SEN 1857

Posted on by

Table of Contents – SEN 1857

  1. SEN 1565
  2. FAI Meeting Douments
  3. F1C 1,2 and 3
  4. Next Sunday at Perris

SEN 1565

should have been SEN 1556,
clearly I need a reliability engineer.

We lost a couple of emails about the proposed timing rules changes …

FAI Meeting documents

The infomration about the upcoming FAI/CIAM meeting is available on line. This includes all rule changes plus reports on the World Champs and World Cup

go to the FAI web site section on Areomodelling documents

http://www.fai.org/ciam-documents

and then down the page you will see a section on meetings and click on that
then 2014
th plenart meeting and you should see a list like the one below

Meetings
2014
April BureauMeeting – Lausanne (SUI), 10 April 2014
PlenaryMeeting – Lausanne (SUI), 11-12 April 2014
Agenda

CIAM 2014 Plenary Meeting – Agenda (606.48 kB)24 February 2014
Agenda – Annexes 1 (161.59 kB)24 February 2014
Agenda – Annexes 2 (3.25 MB)24 February 2014
Agenda – Annexes 3 (1.30 MB)24 February 2014
Agenda – Annexes 4 (1.46 MB)24 February 2014
Agenda – Annexes 5 (638.82 kB)24 February 2014
Agenda – Annexes 6 (2.09 MB)24 February 2014
Agenda – Annexes 7 (1.36 MB)24 February 2014
Agenda – Annexes 8 (6.65 MB)24 February 2014

F1C – 1

I am pleased to see us having this discussion about safety and F1C.

There have been a number of incidents and close calls with F1C models, and I am sure we would all agree that there is a risk there.

If anyone was to take a direct hit from a fast travelling F1C the possible injuries are very significant.

My concerns are, 1) I don’t want to see anyone hurt or even killed by one of our models,
and 2) if this were to happen I suspect that the reaction and repercussions on our sport could be significant.
So I feel that it will help us to be proactive. To acknowledge this issue, and consider how to manage the risk.

No one sets out to crash an F1C model, but accidents can happen, systems can fail, and RCDT is not always the magic answer.

As fliers we understand what the models are and how they work, and so with that knowledge we accept occasional incidents . But at large events like a World Championships there is likely to be many spectators who have no knowledge of the technicalities, and their large numbers puts them in a high risk category that we need to protect in some way. How this can be achieved will require some discussion, but I am sure that some measures are overdue if we are to avoid the possible worst case.

best regards

David Ackery

F1C -2

Roger,

I don’t fly F1C so I am eminently qualified to comment on the F1C rule
proposal.

I have seen many of these crashes and they are fast and potentially
dangerous. And the flight line, far though it may be from the cars and
spectators, is almost never where the model lands. With that said, I think
that this is a gross over reach on the part of the rules committee, and
will damage and already low-participation event. And is the FAI going to
impose this stipulation throughout the many events it oversees? Will this
rule be used in control line and RC events? The engines are essentially the
same. Electrics next? Rubber??

Ross

F1C -3

G’ Day Roger,

I read with interest the proposed F1C rule change to disqualify the
sportsman should his model contact the ground with the engine running. It is
mathematically incorrect to claim that adding a radio DT will improve
reliability, the inverse is true. There is a welter of data in the subject
of Reliability Engineering to confirm this. I was taught many years ago
that in any system the most reliable bit is the bit that isn’t there. It
cannot fail.

F1C’s equipped with a remotely operated DT are done so with a distinct
competitive advantage, the sportsman being able to terminate the flight at
will. In fact I consider them not to be Free Flight models but Remote
Terminated Flight (RTF) models. Shortly after the system being accepted
into the rules I saw the proponent of such systems at a FF WC in Europe
furiously pressing the RTF button which the F1C model ignored and crashed
vertically at immense speed. I was not all surprised. Mercifully no one
was hurt.

Regards,

Jon Fletcher


F1C-3 editorial

I discussed Jon’s Reliability Engineering comments with a club member a former aerospace engineer whose projects had to get signed off by the Reliability Engineering Dept.

If you take Jon statement about system complexity to a “logical” conclusion you would simplify the model by replacing the timer with a eye dropper tank and fuse d/t. These would certainly be simpler than any mechanical or electronic timer and less likely to malfunction. Of course the measuring of the amount of fuel in the eye dropper tank would be critical. Taking a expression out of the aerospace lexicon, the simpler airplane might not accomplish the mission as well as one with a regular mechanical or electronic timer.

Jon stated he saw a person whose RDT failed, or course that probably did not cause the original problem, most likley the air plane was in trouble and the person tried to reduce the effect of the problem by operating the RDT.

So back to my friend the aerospace engineer. Reliaibility calculations are complex and you need to look at all components to decide what is mot likely to fail and what can be done to mitigate the potential problem. While sometimes the most obvious item is an important contributer to the lack of reliability but my friend said often it was something that not all obvious at first glance and secondly the reliability guy often came up with a simple mitigating solution to what could be a major issue.

In our model aviation community we have lots of skilled engineers with a wide range of skills surely we can find the right people with the right professional experience to study F1C reliability.

next Sunday at Perris

Our SCAMPS friends have an event

SCAMPS 10th Annual Taibi Contest

Sunday, March 16, 2014 – Perris, CA
***This will be an AMA Sanctioned Contest***
***Flying Starts at 8:00 AM and contest closes at 1:30 PM!***
EVENTS:
#*All Taibi (Any Taibi design flown to its era’s modified rules below)
*Perris Special (15 Second engine run – Glow, Ignition or Diesel)
*ABC Old Timer (Fuselage & Pylon combined 20 second engine run)
*Small O.T. Rubber – Combined – (Stick & Fuselage)
*Large O.T. Rubber – Combined – (Stick & Fuselage)
*Nostalgia Rubber – (All Nostalgia rubber including Wakefield)
*ABC Nostalgia (10 Second Hand Launch, 13 Second VTO or ROG, then 7&9 seconds)
* ½ A Nostalgia (10 Second Hand Launch, 13 Second VTO or ROG, then 7&9 seconds)
AMA A/B Electric – Motor run 10 sec, then 5 in fly-off. All 2 minute maxes
E-36 – First 3 flights 15 sec motor run then 10 and 5 in fly-off. All 2 minute maxes

*3 minute Max
*All Old Timer Flights will be HAND LAUNCHED, no ROG
*Nostalgia, HAND LAUNCH or VTO, no ROG
*SAM rules for standard SAM events
*Entry fee is $5 per event
*Merchandise Prizes & Certificate Awards

# Modern AMA models like Starduster, Perris Special, Orbiteer will fly to current Cat II . rules, 9 second HL, then 7 in fly-off; Nostalgia legal designs will fly to currently used SCAMPS Nostalgia rules, 10 seconds HL, 13 VTO, then 7 HL, 9 VTO in fly-off. Old Timer designs will get a 20 second HL, then 15 in Fly-off. All 3 minute max.
CDs Hal Wightman (714) 528-1850 & Kevin Sherman (951) 737-7943

…..
Roger Morrell