SEN 2851

Posted on by
  1. Casino Cup F1 E –  Question?
  2. PULSAR, F1S BY URS SCHALLER
  3. CIAM Plenary meeting

Casino Cup F1 E –  Question?

From:Jack Murphy

Roger,
The F1E portion of the Casino Cup will be held on Monday, June 21st, depending on the level of interest of prospective F1E participants. This is in keeping with the tradition of the area, which has a history of top-secret missions. The Enola Gay was one such and served to end WWII. Those interested can hit me up at jack.murphy@utahhomes.com for further planning.

Best, -j


 

PULSAR, F1S BY URS SCHALLER

Both and Thermiksense and FFn have published Plans and an Article by Urs Schaller and his E-36/F1S  journey. This recounts how a former Free Flight sportsman came back from R/C to Free Flight built his own model that is capable of 360 seconds off a 10 second motor run in the AM.  Now if you don’t have access to at least one of those publications, you probably should, but you can read about it the online blog on Hippocket at

https://www.hippocketaeronautics.com/hpa_forum/index.php?topic=22163.0

Lots of good details and conversations from people all around  the world.


CIAM Plenary meeting

As reported by Ian Kaynes in FFn.  FFn also reported on the cancellation of the 2021 FF World Champs and that has been covered elsewhere.  What has not been reported fully is the action of the various rules proposals here it is.

During April the CIAM Technical Meetings were held remotely
over several weekends. The CIAM President Antonis
Papadopoulos hosted all the meetings.

The Free Flight Technical Meeting was held on the evening of
April 17, attended by about 40 people – double the number at
the traditional physical meetings in Lausanne. This was without
the travel time and costs, although with some demanding times
for people on other continents. The early start for New Zealand
or Australia did not help them to attend.

(Ian’s report listed the attendees, that has been excluded from this article)

Before the meeting it is required that the Subcommittee
members vote on each proposal and these votes are included on
the agenda used for the meeting. The Technical Meeting worked
through these agenda items in order:


a) clarification of timekeeping rule F1.1.2. This Subcommittee
proposal was amended in the meeting to add a clarification to
F1.2.1 by including 5 extra words:-

Competitors may act as timekeepers for flights of other
competitors
The meeting unanimously agreed the amended proposal

b) F1A Glider launching.
This proposal from Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland was
for the controversial ban on falling down when launching
gliders. This was intended as a safety measure to prevent injuries
and also act as a slight reduction of performance. Against that
the opponents cited freedom of choice and the ability to take
precautions against injury, the difficulty of observing both the
flyer and the model at moment of launch, and the effect of an
unintentional trip when launching.
The anticipated discussion had been avoided in advance when,
earlier that day, the proposers told me that would withdraw the
proposal. This was triggered by the Subcommittee vote of 5 in
favour and 10 against.

c) F1B 3.2.8 Classification
This was the Subcommittee proposal to bring the flyoff flights
into line with the rounds flights by a ban winding motors before
the start of the round. There were some complaints about it
making the flights more of a lottery and a call for a 9 minute
round instead. John Carter pointed out that the UK successfully
uses a 5 minute round for domestic flyoffs. The Subcommittee
had votes 11 in favour, 2 against and this was reflected in the
Technical Meeting with 1 vote against and at least 9 in favour
(since this gave a clear majority I did not pursue a formal vote
to get the true number in favour).

d) F1.3.1, F1.4.1etc and (e) F1C characteristics.
These proposals from Poland called for Junior Championships
to change from F1P to a simplified F1C and were considered
together. Poland criticised F1P as being a dead end for juniors
without participation in other competitions or continuing after
they exceeded junior age. Also there are used F1C models
without gears and variable geometry which could be used by the
juniors. Views against that were that when Junior power started
it is was flown with F1C and was no more popular than F1J and
F1P that followed it. There was a strong view that the power
class should change to electric, either F1Q or F1S. The
subcommittee vote on the proposal had been 2 for and 8 against.
The Technical Meeting made a similar rejection with 3 in
favour, 12 against. Voting at the meeting was in accordance with
the rule of one vote for each country attending, which is difficult
to enforce by a show hand or voting option on Zoom. Thus to
conduct a full vote for this proposal I read out each country in
turn and noted their verbal vote.

f) F1D Characteristics.
This proposal from France was to allow open international
organisers (not championships) of events in low ceiling heights
to specify F1D be flown with half-motors. The proposal was
amended to clarify that the 0.2g weight of rubber was the
maximum weight allowed. The subcommittee had supported the
proposal 7 for, 1 against and again the Technical Meeting voting
was similar at 9 for, 2 against.

g) F1 World Cup rules
This proposal from the subcommittee was for increased bonus
points for the top 3 competitors in an event. It was unanimously
supported by the subcommittee and then by the technical
meeting.

h) F1 World Cup rules
This proposal from the subcommittee was to relax the rule for
making a flight in the first round in order to be considered for
World Cup points, now it is used only in the bonus point
calculation. It was unanimously supported by the subcommittee
and then by the technical meeting

i) F1 World Cup rules
The proposal from France was to add the F1D and F1D Junior
categories in the Free Flight World Cup, with the number of
indoor events hoped to increase as a result of allowing halfmotors
in proposal (f).

j) Organisers guide.
This proposal from France was to dictate supervisors for the
timekeeping at contests where competitors are doing the
timekeeping. Apart from the confusing use of the term “selftiming”
it was considered unclear where it would appear in the
code and was not a popular concept. The subcommittee had
opposed the proposal 4 for, 9 against and at the Technical
meeting it was promised that the Subcommittee would consider
what controls would be appropriate and so France withdrew the
proposal.

For meetings at Lausanne the Technical Meetings all took place
at the same time, preventing a single delegate from attending all
of them. The remote meeting schedule had the Technical
Meetings at separate times so that a delegate could attend each
meeting and vote on their proposals. However, the traditional
format was followed with delegates being required to vote on all
proposals via a voting tool made available for the period May 1
to 30. In F1 these votes confirmed the Technical Meeting
opinions:


a) timekeeping unanimous for
c) F1B 3.2.8 Classification 28 for, 3 against
d) F1.3.1, F1.4.1etc 6 for 19 against
e) F1C characteristics 5 for 19 against
f) F1D Characteristics. 25 for 2 against
g) F1 World Cup rules unanimous for
h) F1 World Cup rules unanimous for
i) F1 World Cup rules unanimous for