SEN 1025 - 2 Sep 2006
- Category: Archive 2006
- Hits: 572
SEN issue 1025 2 Sept 2006
Table of Contents
F1B rubber weight and performance; fly-off procedure - linkosalo
Patterson Entry Details - Parker, Diez and Norton
Rule changes to reduce performance - Salzer
F1B changes (?) - Reid
Is there Radio DT hole in the rules ? - Aberlenc
2007 World champs update - Stamov
25 Grams - Lewis
F1B rubber weight and performance; fly-off procedure
Interesting discussion about the F1B rubber weight. I'm not sure but it
may be that it all started from the meeting in Ukraine during the
Eurochamps, when team managers and other people interested were invited to
discuss possible means to cut down performance in all three classes. No
actual decisions or official proposals were made, the meeting was merely a
Does the rubber weight then need to be reduced? I think not. It seems to
be a common "understanding" that F1B still air performance is around 6+
minutes, and much higher than in F1A. The belief is shown in FAI rules,
where the first round max for F1B is higher than in F1A, it is shown by
the world cup contest organizers who like to start F1B fly-offs with 7
minutes, while F1A is most often started with 5.
I claim that this understanding is wrong, and F1B still air performance is
around 5 minutes, and wery close to that of F1A. See the results from Bear
Cup contest this year, for example. The contest was flown in winter, on a
frozen lake, with fabulous conditions. The morning was very cold, extreme
frost, but by the time of the flyoff's the air temperature was only a few
centigrades below zero, so slightly less that freezing/melting of water.
It was also flat calm. In these conditions, even rubber does not suffer
too much reduction in power output, so the results should be quite
comparable. There was not lift to mention, maybe on some flights the air
was a bit boyant.
In glider, 26 out of 54 made it to the flyoff, and on the 5 minutes round
5 out of 26 maxed. In F1B 12 out of 19 maxed out, and on five minutes
round only 3 out of those 12 made the 5! No bit difference in the ratio of
maxing out. The best flights in the 7 minute rounds were 360 for F1A, and
320 for F1B.
Also in eurochamps this year, only 5 out of 14 made the 5 minutes on the
first fly-off round, and on the second round, in rather neutral
conditions, no-one managed to make 5!
Thus my conclusion is this: F1B performance with current 30 gram motor is
well comparable to that of F1A. There is no need to reduce the rubber
weight. Also there is no justification to have different first-round max
time for A and B. It should e, in my opinion, 4 minutes in all classes.
Further, it is rather annoying that in many world cup contests F1B fly-off
starts with 7 minutes straight. This means, that there will be typically
10 to 15 fliers in the flyoff that solves the contest. If 5 minutes was
flown first, it would leave the best handful to resolve the contest,
which would make a much better "show" and also more tactical flying among
the best of the pack. I would therefore like to suggest to the world cup
rules an addition, that "unless remaining day light, retrieval conditions
or other similar feature force otherwise, the fly-offs _must_ be flown in
a sequence of 5, 7, etc. minutes maximum time." In other words, the 5
minutes round must be flown first before commencing to 7.
Patterson Entry Details
PATTERSON FAI INVITATIONAL 2006
America Cup Contest. Sanction 06-1898
Lost Hills, CA
November 11 - 12, 2006
F1A, B, C, G, H, J, P
Trophies for 1st, certificates for 1st, 2nd, 3rd
Perpetual Trophy for F1A, F1B and F1C
J, S, O classes combined, Junior High Time Award
Nostalgia Wake: Perpetual Trophy and certificates
Nostalgia Wake: No rounds, Sat 0730 to Sun 1330
2 min, 3 min, 4 min, 4 min FO flights
Round Mini G, H, J
1. 0730 - 0815 Max 120 sec
2. 0815 - 0900 Max 120 sec
3. 0900 - 0945 Max 120 sec
4. 0945 - 1045 Max 120 sec
5. 1045 - 1130 Max 120 sec (note round overlap with F1A,B,C,P 1st round)
Open F1 A,B,C,P
1. 1100 -1230 Max 180 sec (note round overlap with 2nd round)
2. 1200 -1300 Max 180 sec
3. 1300 -1400 Max 180 sec
4. 1400 -1500 Max 180 sec
5. 1500 -1600 Max 300 sec
Max times may be changed due to weather conditions.
Mini event flyoff to start at approximately 1615. Actual start time
and Max times will be posted at CD table. Flyoff participants are to
provide timer to Flyoff Organizer 10 minutes before start of flyoff. At the
discretion of the CD and availability of resources, a traveling timer
may be used for the longer flyoff flights in addition to the standard
flight line timer.
6. 0730 - 0830 Max: F1A,P 240 sec, F1B,C 300 sec
7. 0830 - 0930 Max 180 sec
8. 0930 - 1030 Max 180 sec
9. 1030 - 1130 Max 180 sec
10. 1130 - 1230 Max 180 sec
F1A,B,C,P events Flyoff to start at approximately 1330. Start time and max
times will be posted at CD table. Flyoff participants to provide timer
to Flyoff Organizer 10 minutes before flyoff.
The contest will governed by current FAI and AMA regulations and as
noted. Valid AMA and Lost Hills Association cards required. Score Cards
are to be returned to the CD table every round.
Time one - fly one.
Open: $20.00 For first event - $15.00 for any added events.
FAI Jr: $10.00 for first event - $5.00 for added events.
Sponsored by: Southern California Aero Team
CD: Hector Diez ( 661 ) 834-1063
Assistant CD - Bob Norton (661) 395-0261
Rule changes to reduce performance
I am afraid that the discussion ranges about two quite different aspects:
a- reduce performance to limit the number in flyoffs
b- reduce performance to allow the use of smaller fields
As regards a) I quite agree with all the people saying that the number of
people in the average flyoff surely can be managed, even if in special
contests (i.e. Holiday on Ice) about 2/3 of the field are supposed to max
out. So what?
Problem b), however, is getting much more severe here in Europe (and in
Australia as well ???). The flying fields are getting fewer and smaller. As
it stands now any contest organizer sometimes just has to do something to be
able to hold a contest at all if there is wind above a certain limit, yet
well below the FAI limit. So they arbitrarily reduce the max or the towline
length ore the preparation time or ...
What we need is a fixed set of rules to fall back on in these conditions so
the modelers can somehow prepare. With E-timers it should be possible to
have a program set up for those conditions with a different bunt setting,
different VIT / delay times, etc. and still use existing models. Mechanic
timers would be a bit more difficult, but also manageable. Of course, having
a special model trimmed for this is also an option.
To fall back on F1G or F1H is no solution, these are different classes and
have their own problems in strong thermals ... and in wind, of course!
So let us talk about a set of "category 2" rules and leave the "category 1"
rules as they are, at least for now!
By the way, how about F1C? Shortening the motor run further does not seem to
be a valid option. But how about forbidding the prop to fold in flight? It
might still have foldable blades spring loaded to the open position to
prevent breakage on landing, but add much drag during the glide (and would
geared motors punish more than direct drivers due to the larger prop). The
rule might specify a minimum force to fold a blade, which would be easy to
(I will wear a crash helmet when next I meet F1C flyers outraged by this
Regards and lot of maxes to all, whatever the max will be
Klaus W. Salzer
F1B changes (?)
Dear SCAT readers,
While I don't propose that we should be "getting wound up about nothing at
all", perhaps it might be interesting to speculate on how the rules and
specifications of our FAI free flight models might evolve to cope with contemporary
problems. I will stick only to F1B, as that is the only class in which I
have any international experience, having flown in the 1975 and 1977 WCs, in
the good old days of balsa and tissue Wakefields, powered by Pirelli or the
notorious original black Tan. (How things have changed!)
While I do not actively participate in F1B, I keenly follow developments and
the operational problems caused by increased model performance, coupled with
shrinking model flying spaces and timers' visual difficulties.
I like the suggestion of banning all artificial thermal detection devices.
Perhaps we need to recapture the art of feeling the hairs on our legs react
to changes in the air, or reading other subtle signs. There's enough
technology in the models without mechanising the launch sequence.
I'd leave the present F1B rules and model specification alone, as at
present, but the 30 grams of rubber allowance would only apply to the rounds, not
the flyoffs. I wouldn't have an extended first round time, either, unless
conditions are normally so calm that the present arrangement causes little
Long flyoff flights, with attendant visual difficulties on the part of
timekeepers, to say nothing of models travelling far afield and adding to
retrieval problems, leads me to suggest that the duration of flyoff rounds should be
kept the same as for preliminary rounds. Big events can usually take place
on a "three minute field", but more time causes more problems.
I believe that CO2 models (F1K) arrange flyoff rounds to the same duration
as normal rounds, but the flier must start the motor and hold the model for
increasing times before launching, thus restricting performance for the
flyoffs. Perhaps something like that could be applied to F1B.
However, I don't think that releasing the prop, then holding the model for
some time (2, 3, 4 seconds?) before launching would be appropriate, but
performance could be restricted, for flyoffs, by using progressively less rubber
per flyoff round. How about, say, 20 grams of rubber for the first flyoff
round, but also adding 10 grams of ballast to the model, to retain a constant
flying weight. The ballast could be placed on the model in such a way as to get
around any CG changes caused by having less rubber. Duration would still be
3 minutes, or as otherwise shortened by the organisers.
For subsequent flyoff rounds only, say, 10 grams of rubber would be allowed,
with a 20 gram ballast. I think getting 3 minutes would prove a real test
of model performance, but should more flyoff rounds be necessary this same
setup could be repeated until a conclusive outcome was found.
Anyway, there's my two cents worth (translate that into your own currency)
on F1B. Maybe someone can suggest equivalent flyoff performance inhibitors
for the other classes.
[Jack - and Klaus
a couple of comments - firstly 5 minutes in dead air is not easy if you do not
have Tan2 rubber. That's why a number of organisers have been doing a 4 minute
first round. There are still a significant number of people who still have
Tan2 left - notably those at the top of World Cup rankings. However this rubber
is being used and with time it is losing it's edge over good Super Sport.
Klaus talks about category fields, this is common with AMA classes of which
the most popular is the various AMA Gas categories. For these classes
it is easy to change the engine run and the max size to match the field.
Changing the rubber weight for the flyoff would introduce a level of complexity
in trimming, the possible need to have a special model, etc that would for sure
increase the sales of electronic timers, something that would please me but
not the Luddites.
It would be more practical to add ballast. From experiments with altimeters, there
is a dirext relationship between weight and altitude. The biggest risk is
increased risk of damage on landing and the need for the organizer to supply
or process a set of standard ballast weights. Maybe if I look up
in the attic I can find some old PAAload dummies !]
Is there Radio DT hole in the rules ?
Dear Scat readers
During the WC contest in France, I heave discovered that the DT rule was
suppressed in 2006. It means that, if the model DT and if the time is less
than 20 sec, you can refly. It means that, in F1A, in case of bad launch,
you can DT with the radio immediatly and refly.
If this is correct, I think some changes are urgently necessary.
Frederic ABERLENC France
WCh 2007 dates (for SEN)
From: "Victor STAMOV (HotMail)"
Dear Competitors, Team Managers, Helpers, FAI Jury, Timekeepers, Spectators,
Visitors, all who take a part in organization and run European Free Flight
Thank you all, who flew and attended, prepared and run European Free Flight
Championships in Ukraine this July. We tried to make that Championships for
Competitors in the first turn. Something happened successfully, something - not. Thank
you for patience and understanding of all our difficulties in organization. Thank
you for good words during and after competition to me personally and then by
e-mail. We will try to make World Championships in 2007 even better.
Dates for World Champs 2007 - from June, 24 till July, 1, same place in
Odesa. Before that will be World Cup event - Black Sea Cup (June, 21 - June, 24). The
main reason, why not September, as we told at the final Team Manager's meeting at
Euro Champs - number, of timekeepers, which we will need next year. By
preliminary calculations we will need 82 in F1A day, 72 in F1B and 54 in F1C. Only 2 teams
have provided timekeepers at last ECh (Russia and Ukraine). Therefore, we should
use only our own resources. So big number of timekeepers we can't get in
September, because of school time.
We will get "Chabanka" rest complex (good level and closest to the
competition site area) complete for that time. All rooms and all cottages - total 220
places. More information will be soon at www.wffc2007.com
As we understood one extra day before F1C day at last ECh was very helpful
for competitors, timekeepers and also for us, organizers. We can leave that
schedule for WCh. But, please, let's think about one more day in between F1A and F1B. Of
course it will increase the cost, but schedule will be more flexible. For us,
organizers, it will cost also more, because we should pay one more day at least for
Jury and timekeepers, but we want to make more comfortable for competitors.
In this case the Schedule can be:
Sunday, June, 24 - arrival, practice, processing
Monday, June, 25 - arrival, practice, processing, opening of WCh
Tuesday, June, 26 - F1A
Wednesday, June, 27 - reserve day
Thursday, June, 28 - F1B
Friday, June, 29 - reserve day
Saturday, June, 30 - F1C
Sunday, July, 1 - reserve day, Prize giving, Banquet
Monday, July, 2 - departure
It is possible also to move everything one day forward: Saturday, June, 23 -
arrival and Sunday, July, 1 - Departure.
We need to know your opinions.
From the name of Organizers with kind regards,
25 gms reply
Thanks for your comments.
It's not the model classes (I fly all outdoor and most indoor) or their rules
that are a problem for our club just having the locations to conduct them. I
am not in favour of changing anything either, however, the recent reduction
of our outdoor flying site due to the planting of crops and fencing presents us
with a problem of holding a meaningfull FAI contest (We can still fly the
little stuff with short maxes). We could possibly find a larger site much
furthur away and therefore suffer from reduced entries due to the 3 or 4 hour travel
involved. Alternatively we could reduce max times so that maxing out becomes
a formality and then have the problem of a large flyoff with extended maxes
and no space to conduct them or support the concept of limiting model designs
with the obvious disadvantages of redundant models. Walt suggestions to
eliminate thermal devices and restrict flyoff windows to 5 minutes probably would
reduce flyoff numbers but would alter the dynamics of what we have done for a
long time and still not solve the problem of limited flying sites.
The problem of limited flying sites may only be an isolated one which doesn't
effect other FAI competitors throughout the world in which case I would say
keep things as they are. But if there is a genuine need to reduce performance
(whatever the reason) I would prefer to reduce rubber weight by 5 gms,
towlines by 5 or 10 metres and F1C's by 1 second (a bit hard to go much less with
only 5 seconds). These changes would at least allow you to continue flying your
existing models in the same way that we have become accustomed too. Nobody
likes change but if it is forced on us it's better to choose the one that allows
us to continue with the least administrative changes or changes to existing
Thanks Roger for printing my opinions even though they may express an
unpopular point of view.
John Lewis (BFFS President)