Table of Contents - SEN 2178

1. Harvest Classic - Wawayanda
2. Q conversation
3. Ed observation

  
 F1Q & Electric Free Flight
 


from FB posting by  Jack Murphy : 
We have had a recent email discussion about the F1Q joule allotment and a rule change proposal by Yuda Avla : here in the US-

Dick Ivers :- No one here in the USA is flying F1Q to 140 meters altitude or even close to a 7-minute potential flight time. On the other hand there are F1B models such as Mathews’ molded carbon ship which have demonstrated seven minute capability. Even the ordinary, everyday F1Bs can fly 4.5 minutes routinely. Yet there is no clamor to change the rules.
So I don’t see a pressing need to change the F1Q rules.

Jack Murphy :- I see no need to mess with F1Q rules at this time. Fly offs are relatively rare in the US at this time, what I see in international results seem to be about the same in that regard. I do everything I can to encourage people to fly Q, but with the current multiplier does not help making other electrics competitive as the other models do not have power packages focused on efficiency. There are two approaches to Q competition- long slow climb or F1C type rock and roll. But the fast models are very complicated and at the end of the day usually not consistent enough to dominate.
So again- lets leave the rules alone for another 2 or 3 years!!

Drake Hooke :- That's what I told Aram too. Leave it alone.
I don't care what the rest of the world is doing.

Adam Schlosberg : moderated the discussion and did not take a position that I could see. He was just bringing Yuda's proposal to our attention.

Best, -j
 
Comments

Don DeLoach : The most important thing--BY FAR--to the growth of any class is to resist the temptation to change the rules. Look at P-30 and Catapult Glider.
 

Aram Schlosberg : No one is the States is clamoring to reduce the energy multiplier. There were a few flyoffs at Lost Hills in February, but only Dick Ivers : maxed out at the Nationals. At the Swedish Cups, the topography ADDS about 30 meters if the flyoff is flown off the west edge of Rinkaby. Ian Keynes, in FFn 1607 states "Although it is desirable to keep F1Q rules stable and unchangeable while the numbers increase, the flights seen in Rinkaby (climbs to about 130 or 140 m) show that an energy reduction from 4J down to 3J must be considered". The proposal I wrote, that Jack is referring to, suggests that the energy multiplier AND the motor run ceiling be reduced by 12.5% - corresponding to 3.5J/gr and 35 sec motor run ceiling. If one don't reduce BOTH then there is an incentive to develop Q models with power under 25 Watts. This way a 250 gram model with a 40 second motor run under 4J/gr will just shorten it's motor run to 35 seconds. The impact of a 12.5% reduction will not be dramatic or detrimental for the event. If we are forced down that path, it should be done gradually.
 
Don DeLoach : You want F1Q to flourish? Stop trying to perfect the rules, Aram.
 
Yuda Avla : as i have posted before, it was a suggestion since some flyers, mainly from outside the US, that were complaining about the performance that some model were getting, myself , i like HP, the more the better, but i just wanted to make sure that CIAM somehow wil not make some draconian ruling against F1Q, that will come out of no where. And yes, the most urgent thing is adding more flyers to our ranks!
 
 
Jack Murphy : so lets freeze the rules for 5 years.....
 
Don DeLoach : Great idea Jack
 
Aram Schlosberg : CIAM rules only fixes the ceiling on maxes. So, if the max is 3-minutes, a CD can always REDUCE it. Similarly, the energy multiplier should be constructed as a ceiling. This would allow cutting it when weather conditions deteriorate (as we sometimes do in Wawayanda, NY) or reducing it in flyoffs if the models are drifting too far. Therefore, the rush to cut the multiplier to 3J/gr will box us into a rigid corner.
 
Don DeLoach : Too bad. Meanwhile F1S and E-36 will be 10 times as popular worldwide.
 
 
Don DeLoach : Rules for P-30, catapult glider have NEVER been changed. And those are the two most popular events in the USA. Coincidence?
 

Tapio Linkosalo : In Rinkaby World Cups this summer, F1Q was the only class where the fly-off had to be flown with the stupid(*) "fly for a minute, then DT and measure the flight time" -rule. All other classes were flown with normal fly-off procedure. The problem with current F1Q rules is that the performance potential is so hugely larger than any other FAI class that you cannot get a decent result of the contest, but have to play foolish tricks.

I agree that constantly changing the rules is not a good idea, but the current energy allotment is too high and needs to bereduced. Drop it to 2.5J/g, reduce motor run to 25 seconds, and then freeze the rules for 6 years!

(*) I find that measuring DT time rule stupid, as the resulting flight time is very much dictated by the DT velocity of the model, and that varies greatly from one model to another. So in order to win, trim your DT to beas slow as possibe, but risk fly-away. Or maybe trim a two-step DT, first slow and then with RDT a faster one? Sheeshhh...
 
Chris Edge : I found the comment "I don't care what the rest of the world is doing." quite telling.............. CHE
 
Aram Schlosberg : Tapio, A DTing flyoff for Q is an example of a "nail hitting the hammer on it's head!" ...... Q is unique by its capability of changing energy (and climb time) electronically. In contrast, to reduce the energy in A one would need different (shorter) lines; in B different motor weights (30, 25 and maybe 20 gr. motors); in C different (and shorter) engine runs. ....... In Rinkaby, conceptually, the energy multiplier (and the max motor run) could have been dropped in the flyoffs, perfectly address this issue. (As an aside, the CIAM maxes can be reduced by a CD/Jury when appropriate.) ...... So, Q's "excess" performance can be fixed by building FLEXIBILITY into its rules - not by chopping the energy multiplier to 3J/gr. (Another "nail hitting the hammer on it's head").
 
Chris Edge : Another viewpoint could be that a DTing FO is a pragmatic approach to get a result in a given contest. Yes, we need to give CDs FLEXIBILITY, er sorry, flexibility so that they can make the best decisions for their contest, on their site, on that specific day. So a DTing FO, reduced engine run, shorter line, running down rubber motors et, al, all might have a place. But, and it's an important but (so mabe a capital BUT), the ideas need testing first. Luckily the ideas for shortening a towline have been tested and have been shown to be, diplomatically, less than ideal, so perhaps someone reading this would like to test the idea of reducing F1Qs energy multiplier and/or maximum engine run and report back. CHE
 
Omri Sirkis : The current F1Q rulles will create a new super efficiant breed of drive systems. This will favor a slow easy to trim climb , making a change in runtime ( to reduce the energy amount) very easy to do.
Therefor i think Aram's idea is good. The CD can reduce the energy multiplier(and run time) to avoid the problems mentioned. This rule change is minor and will not make anyone unhappy
 
Aram Schlosberg : I'm thinking about 4 and 3.5J/gr (with 40 and 35 sec max motor runs) in regular rounds and 4, 3.5 and 3J/gr (with 40/35/30 sec motor runs) in the flyoff at the discretion of the CD/Jury.
 
Omri Sirkis : CHE
When i test fly my F1Q l usually use a half time climb (20 sec.) This saves time retriving, and the model is lower and closer for better observation. I think this proves that energy multiplier changes is no problem (for me at least).
 
Jack Murphy : hearing all this I think maybe FAI F1Q should be put out of its misery and replaced with the AMA A/B Electric rules. I enjoy flying Q and have been a big advocate but non-stop rule changing absolutely strangles the potential for the growth in popularity for Electrics beyond E36/F1S.
 
Aram Schlosberg : We are all trying to promote Q with mixed results. Q is an event people (both fliers and non-fliers) love to death. Annual brain storming the rules (that were suppose to be unchanged for a few years) is the scrooge of an event defined in terms of power and energy (Watts and Joules), not physical attributes (area, wing loading and wing spans). AMA A+B electric is no panacea with unlimited power and 2-minute maxes.
 
Jack Murphy : I just want to grow the enthusiasm, popularity and participation of the event. Constantly futzing with the rules is not the way to go imho....... The complications are keeping many away, making the rules a moving target is a mistake. I do not say these things without some qualification, I will probably fly more F1Q events in 2016 than any other flyer on the planet..... 8 so far with at least two to go.. Maybe rules submissions and votes should be weighted by the number of events the submitter and/or voter has participated in. Many auto racing orgs have taken that approach for obvious reasons........
 
Jack Murphy : Oops, make that 9 so far with 2 at least to go....
 
Mar Ci : 2 more years with the current rules to convince everyone of high performance with 4J -----> then change to 3J and 30seconds + obligatory energy limiter----------->no model changes necessary + decreases the heights ------ >much more exciting events ----->Problem solved, easy going
 
Yuda Avla : Reading most of the comments, my initial assessment of foreign vs. American flyers sentiment was correct, the American flyer with its AMA rules as an option is mainly against any rules changes vs. The Euro flyer is looking for some fine tuning because of some models presumed excess performance envelope. Maybe we all should alter the flyoff parameters in a way that flight conditions prevalent during the contest can be used to alter the energy/ flight time allotment. Such as 12mph will allow a 3j, 30 sec max motor run (figures are random and not scientific) , so as to let the CD have a given parameters to work with, and all involved will know these ahead of time, and no arguments will ensue during or after the contest. Regular rounds will remain as they are now for the next 3 yrs, and by than enough data will be available to see what is needed/ if so, to be altered or refined! BTW , jack, i wish i had the time to join you in all the contests, but other responsibilities like , work and family, some times cut into some of us leisure time , but still i would like to voice my opinion! Now lets go flying!!
 
Jack Murphy : i feel bad about making that statement regarding my good fortune in contest opportunities. i should look further into contest results to see where some of these ideas are coming from. in law they say hard cases make bad law (policy). different conditions give different approaches an edge. one thing i love about f1q is the diversity of ideas and theories used to achieve a common outcome. also, almost any electric model may conceivably be flown in q, though much attention should be paid to efficiency (thrust per watt). this is why i would not be an advocate of requiring an el. i use a programmable timer that can me set precisely to the allotment. contest directors do need discretion to adapt to conditions. all that said, the outcome of one contest or another should not stir a siren call for a rule change, in my view. if after a few years with our current rules if max outs were to become a commonality, then it would be time for a change. best, -j
 
Per Grunnet : Beside the F1Q-class we have F1B and F1C - two classes where a certain amount of energy is allowed to get the models as high as possible, before the energy limit is reached, and the model must glide to whatever flight time it obtains.
A F1B model has around 350 joules stored in a fully wound motor. The weight of a F1B-model is around 230 grammes. If it were a F1Q model, it would be allowed 4x230 = 920 joule - or two and a half times what the rubber  powered F1B-model is allowed to. The best F1B-models flies between 6 and 7 minutes in calm air on less than half the energy of a similar Q-model.



Editorial Observation 


It's not clear to the casual observer what the problem is .... and why people want to change the rules.

I read of those who don't like the energy allocation because it permits or promote slow climbing models - while other like the choice.  [As a side comment slow climber clearly don't work E-36/F1S because this is run more like a traditional power model with a short engine run]

An observation by USA Sportsman Faust Parker, whose wife Julie is a Q flyer is that with energy allocation rule F1Q is the only class that needs special equipment to process it properly.  All other classes can be process with scales and simple measuring equipment. Q needs electronic test equipment and because the energy varies with weight it probably needs to be done more often.

Looking at the reasoning for the energy allocation - this is because some R/C electric classes (and some R/C car classes) showed a tendancy to move towards using very expensive motors and/or batteries and destroying a LiPo in a single flight this escalating the cost.  This never happened in F1Q because you could always get a good performance  without resorting to such extreem measures and F1Q is not a World Champs class. If you look now at the R/C classes that use energy limiters the process problem that Faust talk about is avoided ? (I'm guessing, maybe someone knows) by requiring that the energy limiters be specially certified  This would be a problem the cottage industry that supports free flight.

and for CHE if you want to move over the EoB you only need to change one letter for Scotland to become Scatland. :-)


..................
Roger Morrell