Re: Re: Another Possible F1D Rules Change

From: Nick Ray <lasray_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:17:19 -0400

Leo,

Thanks for responding.

I'll say it, I still don't like the 1.4g models. The rubber requirement is
too fussy for my taste and I have been flying other events as a result. I
also *really *don't like that it is impossible to break 40 minutes with a
1.4g model. With that said, I respect the reasons they came about. My goal
was to create a way to have the best of both worlds. The top tier flyers at
the last world champs were generally flying retrofitted models with
spacers. I think while this is still the case, we could amend the rules
without significantly derailing anyone's development efforts. John Kagan
and many others have shown that it is quite possible to build a strong 1.2g
model with OS film. It some ways, having a lower minimum weight simplifies
construction by discouraging the use of heavier composite parts. I think
this will be helpful as more and more composite parts are used, and the
Builder of the Model question is raised once again.

I think that we are seeing an influx in participation, but the cause is
unclear. Having the world champs at a new venue has historically increased
participation. Likewise, many in the US who have been unable to travel to
European world champs are enticed by potentially being able to drive to a
world champs.

Regards,

Nick



On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:37 PM, leop_at_lyradev.com [Indoor_Construction] <
Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> Nick,
>
> Your proposal means, with no uncertainty, that F1D airframes will need be
> built to a 1.2g minimum weight to compete in all contests without having
> different planes for different motor weight contests.
>
> As much as I did not initially like the rule change to 1.4g /0.4g motor
> F1D's, it is evident that the increase in the minimum weight has brought a
> great deal more participants into the class. In the US, the F1D class
> often has the largest number of participants at a contest now. The lowered
> motor weight, given the clarification in how spacers and o-rings are no
> longer counted as motor weight, has not worked out badly, at all. It is
> not that hard for all competitors to have motors within 0.25% or better of
> the maximum weight so that the effect of differential motors weights has
> been minimized to less than 5 seconds of flight duration.
>
> From a practical standpoint, we really want consistent class rules across
> all contests and all countries. As much as I was against the rule changes
> four years ago, I think they have worked out much better than expected and
> even better than the rule change proponents' had hoped. There still may be
> problems with the style of flying required with the lower motor weights but
> we will see a return to the need for good vp prop and setup skills at the
> 2018 WC in the Cat III West Baden Atrium. And, F1D's can still get hung on
> the ceiling girders at Lakehurst and catwalk at Slanic so the current rules
> planes can still out fly any site currently in use
>
> LeoP
>
>
>
Received on Wed Oct 19 2016 - 10:17:21 CEST