RE: F1D rules change proposal

From: John Barker <john.barker783_at_ntlworld.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:39:54 -0000

Joshua,

I wish we still had ‘on trust’ BOM like we used to but I helped to remove the BOM rule in England because I could find no way of wording such a rule. That is why I am following this discussion with interest. However I am English and the nearest I have come to F1D is LPP so I am not trying to influence an outcome but I hope a comment would not be out of place.

You suggest that the Hungarians wish to increase the minimum weight to add new gadgets; I think you could very well be right but have you considered the parallel with the outdoor classes: F1A, F1B and F1C? These all started with a generous minimum weight but this made little difference on early designs. However the east Europeans started to put that weight to good use. Different materials gave stronger, stiffer airframes with better aerodynamics and gadgets like VP propellers and auto surfaces became possible. Now the three outdoor classes have aeroplanes that are reliable, can fly in almost any weather and outperform all the aeroplanes from a few years back even though the motor runs and weight of rubber permitted has been greatly reduced. Many flyers seem to enjoy flying these classes and participation in international events is high.

Now to F1D, some of the most beautiful creations on earth. Where do you see this class going? As a trained engineer you will know that the duration equation depends on light weight and better L/D ratio. However if all the concentration is on light weight do you want to spend the next ten years looking for a covering material that is a milligram lighter or a magical piece of balsa that is a fraction stiffer than usual? Do you want F1D to go the same way as EZB, lighter and lighter until only a few people dare to try the class? Or would you welcome the challenge of a little more weight offering alternative ways of making long flights?

John

  

 

 

From: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com [mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of joshuawfinn_at_gmail.com
Sent: 06 February 2014 02:51
To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] F1D rules change proposal

 

  

I think Don S. has hit on the issue. There are already indoor classes which fit the bill for what this proposal is seeking. F1M is already out there and represents a full technology event which is easy to build and transport. They fly well in small sites, though they don't turn as tightly as F1D's, and so on. If you want a class where a nearly all carbon model is possible, well there you go.

 

And that brings out the bigger issue (let the rant begin). Now that Leo and others have made the connection for me, I can see now that a real motive behind the move for a rules change is to force *more* technology into F1D. Honestly I cannot understand the mindset that would come off with this stuff. I've got a long list of new technology that I'd like to try on F1D's, but even my self centered contest program does not extend to lobbying for a rules change so that I can put my gadgets on a plane without paying a penalty for it. And yes, I have contemplated an electronic VIT for F1D models, but to advocate for a rules change because I can't find a battery light enough to do so without going overweight, no, that's just wrong.

 

If you want technology on your model that cannot be accessed without going over the minimum weight, then that's your problem. I shouldn't have to build heavier just so you can have more gadgets which will make my models uncompetitive so that I have to buy or build your gadgets.

 

Good flying,

Joshua Finn

 

 

 
Received on Fri Feb 07 2014 - 03:40:01 CET