National Free Flight Society

SEN 3135

  1. Timing better the right model, cutting performance and transition
  2. What performance to give up?
  3. How

Timing better the right model, cutting performance and transition

From: John Carter

A lot of talk following the champs .
1 We have altimeters and hence we will see greater use to validate flights
2 We also need gps to verify the flight path and make certain it was the right flight
3 We need to address performance the models in good calm conditions have to much performance a serious look at specification of A  B and C must be considered
How about in A a max weight of 410 grams no flaps
B nov p no DPR and up min weight by 30 grams
C no folders no flaps and a max weight say 20 ounces imperial measure
All classes a max span
Also so as not immediately make models redundant slow for following yr or even 2yrs present models to be used but with a time penalty ?
Just some thoughts no doubt this will get some interesting responses


What performance to give up?

From: Can Tezcan

Jerry brought some interesting point of views. In the first reading all seems to be logical. However, on one idea I have mixed feelings. On hundred meter run, the athletes are more or less on their limits, the decision of the winner made by 1/100 or 1/1000 of a second. But no one discuss to make the run on one leg or give all runner valium that they should run slower or cut one of their foot. The companies are trying to make the electronic equipment better and more sensitive to be able to distinguish between the 1/1000 of a second to determine the winner. Why we should against performance, the reason of a competition is to perform. Or did I miss something?

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Editor’s interpretation
Jerry is saying that here we are talking about doing better timing of models. But really the biggest problem is that models out fly our flying sites . To fix that problem we need to change the model specs and that can mean giving up performance improvement that we have worked hard to get right. For example, taking something that could apply to all classes, we could forbid variable camber wings – maybe this is something you worked hard to get right but for the good of all we won’t allow that any more. But when you look at the big picture and perhaps not being able to fly at all, giving up the variable camber wing is not such a big deal.


Our community has a well defined process for rule change with proposals from NACs and the FFTSC.
Looking at the onboard/altimeter timing being permitted and the associatedcorrect process, there was a lack of understanding in France on two points. I may have got these wrong but I think that they are are  In a preliminary contest a person was under the impression that you had to be notified in advance if altimeters assisted timing was going to be used.  Not the case ? In the Champs the correct way for the Team Manager to notify the organizer that an altimeter timing check was required was to write Altimeter on the time card when they signed it.  This was done for only 3 people in the F1A fly off so most requests were disallowed. The TMs then knew this for B and C so did it properly. Both of these could be considered as  ‘minor’ clarifications to the sporting code and possibly someone  on the FFTSC? Familiar with the details could write that.

Resolution of these issues in general is important for the long term survival of Free Flight so we need to give it some level of attention. Perhaps the FFTSC or a group of NACs could make a special effort to come up with proposals that have been discussed in advance of CIAM meetings with the idea pre-resolving contentious issues and testing some approaches.