SEN 2179
Table of Contents – SEN 2179
- Q2T
- Electronic Engine Timer Question
- Q from the PoV of a Dino
- CHE’s Brexit ? from Q?
Q to T?
From: Murphy, Jack
Hello Roger,
In the aftermath of the discussions of the last few days regarding Q I have come up with and will be moving forth with a simple proposal- FAI F1T1/F1T2. This will be a combined event for VIT/AR/Bunting (F1T1) and fixed surface (F1T2) Electric models. The run time for the 1s will be 6 seconds for a 3 minute max, run time for the 2s will be 12 seconds for a 3 minute max. At the discretion of the CDs or Juries times may be reduced to 4.5 sec run time/2 minute max and 9 sec run time/2 minute max to accommodate small fields/windy conditions etc.
The need for this concept is rooted in the rather phenomenal acceptance and growth of E36 and now F1S and the relative failure of F1Q- due to the arcane and esoteric nature of F1Q, to be the pre-eminent FAI event that many had hoped it to be. The growth and acceptance of Electric Free Flight is remarkable and still gaining velocity. FAI needs to have an Electric class of the stature of F1 A,B and C. Many had hoped F1Q would be the ticket. It is not.
In the Editorial Observation below-
“Looking at the reasoning for the energy allocation – this is because some R/C electric classes (and some R/C car classes) showed a tendancy to move towards using very expensive motors and/or batteries and destroying a LiPo in a single flight this escalating the cost. This never happened in F1Q because you could always get a good performance without resorting to such extreem measures and F1Q is not a World Champs class. If you look now at the R/C classes that use energy limiters the process problem that Faust talk about is avoided ? (I’m guessing, maybe someone knows) by requiring that the energy limiters be specially certified This would be a problem the cottage industry that supports free flight.”
– I don’t find this pertinent to my experience in active participation in all Electric Free Flight classes. It is actually the cheaper “watt sucker” motors that can push the higher discharge rate/ lower Mah batteries preferred in Free Flight applications to or beyond their limits. I think we know more now than what was known then. I find energy limiters completely unnecessary, even in F1Q. In practical application it just smothers the burst (unused in flight) when amperage is ramped up at the start of the power train. An efficient high quality power train settles down to a fairly consistent watt draw relatively quickly.
F1T1/T2 is not an untested theory. We have it in AMA A and B Electric. The run times, however, differ. In A and B, the run times are 10 seconds for a two minute max. The sportsmen flying B Electric (allows auto surfaces) do not use the 10 seconds, more like 5. I think further input from experienced sportsmen will support this.
I have actively promoted F1Q and flown it extensively.
Best Regards,
Jack Murphy
Electronic Engine Timer question
Hi Roger,
Please understand – I know the following question is a “little bit” off for most of the folks that will read it, yet knowing there are flyers out there who fly more than just FAI events I’m hoping there might be someone who has come up against the same issue and has found a solution.
Question: Has anyone discovered an electronic timer that can withstand the vibrations from a “big” Nelson = .29, .36, .41 & .65? Or has anyone been able to modify an existing F1C electronic timer to stand up to the big Nelsons? Would appreciate any help in finding one that will work, and yes I do understand they can and are expensive, I’m not going to let the cost become the issue, finding one that will work is the issue. Thanks in advance for any help in finding one.
Yours truly,
Ted Hidinger
Q from the Dino PoV
From: Michael Achterberg
F1q. A few years ago at the Maxmen a bunch of power fliers were watching an F1q model fly similar to a power model. We were at the time thinking it would become the new F1c models. But then the rule proposals started up and changes here and there. With more being proposed coming up. None of us are flying the event.
Give the flying community a locked up rule freeze for 5 years and you have stability and growth. Cut the energy down for flyoffs and there is no problem.
Michael
CHE is Bexiting to CA ?
In the previous issue of SEN in the Article on F1Q we had a side comment that was intended to suggest that our good friend and long time SEN contributor might be/ should be/ should be picking up his chickens and moving to California
In SEN we understand that a large part of the readership is not native English speaking so try confine our attempt at humour or humor to items that can be more or less universally understood. However sometimes the temptation is too great to tease certain regulars and this was such an occasion. In this case our thinking was extremely convoluted, so much so that not many people understood it . So if you want to leave it you can stop reading now and just wait to the next issue of SEN.
If you not satisfied by this somewhat cavalier brush off here is the rest of the story….
here is the rather complicated explanation … as befits CHE and his fine friends
In preparing the F1Q stuff the Editor put the person’s country after their name in 3 letter codes. E.G FIN for Finland.
in CHE’s case he put Scotland in full
In doing this he miss-spelled it as Scatland , this was corrected.
But this gave the editor an idea. The well known Scottish sportsman CHE (Chris Edge) current lives with his wife, horses and chickens at the EoB (Edge of Beyond) but if he was to move further , well kind of like dropping over the edge of the Earth, he might end up … where ?
It then occurred that if CHE moved past EoB …where ever the Edge of Beyond is it is possible that he could end up in Southern California because the editorial staff realize that a number of Britz regard the USA as way beyond the edge of civilization In particular Lost Hills where the Southern California Aero Team i.e. SCAT hangs out hence Scatland.
in process used for preparing SEN the all the authors names e.g Jack Murphy (USA) and CHE (Scotland]) looked ok. Note in this explanation we have enclosed the country name in regular parentheses rather than the square brackets used in the previous issue because …
it turns out that for some readers when reading the SEN issue with it appears that the country names in the square braces had disappeared.. Apparently some mail readers interpreted this incorrectly as some hidden HTML sequence.
So you did not really want to know that did you ? but it is still simpler than the F1Q rules 🙂
Roger
………………
Roger Morrell