SCAT Electronic News 24 February 1999
- Details
- Category: Archive 1999
- Hits: 1074
SCAT Electronic News 24 February 1999
Table of Contents
=================
Sultan of Lost Hills
Another F1B beginner
The Organisers Guide reference to obstructions etc in the flight area.
On the SCAT Web site
A Rubber fliers take on SLOP
Sultan of Lost Hills
====================
The 14 round contest is setup completely different from the World
Championships. Whereas the WC is run one event for seven rounds per
day for 3 days, the 14R is run with all three events on two seven-round
days. The Junior events are completed the day before the major events.
Running the 14R in 2 days for the senior events puts many airplanes in
the air at one time leading one wag to mention that he had not been able
to hit any of the ships on his way up. Of course, thermal poles are
always close by.
Some years ago, I ran the Wakefield team selection event at Bong with
Pete Sotich and Floyd Miller running the other two. Floyd was the CD.
Our events were so far apart that we could not see each other. Floyd
did provide radios to call when we needed additional timers. Our Lost
Hills field is differently shaped than the Bong field, but the same
arrangement could be used. Since the scores are being radioed into
scoring central, separating the three events would surely dampen the
crowdedness we experience with greater and greater contestants. This
arrangement would require event directors handling the start and end of
each round on site. We surely have the room to do this.
I would suggest siting the F1A farther to the north of the usual parking
area, the F1B just south of the parking, and F1C farther south over the hill.
I would disallow F1A the privilege of launching their ships in either the F1B
or the F1C areas of influence.
I would put George B on top of the hill in view of all sites, providing
him with a sun canopy and a jug of something and a box of Upmann to keep
him mellow.
Another F1B beginner
====================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hello Roger,
I agree with Dick Wood about F1B. It is the performance of the planes
that initially attracted me to Wakefield. And as a beginner I would not be
pleased if the rules are changed in such a way that I would not be able to
use my current planes. I would not be able to participate because of time
and money constraints. Granted that my nonparticipation probably would not
affect anyone's else's viewpoint but I think that Dick is right in saying
that changing the rules semi-frequently is not conducive to attracting new
flyers.
Any news on the Vivchar beginner F1B?
Thanks,
Derek McGuckin
Pasadena
[On the Vivchar beginner F1B. There are a number set aside for juniors.
They should contact either George Batiuk or myself. I understand
that Starline will be importing a number of these kits.
This is a simple Wakefield designed to be flown by a younger person.
It does not require to the launched hard and vertically. It has a built
up wing with a carbon tube spar. The fuselage and boom are glass fiber. The
prop is a reverse montreal. It does not have a delay start. It is a
right/right model with an auto rudder and d/t. The workmanship is very
good. Most parts can be upgraded or replaced by more expensive
and 'better' parts from the Vivchar line as the flyer progresses.
The prop blades and fin are molded plastic [very light]. The models
comes out a a few grams under the 195 limit.
Vivchar says it will do 3:30 in non-thermal conditions. Looks
like an excellent model. I would categrize it as a modern Tilka.]
The Organisers Guide reference to obstructions etc in the flight area.
======================================================================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Note that the wording in almost all cases in the paragraph you reprinted
is 'should'. This allows complete latitude and in fact even allows a
competitor to ignore these requests.
In addition, since they are not part of the official rules I suggest they
are not even legally enforcable.
Just an interesting observation :)
Richard Blackam
On the SCAT web Site
====================
Photo by Bill Bogart of Doug Joyce's F1A canard. URL is
www.aeromodel.com/TM/T55
The photo file is a little big. In general when you send photos
crop away empty flying field and do not
save as a high quality jpg as these are very big.
A Rubber fliers take on SLOP
============================
I have given the slow open power debate lots of thought, though I do not
fly power. I must also say that I embrace the new technology and think
it has improved the quality of the models we are flying.
What the proponents of SLOP seem to desire is an event where a
structurally and mechanically advanced model would be illegal or would
at least be without advantage. Outside of that they would like to
maintain as much latitude to design, build and pick engines as possible.
I get a picture of a return to free flight gas circa 1970. Lets look
at how we can get to this point without another Nostalgia-like catagory
or SLOP.
None of the SLOP rules proposals that I have seen call for the outlaw of
composite materials, even though they are at the root of recent
improvements in model performance. Composites after all gave us the
high aspect ratio wing and the ultra light tail moment arm. Their
elimination would be very hard to monitor and most modelers use them in
small quantities so how much should be allowed? Composites are also as
easily obtained as good balsa these days and therefore provide no
particular barrier to new modelers.
Engine restrictions are also difficult because they create shortage
problems and varification problems. Both of these make it easier for
those with lots of engine savvy and money and hard for newcomers. It
would be best to be able to say, use the engine you have.
Auto surface restrictions seem to be aimed at taking the advantage away
from high aspect ratio models by forcing them to take a spiral path on
climb. This makes a lot of sense. However, many have noted the
difficulty in trimming a locked up model, thus making it harder for
newcomers. In my attempts in the early 1980's to fly power I found that
the warp and trim control needed to build a locked up model was most
difficult to master. Even today I find it as hard to trim a locked up
P-30 as it is to trim a 4-function wakefield.
Opening up a new catagory (SLOP) would further dilute interest in the
AMA gas events by implying that they are now the choice for those
interested in high tech models. I think that AMA gas rules are already
discouraging, or at least not encouraging, to high tech modelers because
of the 2 minute max. Though Ed Keck has obviously shown that high tech
is the route to record status he has not shown that a conventional model
is not capable of meeting the max and fly-off requirements at todays AMA
contests.
All of this leads me to a simple proposal which will have the desired
effect of discouraging high tech models in non-FAI classes: In all AMA
gas events the models should be restricted to auto rudder and D.T.
functions. The auto rudder is left in to make it easier to trim the
model, especially for beginners. Single function auto surfaces are easy
to build and every model with D.T. already has one so it imposes no new
technological burden. Without the other stabalizer functions however,
high aspect ratio models and models with long tail moment arms are
effectively eliminated. Thus the FAI and AMA events are given distinct
characters that don't overlap.
I am curious to here what others think about this proposal.
Ross Jahnke, Baton Rouge Free Flight Team
.................................
Roger Morrell
