F1B-C Flight Rings?

[Aram Schlosberg]

One of FAI basic requirements is that contestant be space at poles 10 meters (32.8’) apart on a line perpendicular to the wind/drift direction. Line shifting is difficult for the events with fixed equipment (F1B-C) and in most cases the majority of fliers can piggy back off those up wind. And since line positions are augmented by one or two poles each round, an upwind disadvantage can last for a few rounds.

Another disadvantage of a straight line is its length. I was told that the F1A flyoff round line at the ’99 World Championships in Israel was 400 meters (1312’) long. Obviously the organizers were posted at one end and not in the middle.

So what can be done? For the stationary classes (F1B-C) we might consider using a circle of poles instead. A circle or a ring with a radius of 30 meters (98.4’) has eighteen 10-meters slots or thirty seven 5-meter slots, correspond to a line 590.6’ long. And a ring with a radius of 40 meters (131.2’) has twenty five 10-meter slots or fifty 5-meter slots, corresponding to a line 820.2’ long. It is assumed that most fliers would locate within the ring, without relocating during the contest.

Since there is almost always a wind/drift, poles could be assigned across the ring each round. For example, in an informal setup, using a four period cycle, a flier could be assigned to different quarters: north-east then south-west then north-west then south-east. And for a more formal setting for 16 poles, a four period cycle could correspond to poles, 1, 8, 4 and 12 for the first set of flier (2 or 4 per pole); to 2, 9, 5 and 13 for the second set of flier and so on.

A group of fliers at a pole might be flying upwind or updrift in a particular round. But the fliers behind them could be at most 60 meters (196’) down wind in the first example. (Compare this to a straight line, 590.6’ long.) On the next round, the two groups of flies would switch positions. A flying ring would be relocated if there is a major wind shift and models start flying off the field.

Flying in a ring increases the probability of mid air collisions a bit. But to be fair, in large contests we could have half the fliers launch, with a spectacular 15 models in the air, and occasionally there is a midair collision. F1C, rarely collide during their climb, but I’ve seen some involved in glide collisions. Seperate flying rings should be used for F1B and C, due to their weight and speed differences.

Would this idea be worth testing at one of our large contests? It definitely does not apply to F1A.

[Bill Shailor]

Pity the poor guy who is always on the upwind side of the circle. Also, do we have to run around the circle to the downwind side to get to our chase bikes?
I wouldn't want somebody riding through all my equipment and models if I'm located on the downwind side of the circle.
Finally, timekeepers on the upwind side would have the obstructions of modelers, other timekeepers and equipment in their sight line.

[Aram Schlosberg]

Bill,
Motor cycles could only be parked outside the flight ring, beyond any support equipment. So if an upwind flier has parked his bike down wind, he/she would simply walk across the ring to their bike. The upwind timers should not have a problem of seeing over the support equipment in the cycle and the bikes down wind. (Take the case if the Maxmen, with plenty such equipment and bikes on the down side of the launch line.)

The whole idea is to switch fliers across the ring each round. So upwind fliers will always be relocated to the downwind side the next round. Also, the ring's size will not give the down wind fliers much of an advantage.

In flyoffs, one could simply use the poles on the down wind side of the ring, leaving most of the equipment as spectator upwind. Of course a straight line offers the best visibility for the timers. But it can be much too long and is almost never perpendicular to the wind.

[dephela]

I can't see a ring being an advantage to you as far as eliminating the "packing up and moving" everytime there's a wind shift. That would mean that you had a field twice the size and you were positioned in the center, which you could have done anyhow?

Just a thought from a non-b/c'er.

[Aram Schlosberg]

Dennis,
A ring or a straight line have to be moved when the wind changes directions. Another requirement is that the flight line be reasonably horizontal. So the ring, which is smaller geometrically, allows more placement flexibility.

In small contests you fly from a short line and no one has any downwind advantage. But at larger contests a straight line is difficult to rotate (topography and relocating equipment) and the drift varies during the round. So a ring format would be much better.

[CHE]

At a typical World Champs you have over 40 nations taking part so the radius climbs to over 60 metres.

"In flyoffs, one could simply use the poles on the down wind side of the ring, leaving most of the equipment as spectator upwind."

Agreed but the problem is during the rounds when everyone is flying. The timekeeper problems make this a no-starter I'm afraid.

CHE

[Aram Schlosberg]

Flyoff sizes is a problem irrespective of the geometry of the launching poles (straight line or a ring). Since two timers are required for each contestant, and all those maxed out fly simultaneously, there is always a timer problem!

A novel idea was tried by George Batiuk at the last Maxmen. He threw in a 5-miniute max at the last F1B-C round. Although thermals were still plentifully, it narrowed the flyoff field. This can be generalized by allowing the CD to increase the max if more than 75% of the fliers are maxed out after the fifth round; more than 50% after the sixth round. In addition, in the case of F1C, the max could be 6 or 7-minutes. (Personally, I think the first F1C flyoff should be higher than 5 minutes anyway.)

We should also differentiate between the early and late flyoffs. The bottle neck is in the first flyoff round (5-minute) and sometimes in the second one in exceptional weather. These rounds typically still have thermal activity. For large flyoffs, we could consider using double shifts. There is at least a 10 minute break after the first flyoff – required to time late fliers, collect scores and set up the second shift. With this delay, the second shift fliers are neither handicapped or favored.

These two ideas might go a long way towards solving the timer flyoff bottleneck, while adhering to a fair contest format.

[CHE]

Aram,

I'm not sure what problems you're trying to solve. Is it the length of the line, the number of timekeepers and/or the size of the flyoffs ?

If you want to reduce the size of the flyoffs then reduce performance so it's harder to max out. Ban all flappers, bunters, variable pitch props, delayed prop releases, geared engines, folders, flappers again etc if you want.

Large maxes on sites other than Lost Hills will mean lost models - pure and simple so whilst I enjoyed the 5 min max this year it a) isn't sensible in most places and b) as it wasn't advertised beforehand, ran the risk of the Open International sanction being declared void.

Of the big flyoffs I've been in recently (Bulgaria 2008, 35ish going for 7mins in F1A) the poles were too close and made for some excitement but made for an excellent conclusion - all timekeepers were excellent.

CHE

[Bill Shailor]

I like big flyoffs, particularly on the rare occasion I'm in it. To me, that's when the contest gets really exciting. I think we have to face the fact that, weather being what weather is, fickle, there will be no perfect solution to how to set up a flight line to where there are never any downwind, and conversely, upwind fliers. It all seems to sort itself out anyway. Some rounds I'm downwind, some I'm up. Like my grandmother would say "The time you lose with buttons, you make up with zippers".

[Aram Schlosberg]

Bill and Che,
The underlying issue is systemic piggybacking for the stationary classes (F1B-C) at large contests. Since the line is very long (typically including B+C). Occasionally the line is relocated but never rotated. The underlying issue is how poles are assigned each round. Typically, fliers move up one or two poles. So if the drift is coming at 30 degrees to the line, those down wind have ample opportunities to piggyback over many rounds. Although I don’t have access to flier’s pole positions, my guess is that those down wind in thermal rounds perform better statistically. Putting it another way, if fliers had to select their poles each round, they would all choose the pole furthest down wind.

This can easily be addressed by randomly assigning poles each round. (For example, the first set of fliers could get poles: 1, 16, 5, 3, 12, 7, 16 etc.) But this would create mayhem on the flight line as contestants constantly move their equipment up and down the line. Eureka! If instead of a straight line we use a ring, with the support equipment at the center, all poles are reasonable close and there is no need to move equipment around. (We anyway move our weather poles each round.)

Another aspect is social. On a straight line you generally talk and interact with fliers parked near you; rarely with those camped further out along the line. In a ring, everyone will be camped in the center, which to me is a desirable aspect.

[Bill Shailor]

Aram, It seems more and more fliers are using more and more equipment. Poles, tripods, chairs and small tents to house models and boxes. If all this stuff, including modelers and helpers are in the ring, how do timers on the upwind side see through it when the model gets low? Losing time and possibly a max to accomodate the possibility of a wind shift is not acceptable to me.

[Aram Schlosberg]

Bill,
In a flying ring, poles with weather stations would be on the periphery. They are limited to 3 meters, although this is not always enforced. The taller poles with streamers are posted up wind. Wind shelters favored by Europeans are typically low, less than 4 feet. I don’t think a CD would allow standard square 10’ x 10’ canopies around the flight lines. Stooges and support equipment are 3-4 feet high. So the height of support equipment in the ring is not an issue.

I presume that a ring is reasonably horizontal and that we could grant timers some flexibility to move around the ring's periphery in close ground flights.

As to the equipment density. Taking a ring with a 30 meter radius, it's area is 2827.4 square meters. If the poles are 5 meters apart and there are 4 fliers per pole, each would have an area of 19.1 square meters, or 205.6 square feet, or riughly a 10' by 20' square. And if the polesa are 10 meters apart, the area grown to 422 square feet per flier. As the motorcycles are outside the ring, this seems like an adequate area per flier.

Neither a straight line or a ring are perfect; each has strong and weak features. In some circumstances a ring would be a better setup.

[Pete]

well,
It seems the fairest way to eliminate downwind piggyback advantage would be to have every one fly on the same pole. That way there is no wind generated advantage , no moving equpment etc.,etc. Much more social interaction too! There might possibly a very slight increase in general confusion due to incresed density at the single pole but the idea eliminates having to move vast amounts of support equipment when time is so critical and don't forget that the timers all have the same opportunity to lose the model or time the wrong one. Another advantage to the contest organizers is significantly reduced cost of purchasing poles and much simpler relocation procedures required due to shifting wind directions. Truly an elegant solution.
A second possibility might be a "starting grid" with poles placed on a 10 meter grid. Advantages are: somewhat increased social interaction, more orderly movement sequence, The 10 meter separation is guarnteed by the outline of the "sacred box". Not quite as elegant a solution as the single pole and not quite as effective at eliminating the "downwind advatage' but maybe a place to start.
Combining the "ring Idea this thread started with, with the single pole concept might be the ultimate elegant solution though. It would involve a single "launch pole" with a "launch ring" from which models must be launched (taking a page from the CLG/HLG "glider pen" rule), Surronded by a series of concentric rings at specified diameters designated as follows: Launch ring, timer ring, winding ring, and outside the last concentric ring could be the designated "equipment area", size to be determined by site restrictions and contest management.
If you guys need more help with this, just let me know.

Cheers!

[Dan Berry]

Pete, you're on the right track. I have an improvement that would help even more.
Use the one launch pole. Don't worry with flying in rounds. Just line up the flyers and have the CD tell each flyer when to launch. Flights could go out in 60 second slots or 'rounds' . Step up and launch on command. It wouldn't need but 4-5 timers. With 60 secs to get launched, there would be a 3 or 4 plane overlap and the timer could then get the next plane on line.
Pretty elegant. No line shifting. No waitng around looking for lift (which causes ALL sorts of problems and delays).
Every hour, 60 guys, er 59 guys could get a flight form that one pole.
Easy peasy.

[Aram Schlosberg]

"Plop ........."
We have just DTed
into an empty soda can (: