SEN 1930

Details

Category: Archive 2014

Hits: 1260

1. John Oldenkamp
2. looking for 1/4 inch rubber
3. Simple FAI Rules
4. For Sales
5. Weak Link
6. Another POV
7. F1A Towlines

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Hi, I’m a not terribly good F1A flyer from the UK, and I’ve been following the latest discussions about possible rule changes with interest. As usual, a polarisation is starting to appear between those who feel that the sport would be impoverished by restricting performance, and those who fear that more and more flyers will be excluded if nothing is done. This polarity has characterised-and gridlocked- all serious attempts at rule reform for decades, and as things stand is intractable, since both arguments are correct.

The bottom line is that we are simply asking too much of a single set of rules. One look at Robert Lesko and his models proves that as far as selecting champions is concerned, the rules are working perfectly. Can anyone seriously be suggesting that this guy shouldn’t have won? Conversely, if that’s where the bar’s set, is there any point in most of us getting out of bed?

In sports like football or athletics, this isn’t a problem, because participation is large enough to sustain tiers of ability from school to club level, through national to world class, with the opportunity to advance (or retire) to suit each individual. The stars at the top inspire, rather than deter, newcomers who know they won’t be pitched straight in to direct compete against them.

There aren’t enough of us to replicate this process, but it is possible to emulate the major benefits without detriment to what we already do. For a couple of years I have been hawking the idea around the UK (with little response, I have to confess) that FAI contestants whose models comply not only to the current rules, but also a further set of restrictions (no flaps, fixed pitch prop, whatever) qualify for their own classification and prizes AS WELL as a placing in the overall contest. While this idea may not directly address the issue of oversize fly offs and models out-performing available fields, it does tick pretty much every other box, and would insulate ‘mere mortal’ flyers from the effects of solutions such as draggy lines, rubber reduction etc., which only put even more emphasis on athleticism & model performance.

This idea has no down side. It does not affect any existing model- in fact if done properly could give a second lease of life to models currently retired as un-competitive. It would require minimal effort to implement. If it was not popular, nothing would be lost, and if it was, it could be a working model to investigate reducing performance of the ‘full blown’ classes. The definition of models eligible for this additional classification should not be too retrogressive, and should allow scope for development- vintage classes already exist for those who want them. As a starting point, what about;

GENERAL; Horizontal surfaces fixed in area & camber.

F1A: no more than one irreversible movement of horizontal surface (other than DT) after release from line. (Rudder unrestricted)

F!B: Prop fixed in pitch & diameter (other than fold), no more than one irreversible movement of horizontal surface  except DT (rudder unrestricted)

This could of course be tried unilaterally by contest organisers under current rules- why not? If it ever became officially sanctioned, perhaps each Nation fielding a full team could be required to have one flyer per class in this category?

Stuart Darmon

• Prev
• Next