SEN 1305<
- Details
- Category: Archive 2009
- Hits: 1106
Table of Contents SEN 1305
BIssonette
Luck Lindy
Q thoughts from someone who flyys it
Q rises in the UK
Q power restrictions
Vintage FAI Survey
2009 Bissonnette Memorial Contest Report
Friday afternoon the four F1E contestants had excellent flying conditions. We ended up flying from the East end of the hill for all seven flights with a two-minute max for each of the flights. It was well over 100 degrees in the Sun, but everybody was drinking water and we did not have any problems from the heat. At the end of the sixth round the four contestants were separated by 21 seconds. Norm Furutani won with Dave Parsons in second place. Peter Brocks did not make the seventh round max and this allowed first time F1E flyer Dave Saks to end up in third place.
We woke up to a West breeze on Saturday morning. As we had located the flying site to the South for this contest we were able to start the contest with a three-minute max and the models did not make the Brown Holloway road for this round. The second, third and seventh rounds were flown to a two minute max because of the increased wind speed and direction.
No flyers maxed out in F1A and Jim Parker was the winner with dropping eight seconds in the sixth round. Lee Hines was second, followed by Ken Bauer in third place. They had each dropped the first round and then went on the complete the contest with all maximum flights. The two junior flyers, Logan Tetrick and Taron Malkhasyan held up well in the windy conditions to take eight and twelfth place.
The F1B event had five flyers max out; Jack Emery, Robert Piserchio, Dave Saks, Aimee Schroedter and Bob Tymchek. The evening wind picked up and it was decided to hold the flyoff the next morning. We had even more wind in the morning and it was decided to hold the flyoff at a later date.
The F1C event had only one flyer max out and that was Mike Roberts for the win. Ron McBurnett ended up second with Cody Secor third.
F1P had Glenn Schneider in first with Dave Rounsaville second and Dave Parsons third. Nostalgia Wakefield had four entries with Craig Cusick maxing out for the win and Dick Glidersleeve second and Tom Laird third.
The F1GHJQ was greeted with a very windy day. We decided to hold off the start and see if the West wind would drop or change directions. A little after 8:30 the wind dropped off and we decided to hold the contest. I gave the flyers a three-hour window to fly the five flights and then have the flyoffs before the expected afternoon winds. A two-minute flight was taking some of the models to the big gypsum pit near the entry road. The F1GH and J events had two flyers max out which required flyoffs. I held the two-minute max and set the window to five minutes for each event. F1G required two flights with Tiffany O’Dell winning over Peter Brocks and junior flyer Sevak Malkmasyan coming in third. F1H was decided with the first flyoff flight. Lee Hines made the max and Brian VanNest was one second short. Mike McKeever came in third place. F1J had Dave Parsons and Dave Rounsville in the flyoff. Dave Parsons won out in the second flyoff flight. Glenn Schneider was third.
F1Q had three entries with Hal Cover the only flyer to max out. Bernie Crowe was second and Mike Pykely coming in third.
Over all a good contest considering the West wind. The new location seems to be a better flying spot with the plowed field to the North and the new gypsum pit to the East. Also, a big “thank you” for Ron McBurnett who had made up and sold Bissonnette Memorial T-Shirts again this year.
F1A RD 1 RD 2 RD 3 RD 4 RD 5 RD 6 RD 7 FO 1 TOTAL
1 Jim Parker 180 120 120 180 180 172 120 1072
2 Lee Hines 154 120 120 180 180 180 120 1054
3 Ken Bauer 138 120 120 180 180 180 120 1038
4 Brian VanNest 180 120 120 180 180 120 120 1020
5 Jon Davis 167 68 120 180 180 180 103 998
6 Peter Brocks 180 120 120 180 180 63 70 913
7 Pierre Brun 106 120 120 57 180 180 0 763
8 Logan Tetrick 94 120 120 69 47 180 120 750
9 Hector Diez 180 120 119 180 54 42 44 739
10 Micheal Thompson 82 79 83 180 109 165 0 698
11 Risto Puhakka 78 0 120 96 84 180 0 558
12 Taron Malkhasyan jr 0 120 120 180 0 0 0 420
13 Don Zink 160 120 120 0 0 0 0 400
14 Mike McKeever 148 28 0 0 0 0 0 176
F1B RD 1 RD 2 RD 3 RD 4 RD 5 RD 6 RD 7 FO 1 TOTAL
1 Jack Emery 180 120 120 180 180 180 120 1080
1 Robert Piserchio 180 120 120 180 180 180 120 1080
1 Dave Sacks 180 120 120 180 180 180 120 1080
1 Aimee Schroedter 180 120 120 180 180 180 120 1080
1 Bob Tymchek 180 120 120 180 180 180 120 1080
6 Sevak Malkhasyan 169 120 120 180 180 180 120 1069
7 Alex Andriukov 162 120 120 180 180 180 120 1062
8 Roger Morrell 180 120 85 180 180 180 120 1045
9 Blake Jensen 180 120 120 180 125 180 120 1025
10 Charlie Jones 180 120 120 94 180 180 120 994
11 Mark Belfield 139 120 120 180 134 142 120 955
12 Rich Rohrke 180 120 120 180 179 140 0 919
13 George Batiuk 143 120 116 180 165 180 0 904
F1C RD 1 RD 2 RD 3 RD 4 RD 5 RD 6 RD 7 FO 1 TOTAL
1 Mike Roberts 180 120 120 180 180 180 120 1080
2 Ron McBurnett 180 120 120 180 180 157 120 1057
3 Cody Secor 180 120 120 180 180 180 80 1040
4 Kenny Happersett 180 120 120 180 180 97 120 997
5 Gil Morris 180 120 120 96 180 180 120 996
6 Roger Simpson 180 120 120 180 180 121 0 901
7 Lynn Pulley 180 120 120 180 180 0 0 780
8 Doug Joyce 110 67 120 180 155 88 0 720
9 Guy Menanno 180 120 120 124 140 0 0 684
F1G RD 1 RD 2 RD 3 RD 4 RD 5 FO1 FO2 TOTAL
1 Tiffany O'Dell 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 840
2 Peter Brocks 120 120 120 120 120 120 67 787
3 Sevak Malkmasyan 109 106 120 107 120 562
4 Mark Belfield 60 106 120 120 66 472
F1H RD 1 RD 2 RD 3 RD 4 RD 5 FO1 TOTAL
1 Lee Hines 120 120 120 120 120 120 720
2 Brian VanNest 120 120 120 95 120 119 694
3 Mike McKeever 120 120 120 103 120 583
4 Jim Parker 120 120 94 86 120 540
5 Jon Davis 120 120 120 53 120 533
6 Micheal Thompson 120 16 120 120 120 496
F1J RD 1 RD 2 RD 3 RD 4 RD 5 FO1 FO2 TOTAL
1 Dave Parsons 120 120 120 120 120 120 118 838
2 Dave Rounsaville 120 120 120 120 120 120 80 800
3 Glenn Schneider 90 120 0 0 0 210
F1P RD 1 RD 2 RD 3 RD 4 RD 5 RD6 RD7 TOTAL
1 Glenn Schneider 121 120 120 180 180 48 120 889
2 Dave Rounsaville 0 120 120 180 180 62 120 782
3 Dave Parsons 180 40 120 155 68 180 0 743
4 Tony Robertson 180 26 120 138 180 0 0 644
F1E RD 1 RD 2 RD 3 RD 4 RD 5 RD6 RD7 TOTAL
1 Norm Furutani 117 95 115 42 120 120 120 729
2 Dave Parsons 120 70 120 120 60 102 120 712
3 Dave Saks 111 78 120 71 91 117 120 708
4 Peter Brocks 91 120 120 94 50 120 103 698
F1Q RD 1 RD 2 RD 3 RD 4 RD 5 TOTAL
1 Hal Cover 180 180 180 180 180 900
2 Bernie Crowe 155 180 180 180 180 875
3 Mike Pykelny 116 180 114 178 168 756
Nostalgia Wakefield TOTAL
1 Craig Cusick 120 180 240 540
2 Dick Glidersleeve 107 124 240 471
3 Tom Laird 120 154 180 454
4 Juan Livotto 120 0 0 120
"Lucky Lindy"
HEROS...for me, it was Larry Conover, Charles A. Lindbergh...and an Airplane...
The book & movie "Spirit of St Louis" had a huge impact on me as a wide eyed teenage Civil Air Partol cadet. Meeting my hero Larry Conover at the 1962 Glenview NATS was another life changing event! I had re-read that American Modeller story over & over. You know, the one about the magical 5 man fly-off at the 1960 World Champs Cranfield, England! They couldn't determine a winner after 15(?) fly-off flights so Larry was crowned joint World Champ with 4 other guys! That beautiful photo of Larry & his wife Dottie with huge smiles holding the models is forever etched in my memory. (Didn't we all want a wife like Dottie?). Sandy Piminoff was part of that group & filled me in on some details at the '93 CA WC. He said Larry's Lindy was consistently the higher climbing model.
Anyway, so here I was just a 'wet behind the ears' naive 19 year old 'star-struck' farmboy at that '62 Chicago Navy Nats. Well, my hero says to me..."Nice Lindy, Son" and GAVE me a spinner adaptor for my model! That made it look just like his with that Max .15 mk. III for power! I would have broken the Sr National FAI record too if a wing warp hadn't developed during competition flying later that day. But Needless to say after meeting my hero I was on 'cloud nine' on the long drive home to New Jersey with my Dad & Grandfather after that Nats!
Aviation was 'in my blood' since age two. I wonder why? Maybe it was a 'star crossed' thing. Lindbergh took off on his famous flight to Paris May 20th, 1927 (my birth-day, not the year). Larry passed away last week May 21st, the day 'Lucky Lindy' landed in Paris in 1927. Interesting coincidence?? So many other 'Lindbergh' connections throughout my life. Like the time I played music in Lindbergh's library at his home in Hopewell,NJ in the early '70's leading a young people's church singing group!
These are my thoughts as I heard of Larry's passing last week and I just wanted to share how a great and famous man still took the time to help a young modeller. I never met Charles Lindbergh but I did meet Larry Conover and that made all the difference.
Dave Rounsaville
Q answers from someone who flys it!
Andreas Lindner
Hello Roger,please publish this article as my answer at the both articles about the F1Qrules from the last SEN. Thanks!Thoughts about F1QThe day will come, when the current F1Q-rule with a maximum battery weightand a specified motor run will not restrict the capacity of the class withinpracticable limits anymore. To prevent from problems similar to F1A,B,C andtheir high performances - based on expensive technology and exceeding thescope of most flying fields - I propose to think proactively aboutmeasurements and their directions. If the CIAM F1 Subcommittee would agreein these measurements, F1Q flyers could develop their own strategy withinthe defined common sense.I wonder whether a reduction of battery weight and a shorter motor run woulddo the job. And I doubt: Any reduction of the duration the motor runs willbe followed by faster climbs of the models. Inevitably the loads on motorand battery will increase, shortening their life and raising the costs.Expensive technology of very high quality will offer decisive advantages.This quality-advantage will be even more critical, if CIAM decides to reducethe maximum weight of the battery at the same time. To avoid thisdevelopment, it would be much better one defines a relation between motorset and model size. That relation might also support the great variety ofmodels which originally had been intended by the very open F1Q formula CIAMpassed a few years ago. Following guidelines discussed with active F1Qflyers, I therefore propose:1. Add to the limits within the current rule a maximum weight of the motor;let’s say 12 % of the total weight of the model.Reason:- The formula will get less dependent on the battery technology which can’tbe foreseen.- Rather than the capacities of the batteries, the specific power of motorsis unlikely to go up excessively.- Less need to torment the battery in order to gain more power.- Exchange of motors – if necessary – is easy. Model could remain unchanged.- The weight of the motor shall include cables and connectors, the fixeddriving axle and the related cogwheel, not the gear itself.2. Change the maximum weight of the battery (90 g for Lithium batteries inthe current rule) to 15 % of the total weight model.Reason:- Battery size related to model size offers better opportunities indesigning different types of models which might all be competitive. Anyabsolute size of the power source will create uniform models, which isagainst the idea behind the introduction of F1Q. Further on, developmentsdirecting to small and fast models with a high wing load – comparable tosmall F1C – get out of interest.- Every F1Q model builder is free to define their best combination ofbattery and model size or model weight, related to that very battery whichseems to offer the best performance.- If necessary, the relation may be reduced without generating costs andefforts (batteries are about to be changed anyhow from time to time).3. Keep the motor run flexibleThe duration of the motor run during competitions should be kept flexible(some Contest Directors in 2008 weren’t aware of their freedom). High levelcompetitions like World Cup events might be dealing with 15 sec in general.Nevertheless, some competitions demonstrated a modified motor run being aperfect means in the event of recovery problems or to suit meteorologicalconditions.Further measurements to think about:·If the performance of the class in future can’t be restricted within areasonable limit, despite of the proposed weight-related formula, CIAM mightfollow the F5D class in introducing an energy limiter. Advantage: Preciselydefined energy. Disadvantage: A lot of work with model processing, whichdoesn’t fit to a typical free flight contest.To avoid developments into the extremes, CIAM might introduce a maximum wingload of 20 g/m² and restrict the surface of wing and horizontal tail planeto maximum 40 dm².Introducing condensers, so called Supercaps or Goldcaps, is not a good idea.Relation between energy and weight is worse compared to Lithium batteries,and one would need special electronic systems to compensate an uneven powersupply.Andreas Lindner
Q rises in the UK
Roger
Having observed some tremendous F1Q climbs at the Stonehenge Cup and British Nationals I think the above 1000ft climb is with us now. The motor run needs a drastic cut.
Peter williams
F1Q Power Restrictions
Tapio Linkosalo
Klaus W. Salzer wrote:
Another clear indication that the rules in F1Q have to be changed ... how
is still not clear!
In SEN 1301 Klaus brought up again the question of F1Q power limitation.
I totally agree with him, that the current rules allow the models to be
ridiculously over-powered, with people using motor runs below 10
seconds, while 20 seconds would be allowed! I think everyone sees, that
a major change in the rules is to be expected, and while that statement
is written on the wall, it puts many people off, delaying them from
trying their hands on F1Q. I can tell you that surely it puts me off; I
am most interested in the class, but do not find it reasonable to to
invest time and money, while all the effort will be in vain in a year or
two.
So, while CIAM seems to be unable to take any action in this matter, I
suggest an open discussion and hopefully an agreement on a limited set
of rules for F1Q. These rules could then be applied as an unofficial
subclass for F1Q in some contests (like Nordic, Baltic etc.), and if the
"limited" set of rules shows to be working, they could be then presented
to the CIAM as a new, but tested proposal for the F1Q rules.
What should the limited rules then be like? In my view, the power should
be restricted to a level where a spiral climb of 15 to 20 seconds is
required. F1C has shown, that over-powered models and reduction of motor
run will lead into rather dangerous models, that are indifferent in
stability and very sensitive to launch errors. A slower spiral climb
requires the model to be stable, and therefore it will be able to
correct some error or bias in the climb attitude.
The big question is now, how to limit the power? I do NOT think that
electric devices, such as "black box" current limiters or energy timers
are the solution. It is rather difficult to verify, whether these work
as they should. It requires good quality electronic measuring devices,
and some expertese to use them. The same applies also to the concept of
serial resistor limiting the current to the motor (my previous pet
idea). However, I recently learned that an RC soaring club "Albuquerque
Soaring Association" has for a few years applied a set of rules to limit
the power of their models, that is rather straightforward and easy to
verify. The rules say:
"Motors are restricted to out runner type without gearboxes. The
maximum size of the flux ring is 28 mm in diameter and 16 mm in length.
Batteries are restricted to 7 Nicd / Nimh or 2 lithium polymer cells."
Thus the rules are straightforward, and it is easy to verify with simple
calibers, that the motor is within the restrictions. But most of all,
the beauty of the rules is that restricting the motor size quite
efficiently restricts the maximum (output) power of the motor. If you
want to "push" the motor by using larger prop than is the most
efficient, you indeed can increase the current to the motor, but that
makes the efficiency of the motor crash, and out output power does not
increase.
The ASA rules have resulted in Hacker A20-20L being the most widely used
motor, and that can draw up to 20A of current, which means around 150
watts of input power (remember the 2-cell restriction!), and some 120 to
130 watts of output power. That might be quite sufficient for a A2-sized
F1Q, maybe too much for smaller models.
-Tapio-
Hi, Roger:
I would appreciate it if you would run the following survey in an upcoming issue of SEN.
Thanks,
Bob Stalick
Vintage FAI Survey:
As regular readers of SEN know, Walt Ghio proposed the Vintage FAI event a couple of years ago, and it has generated a bunch of conversation and some competitions. Walt and I have a high degree of interest in seeing this event become more formalized and perhaps added to the national contest schedule.
At Walt’s request, I contacted the chairman of the NFFS Competition Committee, Bob Mattes, with the proposal to add it to the national schedule, and he recommended that we survey the SEN readers to see if there is sufficient interest to do so. We would appreciate a response. Note: further information about this event can be found at <www.FAIPower.com>.
Here are the questions:
1. Do you have any interest in the Vintage FAI Event? (yes or no).
2. If the Vintage FAI event were held at local free flight meets across the country and at the US Nats, would you enter and fly in it? (yes or no)
3. Would you have any interest in serving on a NFFS committee to assist with formalizing the Vintage FAI Event rules? (yes or no) If so, please provide your name.
Send your reponses to Bob Stalick <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Thanks for your time
Bob Stalick, NFFS
.........................
Roger Morrell