SEN-390 March 21 2000
- Details
- Category: Archive 2000
- Hits: 1174
News and Reports 2000 - First half
SCAT Electronic News 21 March 2000
Table of Contents
=================
Moratorium
Enough is Enough Already !!! - Cowley - Putting a brighter color on things
Contributions - Contributions
Factory models - Markos
Survey and FAI Procedures - Johannes
RCDT et al - Fletcher
Colour schemes for free flight - Ackery
Spray Coloring Polyspan - Sweepette
2000 SCAT ANNUAL SCORES - Coussens
Moratorium
==========
Following Martyn's suggestion below there is a moratorium on non-technical
aspects of RDT. .. This means that we will not discuss the rules changes
on this subject or how it might be used improperly.
The vote on this change will be on Friday and we have heard enough on
this subject.
Enough is Enough Already !!!
============================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger,
Re: Recent SEN Content:
When reading Ken Kowal's recent email about the future possibility of
cheating , I realized that the existing FAI minimum weight rule could
only lead to the temptation of others to cheat, by taking out some
ballast ! Then I realized the same was true about minimum area, someone
could bend the rules here also ! And what about rubber weight or engine
displacement, more fertile ground for the would be cheater ! Even setting
a maximum time for a flight is sure to lead to the temptation to cheat.
The conclusion I reached was that ALL FAI RULES must be eliminated, lest
we begin to suspect dishonesty in our fellow competitors ! The only TRUE
set of rules (where nobody can cheat) is where no rules exist - an
UNLIMITED CLASS, where anything goes and flights also are unlimited (but
not timed). We will all rest more easily once such rules that tempt us
to cheat become a thing of the past !
I have seen similar situations in Model Magazines over the years, when
some topic becomes the subject of writer's ping-pong. One group favors
an idea, while another group is in opposition. It becomes a never ending
political struggle, neither side will ever convince the other. The
solution ultimately becomes the editor's responsibility - he must
declare the topic closed for discussion and move on (Roger - your call
!)
And so, to more interesting topics in answer to Jim's and Joe's
questions: Try Deluxe brand color dyes (available in spray cans from
Michael's Craft Stores here in CA) which are used for dying dried
flowers. These colors are acetone based, translucent dyes which are
therefore lighter than comparable pigmented colors. The black appears to
work well on other people's models I have seen. When used on transparent
or translucent covering such as Mylar, Micafim or Polyspan, they "light
up" very distinctly in the sky, much better than pigmented colors which
appear "dull" and opaque by comparison.
I have also used "permanent ink" felt-tip markers, such as "pilot" brand,
with the ink dissolved in lots of acetone, which is then very easy to
spray until the desired depth of color is achieved. You can often buy
just the "refill ink" for these pens at larger Art Stores. I spray this
mixture on the INSIDE (ie hairy side) of the covering BEFORE covering the
model (with the color then on the inside of the wing). You can use a
very simple / cheap ($10) spray gun / air brush to do this (it only has
to be equivalent to a spray can !) and you can even use the pressurized
air from your spare tire (or tyre if you're in the UK !) if you don't
have a compressor ! I have used this technique to good effect using both
Aerogloss dopes (thinned for spraying) and felt-tip pen inks (which I now
prefer) and have encountered no problems with the covering failing to
adhere to the under-cambered ribs.
You can also get creative by masking off areas using any low-tack plastic
film, such as inexpensive vinyl shelf covering, to add graphic designs or
even your National Aero Club numbers (but remember to do so in Leonardo's
style, ie mirror image, if you're going to cover inside-out). I also
mask off half of a sheet of covering with paper and hang it on the wall
to spray paint. Then when I cover a wing panel I wrap the covering
around the trailing edge (along the dividing line), with the clear half
on the top, and the colored half on the bottom (again, color inside).
So, enough of these trivial debates, let the creative ones among us go
ahead and push forward the technology of Free Flight, in all of the
technical disciplines (aerodynamics, structures, mechanics, electronics,
retrieving ?). Let us get back to discussions of building and flying -
Enjoy it while you can !
Contributions
=============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Dear Jim Brooks
Thanks for your contribution to SEN. I couldn't agree more with your
letter. I to have been getting to the stage where I just skip through the
latest SCAT page looking for something about building, triming and flying
models !! ;-))))))) I would however shout to the roof tops what a great
thing it is to have Roger's Morrell's unique FF page to hear and express our
thoughts and experiences. I am sure we all thank him, from the bottom of
our hearts, for all his hard and selfless work on our behalf.
The content of SEN is really our responsibility to a large extent and
please let's have more of the kind of input you suggest. I have tried a few
times to get some discussion going on various subjects and have often had
some fascinating replies from others, for which I am truly grateful. These
have, more often than not, been by direct email from other modellers rather
than in the SCAT page, where they would, I am sure, be of interest to many
more of us.
To put my money where my mouth is, what about some info on some of the
following subjects..
1. Trimming problems and any answers that you guys have discovered.
2. Any info on glide testing with various airfoils, turbulators etc etc.
This would help to build an invaluable data base we could all use and try to
interpret.
Your's respectfully,
Peter King
Factory models
==============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger,
Why do I have such a hard time understanding the qualifications: ...."if
more than the wing" ? Does it mean that if the modeler supplies everything
else but the wing, the factory is the sportsman's shop? Or does it mean
that if the wing and one other component come from a factory, it belongs to
the factory shop? Hardware, of course, is excluded from the latter. What
if the wing is from one factory, the propeller blades (F1B) from another and
the fuselage from a third? Could it be that the sportsman could make only
the stabilizer and qualify as the "factory?"
Chuck
[Chuck it is not necessary for the purist such as yourself to understand
- that was how I decided the rules would be...]
Survey and FAI Procedures
==========================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hi Roger,
Congratulations on the survey on FAI rule changes.
I'm curious to know what was done with the results. I'm sure Dan Tracy
has them but was a copy sent to Dave Brown and the other members of the
AMA FAI Executive Committee?
I was also curious about how the CIAM operated. A call to Gil Morris
provided the names of the AMA FAI Executive Committee. They are, Dave
Brown AMA Pres, Bob Brown Dist 3 VP (I think), and Bob Underwood.
I called Underwood and he spent a lot of time going through the CIAM
process with me. First off, Dave Brown is the only person from the US
who can "vote". Hopefully he will listen to the advice of the US member
of the Free Flight Technical Committe ( George Xenekis) when voting on
FF matters but he is not obliged to. George is not attending the meeting
in Lusanne this week. Hopefully Dan Tracy can fill in for him.
As for Passing (or rejecting) proposals, each country has 1 vote which
they can cast 1 of 4 ways, Yes, No, Abstain, or " Not Vote". To pass, a
proposal must have a simple majority of the votes cast. As an example,
if 20 Representatives voted and 10 abstained, then 16 Yes votes would be
required to pass .
I also found out that the US member of the FF technical committee is not
appointed. He is " invited " to be a member by the Free Flight Committee
Chairman, who is currently Ian Kaynes.
By the way, Bob Underwood is the CIAM Technical Secretary and he
mentioned in passing that the upcoming issue of the FAI Sporting Code
would consist of 350 to 400 pages. Up from around 200. This increase has
occured since 1997.
Regards, Bob
[The survey was done partly at the request of Dan Tracy, who will be
advising Dave Brown on FF issues at the CIAM meeting. I gave Dan
a separate tabulation that just had how US sportsmen voted.
Other members of the FF sub-commitee are also on this list
and have got their copy. Ian Kaynes
sometimes contributes to SEN and edits FFn. While the American on the FF
sub-commitee is invited by the chairman, Ian always does it
in conjunction with the National Aero Cluc [AMA in our case]. George
Xenakis was 'inivited' by Ian's predesessor, Peter Allnutt.]
RCDT et al
==========
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The cheating thing seems to have hit a nerve! For most of us (99%) cheating
is a non event. If you elect to cheat at Free Flight your are truly cheating
yourself. Your God will look upon you poorly. However for the 1% it is
important to them to be seen to be first. They very well know that none of
us remember what the winning score was, but very well remember who
won.......
I heard some time ago that a power flyer argued
(successfully) that his model wasn't over running in the air as he had a
quartz crystal based timer of immense accuracy and asked the Timekeepers to
time engine run before the flight and then insist that even though they
timed a longer run in the air it must have been under five seconds - they
had after all timed the run just before the flight. He won both the argument
and the competition. His fellow Competitors would have to have flown to
maybe 4.5 secs. as they were subject to 'normal' rules of engine run
timekeeping. You can make your own mind up as to how you would judge this
for yourselves. I see such incidents in a poor light. This seems to be using
technical knowledge to one's own advantage. Knowledge has to be in the
public domain. The RCDT thing for me sits in the same light. I see clear
tactical advantages, way beyond the claimed 'benefits'. Safety is claimed,
and the rules state that 'operation of RCDT is the responsibility of the
Competitor' This last sentence is a nonsense. Every operation of a Free
Flight model on the field is the responsibility of the Competitor - isn't
it? There is no question about it. Operation of RCDT IN A COMPETITION is not
Free Flight. Control is there, after release of the model.
Ha!, Got that off my chest...feel better now.........
Jon Fletcher
Colour schemes for free flight
==============================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Good comment from Jim Brooks, lets change the subject and get back to the
models.
Colour schemes is good subject.
I cannot answer Jims query about black finish on silver mylar since I do not
cover wings with it, (two reasons, I think it is a bit fragile for general
use, and I do not like opaque wings.)
But I do work hard to get a good free flight colour scheme, my requirements
are for the best visibility in different conditions,
1) up high, in bright sunny conditions
2) against the sky in dull cloudy conditions
3) down low, far away with dark difficult hills behind
and just as important,
4) on the ground
5) and of course, attractiveness, I have to like it
Different requirement pull us in a variety of directions, quite a nice
challenge.
To take no.4 first, I like to spray some dazzle pink on the top of wing
tips, and the fin, when the model is on the ground these are usually the
highest points, so will be seen first when walking downwind. (only Americans
use chase bikes)
As for the rest,
I like to see the sun shining through the covering,
Black on the bottom is good against the sun,
White on top is good to reflect heat, and I thinks helps with no.3.
So with this in mind my latest Wake is covered with Airspan, black
underneath, white on top, with some big chunks of that bright (almost
dazzle) yellow in the tips, top and bottom.
So one wing looks like this,
centre dh tip
! ! !
bbbbbbbbbbb yyy wwww (bottom)
! ! !
wwwwwwwww yyy wwww (top)
b=black, w=white, y=yellow
So that is my latest thinking, it seems to work, now if I could just stop
the cows eating it.
Another option is to just use the Fantham colour scheme (one of the best),
but perhaps we should think up our own :-).
cheers
David Ackery
New Zealand
Spray Coloring Polyspan
=======================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Dear Joe(?what is last name?)
A year or so ago Ken Bauer found "Design Masters" floral color spray cans
in Michaels' Craft stores(a chain with several stores in the SoCal area) which
work very well and are very low weight, IF you fog it on as final coat over
the clear nitrate dope coats(I usually use two). Many colors available,
including two bright shades of red, but no fluorescents, since flowers don't
come in neon!
Good luck,
Lee Hines
2000 SCAT ANNUAL SCORES
========================
F1A
Contestant R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 FO1 FO2 FO3 TOTAL
1 P. Brun 210 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 253 2263
2 M. Cowley 210 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 235 2245
3 M. McKeever 210 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 231 2241
4 R. Puhakka 210 180 180 180 180 180 180 149 1439
5 L. Hines 210 180 180 180 180 180 180 87 1377
6 S. Coussens 210 180 180 180 180 180 180 23 1313
7 P. Allnutt 210 180 180 180 180 180 180 1290
8 J. Kraniock 210 180 127 180 180 180 180 1237
9 D. Kozlyuk 210 94 180 180 180 180 180 1204
10 J. Parker 210 180 180 180 180 175 78 1183
11 H. Diez 210 130 180 64 180 180 180 1124
12 E. Busnelli 210 139 180 180 148 46 180 1083
13 C. Cusick 210 180 180 180 155 87 - 992
14 N. Smith 107 180 180 180 164 0 180 991
15 D. Zink 196 180 180 174 - - - 730
16 K. Kowal 210 180 180 81 0 54 - 705
17 J. Livotto 210 135 111 170 - - - 626
18 K. Joyce 210 89 180 37 - - - 516
19 R. Waterman 210 0 3 0 - - - 213
MAX 210 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 540
F1B
Contestant R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 FO1 TOTAL
1 M. Mulligan 210 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 1590
2 J. Lueken 210 180 180 180 180 180 180 246 1536
3 A. Brush 210 180 180 180 180 180 180 146 1436
4 J. Pratt 210 175 180 180 180 180 180 1285
5 R. Critchlow 210 162 180 180 180 180 180 1272
6 R. Piserchio 210 180 180 180 180 137 180 1247
7 H. Cole 210 180 180 180 180 146 159 1235
8 J. Sessums 210 180 126 159 180 180 180 1215
9 R. Morrell 210 180 180 180 180 85 180 1195
10 N. Furutani 210 180 115 180 180 180 147 1192
11 L. Norvall 210 180 180 180 74 162 180 1166
12 T. Laird 210 174 180 118 101 171 180 1134
13 T. Sessums 210 151 180 142 130 180 134 1127
14 C. Dorsett 126 115 180 180 180 180 110 1071
15 W. Booth 210 180 180 180 46 - - 796
16 G. Batiuk 203 180 180 180 - - - 743
17 A. Ulm 210 175 180 118 48 - - 731
18 L. Kendy 210 127 180 180 - - - 697
19 R. Wood 210 87 180 180 - - - 657
20 T. Keppler 117 146 180 180 - - - 623
21 R. Tymchek 210 64 180 - - - - 454
MAX 210 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420 540
F1C
Contestant R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 FO1 FO2 TOTAL
1 R. Archer 240 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 405 2025
2 J. Warren 240 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 366 1986
3 D. Joyce 240 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 358 1978
4 K. Oliver 240 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 327 1947
5 T. Kerger 240 180 180 180 180 180 180 259 1579
6 K. Happersett 240 180 180 180 180 180 180 253 1573
7 R. McBurnett 240 180 180 180 180 180 135 1275
MAX 240 180 180 180 180 180 180 300 420
F1G
Contestant R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 FO1 FO2 TOTAL
* H. Cole 120 120 120 120 120 180 * 780
* R. Critchlow 120 120 120 120 120 180 * 780
3 L. Kendy 120 120 120 120 120 180 DNF 780
4 J. Emery 120 120 120 120 120 112 712
5 R. White 120 120 120 120 120 93 693
6 R. Van Nest 120 120 120 120 120 75 675
7 R. Morrell 120 120 120 99 120 579
8 R. Wood 120 90 120 111 120 561
9 L. Norvall 120 120 120 68 108 536
10 T. Keppler 112 120 120 120 60 532
11 R. Tymchek 120 120 120 120 0 480
12 C. Dorsett 120 120 120 23 47 430
MAX 120 120 120 120 120 180
* First & Second to be determined at Norcal Champs
F1H
Contestant R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 FO1 FO2 TOTAL
1 M. Cowley 120 120 120 120 120 180 138 918
2 N. Smith 120 120 120 120 120 180 82 862
3 R. Norton 120 120 104 120 120 584
4 S. Coussens 87 120 120 120 118 565
5 L. Hines 120 120 120 120 76 556
6 E. Busnelli 120 33 120 120 98 491
MAX 120 120 120 120 120
F1J
Contestant R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 TOTAL
1 B. Augustus 120 120 120 120 120 600
2 N. Furutani 40 64 58 120 53 335
MAX 120 120 120 120 120
..................
Roger Morrell
