SEN 1048 - 7 Nov 2006

SEN issue 1048 7 November 2006

Table of Contents
F1E French Nationals Report- Chaussebourg
Our "Iron man" Horst Wagner - Salzer *** Feature Story !!!
Model performance - A solution - Lewis
Post Finals- Time to Change the Program! - Parker
FF in Model Aviation magazine - Deloach

F1E French Nationals Report
Pierre Chaussebourg


On last week end, we have got our first F1E National Championship in France.
The flying site is in Tourtenay, 12 km north west of Thouars, and 5 km north
of Chateau de Oiron, well known from Poitou flyers. The hill is not so high,
but gives good opportunities to make 2 to 3 minutes flights with light winds,
mainly on west and south-east slopes. The wind was very light, with very
warm weather, giving some tricky thermals, particularly in the fifth flights,
on the sunday morning, giving a clear max to Jean-Luc Drapeau who is the
first French Champion in the History!

Results attached last issue

One more information: the 2006 F1E World Championships will be in Turda,
Romania, from August 25, to September First, including POPA memorial in the
beginning and Turda cup at the end.


Our "Iron man" Horst Wagner
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Prof. Dr. Horst Wagner won 6th place at the Austrian national championships

What is so special about this?

On the way back from the World Championships in Argentina 2005 Horst had an
accident which nearly broke his neck. Nearly totally immobilized from the
neck downwards a healing process had to start, which was never sure to
re-enable Horst to move, even while head and mind were not affected.

But only a few month after his return he mentioned that he could - even if
not in complete control of his hands, and sitting in a wheelchair - assemble
his model airplane, and only hooking up the timer was not yet possible. And
as soon as he could move a couple of steps with crutches he went back to
work at Leoben University.

His hands, however, still refused to cooperate fully. Still, stopping to fly
his model airplanes never came to his mind. First tries were discouraging:
Instead of throwing the plane like a spear after some steps he could only do
an overarm throw from the wheelchair, and found out that his hand would not
correctly follow the command "release plane".

No reason for quitting. The planes were modified from DPR to IPR and for a
different release lever to allow a lighter grip which was easier to release.
A broomstick was used simulating the fuselage and thrown through the garden.

In Judenburg on October 21st 2006 he flew the 7 rounds of the national
championships, sitting in his wheelchair, and supported by his family and
his modelling friends. Preparing for the launch needs special help: crutches
and rubber winding do not really mix well - a helper was needed to move the
wheelchair appropriate to the turns put in.

Even if during the first flights the planes were not fully trimmed to the
new launch technique, and thus Horst's flights were below his usual
performance, it got better, and especially the last flight was a beautiful

Standing ovations greeted Horst when he finally walked in on his crutches at
the prizegiving!

Model performance - A solution
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Hi Roger,
Model performance - A solution
Of all the suggestions re changing of the rules to accommodate the lack of
large enough flying sites for the performance of current FAI models I feel
Henning Nyhegn and Tom Oxager have come up with by far the best suggestions.
We have been flying modified Wakefield contests for the last 6 years in
Brisbane (Australia) in addition to the conventional F1B event we have always run.

This year we flew Lsq/100 Wakefield (9 entries) with 5 flights of 3 minute
maxes. No frills Wakefield (9 entries) with 5 flights of 3 minute maxes and
30gm of rubber. (No frills means no gadgets and no thermal picking aids) These
models are usually the older style lower aspect ratio model made mainly of
balsa and generally use a right-left trim similar to those flown in the late 70's
and 80's but can use modern materials like kevlar and carbon if desired. Due
to our now restricted flying site we fly all contests to 5 rounds including
modern day F1B events with a maximum windspeed of 5 metres per second holding
for 10 seconds. So as you can see we have some experience flying events with
some of the suggestions already expressed. ie. lower aspect models, mainly balsa
models (which have been built totally by the modeller themself in nearly all
cases) draggy models - you don't get much draggier model than most Lsq/100
designs. No thermal detection aids. The point is all of these designs and
restrictions don't stop people maxing out or getting really high in a strong
thermals but the two things that allow us to run these events are the reduced number
of rounds (which is also good for the majority of ageing members - we are
evaluating model performance not mature age marathons) and most importantly
restricting the distance models travel by flying contests where the ground windspeed
is under 5 metres per second. As I have stated before I don't mind if we
reduce a bit of rubber, reduce tow line lengths and reduce motor runs but I
accept it won't make any significant difference to the distance a model will travel
once it hooks into a thermal in strong wind. Locally it is no problem to
come back on another day if we have strong winds (I have built reserve days into
our program to accommodate this) but at a major event this may create problems
with international travel etc. I guess there are a number of choices: Build
extra days into major events and fly to a reduced windspeed or ensure major
events are held on large fields to the current wind speed limit. To utilise
the smaller fields for local, club or in our case State championships the
reduced windspeed limit enables us all to fly without altering model specifications.

I know some may argue if you don't practice flying in windy conditions you
won't have the experience to do so when you compete at a major event. In our
case if we fly contests in winds of 9 metres per second particularly if the
wind is from an unfavourable direction we won't have any models left to take to
the major events. From memory the first world champs using the 9 metres per
second rule was the 83 event held in Goulburn Australia. Previous to that it
was 12 metres per second. Since then we have dropped rubber from 40gms to 35gms
and more recently to 30gms. Perhaps the windspeed limit needs to be looked at
before we alter the model specs again. Any comments?
John Lewis (President - Brisbane Free Flight Society)

Post Finals- Time to Change the Program!
From: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

It is true that many of us think about changing the rules after the Finals. There
are nine happy guys and even at least one of them wants to change the program as well.
The two winners per day plus the consistent flyer proposal (SEN 1040)
kicked off much discussion.

Michael Achterberg resurrected the multi-contest points system. I would love
to have such a system if it was practical. In fact, the Team Selection Committee
had all but approved such a system a few cycles back until the TS Chairman
experienced an ill run flyoff at what would have been one of the selected
contests. This pointed out that the selected contests need to be run with
the rigor of the Finals. It is difficult enough to run one Finals every
two years. Ask George Batiuk or Mike McKeever. There is also the fairness
factor with regard to dollar and time resources.

The other resurrected idea is the forced fly-off idea. This was used for
one cycle in 1976. This program was spearheaded by the TS Chairman who at
the previous Finals dropped 1 or 2 seconds over a 3 day, 15 round contest.
The thought was surely a program to allow for potential errors in
timing could be developed. This lasted only one cycle and was voted out. A
second chance for those making a flying mistake runs contrary to the sport.

Well, Jim, you are a fine one to talk about second chances-your proposal
is all about a second chance. That's right in one sense. The difference
in this proposal is that two separate contests are flown. Those that make the
fly-off will do so by meeting the basic requirements of our sport-seven maxes.
No second chances at the World Champs. It is seven maxes or you pack your
box. Falling short of a win on one day and starting day two to win is part
of the sport.

One criticism of this proposal stated on SEN is, "A change to a daily
winner would only give the fly-off ACES a better chance." I'll take
that as a complement but so would every flyer that has ever beaten me in a
fly-off-the list is too long to cite. The root of this issue is the
balance between maintaining program participation and performance (picking
the best team). This past finals had 22 F1A flyers, 10 were previous team
members. Of the 12 that have not been on the team yet, all but 2 have
won an AmCup contest in the last three years. Everyone will have to
decide if any program will change current participant vs performance
balance. The historical trend is there is one rookie per event although
not true this year. Being on the USA Free Flight is a great experience
and I wish all who are willing to compete at the top level of our
sport have this opportunity.

Another criticism is that this proposal requires good weather to complete
all the flying / fly-offs. True, the simple solution is to write into the
program to revert to the current program, i.e. a single contest, top three
are the team.

The two winners per day plus the consistent flyer proposal is a moderate
change that keeps the best aspects of the current program. The performance
of these teams will be on par with our recent and current team. The
reality is that the second day of flying is not as intense because
for most, nothing is on the line. In this format, every one starts the
second day with the goal to win.

This proposal would maintain or increase program participation by nature
of doubling the number opportunities every two years to make the team. It
comes down to this, the final entrants work hard for months if not two years
preparing and then half to three fourths of the field have some
strange-bizarre mistake- either mentally, mechanically or now electronically
at the finals. Not having to wait two years to try again is appealing to me.
Winning the first day would be great- time the others and enjoy! Place second,
third or fourth on the first day means there is a very good chance to make
the team with a similar performance on the second day. If you mess up both
days-well there is another finals in two years.

I just received the TSC bulletin with questionnaire. I urge every USA FAI
FF'er to reply and of coarse I hope you like my proposal and write in
the question 13 space, "A winner a day proposal". The TSC will
understand. If it does not pass this cycle, I'll try again next
time, hopefully as one of the nine happy guys.

Thermals, JIM

FF in Model Aviation magazine
Author : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Hello SCAT readers,

I have received many positive comments on parts 1 and 2 of my FF: State of
the Sport series in MA. Thanks very much. Having said that I'd like to
acknowledge some mistakes that were made in my table of U.S. FF World

First, the exclusion of Bob White's epic 1987 F1B win was my fault. I
mentioned it in the text of the article but somehow spaced out and forgot to
include it in the table. My apologies to Bob's many friends the world over.

Also, I'm very sorry for not listing 1990 F1C Junior World Champ Mike
Keller. Again, my fault.

Finally, my apologies to the 2005 F1C Gold medal team of Archer, Happersett
and Warren. The MA editors managed to screw this one up. Somehow they listed
it as an F1E Team Gold!

Thermals from Colorado,

Don DeLoach

Roger Morrell