SEN 777- Feb 4 2003
- Details
- Category: Archive 2003
- Hits: 1139
News and Reports 2003
SCAT Electronic News 4 February 2003 issue 777
Table of Contents
=================
TMoY and a new email address - Schlosberg
Thanks in Advance for the MaxMen after contest party - Busnelli
Vintage - Segrave
Astrostar 404 - Thorkildsen
SEN Junior Program - Biggles ******** Featured Article ******
Unlimited towline event - Clemens
Airlines - Roberts
Re: Towline - H
TMoY and a new email address
============================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
My old computer has crashed and all my filed emails are no longer
accessible on a timely basis. Consequently, I have switched to a
new computer and my new email is:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
I would appreciate if you could send me a copy of any emails pertinent
to the TMoY you have mailed me over the last 6 weeks or so.
Aram Schlosberg
79-02 212 St. Bayside, NY 11364
Thanks in Advance for the MaxMen after contest party
=====================================================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
I wanted to publicly thank Janna V. and all the other
ladies who I do not want to start naming because I may leave someone out.
It is so nice to see how they do their part in the background to
bring some social aspect into our sport.
Thank you for being around and for all your energy.
Ernesto Busnelli
Vintage
=======
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Has anyone built the 'Ranger' designed by Gordon S. Light in 1936, and if
so, can they tell me what their moment arm ended up as being,please? On the
plan, the M/A is close to 16" which gives a Neutral Point at around
180%!!!!! Even if the CG is on the trailing edge, the Static Margin is huge
as you can appreciate. No CG is given on the plan so only experience with
the model would produce a CG position. Perhaps a builder has moved the wing
back during trimming thus reducing the M/A but that is only speculation. The
plan says to move the wing only 3/8" fore and aft for trim but it looks as
though more would be required.
The reason for the extreme NP is a highish aspect ratio wing)9.2) and stab
together with a long MA(4 x wing mean chord) and a stab of 40%!!!
For calculation, I used the 'C' factor from an article in 'Vol
Libre'#118,derived for CdHs, but they are of similar size to the Ranger(144
sq.ins wing and 57.6 sq.ins stab). I treated the Ranger thus as a CdH,
although it has a large cross section fuse and is on the small size as
regards the wing area.
Gordon Light must be one of the greatest of the early fliers with a win at
the scrubbed 1932 Wake finals and a win in 1935 plus another high placing
proxy flown(2nd or 3rd). His ability to build light(no pun) was one of his
secrets, for his 1932 ship weighs only 1.8 ounces(51 grams) for a wing area
of 180 sq.ins!!!!!INCLUDING his patented removeable stick to allow the motor
to be wound outside the ship, which predated the modern methods by some
20-30 years at least.
One thing which allowed such low weights to be acheived was the very high
quality of balsa available at that time, but he still had to select his wood
carefully even so.
Regards
Mike S
Astrostar 404
=============
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hi David,
How have you been.
To answer your question the 404 is scaled down from
the 600 since the 600 Astrostar has better structure
design then the 1/2A to handle more power. The main
mass in more forward in the wing, etc.
It will be a locked down design which is probably no
surprise based on my past models.
I am certain it will handle a cyclon but we are
designing it around the AME .061.
Craig Cusick is doing the drafting design work based
on a kinko's scaled down version of the 600, with the
wood sizes changed accordingly.
Thermals,
Terry Thorkildsen
SEN Junior Program
==================
Biggles
* For SEN:
FAI F/F- Extreme Sport for Juniors ?
There is no doubt that FAI F/F is an extreme sport - extremely
difficult that is ! From a population of approx 285,000,000
Americans, barely 40 individuals in any class have the resources and
ability to be competitive (and that is a generous count), following a
typical training period of 30 years plus per person ! But there's
nothing wrong with that level of commitment and difficulty for the
pinnacle of achievement at a World Championship level.
The question therefore is whether or not such existing FAI F/F
classes are at all suitable for encouraging Junior participation ?
Personally, I think the answer is no.
According to US Census Bureau statistics there have been 160,000,000
births in the past 30 years. Assuming an even birth rate that makes
32,000,000 juniors, currently eligible in the 12 to 18 year age range
give or take a few million, not counting any juniors within this age
group born outside the US who have since immigrated with their
parents during the past 18 years. Yet only two of this number fly
F1J (admittedly at an unequalled level of excellence). A third
junior power flyer could not be found anywhere in America in this age
category. So doesn't this make anyone curious why aren't the other
31,999,998 juniors interested in flying power models ? The number of
Juniors flying F1A and F1B are no better, and are limited to about
half a dozen. Is there something wrong with what we are doing for
these Juniors ? The story is very similar or worse in most other FAI
member countries.
So what should a successful International Junior FAI program be based
upon ? Within this forum of SCAT Electronic News, we have the unique
ability to solicit ideas and opinions for creating and promoting a
program for significant Junior participation. How should we go about
this ? What ideas have worked, or have not worked, in various
countries that we can learn from and base such a future program upon.
What new ideas do we have ? How do they involve so many young people
in F/F in France ? How does the German Aero Club enlist the support
of a manufacturer such as Graupner for their Junior program, which
must have been in operation now for over 25 years ? Or how does the
aeromodel program work in Israeli schools ? Can we bring these
existing National model programs into conformity, under a common
organizational structure, in order to meet the FAI's charter of
fostering international participation in Aero Sports for the Junior ?
What size of model and restrictions upon technology (if any) should
be made in the rules, in order to match the event to the likely
resources, both financial and available time, of young people today.
How can we utilize other technologies and organizations, such as
websites, instructional audio or video cassettes and / or school
science or athletic programs, to build a Junior FAI program ?
I am sure that the F1P proposal was well intentioned, even if it was
ram-rodded through without any regard for normal International
interaction and feedback and correct notification of, and voting
procedures by, the FAI member countries. If it achieves nothing else,
F1P at the very least has initiated a lively dialog within SEN, on
how to do a better job in future. The important point here is not to
loose momentum, but to let these ideas grow into a real program, that
can be petitioned and proposed to the FAI and implemented in the near
future. Gentlemen, (and ladies ?) your participation and ideas
please ? Copy and paste this request immediately to all your
non-SEN aero club friends to get their feedback and inputs as well.
Consider whether it is appropriate for the Junior power class to be
dependant upon a $150 top racing engine, turning a carbon bladed
folding propeller at 30,000 rpms, on unlimited nitro fuel with no
means of shutting it off quickly (remember, brakes are now
specifically outlawed for F1P) ? Is this an event likely to attract
sane-minded parents, even those who can afford to do so, to encourage
their 14 year olds to participate in - or are they more likely to be
prosecuted for child endangerment if they are mad enough to do so ?
Take for example the P-30 event, which would appear to be an ideal
concept for a Junior FAI Program. A small high performance rubber
class, which uses any standard (unmodified) commercially available
plastic propeller (non-folding) and which is certainly challenging
enough for any first-time modeler (even irrespective of age). If
manufacturers happen to come up with a better plastic propeller, then
everyone benefits. As P-30's already exceed 3 minutes still air
performance from 10 gms of rubber, perhaps the FAI version could
limit performance by increasing the span and length size to 1 meter ?
Such small size models would also be more convenient for Juniors to
travel with in their model box, even if using a simple one-piece
wing. Should this be a "gadget-free" class ? Certainly DPR / VP
propeller hubs are out and free-wheeling is in. And do Juniors need
the complexity of multiple position auto rudders, VIT's and
wing-wigglers to enjoy this sport ? Even the majority of Wakefields
did without most of these devices for the first half century, and one
might argue that these were in fact the peak popularity years of the
event. Certainly in terms of numbers of participants this was true.
Similarly, the TG-30 or Wigan-30 glider event has shown that this
size of model is easy to tow and can manage rewarding performance,
capable of 2 minute flights. Again perhaps a 1 meter limit would
appeal more to the metric FAI rules ? But what limits should apply
to the glider design, if any: should we permit bunters or even circle
tow; what about zoom rudder mechanisms; or just a simple pivoted
towhook / two position auto rudder; should the event just be for
straight tow models and one-step auto rudders ? Or should parking a
circle tow model downwind of others be the way we want to see the
event develop for Juniors. Will allowing such down-wind tactics and
launches really only end up compromising local flying sites, by
making it more likely for models to over-fly adjacent downwind
property owners, and thereby encouraging the Junior entrants to have
to commit trespass to get their lost models back ? Perhaps 50 meters
of line is too much, how about 30 meters (a little under 100 feet) ?
And so too for the Pee-Wee-30 power class, or the Baby-Bee-40 class,
which shows that you can have a meaningful power event for non-lethal
engines. Here again 1 meter might be the "right" size package for
the FAI, (as it was for the recently cited 150 entrants in the UK
power event) ? Could anyone really tame a Cyclon in this size model
? Or perhaps the engines should also be limited, but how ? Perhaps
reed-valve engines only, or limited to 0.8cc capacity (that's .049's
for the colonies !), or plain-bearing engines only to minimize both
cost and performance ? Should there be a rule requiring
"un-modified" engines, or will hot-tuning be permitted ? Can this be
effectively controlled through processing, or should tuning be a
free-for-all ? Perhaps a similar ruling should require commercially
available plastic propellers only, and also be non-folding. This way
everyone starts with the same basic equipment and the primary
emphasis becomes flying the model, rather than out-spending the
opposition with higher-and-higher-tech equipment. Fuel also should
be standardized and supplied by the organizer at the flying site.
What makes sense ? Is 5% or 10 % nitro necessary to make these small
engines run, or can they operate on the same "straight" fuel as is
standard for F1C and F2A classes. Or in this day and age, where some
FAI member countries already completely ban internal combustion
engine models because of noise pollution complaints, should the
Junior power event simply be Electric powered, with a specific
standard battery type and cell limit ?
The Junior rules also must be especially unambiguous, simple and easy
to administer for the organizers. Speaking as a past Processing
Official at a World Championships, I know from personal experience
that measuring wing area is both VERY time consuming and prone to
measuring tolerance errors that can cause real problems, leading to
uncertainty in the final results even for the Senior Championships.
Measuring wing area adds nothing to the enjoyment of the event, for
either entrant or organizer. And who would want to tell a Junior
that "sorry you just lost your placing because the abstract projected
area numbers don't add up !" Instead a wing span limit seems to be a
quick and easy solution. Similar model class events use a simple
calibrated "gate" fixture. The model either passes through this gate
or it doesn't. The result is immediately clear to both the entrant
and the organizer, and if done before flying begins, any oversize
parts can easily be cut down to legal size right then and there. A
standardized 1 meter gate could serve all 3 classes for both span and
length.
Therefore any rulebook "restrictions" should be very specific and not
subject to interpretation, whatever the language. An appendix
glossary of definitions should be provided for absolute
clarification. The list of exactly what "gadgets" can and cannot be
used must be clearly published. Complex, expensive devices should be
banned, ie all folding mechanism, geared motors etc. Other devices
such as the use of turbulators (actually banned in many non-FAI
modeling flying classes) should be permitted, because this is both
easy to install and change, and encourages learning through
scientific experimentation of cause and effect on performance, which
is surely one of the educational goals of such a Junior program. We
should certainly debate what falls into each category: DT yes, Wing
Wigglers no, fast-glide / slow-glide no, R/C DT no, single function
clockwork timers yes, single function (ie non-programmable) electric
timers maybe, DT fuse yes, Radio Trackers maybe ? etc, etc. The
list must be complete and updated with clarifications to rulings as
needed to keep pace with questions and technical progress. Using a
website this is now easy, we are no longer reliant on the printing
press ! Don't worry, these Juniors already know how to operate such
technology, at their own school or at their local public access
library.
What should the max be ? The scarcity of adequate flying sites
indicates that a lower flight time is preferable and would allow more
local sites, or school fields to be utilized. We want to limit
performance and risk of loosing models. Perhaps 2 minutes is too
long ? The max could be 100 seconds which might appeal to the FAI
scoring philosophy (which is already administered in seconds) as
being a nice round number ? (anyway, I never understood why if
seconds are the metric unit of time, why there are not 100 seconds in
a metric minute, or 10 days in a week, and so on - but that's another
story ?) Is 100 seconds too easy, I think not. At the recent US F/F
Team Selection Finals (for Seniors) 58 flights were below 100
seconds, which adds up to 60% of the elite Seniors in the US unable
to reach such a goal ! For Juniors, the max could even be reduced to
60 or 75 seconds for small local field events, or longer if
conditions allow ? And don't even think about a fly-off for Juniors,
except at a "Championship" event. What Junior wants to be faced with
risking loosing his aeromodel on a long flight in an attempt to win ?
Instead why not reward all those who "max-out" with an equal first
place ! They can all be given a certificate of merit to certify on
that day they made a perfect score. How can you improve upon that.
Should there even be a weight limit ? What benefit does this give to
the Junior, or the organizer ? Certainly weight is relatively easily
checked, with a go / no go weight scale criteria, but what does this
really achieve ? Would super lightweight, fragile models dominate
the event, or would there be no significant advantage compared to all
the other flying skills necessary for enjoyment and success ? Maybe
a 100 gm limit would create a minimum target that would encourage
good building skills, but that would not be an essential barrier to
achieving an adequate competitive performance by Juniors ? Such a
limit would help moderate performance in the rubber class, may not
have much effect in glider compared to heavier models, and would
probably be un-attainable by anyone trying to utilize a racing engine
in the power class, versus an alternative slow and lightweight
approach (tortoise versus hare syndrome) ?
Should the Junior class be a one-design model event, as already
discussed in previous recent SEN discussions. The FAI could select
and endorse a suitable model, almost any model. Even if they got it
horribly wrong in the first cycle (and I doubt this could happen !),
it would still be better than the Junior situation we have today -
and we can always refine the model choice in 4 years time. Let's all
nominate our favorite designs, scaled up or down as necessary, and
vote on a choice from this list. This way there will certainly be a
decision made, a start could begin, and the process could get
underway from which lessons will be learned, voted on and corrected
in future rule cycles, every 4 years.
Or why not create a basic FAI Junior model design "template", by
specifying the primary dimensions (span, chord, moment arms etc) but
leave it up to the individual to choose an airfoil (for wing and
tail), and construction method (built-up, sheeted, jedelsky, foam
wing etc) that would allow for some design experimentation, for
comparison within the constraints of a basically similar
configuration ? Tapered wings offer no benefits to the Junior and
only delay the building process and the likelihood that the model
will ever be finished and take to the air. Similarly for
undercambered airfoils, which are difficult for the first-timer to
build and cover. Or blended airfoil sections that change camber and
thickness along a wing panel. All are unnecessary complexity for the
Junior at this level. Therefore why not limit all designs to
parallel chord, flat bottom airfoils of constant cross-section, after
all we are trying to limit performance to fit smaller local fields.
This simple approach would be particularly appropriate for school
groups or clubs activities, to encourage deeper involvement in the
creative thinking and design, learning aspects of the program. A
fully detailed plan would also be available from the FAI as the
base-line for those Junior participants who only wanted to build (or
purchase) a "stock" model, to compete against those of a similar
general layout and capability ?
Or perhaps the event should begin as an Open Design class, within
some fixed model limits (perhaps 1 meter, 100 gms rule definition).
But with the proviso that all Championship winning designs become the
copyright "property" of the FAI, to publish freely on their website
for others to use, and possibly at some later date to even adopt as a
one-design model, as the basis for the Junior Program, to be built,
kitted or manufactured ? Or will that contravene some individuals
legal rights, and become a lawsuit waiting to happen - I hope not ???
Let's create a Junior class that is as simple as possible. Far
better to encourage Juniors to be motivated and proficient at
something simple and attainable, rather than to be frustrated and
lack comprehension of a more complex and difficult event which they
cannot afford. Remember that for this age range they will have zero
prior experience related to modelling, and this will be their first
attempt ever to build and fly an aeromodel. The opportunity for
enjoyment and success is tremendous, but the penalty for failure is
that Juniors will quickly move on to other interests and never try
model flying again.
Finally, remember this is not a class intended to appeal to "Junior
Modellers" because there really are none, except for perhaps a few
dozen or so globally. This is an event for the millions of other
young people who could potentially become modelers with the vision of
a suitable FAI Junior Program, if that's what we want to encourage ?
Unlimited towline event
========================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
My good friend Jim Moseley nailed it when he said:
"I fully agree with the suggestions of Bob Mattes and Lee Campbell - no
restrictions, straight tow, autorudder and d/t functions only; this
could attract a lot of interest from potential glider flyers who shy
away from the present structural and mechanical (even electronic) needs
of the present A/1 and A/2 gliders."
As one who indeed does "shy away" from the complexities of today's
FAI-class towline gliders; has fond memories of straight towing a Jetco
Talon back in the 1960's and early 70's; and has a BMJR "Lil Dip" kit
waiting to be built, I say let's give the unlimited event as described
above a chance.
I don't believe anyone, including those who don't enjoy straight towing,
will have a gun put to their head and forced to fly this event.
Bob Clemens
President, Western New York Free Flight Society
Airlines
========
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The past few months I have been trying to get some universal (in writing
) requirements for traveling on the airlines with my model box and
support gear. No Luck Yet! I have written letters and e mailed
airlines and acctually have someone from Horizon that promises to get
back to me, but as I said, nothing definative so far. I have also e
mailed Steve Kaluf at the AMA (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) after reading
about the AMAs efforts on SEN. Steves reply to me was that the AMA was
working on it although not specific to F1 C and definately would be NOT
in favor of locked model boxes.
I suggest that modelers, particularly power flyers, e mail Steve with
your thoughts. My concerns are that standards may be developed for F1 A
or B that will not properly address the power folks showing up with
batteries, starter panels, audio tachs, model engines with empty tanks
and of coarse the tracking radios we all use. I am also concerned that
security people who choose to inspect the boxes will not properly repack
them and damage the models when closing them back. I have never traveled
on the airlines with my stuff so may be way out of line, but as I
mentally prepare for the drive from Seattle to Lost Hills, I truely
would like to take Horizon or whoever. Again, I have given Steve Kaluf
my input (and will continue to do so) and I suggest others do the same
if you share my concerns.
Regards
Mike Roberts
Re: Towline
===========
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roger,
IMHO the way to level the playing field in towline glider is to just drop
the size and especially weight restrictions. Jean Andrews made a T-30 that
was essentially a scaled up EZB. Very simple construction. The low wing
loading provided easy towing, easy trimming and good performance.
No need to outlaw circle or bunt or high tech. Just don't handicap the low
tech, non-track person.
Also, as an OLD tired tower (tow person) I could never understand the
rationale behind adding more and more doable maxes. Think 3, 3min are
plenty and 3,4,5 like Mulvihill, or even 3, 5's have appeal.
Let's KISS,
H
...................
Roger Morrell
