SEN 3323
- Re SEN 3322 Evidence
- Some editorial observations
- With respect to VLOS.
- Pro 25 g
- Looking at the evidence
- San Valeers Annual
Re SEN 3322 Evidence
From: Roy E. Smith
Hi Roger,
I would like to make a comment with respect to Peter Martin’s suggestion that FAI rules changes be supported by unbiased and documented evidence. As a Professional Engineer all my working life, I completely concur with that thinking.
I do diverge a little, however, from Peter’s hypothesis following on from that. He appears to be arguing that a 17% reduction in rubber weight should be justified only if a 20% increase in performance (either in numbers in the flyoffs or in flight times) can be shown to have occurred since the last rules change. That is an over-simplification of the situation, in my opinion. A reduction in rubber weight will undoubtedly reduce the potential height of the climb but, if the airframe weight isn’t changed, and the surface area isn’t changed, the glide performance should be enhanced. Then there is the matter that a model’s overall flight time does not vary linearly as a function of initial height achieved. Neither is the number of people who make the flyoffs necessarily a linear function of the weight of the rubber or the height at the end of the power phase. Significantly more data would be required about model performance before being able to conclude that this particular rule change would have the required effect upon the factors suggested.
All of that said, surely the whole point of the exercise isn’t to create the highest performing model that has ever been seen in the history of the activity. The fundamental point is, who can obtain the best flight performance within the established rules. It doesn’t actually matter if the rules are so restrictive that it is really difficult to achieve a 3-minute flight consistently. The competition is about who can rise to the challenge and consistently achieve that standard. What must be kept in mind, in my opinion, is that the flying of model aircraft of all types is coming under increasing scrutiny around the world. In many jurisdictions Free Flight models have been exempted from a lot of the restrictions that are placed on other types of model aviation activities. That is a very good thing. There are other jurisdictions where regulations have made Free Flight virtually impractical. Where we run into danger is in deliberately making flights that go beyond Visual Line Of Sight (VLOS). The regulating authorities get very nervous about that. It is very important that Free Flight models not be deliberately flown out of sight, or even off the flying field, if at all possible. Unintended excursions, beyond the usual limits, are inevitable from time to time and the regulators are aware and understanding of that. That understanding will evaporate very quickly if it becomes known that models are deliberately and routinely being flown beyond VLOS or beyond the area where the flyer can reasonably be able to predict that they will land safely. It will evaporate even more quickly if that activity ever results in an incident with a full-size aircraft or a member of the public. If such a thing should occur the future of ALL Free Flight activity could be threatened. I have written about the extremely low risk of an incident with a Free Flight model and a full-size aircraft. I have not examined the risk of an incident with a person or property on the ground. The fact that the risk is low is in our favour – it is reckless, however, to stretch the boundaries of that risk and put everyone’s enjoyment in jeopardy.
In the interests of full disclosure. I am a competitive Free Fight modeler – but not in the FAI classes. The models I fly have much lower flight potential than those in the FAI classes – but flyaways still happen. Their lower flight potential doesn’t mean that it isn’t a substantial challenge to achieve the target performance.
Thanks for your attention.
Roy E. Smith
Some editorial observations
With respect to VLOS.
We do not deliberately fly our models out into the unknown. We do not want to lose them or fly them into built up areas or wilderness areas where they could get damaged or lost. They are expensive both in terms of the cost but even more so in terms of the time we have spent on getting the models and adjusting them to get the best performance. Our rules impose limits on the wind speed we can fly in and direct the contest management to chose the optimum flight paths and they are instructed to set the target flight duration in accordance with local conditions. The latest proposed FAI sporting code changes will require the models be equipped with a specialized altimeter , i.e. onboard timing device that permits the traditional long duration flyoffs be replaced by an altimeter-d/t flyoff that determines the contest winner by the altitude after a relatively short flight time. This avoids having flights that might go out of sight and the technology in the onboard device accurately tracks the time and records the altitude. We are very aware of human frailties when timing and the significant variations in quality of sight and other physical and mental characteristics affect this so are looking at technology options to make the timing more accurate with better and impartial measurement of flight times.
With respect to evidence
Of the 59 World Cup contests held in 2024:
-50 of those contests were decided with one flyoff and all but one of those was settled with a second flyoff.
-The only time a third flyoff was required was when there was a tie for a lower placing in the second flyoff.
-There were just 13 contests with more than 10 people in the flyoff.
-There were only 5 contests where there were over 20 people in the flyoff and 3 of those were held in the U.S. and contest management was not a problem.
-The Altimeter flyoff option was used at 9 events.
I think it is debatable, at best, whether there is an actual problem that needs to be solved and debatable again whether the proposed change would have the desired effect. As a Contest Director, none of the numbers I saw would give me pause. Especially now that people are catching up to the newly implemented Altimeter rules.
Pro 25 g
From: Bernhard Schwendemann
I remember many conversations on the sidelines of World Cup competitions in
which the CIAM free flight sub-committee was accused of not doing anything
about the very long flight times of the models. There had already been an
attempt a few years ago, but in the end it did not lead to a result.
The performance of our free flight models has increased significantly in
recent years and in many cases we have now exceeded the sizes of our flying
sites and also the feasible sizes of fly-offs. It should not be forgotten
that ‘flying out of sight’ is prohibited in most countries. We clearly have
a need for action here.
Now Adam Krawiec, F1B pilot at world top level and former European champion,
has made the proposal to reduce the rubber weight by 17 % from 30 g to 25 g.
The Free Flight Sub-Committee adopted this proposal by a clear majority and
submitted it to CIAM as a request. The Free Flight Technical Meeting
approved the proposal by a large majority.
There are concerns that F1B flying with 25 g is no longer enjoyable.
However, we will reach greater heights with 25 g rubber (Adam has measured
10 to 15 metres less than with 30 g) than we did a few years ago with 30 g
rubber – and we also had great fun with F1B back then. Even with the earlier
rubber reductions from 40 g to 25 g to 30 g, the enthusiasm for F1B has not
done any harm.
There are also concerns about the effort of the changeover. Adam has
determined that only the time of the first flight phase (VIT) needs to be
changed slightly.
There are proposals to solve the problem of the visibility of the models and
large fly-offs by electronic timekeeping. But even then, timekeepers are
necessary for control and electronic timekeeping does not solve the problem
of prohibited flying ‘out of sight’. And it does not solve the problem of
the very long start line in large fly-offs with different thermals at the
far ends of the line.
There are proposals to increase the weight of the models. A higher weight
allows new technical possibilities and thus increases the complexity – not
exactly favourable for beginners. And simply installing 20 g of ballast is
not exactly compatible with the idea of free flight. At 20 g more, we are
already exceeding the limits of the drone laws.
I see the reduction to 25 g as a sensible way of safeguarding the future of
free flight and the F1B class in particular.
Looking at the evidence
Editor
More importantly, there are risks that should considered with making such a move:
-Stable rules drive participation. F1A and F1B have maintained good numbers in an era where Free Flight overall has been on a decades long steady decline. F1C on the other hand, the event that has seen several recent changes, has seen an accelerated decline. People tend to invest where they can be confident of the future.
-F1B is unique. As we are all aware, for decades, there has been exactly ONE supplier of suitable rubber supporting our sport. We are a small player in this company’s grand scheme. It is only because initial work by John Clapp and follow on years of hard work by Charlie and Geralyn Jones who have been able to maintain the relationship with this company, with our current volume, that we are able to fly at all. I think that any move away from the status quo could make that more difficult .
It is hard see the need to implement a change that may or may not solve a perceived problem. Which, could adversely affect our rubber supply and perhaps lead to the downfall the entire sport. I suggest we pump the brakes this cycle while we see how the newly implemented and rapidly improving tools, Certified Altimeter challenges in flyoffs, Altimeter Flyoffs when conditions make a traditional flyoff problematic, can ease our reliance on questionable human visual timekeeping which will help manage flyoffs, increase the accuracy of results, and bring a conclusion to a competition when the weather does not allow traditional flyoffs on smaller fields.
SAN VALEERS 76th ANNUAL & 42nd ANNUAL 7 ROUNDER
April 24,25,26, & 27th* 2025 – LOST HILLS, CA.
AMA Sanction TBD
A NFFS NATIONAL CUP, AMERICAS CUP & AMA AA SANCTIONED CONTEST
AMA CAT II & NOSTALGIA CAT II** (WEATHER PERMITTING)
All AMA and Nostalgia events may be flown any day. Finish clean on all flights & can continue the next day. Thursday-Saturday 8:00am to 5:00pm Sunday 8:00am to 3:00 pm.*
1/2A GAS
A GAS
B GAS
C-D GAS
Super D GAS
E-36
1/2A Golden Age
P-30, HLG, & Catapult
1/2A Nostalgia
A Nostalgia
B Nostalgia
C Nostalgia
Nostalgia Rubber (large & small combined)
Mulvihill Rubber
Andrade Rubber
F1A NORDIC – FIB WAKEFIELD – F1C/F1P POWER– F1Q SATURDAY 8 AM TO 3 PM (7 rounds)
1st Round at 8am, F1A, B, C, P, Q 240 secs. All other rounds 180 secs. Flyoff begins at 4:00pm
F1G – F1H – F1S – F1J SUNDAY 8 AM TO 11:45 Round one Tie breaker flyoff to the ground 8:00 am. to 8:45 am. Then Standard (4 rounds 45 minutes long starting at 8:45 120 sec maxes) NO fly off flights tie breaker flight determines winner.
F1E Two Events – F1E- Monday March 17. Event director Mike McKeever. F1E -Tuesday March 18. Event director Mike Richardson. Please register at the San Valeer Headquarters table before end of day Sunday March 17.
VINTAGE Wakefield
THURSDAY 8:00 am-1:00pm (5 1hr rounds) All flights 180 secs flyoff at 2:00pm
VINTAGE FAI
FRIDAY 8:00 am-1:00pm (5 1hr rounds) All flights 180 secs flyoff at 2:00pm
HUNTER MEMORIAL SUNDAY MORNING (weather permitting)-Sponsored by Mike Thompson
RULES: Any gas free flight airplane. 15 second VTO, 12 second H.L. Highest single flight time (no max) Starts Sunday at sunrise with 1 hr window (start time to be announced). Entry fee ($1.00 per flight)
Bud Romak Dawn Patrol shootout events (two separate events) Any rubber or power ship. Engine runs 15 sec VTO or 12 sec H.L. Can be flown 7:00am to 8:00am.Thur, Fri, & Sat free entry fee fun fly for unlimited flights. Perpetual trophy for each Winner
**NOSTALGIA per latest rulebook except motor runs which shall be 10 sec HL, 13 sec VTO for 1st 3 flights, 7sec HL & 9 secs VTO on flight 4 and all additional flyoff flights.
AMA Gas engine runs per latest rulebook i.e. 9 sec first 3 flights, first flyoff flight 7 sec, all other flyoff flights 5 sec
1/2A GOLDEN AGE 1/2 A Models from 1957 to 1969 Engines: TD OR HH .049/.051, motor runs same as Nostalgia
Special Jim Hurst Memorial Ramrod Event Ted Hidinger sponsored event to memorialize Jim Hurst. Any size Ram Rod flown in Nostalgia legal event. First place Highest time official score. $200 plus first pick of one of three OS Max engines. Second Place second Highest time second pick of one of two OS Max engines. Third place Highest time remaining one of three OS Max Engines
MERCHANDISE AWARDS (engines, kits, fuel, wood, $$$, etc)
***Raffle Prizes New 40 inch high definition TV donated by Todd Reynolds plus engines and merchandise (1 ticket for each event entered, or $3 ea, or $5 for 2, or $10 for 5)***
* Any AMA record attempt must be completed on the same day you start an event.
AMA/NOST CD: Terry Thorkildsen (805) 495-6135 ALT CD Guy Menanno (818) 932-8375
FAI CD Terry Kerger (626) 260-6292
Entry Fees
AMA & Nostalgia: 1ST event: $10.00, Additional events: $5.00 per event or $35 unlimited entry, JRS FREE,
FAI events: 1st event $20 and additional events $10.
F1E $20 for both events.
“JUST BRING YOUR MODELS AND SLEEPING BAG AND HAVE FUN”
AMA and NOSTALGIA ENGINE RUNS and MAX Times
AMA Land Plane Cat II
VTO Not allowed per 2024 AMA rule book
Flight 1-3 9 Sec. 180 sec. Max.
Flight 4 7 sec. 180 sec. Max.
Flight 5 and more 5 sec. 180 sec. Max.
NOSTALGIA Engine Runs and Flight Maximums for San Valeers NOS Gas
CatII 180 sec max
1st Three Official Flights HL 10(sec) VTO 13 (sec.)
First Two Fly-off Flights HL 7(sec) VTO 9 (sec)
Subsequent Flyoff Flights HL 7(sec) VTO 9 (sec)
SEN Status
Our new web site is online with archives of SEN going back to 1997 plus many items about FAI Free Flight. It can be found at http://www.faifreeflight.org
Existing SEN subscribers can update their preferences by following the update your preferences link at the bottom of this page.
New users can sign up at this link http://eepurl.com/crOnvj
or at the SEN website
…………..
Roger Morrell