SEN 1954

Posted on by

Table of Contents – SEN 1954

  1. Clarification
  2. Comment F1B – Joyner
  3. Comment F1A – Aberlenc
  4. Use Technology, don’t kill it
  5. Comment Philosophy – Jahnke
  6. F1C Proposal

Clarification

In the previous issue Ian Kaynes pointed us to documents on the FAI web site. One was document written by Ian from an over perspective of the FFTSC and summarized the the FFTSC’s things and various submission that counties had mode. The official version of this will come out with the meeting agenda that Ian referred to.

The second document was one submitted to the CIAM by BFMA, the UK NAC. I do not believe that Ian was responsible for the drafting of that document. Special attention was drawn to that document because it it proposes more sweeping changes over a longer period which is different to the more reactive rules changes we have seen in the past.

I make this comment because from some of the replies it sounded like some people think that Ian was some how responsible for all the proposals rather than reporting on them and bringing them to our attention.

Comment on the UK Proposal – F1B
Roger:

Reading the British proposal for F1B, Stage 1 prohibits DPR and requires two-handed launch, which would seem to prohibit instant start. However, Stage 2 bans DPR start, but says nothing about requiring two-handed launch. That would seem to allow instant start.

Two-handed launches are actually more difficult and more likely to produce broken prop blades then instant start.

Banning DPR but allowing instant start for both stages would provide some reduction in launch height and reduce the advantage of more athletic sportsmen. Modifying a model (either AA or IV style DPR) for instant start would be easy and inexpensive.

Louis Joyner

Performance issue for F1A (UK proposal)

I remember the Wch in Sazena in 97. We were 50 in fly off. I don’t see any difference today!!

My comments on Ian ( should say UK) proposal:

-“The towline is not to be released on launch”: OK, we will create hook releasing the line at the right time. We will have the same behaviour but the hook will be more complex. Is it what you want?

-“The diameter of the towline to be increased (specified as 1.75mm diameter)” Very difficult to control each competitor. Some very expensive “low drag” line will appear.

-“No flaps, restriction of functions” Free flight is a technical sport. What is the interest if technology is forbiden. Free flight is not only a “thermal picking” contest. People who push for this option are just lazy people who don’t want to spend time on model preparation. They don’t accept the superiority of top competitors. They want to return 50 years back.
To summarise, I am sure that all these proposals will push a lot of competitors to stop and THIS IS THE PROBLEM. The F1A contest are perfect today and we still find a winner at the end.

Frédéric

Frederic ABERLENC
OPTIMAL TRACKING

further comment from Frederic

Additionnal remarks on “performance reduction” proposals
1-During the thermal flights, top model and bad model fly the same time and same distance. Sometime more than 10 minutes. Reducing the performance will not change the problem of field size.
2-Changing rules will push many flier to stop competition.
3-it is wrong that there are more people in fly offs than 20 years ago.

If some people are interested, and with the agreement of FAI, It could be interesting to create a group able to define a technical solution to help time keepers. GPS and altimeter can help to find the right time of landing. Technology is here, we have to find the best way to use it.
Regards
Frédéric Aberlenc

Use Technology don’t kill it
Quoting Bernard Guest on FB in a discussion about the BFMA proposal

It seems like an honest attempt to pull the technology of FAI down to the level of the average modeller. The problem for me is that I am in FAI because I like the excitement of flying high tech, ultimate performance airplanes, and I like the research and development aspects of FAI. The proposed rules will take the technology out of FAI. This will make the classes less interesting to the younger tech savvy generation (I know that I personally am not interested in flying simple F1Bs).

The technology is here, be it composite materials, 3d_Printing, embedded electronic or whatever’s next , it won’t go away. There are many aeromodelling categories that cater to all kinds of preferences. One of the essences of the FAI World Champs/Cup classes is that they embrace innovation. Bernard is a “younger” or younger at heart flyer who wants to do that stuff and is typical of the FAI flyer.

In today’s world there are things to do with work and technology that advesally affect our quality of life, but we also use technology, mobile phones, email, social media, camera phone to improve it by better communicating with family and friends. We see some of that in our world with people putting World Cup results online in real time, people sharing ideas on FB and other places. .

Here we need to do what Frederic suggests and use technology to make it better. Putting on my Magic Timers cap, like Frederic I’m willing to work on this in some form of cooperative effort to go forward, not backward.

Roger Morrell

Comments on the documents

From: Ross Jahnke

Roger,

Thanks for posting the documents from Ian. I would like to make a simple
point or two.

Restricting technology or reducing motor run, towlines, rubber weight will
only lead to new technological developments to make up the deficit. This
has been true throughout the history of the FAI classes. Add technological
developments outside of the sport (in our recent history carbon, kevlar,
boron, microchips) and the deficit is overcome more quickly. It also makes
the gap between the best modelers and the average modelers larger. There
is ample evidence that it does not work as intended for more than a few
years.

Space and timekeeping are the cause of this discussion and I think they are
being ignored. Why don’t we address the root of the problem and leave the
models alone? Altimeters and GPS trackers have been discussed, if not
proposed, as a means of accurately measuring time to the ground. Why not
require them? It would require a different means of timekeeping and
scoring, but the official timer would only need to see the launch to deem a
flight official. One person could “time” many flights in a round.

The flying field situation is harder to solve. Lets consider just lowering
the max and leaving the models alone. (Could we use field size categories
to dictate max times?) In the long term the models would become less
dependent on high technology to achieve a max, thus the British rule
changes would be achieved organically. Big flyoffs (timed with
altimeters/GPS) would be one flight, 10 minute max. If the field is too
small for such a long flight, the CD would have discretion as to how long
it should be. Altimeters/GPS again make the process easier.

I used to have the timer hold my model while I wound the motor, then I got
a stooge and then I got half tubes. If I can adapt to that then I can learn
to time without binoculars in one hand and a watch in the other.

Ross

F1C Proposal
This is a take-off of the America’s Cup match races between two sailing yachts. The Americas Cup is the oldest international sporting trophy, originated in 1851. Instead of seven 3 minute maxes with one hour rounds, I propose three unlimited maxes with three two hour rounds. Instead of individual entries it would be three man teams — builder/flyer, electronics technician and meteorologist/retriever. Electronic tracking permitted. On board thermal detectors and feed back circuits permitted as well as folders, flappers, gears, gps and gyros. Same engine displacement, minimum weight and wing loading as present as well as 5 second engine run.

Gil Morris

……………..
Roger Morrell