SCAT ELectronic News 21 January 1999
- Details
- Category: Archive 1999
- Hits: 1063
SCAT ELectronic News 21 January 1999
Table of Contents
=================
Letter from Argentina
SouthWest Regionals America's Cup - mini events
More on the $28
Canards from the Frozen North - Rocket Ron
Zeri on F1B rules and philosphy
SCAT Electronic News Info
Message from Argentina
======================
From: "daniel iele"
Dear Roger:
My congratulations for being in the WWW again.
You can't imagine how important is this kind of contact to us who live
so far away from the competition centers.
About rules changes: Any comment about Italian proposal for March CIAM
meeting?. I found it a very interesting and complete aproach to the
problem. The F1C proposal is a little radical but very smart. No more
engine run timing!.
Regarding the probable USA 2001 W.C I agree with Ian Kaynes that it
would be fair to share the event more widely. Argentina, and I believe
that Chile and Uruguay would do the same: fully support USA if you
decide to host the event.
By the way: I am very pleased to invite all freeflighters to the next
Argentine Nationals, with points for the World Cup, in Embalse, Cordoba
(1989 W.C field) on 20-25 May.
More details: Daniel Iele This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger and Ian: Please note my new adress.
Regards
Daniel
[Reply]
Inspite of what people say , I realy do not know everything ..
and don't have a copy of the proposals to the CIAM. So if someone
will send me/us one !
SouthWest Regionals America's Cup - mini events
===============================================
Roger,
Sorry for the delay in mini results as I played hookey after the SWR.
First, I would like to thank all participants for pitching in and helping
as we were a bit short handed due to the allergy/cold/flu bugs etc, which
didn't help the learning curve on the new field.
There was some excellent flying with a 3sec margin in F1A and 2sec in F1B
As to the mini-events, there were some surprises:
Southwest Regionals Mini Events 17 Jan 99 (1999) America's Cup Event
F1G (14 entries, 3 maxouts)
White
Norvall
Wernicke
Brocks
Nelson
F1H (7 entries, 1 maxout)
Cowley
Brun
Van Nest
Ghio
Smith
F1J (4 entries, 3 maxouts)
Spence, Steve
Augustus
Parker, Faust
Happersett
Full results should follow.
Thanks again to all for their help,
Hermann Andresen
[Comment]
Looks like the only suprise
is in F1J. White and Cowley are no suprise in F1G and F1H respectively
Unoffical light on the $28
==========================
From: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger,
I can shed some (unofficial) light on the $28 fee charged to "visiting" fliers
at the 14-Rounder:
I asked AMA Tech Director if the fee was correct, and he confirmed that. The
fliers are therefore AMA members for the year, and as such have the insurance
coverage that the rest of us do. (And the fee is less than "normal" members
pay.)
And before anyone squeals that we as FFers don't need that kind of coverage,
think back to the fire at the Sierra Cup a few years ago--started by a
"visitor"'s F1C. This was one of the largest claims in AMA history. So it can
happen.
Mine is not the official AMA viewpoint on this--hey, I just work there!--but I
do not think the fee is unreasonable, all things considered. When all sorts of
models are at or near four figures in price or cost, I don't think $28 should
be that big a deal.
Jim Haught
[comment]
I believe the part of the issue is if the visitor is really covered.
In thecase of the latest firecaused by a visitor, I understand it
was paid by the BFMA insurance. Some concern is what would happen
if the visitor was from a country that did did not have that kind
o insurance.
Canards from the frozen North
=============================
RM
Welcome back on line!
A couple of questions for our fellow FAI'ers. Is D. Joice really
flying a canard F1-A and if he is I am dieing to know the particulars?
Along the same line (figuratively), Hermann Andresen mentioned in
the last post that a canard should have dihedral in the for-plane and
none in the wing. Perhaps he could be persuaded to explain this to
us directionally challenged sportsmen. My interest in this is that just
the other day I drew up a rough outline and then glued together a
quarter size "model" for a canard F-1J. The truly bored can see them
at http://bristolbay.com/~trout/CANF1J.HTM. The Nordic Cafe is
back on line with some new information on my latest glider as well;
note the changed URL http://bristolbay.com/~trout/RONF1A.HTM
ROCKET
F1-A at The Nordic Cafe
http://bristolbay.com/~trout/RONF1A.HTM
Rules, rules' change and (may be) F1B
=====================================
From: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
I have the impression that there is some heat growing around the subject of F1B
rules, so it's may be time to share my real view with the colleagues on these
pages.
First of all let's try to have a common (I hope) opinion: rules are a neces-
sary burden, even if it's possible to fly totally unlimited I feel that a set
of rules gives a fair chance to everybody (if you really like unlimited, they
exist in some countries, otherwise try Coupe's, they are pretty free).
Once we accept the idea of having rules, it can happen sometime that ruleshow
some need of overhauling, the problem then is when & if this modification is
needed, and what to do.
To stick to the case of F1B, there are (split) opinions about the impact of
the actual performances of the models on the possibilities to run a contest
with a fair chance of correct official results, field size, distance (and
visibility associated to distance) and retrieval are real problems on many
fields.
It's not always well perceived by people who don't face the problem many times
per year, but it's a reality in many places, as an exemple 80% of the contests
in Holland are flown to a 2 minutes max, and the fly-off is flown on the
longest DT time after the climb, of course I don't pretend that the class
should be adapted to the prevailing conditions in Holland, but all around Euro-
pe the situation is very often not ideal.
There are voices about changing not the rules about models but the rules about
contests, personally I find the actual way of flying contests not too bad, but
I'm not married with the actual set-up: I'm waiting for the opportunity to see
some test-contests flown following some new proposed rules to get an idea on
the soundness of the proposals, till now I only read the same proposal in many
different occasions in the last few years without any serious try to expe-
riment.
Any new idea deserves some try sessions before the acid test of being put alone
in the harsh environment of the real world, the chance of standing up and
getting interest will be higher if some real test can be put forward as a
support based on real experience.
I was delighted by the recent letter of Mr. Lavoie about 20gr. F1B motors:
I don't share completely his opinion (even if I share completely his flying
problems) but at least he was talking about something he had direct personal
experience, like Mr. Linkosalo before him, you (we) can dislike the idea,
but at least there is evidence that it's a viable possibility, worth possi-
ble further investigation.
After this short preamble, let me start with the discussion about F1B rules
(possible) change(s).
First of all a few rules about the way to change: this is only MY point of
view, but I strongly think that at this stage any change should allow the
existing models to still be used in a competitive way, this means that all
the ideas like ROG take-off, imposed cross section of the fuselage, ban of
autosurfaces, ban of VP propellers and so on are, in MY opinion, not viable.
I think that F1 free flight classes are there to represent the leading edge
of the technology and of the development in free flight, so the minimum rea-
sonable limitations should be put to the ingenuity that the modellers pour
into designing these models.
A lot of the suggestions I indicated above are a "back into the past" attitude,
it give me the impression that they are the indication of a feeling of "how
was it good in that old time when...", in more clear words I get the impres-
sion that some people, faced with the reality of THE CHANGE, react in the
usual way: looking to the past, to the securising feeling of how good it was
when they fully mastered all the facets of the situation, when the world was
still simple, uncomplicated.
I only hope that, if and when something similar will happen to me, I will
have the chance to realize how blind an attitude it is by myself, or to be
brought to realize that by some friend, in order to avoid to fall in this
involutive spiral.
I see with real pleasure how some people enjoy flying old timer models, even
if I don't feel a particular attraction for them at this moment, I think that
there is in this class already the correct place for the kind of "old timers"
that some people suggest as future evolution for F1B.
After all this introductory background let's talk finally about the future.
In agreement with my principles, as indicated above, the only changes I find
reasonable, easy and less intrusive in today's practice are:
change the weight of the motor (keeping the total weight at 230 gr.)
change the total weight of the model (with the motor at 35 gr.)
combine the two changes
All the solutions have positive and less positive points.
I don't see any rationale in letting the energy the same and then trying to
limit the effect of this energy putting a brake on it, in the form of more
weight to raise and carry around.
The model will fly a bit faster, hitting obstacles in a more noisy manner,
and it's true that the extra weight can be used to make the model stronger,
but MY feeling is that this is a wrong way, but it only MY feeling.
Personally I like the approach of reducing the weight of the motor.
It's the linear approach to the problem of reducing performances, available
energy is the key to performance, reduce one and the other will be less.
The real tests performed with 30 gr., 25 gr. and even 20 gr. show that it's
possible to fly in a competitive and, at least for the first two (for which
I have direct experience), still completely pleasant way.
A combination of a reasonable total weight increase and rubber decrease could
be tested, there is no reason of preclusion, but I have expressed my advice.
If your point of view desagrees from mine from the beginning, about the need
for a change, then the problem is more deep, I'm not going to try to convince
you now, this letter is already long enough, may be in the future in a fol-
lowing short correspondence, may be on some flying field.
Good flights, whatever the rule !!!
Anselmo Zeri
Anselmo Zeri
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
SCAT Electronic News
====================
This is SCAT Electronic News. It is a moderated E-mail newsletter about
FAI Free Flight. It is produced in conjunction with the SCAT Online Web
Site at www.aeromodel.com/scat. SCAT is the Southern California Aero Team.
The contents of this are archived on-line at the SCAT Web Site and can be
e-mailed to you. It is published on an irregular basis when information is
ready. It is moderated/edited by Roger Morrell who is an F1B flyer.
If you want to get this e-mailed to you send a subscribe request to
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. To unsubscribe send and unsubscribe request to the same
address.
If you have information to publish send it to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. We are
interested in everything about FAI free flight, new developments,
information about new products, rules changes, notices about upcoming
events, reports on events, and results. Please contribute. Other
contributors include everyone from World Champions to absolute beginners.
Information is best sent as plain ASCII text. Word processor documents can
be converted and results sent in Excel spreadsheet format will be converted
for display.
If you have not received this before, you were put on the list because you
requested it, some else requested it for you or we thought that you might
like to receive it. If you do not want it please let us
know at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
...............................
Roger Morrell
