SEN 1940

Posted on by

Table of Contents – SEN 1940

  1. A view from the outside
  2. A view from the inside
  3. Alternative F1C idea
  4. Bernard’s Winter sale

A view from outside.

While it’s been awhile since I’ve flown in an FAI free flight meet I have tried to keep up with what’s happening. The latest trends in rules proposals have been interesting. More participation, lower performance, less cost to name a few. Personally I think the FAI events should be allowed to grow in performance and be the ultimate events for free flight, but let’s not worry about that for now. Increased participation…. I’ve competed in a LOT of different classes over the years from RC to control line and free flight. From what I’ve seen there just aren’t any rules changes that will help in this area. Case in point, classic towline, there were guys that wanted to fly but without all the bells and whistles. How many entries were there at the last couple of NATS? Not many as I remember. Some say the models exceeded the rules. If that were true everyone would be in the flyoffs… I haven’t seen that yet. 25 gram motors in F1B? Now you have bigger F1G models that require their larger boxes for shipping. Replace B with G? Just a thought. Cost, this is a tough one without going back to the “builder of the model” rule (ouch! Someone just threw a rock at me). Let’s take another look at cost. How many are willing to throw away their investment in bunters and flappers? 2 meter wing limit? That just made all the gliders useless. No throwing of the towline….that’ll cost some money! (Think about how the timer/tow hook could take care of this). And think about the guys producing the models. There’s a lot of cost in molds and tooling that will be passed on to the buyer. To keep the participation at the level we have now, the new proposals might take a pretty fair number away. How many guys have invested a lot of money that can’t/don’t want to invest again? These are just a few thoughts I’ve had while reading SEN lately. Hopefully the individuals voting on the proposals will think things through completely so everyone can continue to compete at modeling’s highest level.

Regards, Jim Lueken


A view from the inside (of F1C)

An open letter to Ian Kaynes and al the countries making F1 Rule Proposals

from Roger Simpson, USA F1C sportsman

It appears that the driving force for rule changes for the FAI F1 events is
the size of available flying sites…… one would not want to think that
the desire to curb performance is that some can perform, and some cannot.

I have flown F1C, both here in America, for ten years in Europe, and all
over the world in competitions since 1961. I have witnessed over 50 years
of rule changes, and have witnessed the resulting decline in the number of
F1 competitors.

Our competition world changed when the purchase of competition models was
allowed….. as it allowed those who are truly competitive to keep up with
the eastern European model designs and the factories producing them.
Competition breeds performance, performance rewards competition. And to the
FAI / CIAM credit (a big credit) there have been no curbing the advancement
in performance.. Much of which is very innovative, very creative!

LOOK, EVERYONE WANTS THE SHEER PERFORMANCE COMPETITIONS THAT WE HAVE IN LOST
HILLS EACH FEBRUARY, COMPETITORS COME FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD TO COMPETE IN
THESE COMPETITIONS, I BELIEVE THERE WERE 32 COUNTRIES REPRESENTED LAST YEAR
AT THE LOST HILLS COMTETITIONS. IS THIS INDICATIVE OF COMPETITORS WANTING
TO REGRESS TO LESS PERFORMANCE, LESS ENJOYMENT, LESS COMPETITIONS, LESS
COMPETITORS TO COMPETE AGAINST.. NO!!!

Know this though, nothing comes without a cost…… And the level of
competition and performance we are at, has put everyone in a monetary
investment position, an investment we have enjoyed as it has allowed us
(everyone) to compete at a high level and against excellent competition, and
truthfully an investment we do not want wasted, OR TRAMPLED ON BY A VERY
FEW.. especially when other options are available. Here in America, and
other parts of the world we are already seeing a decline in the number of
competitors. Do we really want to charge ahead with changes that most likely
will hasten the decline of competitors and therefore out sport. What good
is there, or enjoyment is there, in going to a competition against one other
person or only against ourselves

Two changes that should be considered prior to cutting our hand off.

The first is simple, it changes nothing about our models, nor our
investment. Simply change the weight requirement for each of the F1
classes by increasing the required weight by ten percent. The F1C minimum
weight with a 2,5ccm engine is 750 grams, increase it to 825 grams. Do the
same thing accordingly for F1A and F1B. There will be a decline in glide
performance!

Before everyone swallows there tongue, let me say this…. and Ian, I hope
you remember this, you were there at a meeting held just after the 1995
World Champs in Hungary.. I proposed the same thing, Anselmo Zeri said “but
the models (built with Balsa then) will break apart when they DT” Well, all
of our models are built with Graphite now, and no.. they will not break
apart when they DT. I recently flew an old F1C {with a really good engine
on it) that weighed

820 grams, and I truthfully know that the glide performance was VERY MUCH
EFFECTED. All you do is add weight… you change nothing else!!!

The second option if also a is simple solution, nothing in the way of
investment or model specifications are restricted or aborted.

We have had the field size problem here in America for a long time….. And
we have successfully competed with these situations by the simple solution
of having three categories of free flight competition. Each category has a
lesser max, lesser motor run (though not less rubber, nor less tow line
length)., and different flyoff rules, for the size field where the contest
is held.

WHAT THIS DOES IS THAT THE AREAS (COUNTRIES) THAT HAVE LARGER FLYING SITES,
ARE NOT PENALIZED, NOR HELD CAPTIVE BY THE SMALLER FLYING SITE LIMITATIONS.

The contest category is declared ahead of time in the contest announcement.
Everyone is prepared to fly by these rules for that particular contest site.

For F!C I would suggest the following.

Cat 1 set of rules to be those rules that are currently in effect now for
flying sites like Lost Hills, Denver, Arizona here in the states, those in
the Ukraine, Mongolia, etc. Seven rounds of competition, then flyoffs.

Cat 2 would be for a smaller field, 4 second motor run (if you don’t fly F1C
then you don’t realize that most of your altitude comes in the last second),
a 135 second max., flyoff rules to be first round 3 minute max, 7 minute
round window.. Second flyoff round 3 minute max, 5 minute round window..
third flyoff round 3 minute max, 3 minute round window. Should a fourth
flyoff be required, a 1 minute window. 5 rounds of competition, then
flyoffs

Cat 3 would be for really small fields, 3 second motor run, 90 second
max…. Flyoffs would be run the same as Cat 2, i.e., lesser length in
flyoff round windows, Flyoff max would remain at 2 minutes. 5 rounds of
competition.

You will note that in each category, the engine run never changes, and the
flyoff maxes remain the same for Cat 2 and 3.

As for F1A and F1B classes, I will not try to set there Cat 2 and Cat 3
rules, that is up to them. I have never liked that the F1A and F1B
competitors have had such a large voice in the F1C class.

IN FACT, SHOULD THE CIAM DECIDE THAT THE FIELD SIZE CATEGORIES ARE THE WAY
TO GO, AND REALLY THEY ARE THE SIMPLEST AND MOST EFFEECTIVE, (AND CERTAINLY
THE LEAST INTRUSIVE) WAY TO GO, I WOULD PROPOSE THAT 2015 BE USED TO SET UP
THE CATEGORY RULES, AND THAT THE F1A FLIERS SET UP THEIR RULES, THE F1B
FLIERS SET UP THEIR RULES… SET UP A WORLD WIDE VOTING PROCESS.

LOOK, EVERYONE WANTS THE SHEER PERFORMANCE COMPETITIONS THAT WE HAVE IN LOST
HILLS EACH FEBRUARY, COMPETITORS COME BY THE DROVES TO COMPETE IN THESE
COMPETITIONS, I BELIEVE THERE WERE 32 COUNTRIES REPRESENTED LAST YEAR AT THE
LOST HILLS COMTETITIONS. IS THIS INDICATIVE OF COMPETITORS WANTING TO
REGRESS TO LESS PERFORMANCE, LESS ENJOYMENT, LESS COMPETITIONS, LESS
COMPETITORS TO COMPETE AGAINST.. NOT JUST NO, BUT HELL NO!!!

Editor’s Comment : It is obvious that Roger S is a F1C flyer because eveyone knows that they are all deaf because of the 30K rpm , which explains THE SHOUTING in his piece above. Interesting to note that Roger did have an actual practical cheap easy suggestion for reducing glide performance, which he had tested. Probably something to do with Roger actually flying the event ! More than we can say for the UK Tech committee’s suggestion to use Royal Navy surplus mooring cable as towline, especially when the CIAM FFTSC’s F1A experts had already proved that heavy towline was a non-starter.

Not deserving a mention in Roger’s piece but I was very surprised to see that the conspiracy theorists/ anti-eastern European faction have not come up with suggesting that the ethyl – alcohol proposal was supported the International Federation of Vodka distillers.

F1C alternative ?

Roger,

Just a thought!!
Why not diesels with say a 6sec motor run as an alternative to using glows
at 4 seconds.

Bill East

Bernard’s Winter Sale

I am downsizing my kit and have F1B items for sale (if you want something from this list make me a reasonable offer: bguest):
Two sets of 4 panel 170 cm Optar Wings (by Elena Chernyk). One of these was custom built with a carbon wrapped spar.
2 carbon tail boom assemblies (Stephanchuck fins) set up for Elena model with Vivchar fuselage connectors (motor tube side supplied).
1 Vivchar tail boom assembly set up for Vivchar model with vivchar connecter (motor tube side supplied)
Two stabs for Elena model (sub 4 g, 302 sq. cm) and 1 stab for Vivchar model (5g, 325.6 sq. cm).

1 Set of Standard Vivchar wings (new unused) 170 cm

1 set of older Vivchar Asymmetrical wings (repaired after break at dihedral joint). 174 cm (88 rt., and 85 lt.)

1 Mechanical 170 span Elena F1B (basically the design Tony Matthews and Ladi Horak have been using to place well for years). This ship is trimmed and flying well and has a RDT servo that works with a stand alone Ken Bauer RDT system.

1 Vivchar Feathering simple front end

2 Vivchar non feathering simple front ends.

I am happy to ship anywhere as long as the buyer pays the shipping costs.

Bernard Guest

……………………….
Roger Morrell