Technology paper - collected comments


From Andrew Longhurst


I have been advocating restrictions in in flight technology systems since 1990 because I could see that it would wreck free flight. We are now down to only about half a dozen F1b flyers in the whole country. Why it has taken so long to come up with this saviour of an idea I do not know.
I will accept any proposal along these lines because we are in desperate straights.
I would just say this. Why make it three divisions in the main classes why not just two. ie. eveything or nothing. Then in course of time the amount of rubber, towline, engine run etc. can be adjusted to provide parity. This is just a thought and I am prepared to be brushed aside as usual. The important thing is that in every event there is an absolutely no changing of incidence of any surface (including prop) during any part of the timed flight.

Lastly we need to be aware that the important voices are those of folk who wish to compete but have been put off by this unnecessary complexity.

From John Thomson


In the proposal to go to CIAM it says new class can have auto rudder. In the proposed format for Stonehenge Cup it says no auto rudder .
Also the 35 dcm will exclude virtually all the classic models as they mostly have 37.5 dcm stemming from the power loading rule .
 

From Ron Marking


The FFTC are to be congratulated on their realisation of the problems with the FAI Classes and their willingness to propose such a radical solution. I am sure that it is the technology which keeps many modellers from competing in these classes and I wish you well in your endeavour.
I should like to make the following comments.
1.    I am not too sure about the "no minimum weight " in F1A/3, F1B/3 and F1C/3, but time will tell.
2.    There is very little technology difference between brushed and brushless motors. In all other classes you have seen that it is the use of moving surfaces that is the problem. I would therefore suggest:-
    F1Q/1 Unlimited technology at reduced battery weight of 100grams for Nickel types and 70grams for Lithium types. 16sec motor run.
    F1Q/2 Models restricted to DT only (no other trim changes permitted) and present battery restrictions. 20sec motor run.
    Fly-off motor runs would be reduced by 4sec and 5sec respectively.

From Gavin Manion


Firstly a general agreement with Andrew Longhurst, that I will accept any changes generally along the lines proposed. I share his concerns about there being three varieties on offer, that is surely one too many. I also agree with Ron Marking's fear that "no minimum weight" could have some unexpected consequences; we are, after all, trying to limit technology/structural complexity.
So, could I suggest that it's tailplane movement which makes the difference? Allow an alternative F1A,B and C where tailplanes can move only once (other than for DT) and hence no bunt. It might be prudent to take as read that the "alternative" classes prohibit any camber changes...
This would differentiate between a "simple" circle tow F1A (surely no one wants to fly straight tow?) and all the bunters/flappers etc either electronic or mechanical.
It would produce easy-to-trim VIT power models (or so I imagine as I don't fly power)
F1B needs a bit of thought as the current FFTC proposal would allow a Tony Matthews style all carbon PIG on 40 grams and that sounds a very potent solution!
I don't really know F1E, but conversations with "my" local F1E flier suggests that this approach would remove an unnecessary potential complication. About F1Q I really cannot comment.
I essence this "T/P moves once" approach would mean that, aerodynamically, a late 60s to late 80s model would be useable/competitive though of course the structure would be "free", and there should be quite a few of us either with such models, or comfortable with that level of technology.

From Kris Best


 I am very much in favour of 'lower' tech models being flown in the FAI competitions but think that the proposed rules are just too low tech. I would like to see slow FAI models that have the flavour of the pre-bunt era and which must be languishing in most peoples attics. In F1A, for example, keep the rules, weight and tow lines the same but allow either auto-rudder or circle tow and no other moving parts or surfaces. Models of this type would be enjoyable to fly and not be hopelessly outclassed except for flyoffs in perfect conditions. No different rules or specifications, just a prize for the highest scoring model that meets these criteria.
 
If the specifications are not too far divorced from current FAI models I think many more people would be tempted back to FAI competitions. All the fun without the inherent difficulty/ expense/ stress of bunters,geared motors, flappers, electronic timers et al.  I don't want to turn back the clock or to stifle developement. I would like changes that will encourage competitors back to meaningful FAI competition.

From Stuart Darmon


I think nearly everyone agrees that FAI is losing support as a result of runaway technical complexity, and that unless something is done this will keep getting worse. I think the FFTC is on the right track with the concept of simpler models flown parallel to current ones, thus avoiding making expensive hardware redundant. However, I do have some reservations about the proposed rules.

Firstly, I seriously doubt that genuine parity between three separate sub-classes is achievable, certainly not without years of tinkering with towlines, engine runs, etc, causing dissent and angst. And what about the next technological leap AFTER flaps, etc? Will towlines and engine runs be reduced even further? If no, we're back to square one, and if yes, it is pointless to do the development, so that whole sub-class is redundant.

Second, I really feel that the proposed low tech rules are TOO reterogressive. For example, where is the logic of banning circle tow gliders? A zoom launching circle tow glider is within anyone's technical reach, and is hugely more rewarding and fun to fly than a brief trot and a stally release. Of course the models must be simple enough not to deter, but surely they must also be exciting enough to encourage.

Finally, I beleive that any class without a weight limit is a potential technical nightmare. I suppose the thinking here is that it will favour stick and tissue. In this country, perhaps, where we have a basically vintage mindset, but can you imagine Andrujkov et al. let loose on 40g of rubber and no minimum weight? I doubt it would look much like BMFA rubber.

If the above appears negative, that is not the intention. I applaud the committee's  guts and leadership for tackling this thorniest of issues, and I believe that the proposal has a lot of good sense behind it.

From Ralph Hebron


I would just like to add my very worthless comments. I am one of those put off by the complexity of modern competition. I have just returned to free flight in the last year and my initial thoughts have led me to build classic glider and vintage rubber as the modern offerings are simply too complex and moving away form the simplicity that free flight once offered as a counterpoint to the gadget led RC world.

We have to keep it simple or, like I did for a period myself, you might as well pick up a transmitter and go full RC. I see this technical addiction infiltrating even FF Scale now with flight profilers etc. A simple point is to look at Middle Wallop events where the simpler classes (vintage/classic) grow with returning modellers who when seeing modern F1x types recoil.

Lastly - cost. One of the attractions of free flight was it was once a lower cost alternative to RC, that is now not the case with the ludicrous amount being spent on gadgetry. In the business world the answer is always keep it simple! Free flight seems to have lost sight of this concept.

From Martin Dilly


LET’S STOCK UP WITH BAMBOO AND OILED SILK


Why do we seem to spend so much time finding excuses not to fly FAI, and to regress further and further away from model development? OK, I accept that not everyone wants to build or buy a bunting all-carbon, electronic multi-function F1A , but it looks like lunacy to group these with 30 year old all-wood circle tow models.

On top of a cupboard near me sits a Vega, the glider Krejcirik flew to place second in the World Championships in 1973. I built mine in 1976; it’s a 35 year old design and hasn’t got a scrap of carbon in it, the towhook’s made with a file and a soldering iron and I last flew it at the Sierra Cup in 1979. Does the FFTC seriously believe that a model like that should be handicapped in the same way as a 2008 M&K model? Don’t tell me that I could fly it on a longer towline if I removed the circle hook and fitted a bit of bent wire instead. Why the heck should I?

There are several issues here. First, circle tow models are much easier to fly than straight tow ones, specially for those of us who may be marginally less fit or young than we used to be. Pounding off inexorably upwind with a straight tow model in the hope of bumping into a thermal is a young man’s game; circle towing gives the chance to pause, get your breath back and assess the situation in peace. It’s not difficult and most other countries seem to have taken it in their stride in the 35 years or more since it first appeared. Why haven’t we in the UK?

Second, and this applies to F1B and C as well as to F1A, does the FFTC not trust the flyer or his timekeeper? Why should we have to do more than simply disable the evil signs of modernity, like circle towhooks, v.i.t. and bunt systems? It’s easy enough to tell whether a glider has a circle towhook operating; it circles on tow. Similarly a bunt-equipped F1C reveals all to the timekeeper within a few seconds of launch; it bunts into the glide. It’s not necessary to cut lines or remove towhooks in order to convert a model into something that was obsolescent almost 40 years ago, which seems to be the aim.

I haven’t noticed similar failures of the organisers’ trust when it comes to matters like checking rubber weight, towline length (of which we seem to have umpteen now, thanks to the proliferation of various Vintage sub-divisions), engine capacity or model weight. No, the competitor is taken on trust with that, so why not with those model features which seem to cause such offence to some in free flight?

Meanwhile I await the appearance of yet another glider class, for models that appeared between pages 139 and 141 of the ’64-65 Zaic Yearbook. There seem now to be classes for darn near everything else.