SEN 793- April 19 2003
- Details
- Category: Archive 2003
- Hits: 924
News and Reports 2003
SCAT Electronic News 19 April 2003 issue 793
Table of Contents
=================
Autostabs? - Segrave
Free Honda Trail Bike: - Biggles and Sadler
Inter-City Meet - Shailor
Huron Cup 2003 - Mc Glashan
Spacer kits - Augustus
Jr F1P Program and AstroStar 404 kits - Parker
& Jim Brooks dates question - Coleman
2003 San Valeer's Annual Results - THorkildsen
Segrave at the CIAM and on Coupes
Autostabs?
==========
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Chris Stoddart in some interesting exchanges about tailless suggested the
following.
"Would a flying wing with an onboard computer taking input from a gyro and
driving a servo to control the stab be within current rules? In principle,
it is not a big step from F1E to onboard computer stabilisation. Might lead
to some interesting new classes"
What do SEN readers think about this? It doesn't appear to go against the
current rules, does it? And its not RADIO-CONTROL, that dirty word to F/Frs
Regards
Mke S
Free Honda Trail Bike:
======================
Biggles
Roger,
* For SEN:
Free Honda Trail Bike:
1977 Honda CT-90, complete bike except piston and head and some left
side crank case parts. Suitable for rebuild or cannibalize for
spares. Must go within next few days, can arrange CA pick-up /
delivery. Contact Wyatt Sadler:
Inter-City Meet
===============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Detroit Balsa Bugs will host the Inter-City Meet this year at the AMA
field in Muncie, IN.
The dates are June 21-22.
This is both an America's Cup meet as well as National Cup. There will be
seperate awards for all Nostalgia events to count towards Nat. Cup points.
We will also host an FAI Qualification meet the preceding Friday, June 20.
No rounds.
We will not fly the Super-Max for this contest.
Please email me for flyers, as we will also hold a raffle to encourage
advance entries by mail.
Hope to see you there!
Bill Shailor
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Huron Cup 2003
==============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Toronto FAI Group Presents the Third Annual Huron Cup for FAI Free =
Flight
A World Cup and America's Cup Competition
Dates: Saturday, July 12 and Sunday, July 13, 2003
Place: CFB Borden, Angus, Ontario
Events: F1A, F1B, F1C, F1G, F1H, F1J
Entry fees: FAI events $20
CD: Jerry McGlashan
R. R. 2, 6 Harvest Dr., Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont. L0S 1J0
Phone: (905) 468-1829
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Maps of Base Borden available on request.
Saturday, July 13
F1G/F1H/F1J
Round 1
8 a.m.-9 a.m.
2 minute maxes
Round 2
9 a.m.-10 a.m.
Round 3
10 a.m.-11 a.m.
Round 4
4 p.m.-5 p.m.
Round 5
5 p.m.-6 p.m.
Fly-offs
Sunday morning
F1A/F1B/F1C
Round 1
6 p.m.-7 p.m.
3 minute maxes
Round 2
7 p.m.-8 p.m.
Round 3
8 p.m.-9 p.m.
Extended max (weather permitting)
Sunday, July 14
F1A/F1B/F1C
Round 4
8 a.m.-9 a.m.
Extended max (weather permitting)
Round 5
9 a.m.-10 a.m.
3 minute maxes
Round 6
10 a.m.-11 a.m.
Round 7
11 a.m.-12 noon
Fly-offs
To be determined by necessity and weather conditions.
Spacer kits
===========
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
For This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.,
Spacer kits in all sizes are available from Curt Stevens of MRL.
www.modelresearchlabs.com. He also has carbon, kevlar, Mylar etc.
BA
Jr F1P Program and AstroStar 404 kits
=====================================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger and Walt-- for SEN and NFFs
Bob VanVest has done an outstanding job on the 10 F1P AstroStar. Bob
included every thing needed for this model less glue and covering. Wood
quality is excellent. I'm sure the attached digital picture will not do the
kit or the blueprint of Craig Cusick's excellent drafting justice.
Eight of these kits are still available to qualifying Jr flyers. See the
NFF's web page for the Jr F1P Development program for more details.
Per earlier SEN posting, the short kit, laser cut ribs and diagonals and
blueprint is available from Bob VanNest for a $25 donation to the Jr F1P
Program (make checks out to Bob VanNest) .
The Jr TeamSelection details for the F1J and F1P events at the NATs are
being finalized. To recap, the Jrs interested in Team spot needs to fly in
this preNats contest and also their regularly scheduled Ants events. The
combined time will determine 50% of the Team selection points.
It looks as though the preNats contest (Sunday, July 27) will be flown to the
2004 Jr W.C. rules: F1J or F1P model may be flown interchangeably, 7 rounds,
F1J will have 3 minute max. All other rules remain the same.
It was not possible to get a NAT's sanctioned F1P event this year. So any Jr
interested in making the Jr team flying a F1P will be flying their model as
F1J (they also meet the F1J criteria) including 7 sec engine run and 2 minute
max.
An official announcement will be sent out by AMA to those registered in the
2004 Jr Team Selection Program-- again, see the NFFs website for the Program
with entry form or contact AMA-- Lisa Johnson.
The response from my last request for timers for the preNats Jr contest has
been poor-- zero-- nadda-- zip. So before I get too down, I'll put the
request out again. Please contact me. . Southwest Airlines
still has nonstop LAX to IND for $89 plus taxes. I got a rental car for 15
$/day through Priceline,.com. I'm sure you'll be able to squeeze in some
test flights while timing the Jr preNats contest. We need your help!
Thermals, Jim Parker
& Jim Brooks dates question
===========================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The I-10 Shootout dates listed in the recent NFFS Digest issue also don't
agree with those found on the NFFS website, are there more? The date
discrepancies should be corrected before we have many disgruntled members
traveling a week early or late to an event.
Roger C
2003 San Valeer's Annual Results
==================================
Cannon Ball Run (best 2 flights,7sec motor)
1 T. Thorkildsen Astrostar 600 KB3.5 571
2 Terry EllingtonGalaxie Veco.19 448
3 Bob Scully Mod Satellite KB3.5 424
1/2A Gas (5)
1 Norm Peterson Top Banana Med .049 360
2 D. Rounsaville Excelsior TD.049 347
3 Matt Kruse Kiwi TD.049 309
4 Jed Kusik Starduster TD.049 120
1/2A Jr. Gas (1)
1 Cody Secor Orbiteer TD .049 360
A Gas (5)
1 M. Thompson Satellite 450 KB 3.25 743
2 T. Thorkildsen Astrostar 600 KB3.25 474
3 Bill Alnes Genie Cyclon .061 450
4 Bob Scully Satellite 450 KB 3.25 120
5 T. Ellington Crusader X Cox .15 att
B Gas (6)
1 T. Thorkildsen Astrostar 600 KB 3.5 716
2 M. Thompson Satellite 450 KB 3.5 712
3 Dave Shirley Banshee2 N. Rossi.21 448
4 Bill Alnes Shockwave Nelson.29 300
5 Daryl Perkins Millerlite Nelson.15 240
6 Bob Scully Satellite 600 KB 3.5 120
C Gas (1)
1 Lynn Pulley KillerBee Nelson .3 457
1/4 A Gas (1)
1 Tom Laird Starduster TD.020 168
Slow Gas (2)
1 Terry EllingtonGalaxie 585 Veco .19 210
2 Dave Kerzie Satellite 788 KB .40 53
1/2A Nostalgia Gas (5)
1 Randy Secor Hoosier HH Fox .049 356
2 M. Thompson Hot Head HH .049 353
3 N. Peterson Top Banana Med .049 260
4 Ken Kaiser Ramrod Med .049 120
5 Jim Hurst Shaboom225 Med.049 115
ABC Nostalgia Gas (5)
1 Bob DeShields F.Kidde JohnsonCS35 480
2 Terry EllingtonTexan 582 Fox .201 355
3 Del Adam Ramrod 250 HH .051 344
4 Ken Kaiser Texan 484 McCoy .19 332
5 Jim Hurst Ramrod 750 OS III .29 68
Catapult Glider (5)
1 Norm Smith 360
2 Tim Batiuk Maxine 337
3 S. Buddanbobm 304
4 Lee Hines BatCat 18 286
5 Mike Keller 77
Jr. Catapult Glider (3)
1 Chucky Keller 86
2 Brianna Keller 44
3 Cody Secor Scout 33
HLG (5)
1 Norm Smith 267
2 Tim Batiuk Maxine 264
3 Lee Hines Sweepette 198
4 Bob DeShields 180
5 S.Buddenbohm 165
BobHunter Memorial Bestflight 15sec Motor
1 T. Thorkildsen Astrostar 600 KB3.5 794
2 M. Thompson Satellite1300 Rossi 61 383
3 Terry EllingtonCrusader X CoxTD.15 250
F1B (2)
1 Mike Mulligan Virchar 270
2 Jack Emery 117
F1C (4)
1 Guy Menanno Booh II Nelson .15 360
2 DavidJohannes TelesisBigBird Nel .15 338
3 Doug Joyce Original Nelson15 242
4 Dave Shirley 148
F1J (6)
1 Bill Alnes Genie Cyclon .061 780
2 D. Rounsaville TD.051 700
3 Cody secor Orbiteer TD .049 575
4 Lynn Pulley Daisy Cutter AD.06 568
5 G. Menanno Booth II Cyclon .06 441
6 D. Johannes OdsessylilBird Cyc.06 430
F1G
1 M. Mulligan Vivchar 600
2 Jack Emery 550
P-30
1 Mike Keller Copycat 148
An observer at the double CIAM Meeting March 14-15,2003,
=======================================================
Lausanne, Switzerland,
======================
Segrave
-Plenary and Technical Committees.
After three years of intensive research without a holiday
and with my head seemingly becoming increasingly filled
with cotton wool, I felt in need of a change of scene. My
usual practice of cycling around Europe from Spring to
Autumn had been suspended when I felt that perhaps my
reflexes might not be swift enough in emergencies once
past the retirement age. Andre Schandel’s Vol Libre
indicated that the Annual CIAM Meeting took place in
early March in Lausanne, Switzerland so I decided to
attend this meeting to clear my head as well as to try to
find out what actually takes place in view of the
previous year’s goings-on.
I then contacted the FAI regarding attending and was
advised that any member of a National Aero Club (NAC)
could attend as long as he had authority from his NAC.
MAAC in Canada told me that a letter from them was not
necessary, just that I would have to enter the meeting
with the Canadian delegate, Jack Humphries. Leslie Farkas
put me in touch with Jack who advised on less expensive
accommodation and where we could meet beforehand
Visits to travel agencies and libraries determined that
the best (and safest!) way to travel would be overnight
bus to Dijon in central France, then high speed train to
Lausanne. Some of the people at the bank seemed overly
insistent on knowing where I was going but that didn’t
bother me. So with email confirmation of accommodation,
travellers cheques, new passport and return tickets to
Dijon, I was on my way.
The train station in downtown Lausanne is high up above
the lake where Jack’s hotel was sited so I walked down to
find that, although he was expected, he had not yet
arrived by that time, 1.30 p.m. This I found a little
unusual as flights in my experience leave Canada late in
the evening, arriving early the next morning. Since the
nearest International Airport is at Geneva, 45 minutes
away, I thought that he must have been delayed or perhaps
the procedures had changed.
Then on to my hotel where I was met by a charming Swiss
girl who remembered my name but then disappeared in the
rear, being replaced by a young man who looked in the
files and said that there was no reservation under my
name but changed his tune when I produced my email
confirmation.
Next morning, I found Jack in the breakfast room with
Terry Underhill. Although I had known Jack back in
Canada, I had not met Terry before so I was surprised to
be regarded with a mixture of trepidation and unease,
even wariness by both of them. I mentioned to Jack that I
had come to the hotel the previous afternoon but was told
he had not yet arrived. He said that he had flown into
Rome and driven up. I then noticed Pierre Chaussebourg
further along the room, looking at me in the same mixture
of trepidation and unease as my two companions had
greeted me. He came to the table, very tanned from now
living in the mountains and smaller than I remember, but
since it’s over three years since I had seen him, perhaps
that’s not surprising.
When they both left to get ready, I table-hopped to sit
opposite an American who was now sitting alone, his
companions having also left. I introduced myself but he
said, “IT’S OK, I KNOW WHO YOU ARE! I’m Dan Tracy!” Well,
for the life of me, I didn’t recognise him. He seemed
taller and very different from my last seeing him in ’95.
Pointing a long finger in my face, he said, “I’ve been
reading all that you have been writing in SEN. Why do you
do all that? What are your motives?”
I replied, “Surely that is very apparent! We need more
publicity, more transparency. For example, I tried to
obtain copies of the minutes of the 2002 meeting as well
as the rules by which the Plenary and Tech. Committees
operate under but was referred to their Internet site by
the FAI, finding it extremely difficult to gain
access,”..
Dan then said the problem was more my lack of skill with
computers than the fault of the governing body (the
library machines that I use do not connect with their
network, I learned later)
“ But many others had problems, too, similar. It appeared
as if they had been hidden away. Surely such a thing as
important as the minutes should be instantly and easily
accessible?” I had tried to obtain copies from the BMFA
but they said that the circulation of these was
restricted to a select list .
He then persisted,” What are your motives?”
I repeated what I had said, adding that we need programs
to bring the very young into the movement, for there does
not seem to be any organised effort to do this in the
FAI. “Above all, we need more publicity. And as for the
urgency quoted, there was none.”
Dan then said that the NFFS has a large ongoing program
(outside the Science Olympiad one) but had no answer when
I asked how much or if there was ANY publicity about it.
Certainly I had never seen or heard anything. I indicated
that I was here as an observer, but he then asked,
anxiously,
”Does Ian Kaynes know that you are here?”
I said that I didn’t know.
At this point, an unknown (to me) shortish man came up to
the table and shook our hands before leaving. Later, I
learnt he was the man representing Sandy Pimenoff. I had
last seen him in 1981 in Spain but he looked completely
different then, much taller and broad-shouldered, but 20
years…
Shortly after, we all trooped off to the meeting.
The Olympic Museum where the meeting was to be held lies
on a hill above the lakefront. A ten-minute walk and two
escalators took us to the entrance of the low, white
building with four white columns outside, one recording
the dates of successive Games. Inside, a wide black-
walled lobby leads to a central sloping spiral walkway,
on each side of which is access to the large auditorium
where the meeting would take place. This black-walled
auditorium has nine rows of double seats set on a slope
of around 20 degrees, each equipped with water and
glasses, as well as a microphone with simultaneous
translation facilities. But as the language of aviation
is English, this was not needed. In front, there are nine
seats for the presiding body of officials in a long row,
and behind them, a screen for projection of films and
slide shows.
There had been a meeting of the “Bureau” the day before,
the chair told us, at which the agenda for the meeting
was agreed upon. I’m not sure that I was aware of this,
being under the impression that the “Bureau” did this at
the its meeting the previous November.
“So what we have on day one is the Plenary,” opined the
chair. “which will shortly adjourn for the meetings of
the Technical Sub-Committees, each of which will produce
minutes for the re-convened afternoon session”. Some
enquiries were then made as to the availability of rooms
for each committees palaver, but since there were only
four committees each with small numbers requiring
accommodation, it was decided that they could easily meet
in the corners of the auditorium
So the meeting split up. The free flight group, with the
7 foot tall Chairman and NZ delegate seeming (!)
surprised to see me, regarding me with a mixture of
unease and apprehension, but coolly welcoming
nonetheless.
Chairman Kaynes referred those present (F/F Committee
members and delegates) to the “Bureau” prepared agenda,
F/F section. He introduced each item and asked for
comments. Sometimes there were none and the item was
passed unanimously. Sometimes there were only a few who
had anything to say for or against but very rarely was
there more than three or four who spoke up. Prominent
here was the NZ delegate, as well as the German and
Austrian voices with the USA delegate a little less so.
Why the others said nothing is difficult to understand.
Perhaps this was because there was NO controversial item
on the agenda,(like scrapping F1C?) . Who knows?? All
present spoke English so there was certainly no problem
with the language. An enigma It would appear that a
strong personality could quite easily push through his
desired item if he so wished as there would be little
opposition
Each item and its fate was duly recorded by the chairman
to use as a base for the minutes.
Most of the items on the agenda were concerned with minor
changes to wording with the main concern being over
proposed reduction in the motor run for the F1J class.
This item was the most discussed, with the USA delegate
being very prominent. It was noted that not only was the
run to be considered but also the question of the type of
fuel among other aspects. So the item was referred back
to the Sub-Committee for further consideration. What
happens to it now, I’m not sure.
Other discussions concerning the thorny problem of the
introduction of F1P to the Junior W/C ended with
agreement that both should be allowed to fly together but
no later than 2004. This would allow sufficient time for
model designs in the class to be developed (as is
happening in the USA) so that eventually it will replace
F1J. Or did I get that wrong?
Other exchanges took place around what would happen to a
junior W/C when he was too old at the following Junior
Champs to defend his title. It was sensibly decided that
he should be able to fly with the Senior W/C at the
following W/C, since the latter would be alone at his
pole.
Argentina and the Ukraine then gave a run-throughs of
their presentations for the Plenary which were well
received.
Finally, the German delegate, Herr Wobbeking described
their work in promoting model flying in their country.
Initial thoughts centred around the Graupner Klein UHU, a
glider, but was rejected as too complicated to operate
for beginners as well as being moderately expensive. They
also thought there was no goal for the flier. About this
time, Gerald ARINGER had found a Taiwan produced and
Graupner marketed electric foam model he thought might be
very suitable for beginners. Accordingly, a program was
started which was very successful, with large entries.
The model motor is easily charged and gives about 2-1/2
minutes running time, with the model not reaching very
great height which keeps it in the lower wind speed area
and out of the stronger lift higher up, practically
landing as the motor stops. Construction (actually
assembly) time is about 15 minutes but some experienced
personnel are required to show the debutantes the
trimming required which are not too extensive. The two
top places had flights of about three minutes with some
vertical assistance. Five flights were flown with the
best two to count. In summation, inexpensive, strong,
easy to trim and fly with a high pusher prop not prone to
damage. Graupner was surprised at the success of this
design, apparently, in the hands of the members of the
German Aero Club.
The committee felt generally that here was the ideal
beginners model, and the Chairman urged all the delegates
present to alert their Aero Clubs to its potentialities
for piqueing the interest and expanding the F/F movement
in their countries. At which point, the Chinese delegate
spoke up, saying that a similar design has been
introduced in his country and had a similar success, with
200,000 competing. Repeat, 200,000!!!!
During the meeting, the President sitting directly behind
me, commented, “My, I haven’t seen any fisticuffs yet!!”
Why should he? Are meetings THAT controversial? This one,
if typical, certainly wasn’t.
The meeting broke up then and the minutes were passed to
the Secretariat of the Museum who rapidly produced typed,
duplicated copies ready for the afternoon session by
1.30. Wonderful! That’s the advantage of holding the
meeting in the Olympic Museum for there are professional
support services available.
I drifted over to the Educational Sub-Committee chaired
by Dave Brown to listen to their deliberations. Dave
emphasised that the AMA has a very successful junior
program (13,000 he said) but we don’t seem to have heard
a great deal about it outside the AMA. Publicity needed
again? Perhaps. Some very valuable ideas and
contributions were recorded before the meeting broke up
for lunch
In the afternoon, the agenda created by the “Bureau” was
tackled. Item by item was considered and duly dealt with
in the normal way of conducting a meeting under company
rules. From time to time, a point was made in the
discussion of a particular item on the agenda by a non-
English native tongued delegate and when difficulties
arose as to the actual intent of the point being pursued,
it was clarified by one of the English there. I was not
always sure that the interpretation of the original point
was a true one as the originator seemed overwhelmed by
the measured, confident tones of the interpreters. I
mentioned this a couple of times to Jack but he said that
every time, the interpretation was correct. I’m not so
sure (Note that there were four English present together
with three Americans). Jack also continued to be wary of
me all day and each time I raised a particular issue, it
was refuted with a certainty I didn’t remember as one of
Jack’s characteristics. Odd…
Jack invited me for a beer at his hotel as we broke up
around five o’clock on day one. We were joined by two
effervescent Frenchmen, M. Surugue, a famed team Race
expert and another man whose name I did not catch. I was
very impressed by the size of M. Surugue’s hand which
crushed mine in greeting. Both monsieurs were very
effusive. We had hardly ordered when the man representing
Pimenoff came in (with two others) and promptly
practically ordered Jack to his table. Odd., again
After a while, the President left, again shaking my hand
but not recognising me and we adjourned for dinner,
during which I learned that Jack had taken the train up
from Rome, remarking on the smoothness of the ride. But
he said…. …
Day 2
Today seemed to produce a Jack that I remembered, saying
that if a point on the agenda had been voted on
unanimously at the Tech Committee stage then it would be
practically rubber stamped by the Plenary. Even a split
vote in favour if not too close was passed too. From time
to time, the chairman would ask the audience if there was
agreement on a particular item and if no one raised a
hand, he said, “ Unanimous!” Sometimes he tended to
override a delegate or Committee Chairman when he felt
otherwise than either of the two and, if the delegate was
not native English, had to be content to accept the
situation. However, in one case, Dr. Laird Jackson would
not accept this brusque brush-off and continued to press
his point patiently until the chairman was boxed in a
corner, and had to accede to Jackson’s persistence. Some
said that this tendency to override had been quite
prominent in the early years of CIAM and tended to
forgive him as they said that those meetings needed a
strong hand but now the need was much less...
One man that stood out was Max Bishop, the FAI (not CIAM
although it is under FAI) Secretary General who was
sitting in on the meeting. His depth of knowledge of
procedure was illustrated by the Chairman calling on him
a number of times to elucidate some particular item of
procedure. (It seems that a meeting’s decision can be
made by a simple majority IF no one objects. If even only
ONE objects, then a secret ballot is required.). In the
latter case, both he and Bob Underwood would ask the
delegates to raise their country cards for each item of
voting, first for those NOT VOTING (a special category
invented by CIAM) then for, against and abstentions.
Often the totals would not add up!! - which seemed to be
some kind of in-joke to those 39 who were present.
I was again approached by Ian Kaynes at the afternoon
coffee break who asked the selfsame questions again to
which I gave the selfsame answers. Jack was more like the
Jack that I remember from the past. Gone was the wariness
I had noted on the first day, being much more effusive
However, twice the chairman came to our seats in the
audience during the breaks to talk to Jack, ignoring me
both times. Odd, again. Terry Underhill was also more
friendly, too, no apprehension in his eyes.
The afternoon of the final session concluded with bids
for the various World Champs for the succeeding years,
2004-2006, notable for the number of pitches being backed
up with slide shows and video film from a number of
proposers illustrating the advantages of a particular
country’s scenery, history and accommodation type and
costs. Argentina won out over the Ukraine for the 2005
event as already published.
The FAI President gave an outline of his beginnings in
aviation and his lifelong interest in everything that
flies, congratulating those present on the orderly
conduct of the meeting and commenting on the wide range
of interests.
It was his first visit, he said.. Mine, too.
Of interest to the F/F fraternity was the presentation
of the Gold Medal to Frank Zaic, the FAI’s highest award,
which, with presentation of the World Cup winner’s
trophies rounded out the meeting.( Note that there are
World Cups in other categories as well as in F/F). Just
before I left, I went over to shake M.Surugue’s hand
which had now reduced to a more normal size Lucky! And
that’s it, folks!
So how did the 2002 meeting pass the “new” category, F1P?
It certainly was not on the agenda. If this (2003)
meeting was typical and similar to the 2002 one, it is
difficult to see how this was done. If it wasn’t…?
Everyone seemed to be on their best behaviour, perhaps
because of the presence of the FAI President? Except,
..except…. there was one occasion when the chair got into
difficulties with procedure and then asked the audience
to vote to institute a “one of” special permission to
circumvent the normal rules as the only way out of a
quandrary they had fallen into, which was duly given. (I
think this was relative to the F1J/F1P flying together)
Perhaps this was how F1P was slipped in the previous
year? This special procedure would have to have been
recognised and agreed to by Max Bishop, however.
I must emphasize here that to change anything in the CIAM
requires a motion or proposal from the grass root level
of a country. This then goes to the National modelling
Association who then formulate a specific proposal to be
forwarded to the CIAM Bureau in November who then
distribute it for consideration by the relevant Technical
Sub-Committee via the agenda at the Plenary meeting. It
is then the responsibility of the CIAM to publicise what
these proposals are well in advance so that due
consideration can be given and guidance afforded the
national delegates in order for them to voteaccordingly.
I bumped into Jo Hallman from the BMFA on the morning of
the first day, there to type a shorthand verbatim record
of the proceedings of the meeting. I asked why it was not
being taped but she said that that might come later.
Maybe next year….
Symposium 2003
It all began in 1986. I had been wondering what the way
ahead was in the Coupe d’hiver class as performance
seemed to have stagnated. Increasing the weight to 100g
did not appear at first to hinder the time produced and
the contest results. Even more surprising, when this
weight penalty was removed, the performance did not take
a quantum leap. For example, Louis Dupuis’ 100g ship,
capable of 2:20 (140 secs) in calm air should have been
able to do 100/80 x 140 or 173 secs. on a straight ratio,
about what it was worth at the “new” 80g rule. But we
felt that it should have been worth more than that,
leading us to conclude that the class was not fully
developed when we discussed the subject at a small French
contest. We agreed that perhaps a small improvement here,
another there with a general cleaning up of the ship
would produce much higher times, (He went on the develop
his very successful Zebul 24)
The first thing that I did was to build a Sweepette HLG
as a rubber model with a small folding propellor to see
whether the HLG characteristics of steep fast climb and
floating glides might indicate a direction to pursue. But
despite a fast climb, the performance was disappointing
which I put down to excessive drag of the square
fuselage, low RNs and the relatively bulky folding prop.
Dispirited, I abandoned the project.
Some six years later, I again looked at this idea but
this time from a different angle. What would happen, I
asked myself, if I enlarged the standard Sweepette a
number of times? RNs would not be a problem and the drag
of the prop would be a smaller percentage of the overall.
In addition the fuselage cross-section could be reduced
to less proportionally than the original HLG. The only
problem that remained was how much to enlarge the
Sweepette? After some thought, I decided to double the
size of the original to 36” span. And this is where the
idea of research was born, for the development and
trimming presented many difficulties which were not easy
to solve. One of the first lessons learned was that
enlarging a successful design does not guarantee success
at the newer size. A number of major adjustments have to
be made not only in size but also in the mental state.
For example, I tried many times, unsuccessfully, to fly
the ship R/R as I had flown all my Wakefield and Open
ships this way before finding that the solution was to
fly R/L just like the HLGs!!. Funnily enough, I had named
this larger ship Scarlette after its colouring but much
later, realised that the name was TELLING me to fly R/L
as per the initial letters of the American expression
“Solid cross adjustment right/left”!!!!
My eyes had now been opened to the possibilities of
trying other than the standard tailed single tractor
layout. Two years later, during which I persevered in
Scarlette’s development, I discovered the MIG-DIS scale
model by Lubomir Koutny,a twin Russian fighter bomber
very successful in Koutny’s hands. He quoted a very high
figure (1400) as max turns which alerted me. 1400 turns
on EACH motor?? Assuming that these turns would run off
at a greater rate than the standard 10/sec, there still
seemed to be a distinct possibility here of improving
performance, at least in the length of the motor run. So
a Cdh was made with twin props at the dihedral breaks but
again success was not instant. Indeed if anything
problems were even greater than with the Scarlette but
of an entirely different nature. Later, an old 1929 twin
from “American Boy” via Frank Zaic and Louis Joyner was
tried in an attempt to solve some of these problems, it
being the only non-scale twin available but it had
difficulties of its own in addition to the type
encountered in my own twin (called Mig?non) This was my
first contact with cross fertilisation.
My eyes opened even further.. Why didn’t rubber models
in general use butterfly tails? They have been very much
used in some of the radio classes. Why were there no
canards in top- flight rubber model competitions, too?
And why no very low or very high aspect ratios, tailless
or twins? Have they been tried and rejected? A huge
untapped resource thus seemed to be just waiting to be
delved into for there was no record that I could find of
ANYONE having done any in any of the recognised
publications. And since I had practically ceased contest
flying, I had plenty of time to spare for building and
flying to determine whether any of these different
approaches might provide a distinct advantage
Now looking more closely at specific designs. Scarlette
went through 7 separate versions, some double the size of
the original as related, some quite different but ending
with a 1-3/4 times ship. The final key was found to be
the top camber of the airfoil, being calculated by
dividing 9mm by the percentage of the foil desired to
give the mean chord in mm. The second research project,
Mig?non, has gone through a number of versions with some
having many variations within the marque. Again, attempts
to fly the ships to the right in climb and glide were not
successful but turning the ship in the opposite
direction, L/L, provided the solution together with the
installation of contra-rotating props Duration of climb
did not seem to exceed the run expected on a simple
tractor with the equivalent motor cross-section but the
style of climb certainly was, being steep and fast
without mechanics. The design grew gradually in span and
area which appeared to solve some of the early problems
while producing quite a good glide.
But as for glide, the following design approach, Sailar,
a T-tailed ship based on full-sized sailplanes had to be
seen to be believed! Although small (11 dm2) and using a
new airfoil, the rate of sink was quite remarkably low.
The ship has never been wound right up to its limit so
its ultimate potential is unknown. However, its doing
close to two minutes on half turns.(There was a previous
T-tailed ship, ”Shrike” testing out the high aspect ratio
concept but it also was never pushed to its limit. It
used my “standard” airfoil on a smaller chord but did not
produce as good a time as the above) I seem to lose
interest when a ship practically right away, flies well!!
One of the things that was noticeable was the cross-
fertilisation between the designs as noted above. For
instance, Sailar’s new experimental airfoil gave such a
good glide that it was tried in a Mig?non variant with
excellent results. In another case, climbing to the left
was used in solving a problem in another design approach.
And stab percentage in another. And the addition of a
nacelle to a tractor design solved a problem in another
tractor design. And so on, and so on.
But the most difficult was the tailless layout. I have
gone through eighteen different designs without seeming
to have any success. From time to time, you get a flight
which appears to be better than all the previous which
lifts your spirits Sometimes this is the last flight of
the day and you go home in a semi-euphoric state only to
be brought back down to earth at the following session
when it is shown that that particular flight was a
freak!!
I began with a tapered all swept design, Swift, which was
a disappointment with massive stalls on climb and glide
despite 18 months trying. A second ship with straight
centre-section and swept tips was much more promising, no
stalls and good climbs. However, that was only half the
problem, for a Cdh MUST glide superbly as its climb is
only about 40-50 secs out of a projected 180 plus
seconds. (Alternatively, it must climb very fast and
high, (quite difficult on only l0g of rubber) faster and
higher than the norm.) Most people I talked to said that
I was wasting my time with tailless models. It has also
been said that tailless ships are superior in theory and
on paper but that the reality is very different. But what
if I found something in a hitherto unexplored region or
area, what then?? Something which might make the ship
climb higher than others and glide so well that it did
not seem to be coming down?? Yes, I have tried the Sailar
foil AND the ‘standard’ one although some progress has
been made recently once it was recognised that the usual
cambered airfoil (like B6356b for example) may not be the
answer. Some work is in progress, too, into the
possibilities of the plank layout but here the static
margin is very small which makes the ship very sensitive
to CG position. A swept forward layout while giving the
ideal elliptic lift distribution for low induced drag has
yet to be designed. Research has shown that sweep angles
on the existing designs are quite low which presages also
small static margins so that appears to be good reason
for leaving such an approach alone!!!!
Overall, the two most challenging design layouts are the
tailless and the canard, the latter due to the fact that
the rear wing (tail?) MUST fly at a lower angle than the
forward canard surface, and, as this flies at 6 degrees,
IPSO FACTO the rear wing must fly at a lower, less
efficient angle, the difference depending on static
margin and the relationship between the two airfoils.
Research into airfoils for the canard and wing will be
the subject for future investigations.
What helped me in this programme was the writing up and
publication of my findings by Vol Libre. Although I was
under no pressure to produce, I felt sometimes that I was
indeed working for the magazine and helping it to be a
success which was reward enough. Most of the designs
required a minimum of construction, either just a new
wing and/or stab with various fuselages forms being
rescued from past models. The same prop, for example, was
used in many of the designs, sometimes with different
blades while the smaller twin types were useful in
determining whether a small prop with a long relatively
powerful motor giving the same length of run as a more
usual set-up was superior.
As regards rubber, most of the time I used old grey FAI
never wound up to no more than half turns by hand as the
initial burst gives quite a fast getaway to test trim
settings and simulating what would happen when fully
wound up. Some of the rubber was quite durable, being
used in one instance for more than five hundred flights!
And which could not have been done on full turns, I’m
sure. This not only simulated full turns but conserved my
stock for a longer time. In addition, some top Canadian
Wake fliers donated used but very good Tan 2 which
despite broken strands, was very useful with the twin
design as each motor is only 5g
Finally, construction. I began with traditional
structures covered with Jap but quickly converted to a
practically standard D-box with carbon capped ribs
covered in Airspan and light mylar and finally, all mylar
Stabs evolved to a narrow solid-box LE again with carbon
capped ribs while fuselages were rolled tubes, either
single ply with glass cover, cyanoed or with two-ply
sandwiches with glass fillings. The use of undercambered
wings which required a new airfoil or chord demanded a
new set of jigs. In the tailless development this was
quite extensive, for many were the modifications to the
undercamber and the size of the chord over the eighteen
models. Which begs the question, why not flat bottomed?
Now, let's see…Why, indeed?
List of designs investigated in chronological order
Scarlette - low A/R thin flat- bottomed foil - 7
Shrike- high aspect ratio and T-tail - 1
Mig?non - Twin propped tractor - 6
Swift - highly tapered swept tailless - 2
Juliet - straight c/s swept tip tailless - 18
Painted Lady - butterfly tail - 1
Mandarin - canard - 1
Max Planck - tailless plank - 1
Hamburg - twin propped tractor - 1
Tomate - P-30 - 1
......................
Roger Morrell
