SEN-383 March 9 2000
- Details
- Category: Archive 2000
- Hits: 1114
News and Reports 2000 - First half
SCAT Electonic News 9 March
Table of contents
=================
About "italian proposal" and "sport models" - Zeri
FF Rule Change Proposals - Fletcher
Final ? comments on RCDT - Van Wallene
Message from Argentina - Iele
Sport F1A, B and C - Gannon
first part of RTF - CIAM FF suncommitee propsals
About "italian proposal" and "sport models"
===========================================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Good morning, in a very recent letter on this subject I've seen some
confusion between the two items: the italian proposal is NOT for a
simplified set of classes to be flown in parallel with the standard FAI
classes, it is a proposal to have these simplified models IN PLACE of
the actual ones.
The proposal to have simple and standard
(complex ?) models flying together with separated result lists is the
free flight subcommittee proposal.
These models will have lesser potential than the actual ones,
this is clear.
A certain lobbying has been exercised in order to introduce "leveling
factors" and increase the performance expectation of the Sport models to
the level of the standard ones.
This means, in short, to
change completely the definition of FAI models, having together actual
models and Sport models with, for instance, 45 grams of rubber (or Sport
models with a total weight, inclusive of rubber, of 180 grams).
If you think about the level of discussion we have for changing even
just one of the parameters of definition of our classic FAI models, such
a change is going to take a bit more of preparation, and a very good
level of support, both appeared to be completely missing.
The leveling factor idea is now apparently in some sort of refrigerator,
but I'm not sure it will not try to resurrect (zombies exist).
Because this risk of resurrection my personal view,
in the recent past positive towards the Sport models, is now a bit less
positive.
I don't need to espress my view about the "italian
proposal", I let you guess: in any case it's exactly the same of ALL the
Italian modellers I contacted on this subject (well, I don't know all of
them, only those that fly FAI classes and are been in some international
contest or in their national team).
If now someone of you
will ask himself: but in this case who is behind this italian proposal
?, well, at least one good flyer, Mr. Mario Rocca, and the actual
secretary of the CIAM, Mr. Luca Gialanella (who since many years has not
anymore the time to fly in big contests, I don't know if he flies in
local ones), probably some other less well known flyer, and this is
all.
I hope to have been of same help to see in the fog.
Thermals. Anselmo Zeri
[Anselmo's comment together with similar one made to me by a Danish
flyer casts an 'interesting' light on our different National Aero Clubs.
Clearly the Italian propsal does not have the support of majority of the
active FAI free flighters in Italy - similarily on the Danish
proposal to limit the F1B rubber to 25 grams.
Looking at the opposite situation there was an e-mail from
Aram Schlosberg saying why some US proposals
had not made it to the the CIAM - because a committee at the AMA= National
Aero Club had decided that a 2/3 majority of the active FAI Flyers did not
support it. In the US the Active flyers voted on the proposals - the
active flyers are defined as those who are registered for the Team Selection
program, probably as good a definition as any. The AMA did reject a Radio DT
proposal because of concerns over frequency control and usage. Now Aram
was a little upset because be had authored a number of the proposals
and was suprised not to see them on the CIAM agenda. Neither he nor
any of the FF modellers had been told of the 2/3 rule and radio frequency
concerns. Not good communications on the part of the AMA]
FF Rule Change Proposals
========================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Evgueny, my friend I am with you. I struggle to see why we need to be
changing the FF rules, let alone so radically. There may be merit in the FAI
Sport rules but I expect them to go the way of F1C Mod - remember that?
Question for the Italians - this idea for the fuel tube and removing the
restrictions on type of fuel used. Having followed the Euros I don't think
we want to go back to nitrated fuels do we? For the fuel tube idea it looks
like everyone will go for the holding tank principle and yanking off at
release. Trouble is what happens to the holding tanks contents? Does the
methanol containing mixture get blown all over the Contestants face and
maybe in his eyes? We have been asked to consider the proposal for a binding
rule change. Have the proponents tried any of the ideas? Is some group
somewhere using these ideas and has proven them?
For the Aussie Fluffers - go see www.aeromodel.com/TM/T205
Jon Fletcher
[the topic Jon refences is the archive of this year's SEN]
Final ? comments on RCDT
========================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Dear Roger:
Some final comments on RCDT from my side:
-Defending RCDT with the sole purpose to promote free flight as such because
models can be flown on small fields next to home, has nothing to do with the
FAI rules. Anyone is allowed to use any kind of RC he wants. The FAI is not
checking when you are test flying. Therefore the discussion should be
limited to FAI-contest flying only. Or do we want to fly world cup contests
on the baseball field next door?
-RCDT in FAI events has its advantages when the model goes high and/or far.
However avoiding ground obstructions is still a gamble unless you are
standing under the model. In windy conditions this is wishfull thinking
unless you can chase on a motorbike in a straight line. This is (exceptions
excluded) only possible on the USA fields.
Simple question: Do you guys have obstructions (lakes, woods etc.) on those
huge fields (Lost Hills et al) you want to avoid by using RCDT?
So lets keep the discussion focused on the FAI game and the flying sites
used for those kind of competitions.
In Europe the advantages for local contests are definitly there. We fly on
fields only a fraction of the Lost Hills size, with dense woods surrounding
them. One of the reasons why the Austrians have allowed RCDT on their local
events, but hey.... those events can be flown with any rules the
participants agree on....
Ciao, Allard
Message from Argentina
======================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Regarding Verbitsky's comments.
If I'm not wrong , years ago Eugeny said: " We are the last
generation of free flighters ", and that to some point he felt responsible
for that because of the technical level Free Flight reached following his
developments.
I don't think at all that he is responsible for nothing, but , at that time
he recognized that there was a problem .
Free Flight (FAI classes in particular ) has a number of problems, and a
change of rules could help only to adress some of them. Not all of them
of course. But this would be, at least, a step in
the right direction. (To increase the number of competitors)
We can't say: Everything is fine!, Don't change anything!, when the
average age of competitors is closer to 60 than to 40 and we have
to travel thousands of miles if we want to participate in a well attended
contest.
If you notice the number of competitors at Max Men, you could be tempted to
say: Free Flight is growing!
But the truth is that local contests are so poorly attended, that we have no
other chance but travelling.
At least that happens to us in Buenos Aires, but: Are things so different
in Ohio, Dallas, Kiev or Moscow?
If a change in rules involving model's simplification can help to atract
newcomers or people who left
the sport in the last few years, Welcome!. Why to be so afraid of rules
modifications?
Good modellers will always be good modellers, no matter which set of rules
apply.
Daniel Iele
Argentina
sport F1A,B,C,?
===============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
I hate to sound like I'm coming into the middle of the conversation but, I
didn't get what the argument is about this new F1A,B,C sport thing is. What
is F1A,B,C, SPORT about or for? I have an idea but I don't want to jump to
conclusions.
If it is what I think it is then here is some more ammunitions. I fly
rubber, and I like to fly F1G becuase its the next size/class up from P-30
and its a good size airplane (fun) and it gives me more events I can fly at
the local contest other than Mulvihill and P-30 but the big thing is I'm not
interested in any of the FAI things or America's Cup events and I don't want
to spend alot of money on coupes just to stay competive so maybe a AMA sport
F1A,B,C,G,H,J, would be good and fun.(Key word FUN) I'd like to
know the real Question .........sencerely, William Gannon
[William I think the reason fo this proposal goes as follows ...
one could fly F1A, B or C with a simple model but it would be
too discouraging against the top guys - so lets create a class
where the models are simple and probably the top guys won't
take part. By doing this the beginner or the person who does
not want a complex model can compete more against people
at his level. In addition if the reason why new people did not
start was because the models were too complex maybe this sport
class would be come increasingly popular and replace the current top
class.
Your own opinion may be the best judge of how this might work.
I consider the arguments against it to be - People who want to
build an F1B [or A or C] want to fly against the top guys - even
if it is just for fun. That's what I wanted to do when
I was getting started in F1B. For the regular rounds in a contest
there is very little advantage in having a complex model and
sometimes the top guy is going to blow it and you are going to
get to the flyoff. Then you have some satisfaction in saying..
I beat Oleg Kulakovsky, the World Champ with my Tilka. One of the
reasons people fly the top classes is because they like the gadgets
and even if you don't expect to win, you want to
fly a performance model and play with the gadgets - may not to the
same level as Oleg, Alex or Igor but the sport models
are too restrictive. In F1B the current models are easier to trim
than the models with no automatic surfaces so many people will
start with a very simple model but quickly move to one with a
few automatic flying surfaces. I do not think that the cost
of the model alone is a real issue, even with the current models
there is a wide variety of choices from building completely from
scratch, through all kinds of components to a spectrum of complete
models. The real cost of competeting at the top level is the time
to prepare, trim , travel etc. No change in the rules
is going to make any difference to that.
Also will the creation of another class just further confuse things
and make it harder of the organizers ?]
first part of RTF - CIAM FF suncommitee propsals
================================================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ROGER:
Here is the RTF in e-mail format in case you want to forward it to the
bunch. Yes, I know we loose the layout and the linework, but we do what we
can huh?
E. Busnelli
**
Date: 13/11/99
Proposal submitted by: FREE FLIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE
Sporting Code Supplemental to the Sporting Code
Section Part Class Para-graph Page Subject Page Provisional Rule
Additional class
Proposed alteration or addition:Add the following new provisional
rule:F1A-SportIntroductionThe rules for F1A-Sport are to be used in
conjunction the FAI Sporting Code Section 4 and in particular the class is
based on F1A as defined in section 4c part 3.1. F1A-Sport models meet the
specifications for class F1A and may be flown in the same contests as F1A
models. At any FAI Open International F1A contest the organisers may choose
to establish an additional classification for all competitors declaring that
they will fly only F1A-Sport models. Such a Sport classification is in
addition to the full contest results. Any awards to the Sport class winners
are at the discretion of the organisers.Characteristics of Gliders
F1A-SportThe characteristics defined in Section 4c 3.1.2 apply. In addition
F1A-Sport models must have the following characteristics:Maximum wing span
2.1 mThe only aerodynamic controls allowed to be moved during flight are the
fin/rudder and a control to cause dethermalised descent. Circle towing is
allowed.
Reason(s):The concept of the F1A-Sport class is to encourage wider
participation in the F1A category by attracting people not keen or able to
fly models or the highest technology. This may include newcomers and flyers
who have not kept up with the technology returning to the class. The models
will be flown alongside the regular F1A class in any event since they fully
meet the F1A regulations. At open internationals a classification of
F1A-Sport flyers is easily established, in the same way that a junior
classification is supported currently. This ensures that there is little
additional workload on organisers. Since F1A-Sport is not an additional
independent class, its introduction does not result in a proliferation of
classes nor a dilution of participation in existing classes.The restriction
to fin/rudder control allows circle tow (an essential element of modern
glider towing) but disallows the more demanding bunt option. The wingspan
limit cuts performance as a result of the limit on aspect ratio and also
facilitates the use of traditional materials. There is no limit on
construction but with this span limit the advantage of full composite
construction is reduced. After much discussion the FFSC favoured 2.1m as the
span limitation rather than 2m in order to allow more existing and kit models
to be included in the category, with only a small effect on performance.The
current proposal is not directed towards Junior Championships. However, the
experience gained in the operation of this provisional class will contribute
data which may be useful in future considerations of the models flown at
Juniors Championships.Requested effective date: 2001
Annex(es):
Date: 13/11/99
Proposal submitted by: FREE FLIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE
Sporting Code Supplemental to the Sporting Code
Section Part Class Para-graph Page Subject Page Provisional Rule
Additional class
Proposed alteration or addition:Add the following new provisional
rule:F1B-SportIntroductionThe rules for F1B-Sport are to be used in
conjunction the FAI Sporting Code Section 4 and in particular the class is
based on F1B as defined in section 4c part 3.2. F1B-Sport models meet the
specifications for class F1B and may be flown in the same contests as F1B
models. At any FAI Open International F1B contest the organisers may choose
to establish an additional classification for all competitors declaring that
they will fly only F1B-Sport models. Such a Sport classification is in
addition to the full contest results. Any awards to the Sport class winners
are at the discretion of the organisers.Characteristics of Model with
Extensible Motors F1B-SportThe characteristics defined in Section 4c 3.2.2
apply. In addition F1B-Sport models must have the following
characteristics:Maximum wing span 1.4 mThe only controls allowed to be
moved during flight is a control to cause dethermalised descent plus one
other aerodynamic control which is allowed a single change of position.The
propeller must start at the time of launch (no delay allowed).Mechanical
devices to control the pitch of the propeller during flight are not allowed.
Reason(s):For general comments, see the reasons for F1A-Sport.For F1B the
span limit has been set at a value which includes some classic designs and
kit models such as Tilka. Delayed prop release and variable pitch are banned
in order to simplify the hub, while instant release of the prop on launch is
allowed since this greatly facilitates launching. The allowance of one
aerodynamic control gives flyers the freedom to choose one control from such
possibilities as rudder, tailplane, wing wiggler.Requested effective date:
2001
Annex(es):
Date: 13/11/99
Proposal submitted by: FREE FLIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE
Sporting Code Supplemental to the Sporting Code
Section Part Class Para-graph Page Subject Page Provisional Rule
Additional class
Proposed alteration or addition:Add the following new provisional
rule:F1C-SportIntroductionThe rules for F1C-Sport are to be used in
conjunction the FAI Sporting Code Section 4 and in particular the class is
based on F1C as defined in section 4c part 3.3. F1C-Sport models meet the
specifications for class F1C and may be flown in the same contests as F1C
models. At any FAI Open International F1C contest the organisers may choose
to establish an additional classification for all competitors declaring that
they will fly only F1C-Sport models. Such a Sport classification is in
addition to the full contest results. Any awards to the Sport class winners
are at the discretion of the organisers.Characteristics of Models with Piston
Motor(s) F1C-SportThe characteristics defined in Section 4c 3.3.2 apply
except that radio control functions are not allowed in F1C-Sport. In addition
F1C-Sport models must have the following characteristics:Maximum wing span 2
mThe only controls allowed to be moved during flight are:the fin/rudder; th=
tailplane moving directly from climb to glide setting (
not allowed),
motor stop, and a control to cause dethermalised descent.
Reason(s):See the reasons for F1A-Sport.Requested effective date: 2001
Annex(es):
Date: 13/11/99
Proposal submitted by: FREE FLIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE
Sporting Code Supplemental to the Sporting Code
Section Part Class Para-graph Page Subject Page Provisional Rule
4b B12
Proposed alteration or addition:Add the following new paragraph:B.12.3
National Classificationa) In a World or Continental Championships with more
than one contest category a classification may be made of the overall
performance of the competing nations. This is established by taking the total
scores of the three members of the teams in all of the contest categories (in
the case of control line, the three best scoring members). The highest total
wins the award. In the case of a tie, the nation with the lower sum of team
place numbers, given in order from the top wins. If still equal the total of
the best individual placings in each class will decide.b) If there is a
Challenge Trophy, this will be awarded to the NAC of the winning nation for
custody until the following championship.c) There are no FAI medal or diploma
awards assigned for this classification.
Reason(s):The Challenge France Trophy was presented by France for the
National Classification at World Championships in categories F1A F1B F1C with
these terms of award. For clarity it is desirable to have such an award also
defined in the Sporting Code without need to refer back to the original CIAM
internal documents describing the award procedure. Furthermore a trophy is
planned for presentation for the European Championships in the same
classes.Although originating in Free Flight, the proposal expresses the
classification in a general form applicable to any model categories. This is
done in order to allow benefit from any other classes which choose to adopt
the idea. If this produces any problem for other categories, the proposal
could modified to limit application to free flight by replacing the general
with more than one contest category by for classe s F1A F1B F1C and
removing =E2=80=9C(in the case of control line, the three best scoring
members)=E2=80=9DRequested effective date: Immediate (confirms current condi
tions for
the only existing trophy)
Annex(es):
Date: 13/11/99
Proposal submitted by: FREE FLIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE
Sporting Code Supplemental to the Sporting Code
Section Part Class Para-graph Page Subject Page Provisional Rule
4c 3 F1A 3.1.7
Proposed alteration or addition:Modify paragraph 3.1.7 as follows:3.1.7.
Duration of FlightsThe maximum duration to be taken for the each flight in
world and continental championships is to be four minutes for the first round
and three minutes for subsequent rounds. These maximum durations are to be
used for other international events unless different durations have been
announced in advance and approved by CIAM for specific rounds.In the event of
exceptional meteorological conditions or model recovery problems the Jury may
permit the maximum for a round to be changed. Such a modified maximum must be
announced before the start of the round.For any flights with a maximum
duration greater than three minutes the additional time over three minutes is
used only to resolve any tie.
Reason(s):1) The maximum in round 1 is increased to provide a better test of
the performance of F1A models. The additional time will now longer be counted
in the regular score but will be considered only as the first way to resolve
a tie after the 7 rounds have been completed. This serves to reduce the
impact of performance differences in round 1 if the conditions are
difficult.2) The second part is modified so that the maximum may be
changed rather than just reduced. This will allow an extended maximum
for some flights if conditions are appropriate rather than delaying other
extended flights into the flyoff. These are on the same basis as the round 1
extended maximum - count only in resolving ties.3) This proposal uses the
proposed change to 3.1.8 to implement the resolution of ties.Requested
effective date: 2001
Annex(es):
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject : second part of RTF
Date: 13/11/99
Proposal submitted by: FREE FLIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE
Sporting Code Supplemental to the Sporting Code
Section Part Class Para-graph Page Subject Page Provisional Rule
4c 3 F1A 3.1.8
Proposed alteration or addition. Modify 3.1.8 as follows:3.1.8.
Classificationa) The total time for each competitor for each of the official
flights defined in 3.1.3. is taken for the final classification subject to a
limitation of three minutes for each flight. This total time is also used to
determine team clasification.b) In order to decide the individual placings
when there is a tie, the total time achieved in each of the official flights
defined in 3.1.3 will be taken without limitation at three minutes. c) In
order to decide the individual placings when there is still a tie after the
procedure in (b), additional deciding flights shall be made after the last
flight of the event has been completed. The maximum time of flight for the
first of the deciding flights shall be five minutes and the maximum time of
flight shall be increased by two minutes for each subsequent flight. The time
of the additional flights shall not be included in the final figures of the
classification for teams; they are for the purpose of determining the
individual placings and for awarding the prizes attached to the title.d)
The organiser will establish a 10 minute period during which all flyoff
competitors must tow and release their model. Within these 10 minutes the
competitors will have the right to a second attempt in the case of an
unsuccessful first attempt for an additional flight according to paragraph
3.1.5. Starting positions will be decided by draw for each flyoff.e) If
for meteorological reasons or poor visibility or model recovery problems, a
fly off must be postponed to be flown in the morning, it will be flown as
early as daylight and visibility permit in order to avoid thermal activity.
The maximum duration of the first flight will be a minimum of ten minutes.f)
In the event of exceptional meteorological conditions or model recovery
problems, the Jury may permit the maximum for a round to be changed. Such a
modified maximum must be announced before the start of the round.
Reason(s):This proposal is a consequent change to implement the extended
maximum changes proposed for paragraph 3.1.7. It defines the procedure to be
used to invoke the additional time recorded in extended maximum rounds. This
is to be done as a total of all such flights rather than on a flight by
flight basis. The total time to be used for team classification is defined as
the basic time without any extended maximum time. Items (c) to (f) are
effectively unchanged apart from renumbering and the modification of
reduced to changed for the maximum change in paragraph (f) - this is
for the same reasons as for 3.1.7 with the specific circumstance in flyoff
that likely changes in weather or visibility may prompt an increase in a
maximum.Requested effective date: 2001
Annex(es):
Date: 13/11/99
Proposal submitted by: FREE FLIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE
Sporting Code Supplemental to the Sporting Code
Section Part Class Para-graph Page Subject Page Provisional Rule
4c 3 F1B 3.2.7
Proposed alteration or addition:Modify paragraph 3.2.7 as follows:3.2.7.
Duration of FlightsThe maximum duration to be taken for the each flight in
world and continental championships is to be five minutes for the first round
and three minutes for subsequent rounds. These maximum durations are to be
used for other international events unless different durations have been
announced in advance and approved by CIAM for specific rounds.In the event of
exceptional meteorological conditions or model recovery problems the Jury may
permit the maximum for a round to be changed. Such a modified maximum must be
announced before the start of the round.For any flights with a maximum
duration greater than three minutes the additional time over three minutes is
used only to resolve any tie.
Reason(s):See reasons for F1A 3.1.7 proposal. Five minute maximum specified
to give a better test of the performance of F1B models. This proposal uses
the proposed change to 3.2.8 to implement the resolution of ties.Requested
effective date: 2001
Annex(es):
Date: 13/11/99
Proposal submitted by: FREE FLIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE
Sporting Code Supplemental to the Sporting Code
Section Part Class Para-graph Page Subject Page Provisional Rule
4c 3 F1B 3.2.8
Proposed alteration or addition. Modify 3.2.8 as follows:3.2.8.
Classificationa) See 3.1.8.a.b) See 3.1.8.b.c) See 3.1.8.c.d) The
organiser will establish a 10 minute period during which all flyoff
competitors must wind their rubber motor and launch their model. Within these
10 minutes the competitor will have the right to a second attempt in the case
of an unsuccessful attempt for an additional flight according to para 3.2.5.
Starting positions will be decided by a draw for each flyoff.e) See
3.1.8.e.f) See 3.1.8.f.
Reason(s):This proposal is a consequent change to implement the extended
maximum changes proposed for paragraph 3.2.7, 3.1.7 and associated change to
3.1.8. The proposal amends the references to the proposed extensions to
3.1.8. Requested effective date: 2001
Annex(es):
Date: 13/11/99
Proposal submitted by: FREE FLIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE
Sporting Code Supplemental to the Sporting Code
Section Part Class Para-graph Page Subject Page Provisional Rule
4c 3 F1C 3.3.7
Proposed alteration or addition:Modify paragraph 3.3.7 as follows:3.3.7.
Duration of FlightsThe maximum duration to be taken for the each flight in
world and continental championships is to be five minutes for the first round
and three minutes for subsequent rounds. These maximum durations are to be
used for other international events unless different durations have been
announced in advance and approved by CIAM for specific rounds.In the event of
exceptional meteorological conditions or model recovery problems the Jury may
permit the maximum for a round to be changed. Such a modified maximum must be
announced before the start of the round.For any flights with a maximum
duration greater than three minutes the additional time over three minutes is
used only to resolve any tie.
Reason(s):See reasons for F1A 3.1.7 proposal. Five minute maximum specified
to give a better test of the performance of F1C models. This proposal uses
the proposed change to 3.3.8 to implement the resolution of ties.Requested
effective date: 2001
Annex(es):
Date: 13/11/99
Proposal submitted by: FREE FLIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE
Sporting Code Supplemental to the Sporting Code
Section Part Class Para-graph Page Subject Page Provisional Rule
4c 3 F1C 3.3.8
Proposed alteration or addition. Modify 3.3.8 as follows:3.3.8.
Classificationa) See 3.1.8.a.b) See 3.1.8.b.c) See 3.1.8.c.d) Starting
positions will be decided by a draw for each flyoff. The organiser will
establish a 10 minute period during which all flyoff competitors must start
their engines and launch their model. Within these 10 minutes the competitor
will have the right to a second attempt in the case of an unsuccessful
attempt for an additional flight according to para 3.3.5.e) See 3.1.8.e.f)
See 3.1.8.f. The motor run is 5 seconds.
Reason(s):This proposal is a consequent change to implement the extended
maximum changes proposed for paragraph 3.3.7, 3.1.7 and associated change to
3.1.8. The proposal amends the references to the proposed extensions to
3.1.8. Requested effective date: 2001
Annex(es):
...............
Roger Morrell
