SEN issue 1126 - 24 Aug 2007
- Details
- Category: Archive 2007
- Hits: 1068
- Northwest FAI Challenge
- Looking for Ike F1A Plan
- When a part of the model ..
- 2007 Nats DVD
NORTHWEST FAI CHALLENGE Report
Following up the fine report from Mike Roberts and the results of the Tangent Classic, here is additional information of the Northwest FAI Challenge (NWFAI).
Saturday the 18th of August found all of us in Tangent at the Parkers field ready for a fine day of flying. Because of the combined contest of the Mini’s we were flying 2 flights in 1.5 hours. It worked out very well. So by 3:30 pm we were ready to fly-off, the conditions were not good so we decided to postpone until Sunday morning at 6:45 & 7:00am concurrent. The NWFAI we had two F1 G and 2 F1H and no F1 J. Ed Carroll flew against Tiffany Odell who was flying a brand new beautiful coupe d’hiver . She placed first. In F1 H Mike Mckeever vs. Lee Hines, and again the champ performed beautifully and won the class.
Sunday found all of us on the field with a very light mist and no drift. I decided to allow 2 hours for the first two rounds. The flyers were then able to choose when to fly. By 9:30 the weather cleared and remained beautiful until about 2:30 when the breeze picked up to about 10+ mph. We postponed the fly-off until 6:45 when it was decided to cancel any Sunday fly-off. Uncertain about Monday morning weather (rain in forecast) and discussed with flyers involved, it was decided to have the fly-off in October at the Sierra Cup. So for the people who missed this weekend contest, it was a fine contest in a beautiful environment. Maybe next year some of you who haven’t flavored the smell of fresh cut grass, the freshness of raindrops on your face and the deep inhaling of fresh air, might come to visit us in Oregon and sample it yourself.
Yours truly,CAT # NAME RND 1RND 2RND 3RND 4RND 5RND 6RND 7FLYOFTOTAL
F1 G1 TIFFANY ODELL 120 120 120 120 120 124 724
2 ED CARROLL 120 120 120 120 120 82 682
3 MARK BELFIELD 120 120 120 120 69 549
4 PETER BROCKS 120 78 120 120 0 438
5 MIKE DAVIS 120 120 DNF DNF DNF 240
6 RICH ROHRKE 120 120 DNF DNF DNF 240
7 DICK WOOD 120 120 DNF DNF DNF 240
8 RALPH COONEY 120 120 DNF DNF DNF 240
F1 H1 MIKE MCKEEVER 120 120 120 120 120 193 793
2 LEE HINES 120 120 120 120 120 77 677
3 NORM SMITH 120 120 120 24 120 504
4 MICHEAL THOMPSON 106 120 67 80 120 493
F1 J1 MIKE ROBERTS 120 120 120 32 7 399
2 CHINMAY JAJO 108 95 0 0 DNF 203
3 ED CARROLL DNF DNF DNF DNF DNF 0
F1 Q1 FRANK POLLARD 113 120 89 116 70 508
F1 A1 MIKE MCKEEVER 1260
2 RENE LIMBERGER 1260
3 LEE HINES 1260
4 MICHAEL THOMPSON 180 158 180 180 150 180 180 1208
5 PETER BROCKS 180 180 180 180 180 124 180 1204
6 NORM SMITH 180 180 180 180 180 180 124 1204
7 DANIEL PORTHEROE 180 180 180 0 180 76 180 976
8 PIERRE BRUN 180 180 137 180 180 0 DNF 857
F1 B1 BLAKE JENSEN 1260
2 ALEX ANDRUKOV 1260
3 VLAD ANDRUKOV 1260
4 DICK WOOD 1260
5 MIKE DAVIS 180 180 180 169 180 180 180 1249
6 MARK BELFIELD 79 176 180 120 180 138 120 993
7 EUGENE JANSEN 180 160 DNF DNF DNF DNF DNF 340
8 DEREK MCGUCKIN 166 15 DNF DNF DNF DNF DNF 181
F1 C1 ED CARROLL 1260
2 MIKE ROBERTS 1260
3 RON MCBURNETT 180 180 180 179 180 180 180 1259
4 JEFF ELLINGTON 180 102 173 158 180 135 180 1108
Isaacson F1A Plans
Can anyone direct me to a source of plans for Bob Isaacson's #14 F1A, which I think is one of the Wishbone series? Any help will be appreciated.
Karl Hube
“When part of the model…”
The FAI code covering attempts always has a paragraph about
detached parts:
“When part of the model becomes detached during the launch
or during the flight time”. (FAI porting Code part 4a: paragraphs
3.1.5 (c), 3.2.5(a), 3.3.5(b) for F1A,B and C respectively).
No one I have contacted knows the rule’s historic reasoning.
The core justification for an attempt seems to be events a flier
can’t control - such as splitting wooden propellers or a front
end falling off when the front portion of a rubber motor suddenly
blows up. One can argue that the phenomena of a detached
engines, which might have been caused by vibrations and the
impact of stopping the engine, might also fall under this category.
All these are failures of a model’s propulsion system.
Since the attempt rule does not qualify the detached part,
the rule has been used for incidentals such as the famous
Wakefield’s back peg o-ring, falling rudder tabs and timer’s
hatch doors. It’s not clear why these events should justify an
attempt, since they fall into maintenance and properly setting
up the model before flight.
The rule has been applied to cases where major structural
failures caused parts to fall off. But neglecting to rubber band
a wing properly - resulting with a complete wing separation -
would also qualify as an attempt. On the other hand, dangling
major parts such as dihedrals, fins or portions of a stab don’t
justify an attempt under the attempt rule.
Should we qualify the parts that fall off?
If we decide that detachments of incidentals don’t justify an
attempt, then the model’s time will be counted, provided it was
still legal. For example, suppose a timer hatch door detaches.
The flight time would be counted if the rest of the model
remains above the minimal weight. And if we decide to include
the failure of major structural components, then dangling parts
should also justify an attempt.
The difficulty of throwing out the incidentals while including
major structural failures lies in defining what they are exactly.
This is not easy! Should a major structural failure include the
main spar, the D-box, the trailing edge or a combination of two
or more components? It would be very difficult to reach a
consensus definition.
Personally I think most of the propulsion system detachments
are beyond the control of the flier and should justify an attempt.
That the incidentals and major structural failures should be
simply be left out.
And yes, timers should be explicitly required to observe the
part(s) falling off the model in the first place.