. Maximum official flight time limit in Autogiro, Ornithopter and Helicopter for each
category, except qualified flyoff flights, shall be as follows:
Flight One Flight Two Flight Three
Category I 5 mins 5 mins 5 mins
Category II 3 mins 3 mins 3 mins
Category III 2 mins 2 mins 2 mins
4.2. Maximum official flight time limit in Mulvihill Rubber for each category, except
for the flyoff flights, shall be as follows:
Flight One Flight Two Flight Three
Category I 5 mins 6 mins 7 mins
Category II 3 mins 4 mins 5 mi
Category III 2 mins 3 mins 4 mins
7. Number of Flights. Each contestant shall be allowed a total of six (6) attempts to make
three (3) official flights. P-30-see event rules.
7.1. If the three (3) official flights total the maximum allowed for the category flown,
then a series of flyoff flights may be taken. The maximum duration in Autogiro,
Ornithopter, and Helicopter for the fourth flight in each category shall be Category
I-six (6) minutes; Category II-four (4) minutes: Category III-three (3) minutes.
The maximum duration in Mulvihill Rubber for the fourth flight in each category
shall be Category I-eight (8) minutes; Category II-six (6) minutes; Category III-
five (5) minutes. Each successive flyoff flight, thereafter, in the four events shall
have the maximum flight time increased by one (1) minute. Flyoff flights may
continue until the contestant's model fails to reach the duration limit for that flight.
Only one (1) attempt is permitted for each flyoff flight.
Logic:
1. Almost all well-trimmed, modern Mulvihill Rubber models are capable of flight
durations far in excess of the two, three and even the five minute maximum limits
currently allowed in the first three official flights in Category III, II and I.
2. The three, two-minute and three, three-minute official flights rarely determine the
outcome of the event in Category III and II. Even the three, five-minute flights for
Category I can be relatively routine in decent weather conditions.
3. Despite "1" and "2" above, because of the nature of competition, most Mulvihill fliers
still wind to near full turns for even each of the three, two-minute flights, proving
nothing but resulting in the usual long chases and chances for loss or damage to the
model(s).
4. As proposed, the progressive maximum time increases beginning with the first three
official flights would:
A. Still allow the common tactic of an initial two- or three-minute "sure max"
trimming flight in Category III and II.
B. Eliminate the especially unproductive two-minute, second and third flights in
Category III.
C. Begin the truer tests of the modeler and model capabilities with the second and
third official flights earlier in the day, usually before maximal thermal activity,
and possibly reducing the likelihood of off-site flights.
D. Reduce the total number of flights required to determine the outcome of the event.
E. As a result in fewer flights and fewer long retrieval chases, pose less risk of
personal injury for the fliers, especially on the smaller Eastern flying sites.
F. Still allow any competitor to win or place in the event despite missing one or more
maxes in the first three official flights because every participant would face the
same challenging maximum flight limits proposed before progressing to flyoff
flights (this proved true in a trial run at the August 29-30, 1998 Category III
Central Ohio Free Flight Club Annual Contest, AMA National Field, Muncie, IN).
G. Essentially have no effect on the chances of less experienced fliers to win or
place, particularly in Category III, since most are already capable of repeated two-
minute flights and usually qualify easily for flyoffs under the current Rules. Each
participant would simply advance more quickly to the longer flights, effectively
allowing even the beginning Mulvihill flier to experience "flyoff length" flights
without necessarily "qualifying" (making three maxes).
H. Probably save overall flying time for each flier due to the "compressed"
competition period, allowing more time for participation in other favorite events
the same day (this has been a notorious problem for many Mulvihill fliers).
Intent:
1. The intent of the proposed Rules changes is to improve the event by eliminating the
unproductive second and third, two-minute maximum flights in Category III, and focus
more quickly on the inevitable longer flights involved as the usual competition progresses
at all three Category sites. The proposed changes would have minimal or no negative
impact on the chances for the new or inexperienced flier to win and could in fact increase
their experience and stimulate participation due to the built-in opportunity for attempting
the longer flights.
...........
Roger Morrell
