National Free Flight Society

SEN 2827

  1. Fast Q Confusion
  2. FAST Q or SLOW Q
  3. I like the Kv rating
  4. Latest CIAM Flyer is out

Fast Q Confusion

We must apologize if we have inadvertently created any confusion around Fast Q.  We used this term because it kind of described what some people wanted.  It was not necessarily saying that the current F1Q rules should be replaced.  From much of the correspondence  (see Ben below for example) and writing on FB most, if not all ? current active Q participants are advocating keeping the current event and pushing forward to get it to World Champs status.  There are suggestions about how to make it faster, or make a new event that is faster or somehow combine it or fly it with F1C.  All of these items may have a way to go before they are ready for prime time.  We have 2 FAI electric classes in F1Q and F1S which while not perfect have been used successfully for many events in the last few years so let’s not change them to make them something else just because it sounds like a good idea.

Some of the discussion pointed out problems with some of  the UK and USA domestic classes. So maybe we should be trying out new ideas there first.  We see F1S as very good example of that, the NFFS  went from an older E-30 that not longer suited the current state electric technology  to produce E-36 which was very well received in the USA  it was then adopted by the CIAM to make F1S, with the only change being the flying in rounds.



from: Ben Tarcher

In my humble opinion it will not make a difference whether or not the rules are changed. As I have always maintained the proof is in the puddin! In Free Flight the skill is trimming the plane and picking the air.

If flyers want to fly a “fast” climbing, smaller plane NOW they can and still be competitive against the larger slower even geared down motors with large props. I have flown both types of models even large models with 50% motor runs (1/2 the allowable joules). With a well trimmed model in a thermal it does not make that much of a difference.

Yes, in a fly off with still air a longer motor run will have a bit of an advantage but then the faster climbing model will get higher anyway.
Keep the rules the same for a bit and build up interest. Now almost any electric model with a limiter can be competitive and any one owning an electric model with a limiter and meeting existing parameters can fly!

I have seen so many rule changes since I started flying Q several years ago that it naturally turned folks off to the event yet some of us have hung in there and will likely just go with the flow but new commers may easily be turned off if the rules keep changing. Again, for those who like the speed and fast climbing models, they can still compete as the energy limiters seem to equalize the different models.
Re wound motors are fine as it leaves the choice up to the competitors. Size of batteries now is balanced by weight again as a built/self selected equalizer.

If the event is over regulated the numbers of interested competitors will again drop off and the World Champs will remain out of consideration!
Keep things the way they are for a bit longer so that we can build up participation!
Thermals to all and stay safe,
Ben Tarcher

I like the Kv rating

From: Jack Murphy


I have to take issue with your opinion on my idea of stipulating a commercially available motor. Electric outrunner motors have a Kv rating, which if accurate is arrived at mathematically and objectively based on #s of poles, windings, wire guage etc. Virtually all such commercially available motors have the Kv rating printed on the outside of the rotating magnet housing. It would be immensely easier to stipulate a Kv maximum (depending on #s of battery cells) than to go the Energy Limiter route again, which has killed much of the interest in F1Q in the US. Free Flight will never be the incubator nor the innovator for electric propulsion in model aeronautics, that is the role of drone racing and development. That is why we have the incredible plethora of hardware available for our purposes. On the subject of batteries- despite the fact that this is where technology and advancement is most likely to occur in a Moore’s Law type of dynamic, if the charge rate per cell is limited by rule this is the easiest thing to control. Extremely easy!!! The logical question that has been posited by at least one other qualified person of our realm- how would cheating (rewinding motors) be controlled? Simple. In a world cup event the winner would go to the scorer’s table upon retrieval and remove the motor from the model (four screws and three wire disconnects, keeping his prop hub assembly) and give it to the CD or official. It could then be “claimed” (purchased) with the last place competitor having the first right of refusal, and on up the list. If not sold, the winner gets his motor back. The value would be established either by providing a receipt copy or a web page printout for said motor at registration by all competitors. This is done in some classes of American stock car racing- involving 600lb engines and a great deal of plumbing and electrical….. a two ounce electric motor held by 4 little screws and three little wires involves no such complexity nor logistical challenge…

Jack Murphy

Latest CIAM Flyer is out

– on education !