National Free Flight Society

SEN 2024

Table of Content – SEN 2024

  1. Not really about F1C but rather the Rules and the Process
  2. F1B (or any other) models for sale
  3. In the press – Observations and a constructive suggestion

Not really about F1C but rather the Rules and the Process

From: Leslie Farkas

Based on the number of sportsmen who signed the petition opposing the 4 seconds engine run and the mandatory RDT for F1C models, it is clear that the majority of competitors want to continue with the present rules. Lets look at what triggered the changes. Some people felt that the fields are not big enough to accommodate the high performance of models. Would it be too much to ask from these people to use common sense when running a competition and do not run a fly-off at 4PM when there are plenty of thermals and perhaps with the wind the models will land far away? As suggested by others the reduction of the allowed wind speed would also help with this problem.

Another observation. Reducing the number of rounds from seven to five for the Continental and World Championships will not reduce the number of competitors for the Fly-off. If the theory of probability is correct, because in the last two rounds there are a number of people who could drop, the new rule will achieve exactly the opposite what is was intended to do. There will be larger number of fliers in the fly-offs. With the new format, the competition will start at 8AM and will be finished by 1PM. Will there be fly-off round starting the middle of the day with big thermals? Will they start the fly-off rounds at 6PM? What will the sportsmen do for five hours? Go back to their accommodation and drink some beer?

To get back of the RDT subject for F1C. I wonder, what is the reason to force the system to be installed in the models if as the rule states, “There is no requirement when to use RDT”? I am not talking about the models with electronic timers but the large number of planes with mechanical timers. This represents an extra cost which is not needed. Because the required safety with these power models, again I would ask for common sense. Do not allow models to be released from the middle of spectators as we have seen many times even at World championships.

One may ask, why do we have these problems with free flight? The answer is that these problems have been developing for many years. Simply they were either not recognised or just ignored. The fact is that the technology have outgrown our system with which we intend to regulate and govern our sport. As commented by many, the proposals were submitted by people who do not fly or understand the category which they want to change. It is amplified by the ones who vote for these changes with the same lack of knowledge or understanding. The only solution is as per my comments made five years ago and again on Feb. 1st.2015 in SEN.

“The free flight subcommittee members should not represent themselves but their nation’s sportsmen. Regarding any change of rules, a questioner should be sent to all members of CIAM who would distribute it to the interest groups for their opinion. The results would be returned to Mr. Kaynes and the subcommittee. This would allow the average modeler’s view to be considered not just a selected individual’s. By all CIAM countries involved, the majority of modeller’s interest would be represented. It would provide a better blend of people who would contribute to the development of all the categories and would allow a more reasonable voting regarding technical and sporting code changes for each category. With the current system the FF technical subcommittee members with the knowledge of one category are involved in making changes in other classes.”

All proposals should have a deadline for receiving at CIAM by July 31st. As suggested, they should be forwarded to all members of CIAM and the response should be returned by October 15th. each year. With the available communication technology (fax, e-mail and Skype) this can be done without any problem.

I would like to emphasise that my comments are strictly intended to be constructive and not to blame or accuse any person or organization of intentional wrong doing. To make a mistake is human and to correct it should be an obligation for all.

We all must show interest and must be involved in these discussions, otherwise we will be remembered as the generation who destroyed aeromodeling.

F1B (or any other) models for sale

From: Matvey Neyman

I read regularly SEN newsletters and very appreciate that it keeps me involved in Aeromodelling despite of I temporarily stopped active flying. Thanks a lot for your job.
My issue is that I’d like to sale 2 F1B models. How can I do it using your newsletters? Or maybe there are any other ideas how to propose my offer to the most free flight flyers?
Thanks in advance,

Matvey and anyone else

Your write an advertizement saying what you have for sale and send it to us. Be sure to let people know how to get in touch with you. Write it in simple English with no pictures.

In the Press – From FFn

We include in this issue a letter to the editor from FFn. This letter is interesting because the author, Start Darmon addresses 2 issues. He summarizes the current discussion, identifying keys points, in particular that for a rules change proposal to have credibility it has to be tested and shown as workable.

Secondly in all the discussion about rules changes there appear to be 2 [unspoken ?] reasons – one is the performance is too high so needs to be cut and the second is that models are too expensive , too complicated or too elitist so they exclude a segment of the people who would take part in the events. The author addresses that second question with a positive concrete proposal for the the UK. The proposal is similar to what we have done with the Zaic awards at the Kiwi World Cup at the Ike in February at Lost Hills and I believe that some thing similar is done in Sweden and some other countries.

letter from Stuart Darmon

From Stuart Darmon

Now that the FFTC is inviting proposals for the 2016 rulebook
and calendar, I feel it might be an appropriate moment to revisit
(for the last time, I promise) the idea of a separate
classification within all UK FAI contests for models of slightly
restricted (not vintage) technology. Yes, I know I suggested
this last year and there were no takers, but since then the debate
on social media and SCAT has crystallised the opinions of the
FAI flyers. From the intense background noise, three major
points emerge.

First, any meaningful change to the
specifications of championship FAI models is going to be
highly unpopular and would probably adversely affect
participation if adopted.

Second, any proposal which has not been properly trialled in
the real world lacks credibility and will not be taken seriously.

Third, the idea of flying lower-tech models alongside current
ones is seen as both possible and desirable at high level.

The idea of allowing lower-tech models longer run, more
rubber, etc. may appear logical, but has a number of serious
flaws. Achieving exact parity between the two categories
would be difficult, and would need constant adjustment as one
category or the other underwent technical improvement.
Failure to do this would result in one category becoming
dominant, and the atrophy of the other. Furthermore, without a
rule change at CIAM level, the lower-tech models would not
be recognised and the contest would simply be yet another
domestic event to add to an already overcrowded rule book.
Instead, I propose that the lower-tech models be fully FAI
legal, flown directly against the international class, and of
course, eligible for any honours, world cup points, etc.
Additionally, competitors using the lower-tech models get a
mark beside their name on the scoreboard, and flyers so
marked constitute a second set of results, eligible for a separate
set of awards. I’m quite sure that in British conditions, such
models would sometimes be capable of winning overall (in
A&B at least) and recognising them in this way might provide
the incentive to try.

Doing this would have no negative impact on the ‘main’ class.
It would need virtually no extra organisation. Nobody would
need to build new models, and we would have the world’s first
full scale trial of a potential way forward for FAI worldwide.
And best of all, I’ll stop banging on about it. Of course, it may
be too little too late, but unless we try we’ll never know. Last
time the FFTC rejected my proposal because nobody expressed
support, so if you feel the above has any merit at all, or at least
would do no harm, please can you make your feelings known?

As for the specs themselves, I would suggest;
F1A Horizontal surfaces fixed in camber & incidence except DT
F1B Fixed pitch prop, fixed camber, 2 timed functions +DT
F1C direct drive fixed pitch prop, fixed camber & area wing.

Roger Morrell