National Free Flight Society

SEN 3091

  1. Sevak’s Junior F1S versus F1Q discussion from Facebook
  2. Q to replace P for Juniors ?
  3. This is the piece Sevak is talking about
  4. The talking
  5. F1P and E-36 what have we learned?
  6. More Q Mystery

Sevak’s Junior F1S versus F1Q discussion from Facebook

From:Andrew Barron
I very much suggest that you copy Sevak’s thoughtful discussion of Junior
F1S versus F1Q for the junior world champs into SEN.  It is quite timely as
I understand the international technical committee is this weekend looking
at the proposal on replacing F1P with F1Q, among other things.

My own thought is that either way it goes, it would be best for one cycle
to give the Juniors some flexibility.  Have the max be 3 minutes, and let
the junior use any of these power models F1P, F1S, F1Q.  I agree with Sevak
that F1S is the simplest path to entry, and will create the largest number
of Junior participants.  But it might be wise to not penalize any Juniors
who have been equipping themselves already with Ps or Qs.

Andrew Barron

Q to replace P for Juniors ?

From Sevak Malkhasyan
Recently came across the FAI proposal to eliminate F1P and exchange with F1Q. As an individual who has competed in both events and been present at all the Jr World Champs since 2010 I can definitely agree the quality of performance of F1P has drastically decreased. F1Q is NOT the solution!! How do we dare to implement an event that has not proven itself … The largest gathering of F1Q flyers at a single competition has been 25 competitors. Electric is the future and the answer is most definitely NOT F1Q for juniors. If our goal is to truly keep the sport alive we must push for F1S! Do not use the junior program as a testing ground, F1Q has existed for about 15 years and is not close to being added to the Open World Championships.

Flaws of F1Q in comparison to F1S:
-At current F1Q wing loading these things glide better than all other FAI models… They thermal very easily, require numerous fly offs, and large fields
-F1Q’s have the wing area of F1C’s and can weigh more than 300 grams less!
-Constant discussion of rule changes … Clearly we haven’t found something that works well enough.
-Validating the competitors motor-run/, jule eligibility, and timing motor runs is a complicated process.
(Even the FAI officials at Fab Feb refused to verify competitors models)
-F1Q requires more electronics, significantly more expensive models and components.
-Competitive airplanes must be large, The same size of F1C’s!
-With no wingspan limit we expect youth to transport boxes that are larger than them!
-As well as pay additional oversized baggage fees on flights.
-They must rent larger/expensive vehicles to be able to fit the model box in!
-Every country will have the opportunity to send a full team of F1S flyers with the cost of buying one to two F1Qs.
-Most Free Flight Federations already use F1S as an event to promote youth involvement.
-F1Q does not compare at all in promoting self built models!
-Imagine having a 10 year old child hold onto a model the size of an F1C, launch and retrieving it. Now imagine them doing the same in high winds!!
F1S’s can be completely self built with minimum effort and experience. Building models for an entire team can cost the same as purchasing one to two F1Q’s. I can transport 6 models in a 38″x8″x8″ box without any concern of over sized baggage fees or small European rental cars. The materials and electronics for each F1S model is very minimal and can be concluded as little as $200! They are compact and easy for youth to handle in any conditions. Youth are already flying them worldwide!! Now imagine anyone with minimal Free Flight experience/ knowledge possessing the ability to coach any child to represent their nation. Of course there is a learning curve but it does not compare to the tribal knowledge required to become a successful F1A, F1B, or F1P competitor.
I have been to every Jr World Champs since 2010 and can with confidence express that many of the teams which never competed in F1P will arrive with much fuller teams for F1S. For example Israel has produced some of the most competitive FAI flyers yet do not participate in F1P. Israel currently promotes Free Flight through F1S and has dozens of junior flyers already competing in the event. Moreover, E-36 is the most popular event at the United States . It is the fastest growing event since P-30. Many worry about the direction of free flight and are concerned about “factory flying” … why not promote F1S which requires minimal knowledge to build from scratch and allows for original designs and constructions. I’m not proposing we get rid of F1P. I don’t believe we should implement another event that will not increase participation by much, it can not be judged fairly and can become a burden for youth. Especially when we have better options that will without a doubt produce higher participation as well as encourage competitors to build their own models.

This is the piece Sevak is talking about

C.15.2 Current World Championships F1 Subcommittee
Section: C.15.2.1 Class F (Model Aircraft)
Replace the class F1P in Junior Championships by F1Q
First entry under Even years F1ABPQ (Senior)
Reason: The class F1P has had a constant and rather small entry at recent championships. Partly this results from the class differing from the power class F1C flown at senior championships and at more World Cup events. This is reflected by the small number of competitors in the F1P Junior World Cup, while there have been more competitors in the F1Q Junior World Cup in its first year of operation.
It is anticipated that there will be greater participation in F1Q at junior championships, with the easy operation of the models, and the modern appeal of electric operation. Furthermore, there are a considerable number of F1Q World Cup events in which the juniors can fly their F1Q and continue doing so after than exceed the junior age limit to become seniors.


[Some of ] The talking

 Now over 70 people have commented on Sevak’s post
This is an edited list
Or some reason  one or two people post were not visible so references to these have been removed
Also there were some comments that were more critical of F1Q and it’s energy limiter in general that thenthe subject in hand

Riho-Ats Saatväli
somebody converted a F1P to electric, i think this would be the future for junior champs – excisting fliers could convert and lot of fliers would join since its also easy to build, basicly

*  Michael Achterberg
Mike Valerie McKeever I. Maybe if proposed this year it could be passed for 2024 Jr.WC. Why not? It for the kids with limited time to Fly…Dont make it complicated.. Use current F1s rules and just change motor run for rounds to 7 sec. Just write it up and send to Chuck..
*  Mike Valerie McKeever
I am told it will be P in 2024 and electric after that…strong preference for S over Q on West Coast
* Top of Form
Bottom of Form

Donald Wilkinson
go with f1s.
*  Derek McGuckin
Write it up!
*  David Wagner
Keep up the good fight Sevak
*  Don DeLoach
Replace F1Q with F1S
*  Randy Secor
Well, said Sevek!
*  Can Tezcan
My only concern is that F1S is too fast, too much power in that small thing. Must be definitely modified to some lower values, so that a junior can also trim it.
Randy Secor
Can Tezcan an F1 P with a cyclone on it isn’t exactly a ? slow airplane ?
*  Can Tezcan
Randy Secor yeah you are right. However, the P has bigger wings and a little bit more solid according to F1S.
For its size and weight it comes to me overpowered. But don’t want to claim. Built and fly(crash ) F1S but no P
*  Robert Donnelly
Can Tezcan this is how Skylar got started. She has always been very comfortable and holds a couple AMA records with these airplanes .

*  Tapio Linkosalo
Can, I agree. F1S is a bit too small and way overpowered to replace F1P. Something a bit larger (F1H / F1B size), and with rules for efficient control of maximum power would be better. However I also agree that F1Q is not the replacement for F1P.
*  Michael Achterberg
Can Tezcan They can be adjusted within a given range for short first few flights. Not really a problem. I’m guessing there are winkle stick numbers that work quite nice..Bottom of Form
Ronnie Espolt
Sevak, thank you, this was well thought out explanation. Working in other forms of modeling for youth, I think you have checked all the boxes to justify the more inclusive class of model. Good job!
Tiffaney O’Dell
Well argued.
*  Michael Achterberg
This is an excellent idea.. F1p was dead on inception. They didnt like F1j because excess performance. An they were correct. But instead of keeping an event that brought jrs out in droves they thought of Mavericks and TD .051 motors. All they had to do was reduce motor run from 7 sec to 5 sec. Drop the silly 2 min max and make it 3min like all other F1 events. Or band nitro fuel..Any or all of these would have fixed the event.. Austin Gunder took a poll of every jr at Jr. WChamps. It was unanimous they wanted F1j and nobody wanted F1p.
Fly a very fast model with lock down airframe was silly.. Of course its failing.. F1s is a good event to replace it. Be very easy to fly with auto rudder and VIT, but the TC will never approve that. Makes it harder to adjust but doable. An there are kits to build them. It is a fun event. Just make 7 sec motor run in rounds and 5 sec in flyoffs. The jrs will have a lot more fun and most countries will have full teams. Doesn’t need to be modified, just need a little help trimming. Just make a little Dbox wing so it stays stable in speed and they fly fine..
*  Michael Achterberg
Also, F1q isnt going to be popular with jrs. Too slow and too big and expensive for top of the line. F1a. people watch now to see spectacular launches. F1b has a nice burst. F1q is a nice event but lots of electronics to deal with and constant rule proposals..F1s is simple and cheap by comparison. And yes the jrs will love them cause they are fast. Kids like fast. Oh hell we all do..An choice of F1p verses F1s in a no brainer.
Also, very good for parents footing the bill. They will vote F1s..
*  Omri Sirkis
Sorry, my American friends,
I totally disagree.
as an F1q and F1s flyer, i find F1S much harder to trim, as it has fixed surfaces, true, it is very cheap and easy to build, but getting a good flight ,depend on a consistent launch and perfect trim.
The fast climb of a good E36 also makes for a safety issue. Not to mention the high revving prop. An F1Q is much safer and tolerant and CAN be launched by a 10 year old.
Mihály Váradi
Omri Sirkis, I agree with every single word you wrote !

*  Sevak Malkhasyan
Omri Sirkis no need to apologize, it is your opinion. Ty for sharing. I don’t believe it is fair to say E-36 is a safety issue. Many have an RDT system, new timers come with them on the board. Yes the propellor is faster then an F1Q … but why is anyone putting their finger in the prop. No need to needle the motor.
Ofcourse F1Q is a much less critical event… but where is the merit in this. If almost anyone can launch the model with minimal to no experience and have a huge range of what is considered a good launch.
Ofcourse F1Q is easier to trim…. It moves very slowly. E-36 is more challenging but it is no different then trimming a CLG. Expect the event provides us the gift to make thrust adjustments.
What is wrong with a challenge, F1S does not have to be a critical event, there are proven designs which are not critical and very high performing.
My concern is the size of F1Q models, performance and inability / lack of interest of organizers to test the electronics of competitors.
Why are we getting rid of F1P and who is making these proposals without the input of countries which participate in the Jr champs?

*  Sevak Malkhasyan
Omri Sirkis the biggest issue is participation. I’m not apposed to F1Q but can not see it increasing participation.
Which event will increase participation. Which will also allow everyone to financially participate in the jr champs. Not every parent can spend a few thousand dollars for a single airplane. But most parents can put aside $200 for the child’s hobby.
*  Omri Sirkis
Sevak Malkhasyan
You must know that a junior compeating in A or B have to put down few thousands
As well. I believe that doing Q is actually cheaper than A or B.
I agree that F1S is not as expensive.Top of Form
Bottom of Form
*  Jean-Luc Drapeau
I too share the opinions of Omri and Mihály
*  David Ginns
Well written and the way forward
*  Cesare Gianni
I couldn’t agree more with Omry and Mihaly.
Trimming a competitive F1S is far more difficult then F1Q.
*  Serg Vorvihvist
I think that for youth competition will be better to use non-geared Q models. As a competitor that began with non-geared model I can say that it much simple. It make possible to build his own model. Problem is how to correctly determine such model in rules.
Tapio Linkosalo
Serg, this sounds like a good idea. Direct drive F1Q models are quite simple compared to current geared ones, yet have decent performance. Maybe simply restrict the max prop diameter to something like 13 or 14 in?
*  Jean-Luc Drapeau
I fly in F1S and F1Q. I flew young people in F1S.
the smaller the models, the more delicate and uncertain they are. (F1G, F1H) the same goes for the F1S which is more nervous and not to be put in all hands. the F1Q is becoming more and more popular and I have no doubt that the rule is accepted, we will be able to direct young people towards much more efficient models than the F1S.
in any case, you can’t do worse than the F1J or the F1P !
I think it’s perfectly possible to imagine fairly simple plans of F1Q.
this certainly requires the use of a fairly expensive regulator engine block but even with that we will remain at a much more reasonable cost than the F1A and B even junior !!!!
moreover, juniors will be able to progress to the same international category as seniors without having to change models.
*  Chris Edge
Sevak, a well-written piece. I totally agree that F1Q is not the class to replace Junior F1P, I also agree that F1S isn’t either. I do however believe that an ‘electric F1P’ is the logical way forward BUT there is little data as yet on how suitable they would be for juniors (and senior !) flyers. In the US there are other electric classes as I understand it and in the UK there is an Open Electric class (seen a 1300 Satellite on a 6S LiPo – it’s startling !) so maybe something could be worked up. Again, thanks for bringing this to our attention. CHE
*  Jean-Luc Drapeau
dear Sevak even if I don’t completely agree with you, thank you for asking the question, because it’s only my opinion and I’m not sure I’m right.
I am only sure of one thing: you are my friend
and I appreciate you very much for your quality of modeling and the will to advance our sport.
Sevak friendships
Joshua Finn sorry . This is MY experience with E36. If you can trim a fast model in 2 flights ,
*  Charlie Jones
So I have read all comments posted here and in other places. And like many issues we have varying opinions.
But my biggest concern is the F1 Technical Committee is the one making this proposal, not a specific country. Who did they discuss it with? How did they arrive at the decision of Q replacing P? It is quite possible I missed the conversation of this subject or even some polling about what countries who participate in the Jr World Championships would like. But it would helpful to have some background on how we got here.
*  Ken Faux
Lots of comments mainly from electric flyers on here, so here is my take. I have flown only engine powered models since I was a 15 year old kid that is about to turn 70. As that 15 year old I built and flew an F1c powered by a piped G15, the current state of the art in 1968, juniors are more capable than some give them credit for. I have great concern of replacing a power class that has always been IC engine based with an electric class, they are totally different things. The junior class was a feeder to the senior F1c event. Originally the junior’s flew F1c models. The change to F1j was a good move as that class is like small F1c models and still very exciting to fly. They were a great introduction to move on into F1c as juniors became seniors. I have no idea who came up with F1p, ungainly models that are simple but more difficult to trim, we’re they intended to kill interest? The fact that Austin Gunder discussed the proposed move to F1p with the contemporary competitors and everyone wanted to stay with F1j says it all, no one listened to those flying.
F1q models are complex and more like a set of F1a flying surfaces with an over long F1b power pattern resulting in huge altitude and excessive duration. Juniors normally want to fly at local fields, few would have a suitable field to fly ten minute models. I wonder who came up with this proposal and whether it was discussed with the people that flew at the last Junior championships. I think I can foresee the real reason for this proposal.
Ken Faux What do you think is the real reason? With apologies to F1Q flyers, I’m not a huge fan of the event, mostly because the rules keep changing, and I don’t have time to keep abreast. Also, it lacks some of the excitement of the other classes.
*  Ben Tarcher
Especially where juniors are concerned. I feel there is a lot of future in electric FF. I have flown all the Electric Classes , FAI and AMA I have focused on Q in the past few years because I am getting older and can not run to launch F1A models or chase them.
*  Ben Tarcher
I do not completely agree with Sevak in that I do not think F1 S will be suitable for youth flyers the way it is now nor do I think F1 Q is either. I think that Serg may have the right idea in that a Q model with fixed prop may be a happy middle ground for Youth flyers. I fly both types of Q and the fixed prop models do have certain characteristics closer to J and P models. The large geared folding prop models are still a challenge. If the rules are left alone for a few years more flyers would fly this class.
*  Ben Tarcher
Sevak is a fantastic flyer and very skilled at trimming F1S models. This is not easy to do. I think it would turn off many Youth Modelers because of the difficulty in flying these models. Q, on the other hand, is a more forgiving event. It does take a lot of skill to fly one well but not too much skill to fly one! Also, there seems to be fewer super crashers in Q as the air speeds are not as great as in F1S This means less total destruction and less heart break! I do feel a smaller version of the Q model could be developed which would require easier transport and construction costs. In Conclusion …lets leave F1Q alone for a few years and try to develop an in between Q and S class more suitable and affordable for Youth Flyers.


F1P and E-36 what have we learned?

A few years back the powers at be at NFFS looked at their small electric class called E-30 and saidwith the new technology this is way out of date, lets get a few smart guys to define a new small electric class and have some guys build a few models and fly them to see how they go.  The did, possibly tweaked a little and E-36 was born.

At about the same time another group of powers at be came back from watching Austin Gunder win a championship and said the performance of that air plane is way too much for the kids we need to change the spec. They were correct on the spec and what made it worse and they probably did not know it was Austin was probably on the best natural athlete that has fever flown free flight, did you watch him lay American Football for Stanford University  or just rocket across the filed at Lost Hills to catch his F1C model after D/T.  Anyway  they said how do we detune a F1J. Make the wing shorter so there is no advantage in a carbon wing and lets cut back on the surfaces you can move.  So they announce the new spec.

There are two differences between these two example. The first is very obvious, the second group odf powers at be did not get a bunch of guys to build models to the new rules.  Had they done that they may have found the other difference. The model was not a full locked down model, neither was it fully all moving surface mini F1C.  So the tribal knowledge of with the mentors ofhow to make a model like this work was much less than for a Fully locked down or and all moving model. So getting a model for the kids to fly and the coaches was a significant task.  Randy Secor, an experienced US power flyer wrote and article describing what he went through to get firstly an adaptation of a top US locked up model for this class flown by his son Cody and then a carbon winged model. A lot of work and the mentors were learning at the same time as the young flyers.

Now to be fair the environment for E-36/F1S has got tougher, the power train has got better, perhaps like moving from  a Cox TeeDee to Cyclon  so flying a top model now is tougher than  few years back.

But the key to the E-36’s initial success is some one few it.

So maybe before taking a step into the unknown we need to get that bunch of guys … sorry bunch of kids to try flying the F1S , F1Q or even electric P.  We have groups of kids and mentors who might be starter.  Looking at the P experience this would be a test not only for the kids but for their mentors too.

More Q Mystery

From Ian Kaynes

Interesting to read about the problem that Dieter had with his F1Q. I had a similar problem in the North American flyoff. The energy limiter was set to the 2 Joule quantity and the timer set to shut down the motor at 18.5 sec if the energy limiter had not stopped it. However it continued to climb and when it was apparent that there had been an overrun and it was still under power I pressed the RDT which worked and brought it down. This gave me a puzzle as to why both stopping mechanisms had failed but the timer still responded to RDT.

I did intensive testing to understand what happened. I thought I had a reason when I found that if the start button is pressed before the energy limiter has completed its start up routine then the energy limiter will not start (not surprising), but in that case the timer runs and stops the motor. The only thing I have found on my system is that giving a very brief press on the start button starts the motor but neither the timer nor energy limiter start. As you mention,  the Black Magic timer gives RDT even when not running and so I was able use it to stop the motor and DT the model. I have not confirmed with the Massimo or Roger that their devices have a start signal duration threshold, but I have definitely been able to produce that effect and now keep the button down for a finite time. In F1E I have always held it down long enough to hear the  timer buzzing, but it is not possible to hear the buzzer with a motor running.



Magic Response
With Magic Timers there is a Q- start option.  This requires the start button to be held for one second against the .3 of second for normal non glider such as F1B or G.   This is to require a very positive action to arm the timer, because with a F1Q model typically the motor will start when timer is armed.  It depends on how the model is wired. If the start button is connected to both the Timer and EL a brush on the start button could signal to the EL to start the motor. But it would not have started the timer.  This means the timer would not recognize the EL cutoff. But the RDT does work as you found out.

When the time armed, this means the start button is pressed for either 1 or .3 second the LED will come on and buzzer noise start.  Personally when flying my F1B I listen for the buzzer to make sure the timer is armed or if it is too noise check the LED.

The RDT did work because it is alive as soon as the timer passes it’s start up phase.  If you have your timer to “beep out” the length of the D/T setting that is an indication of when it start up is complete. It is quite fast.

In general with Magic Timer the RDT is active right away because if you left it until after the flight starts it would be a problem for an F1A flyer who might encounter some difficulty while towing the model that might need the RDT.  Although not so likely there could be a partial failure of the prop release mechanism on a F1B causing the prop to start rotating with out all parts of the prop release mechanism working causing much clattering and vibrating using the RDT could alleviate this.