SCAT Electronic news 12 February 1999
- Details
- Category: Archive 1999
- Hits: 1016
SCAT Electronic news 12 February 1999
Table of Contents
=================
Applogies
Piserchio on F1B changes
and Martin Gregorie on F1A and F1J
Spirit from Rey
Wot no wood, Tom
A word from young Igor
Appolgies
=========
Firstly some editorial applogies .. we are somehat busy trying to get
our act togther for the MaxMen 14 Rounder this weekend [a must for
any FAI Free Flighter in California,.. or anywhere else for that
matter] so we have not got the Isaacson Winter Classic results all done
and a number of other tasks, maybe next week ! It's the day before and I
do not have enough good motors ready!
Piserchio on F1B changes
========================
Subject: Re: Italian proposal
I did a quick calculation of rubber weight to total weight of F1B
present set up 35/240 =.149
if 30g rubber 30/240 = .125
if 25g rubber 25/240 = .104
Coup 10/80 = .125
So if they cut the rubber to 30g we would have the same ratio of energy to
weight as a coup, but have a 3 minute max instead of 2 and (3.5 early).
If the rubber is cut to 25g we would have considerably less performance
than coup, but longer max times. I'm getting very upset with all these
guys who want to tinker with the rules. I may write a tongue in cheek note
for Scat and suggest that the whole F1B class be eliminated ( then there
would be no flyoff problems)
and that we substitute coup instead. Of course some people would
immediately complain and demand that the rubber for coup be cut to 5 grams!
The time has come for people to stand up and say why we do this crazy
sport. If you are in it to win contests as the most important part of the
sport, then I say you are in the wrong sport. I like to win, but it is not
my major goal. If your only goal is to win then it matters not how much
rubber or weight of plane or anything else. You might as well just hand
launch the planes. But the fun and the challenge is to work with the
planes and try to get as much performance as you can out of them. If the
rubber weight gets any lower the performance wll drop so much that the fun
and the challenge is gone. I have been in contests where I didn't place as
high as I should have because of the timer. It is a little disappointing
but if my plane performed like I wanted it to, I was happy. I have also
won some contests by luck where my plane didn't fly as well as I wanted and
while being happy that I won, it was a hollow victory because of the
performance of me and or the plane.
The reason I fly F1B rather that coup is because there is more of
challenge. If I am forced to fly a plane that has the same or less
performance than a coup I guess I would either fly coup or go back to golf.
This whole idea that the flyoffs cause timers to make mistakes is a poor
one. Timers make mistakes on 3 minute flights with no visibility problems.
You have more of a chance for an error on a long flight, but you have to
weight that probabilty against the fun you have in making a long flight.
Anytime you have humans making measurment and judgement decisions, there
are going to be errors made. Just ask the football, soccer, and basketball
fans how many games are won or lost by a poor call by the officials. Its
going to happen and it is a part of the game. You have to learn to live
with it. I guess you could have less officiating errors in basketball, for
example, by making each player carry a 50 pound weight on his back, this
way the players would move much slower and not jump as high, and it would
be easier for the officials to spot fouls etc. BUT, WHO WOULD WANT TO SEE
OR PLAY SUCH A GAME!. The performance level would drop so low that no one
would be interested anymore. This is what would I think will happen to F1B
if the performance is lowered anymore.
Bob
and Martin Gregorie on F1A and F1J
==================================
Statement of position
==================
I fly both F1A and F1J and have done both for many years. As a consequence I
am only commenting on the effect of locked-up models and noise on these two
classes.
D/T-only models
===============
> Would going to "DT only" obsolete "all" models. I don't think so.
>
Rey has evidently never flown gliders which, outside the USA, are easily the
most popular FAI class.
Apart from some strange people with offset hooks (Hi, Martyn!) nobody has
flown a glider without an autorudder since clockwork timers were invented in
the early 60s and many people used them before this. Forbidding the use of
an autorudder would obsolete 99% of current F1A models. I could personally
could live with a fixed stab (apart from d/t) in F1A, mainly because I've
been too idle to install bunt mechanisms so far, but would quit if forced to
fly without autorudder or circle tow.
[ comment .. from the Itialian rules proposal it says that the D/T is the
only moveable surface after the launch. I assumed that this means an auto
rudder on tow is ok. Except that strictly speaking is does
move a few micro seconds after the cable comes off]
As it happens a few of us were discussing what changes would be the best way
to reduce F1A performance and concluded that introducing a fixed stab is
about the best option. All current models could be adapted to fly this way
and there would be a real effect on the size of flyoffs - something that the
current Russian proposal to use 45m lines would scarcely affect. It would
also be an easy thing to check during processing with little opportunity to
cheat.
I regard an auto-surface F1J as being considerably safer than a locked-up
model. Its flight pattern is much less knife-edge and, except in cases of
systems failure, I have never seen one arrow in like an over-critical
locked-up model so often does. Please bear in mind that locked-up models get
much more critical as the power loading increases. Its easier to trim too.
Regarding noise
==============
I read the Belgian proposal with some disbelief. I recall what happened last
time there was an attempt to silence F1C. Riiight.... pipes and a huge power
increase!
Now this Belgian proposal is remarkably short on practicalities and IMHO
should be canned until the necessary work has been done to determine:
- how much intake and prop noise contributes to the overall noise output,
i.e. is it possible to achieve the target with a current engine
- the design and minimum size of a silencer that can meet this limit without
any increase in power output
- how such a silencer must be specified to prevent it being used to
increase performance
- how to check that a silencer has been built to specification
- how to ensure that no cheating is possible during noise checks.
I've heard it said that the r/c boys cheat like mad, using oversize
props and partial throttle during the noise checks; if true this makes a
mockery of the rules and we may as well not have them.
Once this work has been done we will be able to measure what the effect of
its introduction will be on model design and performance (I expect an
effective silencer will be bulky) and it will be time to proceed toward a
rule with good empirical data to support the change. This is NOT to say that
I oppose noise reduction per se, but I do believe strongly that the research
should be done first and the legislation later.
I support the Russian proposal to ban pipes from F1J - there's enough
performance without them. In practise I know that this means banning all
exhaust extensions; so be it. Until we *know* how to specify a silencer that
does not also increase power and damn the torpedos, er noise limits.
Martin Gregorie
London, UK
Spirit from Rey
===============
In a message dated 2/10/99 9:46:39 AM Central Standard Time, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
writes:
Roger:
I agree that there are people who do like the complexity of the current state
of the art, however my issue isn't with the complexity, it is with the "spirit
of free flight." I have a Masters in CIS, so I am confident in my ability to
program electronic timers and am equally confident in my ability to mount a
VP/DPR front-end on a F1B along with hooking up the auto-surface lines
properly and working out the trim sequence. In fact I believe that the
construction of a locked-up model can be as complex as the hobbyist desires.
A locked-up model is not necessarily "simple," it can be much more complex to
make fly properly. But, is a model that is computer controlled through all
phases of flight, and can even "react" to changes during flight (i.e., mercury
switches in F1A that have the ability to alter the program sequence based on
the attitude of the model) truly free flight?
Why would I be concerned about this if I am free to choose to build either an
auto-surface model or a locked-up model? Because we are quickly heading into
free flight oblivion. We are not very many steps away from limited r/c
controlled "free flight." If this is someone's desire, why not build r/c
sailplanes?
Sorry, just my humble opinion,
Rey
Wot no wood, Tom
================
Rey does not sound like a current Nordic flyer, and has probably never
flown a carbon-winged bunter, but as one who once said I'd never build
with anything but wood, I now cannot imagine anything other than carbon.
The electronic bunt adds a new dimension to flying that keeps me
spellbound with free flight. There is nothing in the world like pulling
30 lbf on the run-up and watching that thing soar! Zoomers are fine; I
still use one for thermals. But for all-out performance in which you
can trim for tow, bunt and glide separately and not play the compromise
game between all three, I'll never use a zoomer calm air ship again.
Tom Coussens
[Comment .. Tom's comment brings out what many people like about
the current rules [as comapred with the Italian proposal].
That is the freedom to innovate and try all kinds of ideas -
methods of construction, methods of trimming etc. If you look
at the top Freeflight modellers of today or of yesterday ..
Goldbery, Korda, Koster, Andruikov, Stamov, M&K, Bob White
[who flew a 'simple' right/left model] , etc ... they were all innovators
and tried many kinds of new ideas. In the 'premier' classes we need
to be able to do that to retain the interest of the top flyers and
have a "Major League" like Bob Piserchio says. ]
A word from young Igor
======================
From: "Igor Yablonovsky"
Hi, Roger!
Many thanks for the in-depth information. It is very a pity, that at me has
failed to accept involvements in Max Man. I consider these competitions as most
interesting among stages World Cup's and I was very much disappointed, when I
have not received the visa.
I am sorry for my bad English, but I hope that you can understand me.
I receive a SCAT Electronic News and read regularly. Thank you for the useful
information, which you distribute. It is very interesting keep abreast
of the last news from America. I completely agree with your comments
concerning the statements american sportsmen about change in rules. The
majority of the changes would result degradations of our sports and
returning back in the past, what has resulted in lowering interest
to aviamodellism progresivity of youth, that it is impossible to accept.
Good weather and successful flights on Max Man for you and Igor.
I hope, the competitions will pass interestingly, as always.
Yours faithfully Igor.
[Igor is a F1A sportsman from the Ukraine. .. We are glad
that you find our news interesting. We appreciate you
writing and we can understand you with out any problem.
We always like to get e-mail from new people.]
...........................
Roger Morrell
