The openness of F1Q rules – condensed to battery weights, opens

the doors for a renaissance in power flying.  Since the rules have

passed we have gone through the Lithium Polymer  revolution, so

battery voltage comes in multiples of 4.2 Vols, and two to three

cells in series are sufficient to power any F1Q. One can select from

hundreds of motors, a few dozen batteries, a dozen controllers and

a handful of e-timers, most of the discreet type (menu of button

pressing  and LED blinking).

The starting point, however, is critical. Outside the States many

have selected a F1B, but electrifying it will mimic its cruise and

increasing the power will simply destroy it. F1As are over weight

and over cambered.  In the States, with its rich power flying tradition,

most fliers have opted to start with a 1/2A or A power model. Not

surprisingly, these models with a backward CG (75%), flat sections

and large stabs handle power comfortably. When properly trimmed

to spiral up, they will transition comfortably into glide. Indeed, in 25

seconds most will go out of sight. (For example Dan Berry, Dick

and Rich Ivers, Vic Nippert, Frank Pollard and Dick Wood).

These locked surface models are generally small – with a wings

under 20 dm^2 and 25% stabs; light - with wing loading of 12-15

grams/dm^2.  They occasionally used CF main spars and are

simple to construct. In fact, John Oldenkamp (through

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) has sold about 20 simple plug in

(charge) and fly F1Q models, introducing many into the event. 

A rich selection of locked surface power models can be found

in the old Zaic year books, NFFS’s Symposiums and plan services

such as O’rielly (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.).

Auto surface F1Qs however, have proved to be tricky (Pin Ruyter

and myself). These models are larger (28-35 dm^2) and heavier

(15-18 gr/dm^2) powered by 250-300 (input) Watts. Although this

sounds high, it’s half the power available to a standard F1C –

roughly 1 HP. Furthermore, larger diameter propellors are required,

coupled with down gearing. The higher torque and wider rotating

slip stream disc create trimming issues similar to those of geared

F1Cs. In a nut shell - it requires dropping the left wing’s trailing

edge during a straight climb. (A more detailed analysis appears

in the upcoming July FFQ issue).

Auto surface models are not yet commercially available – as no

one has yet demonstrated a convincing design. In addition, many

standard components are not yet commercially available. But,

I’m confident that within a few years there will be many outstanding

Auto surface designs.

F1Q probably has two embedded events – small (locked surfaces?)

and large (auto surfaces), falling into the pattern of the other

F1 classes. It’s too early to know the parameters and boundaries

of these two likely events, and running a spectators survey will

not choose a winner.

A more productive approach is to build a simple locked surface

F1Q power model and enjoy flying electric. For those with such

models – to participate in our Nationals, held at Muncie IN on

August 5^th(doubling as a World Cup event).

Aram

Note to Veronika and Klaus Salzer: High applause for your very meaningful descriptions of the Baltic Cup, the value to Youth of what we do, and in particular, the promotion by Klaus to this same youth group of the New, as you call it, F1Q.

Since August of 2005, as soon as I learned of the CIAM's decision to establish F1Q as a provisional event, I have built and flown at least 30 such airplanes ranging from 200 to 425 square inches and between 5 and 9 ounces. The early ones were just a step down from F1B in outline and all feature very simple, low parts count construction. In retrospect, my approach, in the manner of "powered glider", was not entirely correct, so at the moment I am concentrating on less extreme layouts, lower aspect ratios, etc. And more dihedral/polyhedral.

I sold a number of these planes to fellow competitors as well. Results have been mixed, so for the moment, I have suspended projects for others.

Which brings me to the point of today's SCAT Electronic News query that you made: The F1Q should NOT follow the development mode of F1C. To foster increasing participation, I would back allowance of auto rudder, stabilizer, and R/C D/T only and let the category proceed on basic technology and pilot skills--which can be taught (Youth involvement?).

As it is, event the most modestly priced Brushless motors and mid-range LiPoly batteries deliver as much power as a sound design can handle.

I have a high appreciation of your simple and elegant F1B airplanes from a few years past and have always myself practiced in much the same manner.

Cheers,

John Oldenkamp