SEN 1997

Posted on by

Table of Contents – SEN 1997

  1. NFFS Survey
  2. Hear hear F1S
  3. E-36 as F1S
  4. Gob Smacked out of the field
  5. Dino Update

NFFS Survey Link

The NFFS did a survey of USA Free Flight flyers on the proposed FAI rule changes as an aide to how the USA would vote in the up coming CIAM meeting.
The results are catorgrized based on if the respondent was a FAI participant, flew that event or a FAI Team member. The results are tabulated on the on the NFFS Web site at the following link.

Hear Hear: F1S!
A huge part of the future of FF lies with modern electric power systems. We’ve got to catch this train before it leaves the station!

I urge all international sportsmen to contact your nations’ CIAM reps and lobby them heavily to assent to F1S. Time is short! The vote takes place in eight days. In the meantime adding F1S to contests as an unofficial mini event seems wise.

By the way, per popular support, the USA F1S proposal has now been modified to close the loophole which would have allowed auto rudder. To repeat: the model specifications for F1S are PRECISELY IDENTICAL to USA E-36, allowing complete crossover.

Don D

F1S as the FAI E36 class

From: tony shepherd

Concerning the transference of E36 into the FAI schedule as F1S, the general consensus in UK is that it must never happen. As one who assisted in getting E36 put into the domestic calendar I would now hate to see the class wrecked in the same way that the technoheads wrecked the F1Q class.

Tony Shepherd

Gob Smacked right out of the field

Please excuse my somewhat mixed metaphor. But here on one hand we have a proposal for a simple class , F1S, restricted wing span, restricted gadgets can be flown on a small field, quiet, popular. And it appears that the consensus of the modellers from the country that introduced a proposal to do that to all the other classes don’t like it ?

There is no question that the F1Q rules needed changing from the original definition but continual messing with them has discouraged participation and created a lot of negative publicity. F1Q appears to be doing a little better these days but still has a way to go. But the situation with E-36 seems clear, the class as it is has proved to be popular and making it an FAI class makes it possible to add it to the international calendar.

The FAI cannot change the original E-36 rules as the are “owned” by the AMA and NFFS and if other countries such as the UK have adopted the rules the FAI can’t change those either. If they make the F1S rules different so the the same airplanes cannot be flown in both events it will discourage participation and people will just go back to flying the original E-36 event. Lesson leaned ?

The original 2015 USA proposal for F1S proposed a slightly different airplane but a survey was done and it was found that people overwhelmingly supported have the same airframe rules so the USA proposal was modified to reflect this. The F1S would be flown in rounds with different fly off procedures. But the same airplane can be used unchanged in both events.

It has been stated a number of times here in SEN and in other publications is that a key reason for the success of E-36 is that prior to the publication of the rules a number of experienced modellers built and flew models to test their viability. There is no need to change it as it has been proved that it works.

It does not matter if you design your own models, build other people’s designs or buy models it all takes both time and money to get a good flying model. So stability in the rules is very important.

Dino Update

From: michael achterberg

Hello Dinos.
Lots of Interesting articles of late. Still not one addressed the true purpose of rule changes. So once again I ask is it about the flyoff totals or small fields or loss of entrees. Three different issues. An of course all can be fixed for the most part and not by destroying the events.
1) Fly off. Organizers sometimes have a tough job getting enough timers. Technology can fix this if the CIAM will allow us to finish developing the altimeters an GPS to time with. This will severely cut down timer pool needed to complete the contest.
2) Eliminate thermal detecting devices. This will cut down the number of flyers that make the flyoffs.
3) These simple fixes address one major issue

Small fields.

1) We have always flown off the fields no matter how big they are. Thermals an wind speed always beat field size no matter the model size or altitude. Coupes go forever. Most of small field issue are line of sight and having a fair result. Once again technology will save the day. Altimeters an GPS will allow the true winner in these cases. Also, cutting down allowable wind speed makes these small field venues more suitable for what we do. Of course the organizers will have to get permission to retrieve models from surrounding property owners.

2) Other option is to reduce performance to payload type models . This will kill our events. Then organizers wont have to worry about how many in flyoffs because no one will fly anymore.

3) Dont fly these events on fields too small. Not a good option in my opinion. We all have chased models for miles for one reason or another. Gotten models out of trees. It’s what we do. Part of the game we play. But for the most part the complaint about small fields is fair results. Technology will fix this.

Loss of entrees.
Well we are all getting old. Hard to get people involved. You want more flyers advertise. Nobody even knows about what we do. Advertise in jogging magazines. Advertise in bicycle and dirt bike magazines. FAI should ask governments to help as it would develop engineers for the future. China did it in the 80’s and 90’s . Mongolia is doing it now. China did it to create an engineering core for there country. I was asked to tour there country to teach how to build a balsa airplane kits. Next phase was small rubber models like Delta darts. The next phase was more developed, and so on. I didn’t accept offer but a brilliant idea. It basically built there engineers and fast tracked there country to what it is today.
And yep. Free flight did this. Mongolia is developing a similar program.
Well, these are where free flight should go in my opinion.
Michael Achterberg

Roger Morrell