SEN 2067

Posted on by

Table of Contents – SEN 2067

  1. C performance number
  2. Dino comments
  3. What’s Drone

C performance comparison – actual numbers

From: Ken Faux

Roger,

In response to Pieter’s paper I can add some data from my recent flights with Sidus G2 equiped F1c’s. At the trials two weeks ago my verbitski fixed wing model was making between 150 and 155 meters off a 4.1 run. A couple of weeks earlier I flew another similar fixed wing model that was making 148m on 4.0sec run. The same model was flown on 3.3 sec run to give 130m. Maximum speed was the same on both runs indicating that the model accellerates to maximum velocity very quickly, probably assisted by a hard launch. By comparison my Verbitski flapper made 174m on 4.1 on the same day. In the World Championships flyoff in Mongolia the same model only made 138m! Mongolia will be a challenge on 4 seconds run. I do not agree that there should be any diffence in rules for any configuration, all have strengths and weaknesses. We must not strangle development in this great class.

Ken

Dino who is not really a Dino , on C

From: Michael Achterberg

Nice article Peter. Ideally if everyone had etimers they could be checked on ground and then the timer reaction time and sound delay would be a non issue. But alas we are not there yet. If we give folders and flappers 4.5 sec and fixed wing models 5 sec, then the field will be somewhat balanced.

But either 4/5 sec or 4.5 /5 sec is a positive move for the group as a whole. As I said earlier it is my understanding the CIAM just wants to get F1c out of the 10 minute window.

Either motor run variation will do that. But having two different timing for different timers, etimer or mechanical is not practical in my opinion.

The biggest obstacle is getting the fliers to agree to do it. They all seem to think just saying they don’t want any change seems impractical and very short sighted. Goal is to get out of 10 minute window. Getting them to accept that seems extremely difficult.

Just my opinion. Not meaning to offend anyone.

Thermals, Michael

What is a ‘drone” really

From Ross Jahnke

I agree with Gil Morris regarding the drone/copters. I think AMA is all-in

because the manufacturers provide ad revenue, and because the people who

buy them are potential AMA members. Whether or not the AMA was invested in

drones (or the other way around) they would have to contend with the affect

they are having on airspace and privacy, as they might impinge upon

traditional R/C, U/C, and F/F activities. In that context I think they have

to defend the drones as “model aircraft” simply because they share so many

characteristics. I wish however, that the AMA would put some distance

between their traditional base and the drone community for the vary reason

Gil stated originally, that these things are really just a flying platform

for another form of activity, and are rarely flown for the sake of flying.

In essence, I wish the AMA would defend them on principle but tell the FAA

that “they are not us.”

…………………….

Roger Morrell