SEN 1052 - 17 Nov 2006

SEN 17 November 2006 issue 1052


 
Table of Contents
=================
Reply to "Changes for 2007" - Biggles
Limited Span F1B  (aka Wakeing up ugly) - King and Zeri
F1C Model Performance - Watson
Terry Kerger's F1J Survey
2006 Autumn Cup Results - Simpson
Tymchek Getting Going again
My thoughts on rules field size etc. - Jensen


Reply to "Changes for 2007"
===========================
From: Biggles


*  I didn't realize EoB was in Odessa last week with the rest of the
lads, working out these important new details.  However, great timing
on proposed rules changes in SEN 1049, right up there with the FAI
and US Finals !

*  In the words of the Grand Negus and Gourmet Authority, are you now
going with the Dream Team nominations to decide the UK Team, or will
you choose the best 6 of 8 past Food Ordering results, from a 2 year
cycle, not counting Gala's or Decentralized events ?

*  Or perhaps you plan to adopt that old chestnut of deciding a Daily
Winner ?  If so, I'm still not clear on what happens to resolve a tie
?  Will you automatically go to a 10 minute early morning breakfast
round, or will you try to squeeze in some late evening rounds of
dessert tie-breakers, until you get a result ?

*  Although it may be true these days, that there are very few menus
large enough to match the performance of the International food
sports person, what about all these new proposals from the Intstitut
Américain Food (IAF) to deliberately limit Food Ordering ?  No good
will come from a further reduction in the size of menus, from 30
pages down to just 20, in a feeble attempt to limit orders to match
the smaller tables we are faced with these days at restaurants in
many countries.  It'll take all the fun out of the event.  Surely
this will ruin it for the mature food sports person, who will soon
look elsewhere to other challenges, like the Bring More Food
Association (BMFA) unrestricted class, all-you-can-eat Open events ?
And next season, with the new BMFA Combined Open format, you'll have
breakfast orders competing right alongside lunch and dinner - how are
you going to score that on a level flying field ?  I note that an
attendee (name not recorded) asked frequently about the adverse
effects of wind, and was promptly escorted from the meeting.

*  Surely the Meals Abroad Internationale Connesseurs (MAIC) French
Fries subcommittee, cannot be serious when they propose increasing
the minimum wait ?  Especially at establishments like Dennys, Lost
Hills, where even the mild mannered Brokenspar was heard to mutter,
sacrebleu !

*  And what's all this about having to put two ping pong balls in
your mouth while placing an order.  I predict this will be a real
drag !  This is a thinly disguised attempt to prevent sportsmen from
launching into a jolly good order, by limiting their accents by an
estimated 87%.  And it will penalize juniors and beginners more by
the increased difficulty involved.  Where is the outcry from la
Société Fast Food Non (SFFN),

*  And now we hear that they are already testing shorter chair legs
at the Odessa Denny's, down from 50 cm to only 40 cm.  Next thing you
know they'll want to shorten the tables too.  Where will this all end
?  Soon we'll be trying to order sitting on the floor, from a one
page menu, at a table the size of a match box ?  Although, that just
might encourage more participation from juniors and beginners.

-  Biggles


Limited Span F1B  (aka Wakeing up ugly)
======================================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.



Limited Span F1B  (Peter King & Anselmo Zeri)

My good friend Amselmo Zeri emailed me for my opinion on limiting span for 
F1B in order to limit the performance.  He suggested I try some simulations  to
get some hard(?) facts about the possible effects.  We both agree  it is not
a good way to go as it simply doesn't have enough effect,  unless  you go as
far as reducing the Aspect Ratio to something like  9/1.    That would result
in a hideous looking  Wakefield!  A more reasonable limit of 1500mm Span and
an AR of ca  14/1  would only knock 15 seconds off a 5 minute flight and would
still look ghastly for anyone who loves our elegant current  designs.    A
reduction to 1400mm (AR 12) would remove a further  15 secs.    I guess that
would be the best, but even less  attractive solution, as it would arguably
knock 30 sec off a 5 min  flight.    But is an ugly  12/1 AR model worth it, 
just to reduce a 5 min still air time  4 1/2 min ?  I  always believe in model
design being dictated purely by efficiency and strangely  enough, in my view,
this usually also leads  to aesthetically pleasing  layouts.

We don't all share the same view on what constitutes an elegant model and 
for me efficiency is all important, but in my own humble opinion let's  not have
"ugly"  models, just to reduce duration by a few  seconds.
Below are the results of my quick simulation runs.  I  offer them just to
add to the data bank in case they are of help in  shaping any new revisions to
the F1B regulations. 

Span 
(mm)    AR          Dur (sec)
1200  8.9          229 
1350  11.3          262 
1500  13.9          285 
1600  15.8          294 
1700  17.8          300     
1800  20.0          300 
1900  22.3          297

Respectfully
Peter King


F1C Model Performance
=====================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Model Performance.

Ref. the correspondence from Tapio in SEN issue 1051,  I quote the last paragraph,

For F1C,that is a can of worms that I do not want to open. I have my view what would be needed
for that class, but you do not want to hear it, so I do not say it aloud...

I was interested to know what Tapio's views are. Perhaps the time has arrived when we should
at least mention the unmentionable. I have certainly heard it said that F1C would be better
if folding wings, and geared engines had been banned, the second that they were conceived.
I am aware of all the arguments against such a ban, and have 5 geared models , and am
currently building a folder myself. I find them both very interesting, and challenging.
Banning them would certainly reduce performance, although I would not propose such a ban.
It would be interesting to know the outcome of such a hypothetical ban.

Would it be the final death of F1C ?.
Would it make little difference to entry numbers ?.
Would it increase participation ?.

I apologise to any F1C flyer who's blood pressure has just gone of the scale on reading this !.

            Peter Watson.










Terry Kerger's F1J Survey
=========================

ovember 15, 2006

These are the tabulated results of the survey

This tabulation is for the flyers that indicated they were active
participants in the F1J event.
The following distinguished modelers submitted responses to the F1J
Survey

Ed Carroll, Alan Abriss , Reid Simpson ,  Bob Hanford,  Mike Fedor, 
Buckey Serventes, Walt Rozelle,  Lee Cambell, Louiedafly5,  Randy
Archer, Peter Watson,    Bill Lovins, Faust Parker,  Lynn Pully,  Ken Faux, 
Dave Johannes,  Stafford Screen,  Norm Poti,  Doug Galbreath, 
Bob Gutai. 

And the results are


Are you a current active participant in the F1J event              Yes  19  No____
Are you primarily a contest organizer                              Yes    5  No  13
Have you organized or managed a FAI contest including F1J          Yes  10  No  8
Do you have more than 10 years of Free Flight Contest Experience    Yes  17  No  1
Have you participated in the F1J event in the past                  Yes  19  No  0
Do you fly a high performance composite F1J                        Yes  13 No  5
Do you fly a non-composite F1J                                      Yes    8  No 10
Is your F1J powered by a 0.061 high performance Cyclon engine      Yes  3  No  5
Is your F1J powered by a ½ A engine TD or equivalent                Yes    5  No 13

Is the F1J event in the current FAI format fun for you to fly            Yes 15  No 4
Does the current motor run need to be reduced to achieve sporting Results Yes 16  No 7
Is a reduction in the motor run allowed to 5 seconds appropriate        Yes 12  No 8
Is the current increase in fly off times by 30 seconds per round appropriate Yes 1  No 13
Is a 1-minute increase in fly off times per round appropriate            Yes 10 No 9
Is an extended first round maximum appropriate                          Yes 12  No 7

Should the contest format guidelines be revised                          Yes 14  No 5
Is a formal proposal to the FAI to revise the current format appropriate Yes 15  No 4
Should the contest management be allowed to modify the contest format    Yes 14  No 5


Comments

It is interesting to note that the majority of the flyers enjoy the event as
it is, but they also appeared to have supported reducing the engine run to 5
seconds and are in favor of the extended first round when weather conditions
permit. They are also in favor of a formal proposal to revise the format.


These are the tabulated results of the survey

This tabulation is for the modelers who indicated they were not active
competitors in the F1J event.
The following distinguished modelers submitted responses to the f1J
survey.
Martin Gregorie,  Joe Mekena,  Fred tersian,  Daryl Perkins,  Don
Delaoch, Bruce Agustus,  Jim Bradley,  Bob Stalick,  Herman Andresen, 
Mike Mckeever


And the results are

Are you a current active participant in the F1J event  Yes    No 10
Are you primarily a contest organizer                  Yes 5  No  5
Have you organized or managed a FAI contest including F1J Yes  6    No  3
Do you have more than 10 years of Free Flight Contest Experience Yes 15    No 0
Have you participated in the F1J event in the past    Yes 15  No 1
Do you fly a high performance composite F1J          Yes  2  No  8
Do you fly a non-composite F1J                        Yes  6  No  3
Is your F1J powered by a 0.061 high performance Cyclon engine Yes  5  No  3
Is your F1J powered by a ½ A engine TD or equivalent  Yes  3 No  6

Is the F1J event in the current FAI format fun for you to fly          Yes  7  No  1
Does the current motor run need to be reduced to achieve sporting results Yes 2 No  7
Is a reduction in the motor run allowed to 5 seconds appropriate      Yes  6  No  3
Is the current increase in fly off times by 30 seconds per round appropriate  Yes  3  No  5
Is a 1-minute increase in fly off times per round appropriate          Yes  7  No  3
Is an extended first round maximum appropriate                        Yes 5  No 3

Should the contest format guidelines be revised                        Yes  5  No 3
Is a formal proposal to the FAI to revise the current format appropriate Yes  6  No  4
Should the contest management be allowed to modify the contest format  Yes 7    No 4


Comments

It is interesting to note that the majority of modelers who do not fly in the
event enjoy the event as it is, but they also appeared to have supported
reducing the engine run to 5 seconds and are in favor of extended first round
maximums when the weather permits. They are also in favor of a formal
proposal to revise the current format.


2006 Autumn Cup Results
=======================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Hi Roger,

Will you please be kind enough to post this on SEN.

Thanks,,  Reid


_______________________________________________________________

The 2006 Autumn Cup weekend at Seguin was good, bad, good. Since this
was the weekend of "Veterans Day", we were able to have the field for
test flying Friday.. The temp was in the high 80s and the wind was
light. Great flying for those who arrived early to take advantage of it.


The forecast for the weekend was very very accurate. The expected cold
front hit at 3:00 am Saturday and the winds reached 30 MPH with a high
of 60. All flying was rescheduled for Sunday when a return to Southeast
winds of 5 -10 was predicted.

Sunday's flying started at 8:00 AM with light winds. In order to get all
eleven events flown on one day, only 5 rounds for F1A,B,C were scheduled
and flown. The wind direction only changed one time and that one move
only cost us 45 minutes of a delay before the rounds were resumed.

We also had the pleasure of having 2 competitors from Russian joining us
to compete. Sergie Lissotchenko, who now lives in Houston flew F1J. And
a friend of his, Igor Terenchuck, who was his mentor in their modeling
club in Russia is now visiting him and flew F1P with us.

It was good to see Faust and Julie Parker come over from Houston to
compete. With only a few weeks since his knee operation Faust was moving
pretty slow, but was still able to get off 5 max flights to win F1J.

All events were completed and the awards handed out by 3:30 Sunday
afternoon. Considering the weather forecast, we had a good turnout. 22
years of flying the Autumn Cup at the Seguin field. Come join us next
November for our 23rd annual.

Reid Simpson
AMA 4206
Autumn Cup Contest Director

2006 AUTUMN CUP RESULTS (NOV 11 - 12)


F1A (3)

Mike Fedor                          120..080..120..074..000.394
Bob Hanford                          120..120..058..000..000.298
Mark Troutman                        032..000..000..000..000.  32



F1B (5)

Eddie Vanlandingham            120..120..120..120..120.600
Dick Wood                      120..105..120..120..120.585
Mark Troutman                  089..061..115..000..000.265
Gerald Brown                    084..095..000..000..000.179
Bob Hanford                    052..037..060..000..000.149



F1C (4)
Don Chesson          120..120..120..120..120.600..049..649
Dick Mathis          120..120..120..120..120.600
Mark Troutman        078..118..074..000..000.270
Bob Hanford          021..000..000..000..000.  21



F1G (4)

Dick Wood                        120..120..120..120..120.600
Pete Reinhart                    120..113..091..120..120.564
Eddie Vanlandingham              120..115..090..120..090.535
Bob Hanford                      042..000..000..000..000.  42



F1H (5)

Mike Fedor                          113..105..120..120..098.556
Mark Troutman                        077..000..091..095..110.373
Gerald Brown                        120..099..120..003..024.366
Dan Berry                            060..120..058..069..000.307
Bob Hanford                          075..000..000..000..000.  75



F1J (4)

Faust Parker                      120..120..120..120..120.600
Bob Hanford                        120..120..120..080..077.517
Dan Berry                          120..120..120..095..000.455
Sergie Lissotchenko                120..120..028..000..000.268



F1P (6)

Jackie Sheffer                        120..120..072..120..120.552
Mike Fedor                            120..120..090..120..077.527
Igor Terenchuck                      120..055..120..010..000.305
Mark Troutman                        047..120..000..000..000.167
Bob Hanford                          009..000..000..000..000.    9
Gerald Brown                          006..000..000..000..000.    6



Open Gas (4)

Bob Hanford      120..120..120..120..120.600..142..742
Dan Berry        120..120..120..120..120.600..112..712
John Irwin      120..120..042..000..000.282
Mark Troutman    053..115..000..000..000.168



P30 (4)

Dan Berry                            120..120..120.360
Craig Hollier                        072..120..080.272
James Thornton                        067..120..073.260
Pete Reinhart                        120..060..043.223



NFFS One Design (4)

Reid Simpson                        114..112..120.346
Bob Hanford                          105..120..120.345
Mark Troutman                        114..087..120.321
Lary Kruse                          116..120..120.236



Cat Glider (3)

Dan Berry                                120..120..111..107..000.458
Larry Kruse                              074..060..040..043..052.269
Jackie Sheffer                          024..038..018..007..012.  99


Tymchek Getting Going again
===========================
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Hi Roger. I talked to Sue Tymchek today, and she reports that Bob has
had his back surgery (on Wednesday), and he is recovering well. They
got him up to walk today, but she says that the preparation for the
walk took longer than the 10 steps he took. Sounds like his is pretty
ornery, so I think he's going to be fine. Just a long recovery time.
Will keep you posted.  gb






My thoughts on rules field size etc.
====================================
From: "Blake Jensen" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
   



I understand the drive to accommodate our models to smaller fields. 
But, before jumping on the performance-reduction bandwagon, I thought 
I would have a look at the performance of F1B over the last year. I 
was very surprised to see how low the number of max-outs actually 
was. I found that out of the 38 World Cup contests flown this year, 
11 of them required no flyoff at all. Eighteen contests had between 2 
and 5 perfect scores, 6 contests had between 6 and 9, While only 3 
out of 38 World Cup contests had double-digit competitors in the 
flyoff. Some of these were large contests, some examples: 6 clean out 
of 27, 8 out of 66, and only 1 out of 27. Of the contests in which a 
flyoff was required, 19 out of 27 were settled with one flyoff round. 
In fact, only one World Cup contest this year required three flyoff 
rounds. Even the easy to max contests were quickly decided. At one 
contest 19 out of 46 competitors had a perfect score but a 5-minute 
round followed by a 7-minute round decided the contest. I noticed 
quite a number of contests had canceled rounds or shortened maxes, 
even most of those had only a few with a full house at the end of the 
day.

    I believe that the performance of the 30g F1B is being 
overestimated. A 5-minute flight in true still air is not an easy 
task. I have  flown more than two dozen flights with an altimeter 
over the last year. All of these flights were made just after sunrise 
or just before sunset. A 280 to 300 feet maximum altitude is pretty 
common and 315 feet is the highest flight that I have attained thus 
far. That flight was with a good Tan 2 motor, and judging by the rate 
of descent, I would say that the air was not up but was very nice. I 
think I had at least 10 flights that did not quite make 5 minutes, 
the others were more than 5 minutes, and I think only one or two made 
6 minutes, and those had good motors and nice air.

    The timing of the flyoffs and, at least in the US, a push to get the 
contest over as soon as possible has gotten us to the 7-minute flyoff 
earlier in the day, when winds are higher and thermals are present. A 
7-minute flight with a little wind is where things begin to get 
tricky with human eyesight and binoculars. Back when we flew flights 
of 4, 5, 6, 7 minutes, the 7-minute flight was not reached until 
later in the day when the wind was less and the models could not make 
the max. Recently, CDs have tried going directly to the 7-minute 
flyoff or cutting the window to 5 minutes, or even trying to pick a 
hole and then open the round.  What usually happens is a confused 
scramble to begin the flyoff right after the last round is over. 
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I can think of many 
times when a contest has ended and I have stayed on the field to test 
fly afterward. I usually will get in two or three flights to the 
ground in perfect flyoff weather by myself. I would like to see more 
contests run like the 1997 World Championship. They found the time of 
sunset and scheduled the beginning of the 9-minute flight one half 
hour before that time, then scheduled the start of the 7-minute round 
one hour before that, and the start of the 5-minute round on hour 
before that. Every contest that I have attended that has been run 
that way has ended with a fair result and a memorable event. This 
also allows a more relaxed time between the end of the regular rounds 
and the beginning of the flyoff. Competitors have a little time to 
have lunch, prepare backup models, set timers, or test fly.

    I do not like reducing the flyoff window to 5 minutes. I think that 
time is too short to allow for strategy, in other words, people need 
to be allowed to screw up. Should I go now or will it be better in 6 
minutes? Also, if there is a larger flyoff field with a long line, 10 
minutes would be more fair to all. If a thermal comes through on one 
end of the line and the window is only 5 minutes, the people who drew 
the other end of the line most certainly would not have a chance to 
fly in good air.

    I also do not like the idea of removing the 20-second attempt rule. 
We have been there before and brought it back. I agree that it can be 
discouraging to make a small mistake and be out of the contest while 
someone who makes a large mistake gets another chance. Removing the 
rule entirely does not encourage experimentation. I don't think the 
DPR front end in F1B would have come about as quickly or at all 
without this rule. How about changing the attempt rule to 5 seconds? 
This would be a short enough time not to excuse a mistake like 
hooking up the lines to the timer incorrectly, which could result in 
a 6 to 12 second flight (No VIT coming in) or a 15 to 20 second 
flight (DT line on VIT arm). But, an F1B flyer who had a prop-start 
failure would get a re-flight. These props sometimes just don't start 
no matter how much preparation is made to prevent such an occurrence. 
I think it is not fair to send someone home with a 2-second flight 
who has traveled a long way to a contest and has not really made a 
mistake.

    I think some recent technologies, affordable image stabilized 
binoculars and radio DT, will help things get better naturally. I 
encourage discussion of empirical data on these matters. This way I 
sincerely hope that we can make rational changes, if needed, rather 
than rushing into changes that could ruin our sport.

       
Blake

............
Roger Morrell