SEN 2285
- Details
- Category: Archive 2017
- Hits: 1404
Table of Contents – SEN 2285
- The Fab Feb French Flick on utube
- Walston Tracker for sale
- SEN 2283 – German Q proposal
- Mandating an EL in Q
- German Proposal Energy Limiter
- San Valeers Annual
The Fab Feb French Flick on utube
From: Fra Duc
Hello
This is a movie of February
https://youtu.be/-Ef3VdxvLFU
Regards
François
Envoyé de mon iF1C
Walston Tracker for sale
From: George Voss This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Very nice Walston Tracker RX, Yagi antenna and 2 new transmitters for sale. $550
SEN 2283 – German Q proposal
From: Dick Ivers
Aram,
Yep, I saw the EL stuff on SEN. The latest issue included the actual wording of the German proposal which I hadn’t seen before. This version seems even more restrictive than the old. If I’m reading correctly the new version would not even allow the pass-through architecture. If this is the case all current timers and current ELs would be obsolete.
Dick
Mandating an EL in Q
From: Aram Schlosberg
The full German EL proposal, published in SEN 2284, also mandates an EL (energy limiter) in Q.
.
The crude way to estimate energy statically is to measure the Wattage at the motor run’s midpoint and multiply it by the motor run. So, with a mid-run read of 50 W and a 10 sec motor run, the model used 500 Wats-sec or Joules. This method penalizes fliers by roughly 10% because in a static run the prop is fully loaded (using more energy) while in-flight the prop partially unloads.
.
The non-EL provision allowed E36 (and recently S) crossovers into Q. In a large country like the States with thinly spread out fliers, crossover are important. Common flying increases participation and the likelihood that an E36 flier would start flying Q. Also, without an EL, flying (Neanderthal) Q is very simple and a good entry point.
.
Those who want to push the performance envelop will see the light and use ELs. But please don’t mandate it.
Aram
German Proposal Energy Limiter
From: Andreas Lindner
I would like make some comments about Aram's posting in SEN 228 about the
German proposal regarding the energy limiter rule.
At first a retrospect. The idea of introducing of EL's in F1Q some years
ago was influenced by the convinced experiences of such devices in other
FAI classes. In these classes (as example F5B, F5D, F5J) the requirement of
energy limiters are clearly defined to LIMIT the energy budget and not to
count only. Therefore the devices are called Energy LIMITER and NOT Energy
COUNTER. Also in the R/C classes the signal to the ESC MUST be ROUTED
through the EL and cut down the motor signal if the energy budget is
reached.
And it's not true, that ALL of EL's which are used in F1Q would be
obsolete when these requirements of electronic architecture will be
adopted in the F1Q rules again. Two of the most in F1Q used EL's, the so
called "Open Source" EL developed by Dick Ivers (thanks for this great work
for the F1Q community again, Dick) and the UniLog are capable to route the
signal from the timer to the ESC and interrupt the motor signal if the
energy budget is reached.. Furthermore both EL's store the consumed
energy and motor time. These stored data can be used for verifying the
energy amount after the flight by comparison with a SET. And both are
available for everyone. You can buy it or in the case of Open Source you
can make it yourself also. The UniLog is already approved by the CIAM EDIC
commission for the F5 classes. It should be also possible to do this for
F1Q. And please explain why it should not work in Free Flight what it works
well in R/C for W/C classes. The principle is the same: signal generator
(timer or radio control receiver) and control unit (EL).
Another point of Arams's posting is crazy for me. He pointed out that
cheating is obvious if anybody reach "extra altitude". What does this
mean and who will decided what is an „extra" altitude? Is everyone under
general suspicion to cheat if he pick up good air and reaches more altitude
as others in the same round? Or is it suspect if anyone uses in a Fly Off
a better (more efficient) model as in the rounds before and reaches with
this more altitude as with his other model in the previous rounds? Should
this be the way to control the energy budget in the future?
To my opinion this will F1Q not lead to more stable and practicable rules,
more participation and on the way to a W/C class but to a lot of rumours and
mistrust.
Also the explanation of Aram, when the EL has to start counting the
energy (quote Aram: The EL (energy limiter) starts as soon as the model is
launched, provided the Amperage exceeds a certain threshold. End of quote)
is wrong. Which threshold of Amperage ? The rule says:
(quote rule 3.Q.2 a: For models with energy limiters. The allowed energy
amount starts to be calculated with the release of the start button and
finishes when the ESC has stopped supplying energy to the motor. End of
quote.)
regards
Andreas Lindner
San Valeers Annual
For those in So Cal just itching to get back to Lost Hills to fly some FAI FF events the San Valeeers Annual in April has them – check it at
http://www.lhffmaa.com/events%202017%20flyers/2017%20regular%20annual%20flyer.pdf