Domene | Spletno gostovanje | Reseller gostovanje | EMAIL gostovanje
SSL certifikati | Spletne aplikacije na klik | Brezplačna spletna stran (Website Builder) | WordPress gostovanje
Spletne strani, brezplačna izdelava in namestitev | Poceni letalske karte | Letalske karte | Poceni hoteli

Bogdan · Objavljeno: 06 Nov 2014 19:17 Naslov sporočila:

Bolj, kot prebiram, bolj dobivam občutek, da so to Kaynesovi osebni predlogi, ne pa izbor prejetih predlogov CIAMu. To pojasni tudi dejstvo, da zadeve niso dobili vsi delegati, temveč le nek manjši krog. Bilo bi zanimivo to preveriti pri Kaynesu ali kom iz vrha FF pododbora CIAM. Njegova sestava:

CIAM Free Flight Sub-Committee

Ian W. Kaynes Chairman United Kingdom
Christoph Bachmann Member Switzerland
Pierre Chaussebourg Member France
András Reé Member Hungary
Javier Hernandez Abad Member Spain
Cenny Breeman Member Belgium
Ivan Horejsi Member Czech Rep.
David Ackery Member New Zealand
Daniel Hugo Iele Member Argentina
Wilhelm Kamp Member Austria
Per Findahl Member Sweden
Gianni Cesare Member Italy
Allard van Wallene Member Netherlands
Graham Maynard Member Australia
Cringu Alexandru Popa Member Romania
Bernhard Schwendemann Member Germany
Chuck Etherington Member USA
Ian W. Kaynes World Cup Coordinator United Kingdom

Recimo, peti od zgoraj navzdol prihaja prihodnji teden za nekaj dni na Primorsko.

Bogdan · Objavljeno: 07 Nov 2014 08:01 Naslov sporočila:

Tudi drugod se zgražajo:

Iz SEN-a:
---
Why the rules changes ?

The thought that rules changes will produce a more even playing field makes no sense. Whenever you have a reduction in the models characteristics, whether it be line length, motor weight or engine run, you simply place a higher premium on store bought components. Fliers who want to win will go through the expense, whether it's buying models or machining equipment, to gain an advantage over others. With the demise of the builder of the model rule the guy willing to part with the money gets an immediate advantage. Rule changes regarding the model's characteristics wont make this any different.
Bill Shailor

editors comment

Bill I believe there is some confusion on FB , the document shown there and included in that last SEN is probably an internal CIAM FFTSC document talking about possible ideas that they have recieved but not necessarily endorsed. There was another unrelated posting on FB that attributed all the current ills in Free Flight to increasing technology and model costs. While the FFTSC may have some concerns about costs typically, they are concerned about safety and being able to finish major events in a sporting fashion so might be worried about performance. Most of the items in the possible changes list are performance related. One could consider this to be a CIAM FFTSC Wikileaks incident.
---

Hrvaški forum:
---
http://www.aeromodelarstvo.net/Forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=2805&posts=29&start=1
---

Bogdan · Objavljeno: 07 Nov 2014 11:01 Naslov sporočila:

Kot smo izvedeli v pogovoru z viri iz CIAM, se je vse skupaj začelo z razmišljanji, kako zmanjšati učinkovitost, zmogljivost (performance) modelov. Ideje so bile v obtežitvi modelov, krajšanju vrvic, manj gume, krajših časih delovanja motorja itd. Prvi testi s krajšanjem vrvice pri F1A so pokazali, da to ni dobra izbira. Prišlo je do ideje po zmanjšanju hitrosti s predlogi za debelejšo vrvico in večjo zastavico. Ampak to naj bi bil le brainstorming (viharjenje možganov, izmenjava idej) v nekem krogu pristojnih, tako da je za marsikoga presenečenje, da so se te ideje že pojavile kot osnutki predloga uradnega dokumenta, kljub temu, da je bilo omenjeno, da ni mogoče podajati predlogov, preden se vse ne preizkusi! Lahko da so kateri od predlogov v dokumentu popolnoma napačni! Sploh pa nikakor ni bilo mišljeno, da bi bil tak dokument objavljen na tak način, kot je bil, saj naj bi bil le interni delovni dokument znotraj delovne skupine, pododbora CIAM. Ni v redu, da je prišel ven in da je bil napisan kot predlog sprememb.

Sogovorniki tudi menijo, da mogoče ni treba se toliko posvečati zmogljivostim modelov, da je mogoče bolje se posvetiti obliki tekmovanj. Vsekakor se bo še poskusilo preveriti vpliv večje zastavice, da se bo videlo, kakšne višine se lahko dosežejo. Premer vrvice ne bi smel biti ena od možnosti, pretežko bi ga bilo meriti, brezupno za organizatorje. Predlagajo, da naj tudi mi sami poskusimo preveriti starte z večjo zastavico iz materiala, ki ne prepušča zraka (npr. Ikarex). Z dovolj zbranimi podatki bomo videli, če je to lahko ena od možnosti ČE želimo zmanjšati zmogljivosti modelov. Ampak to je le še vedno le ideja za viharjenje možganov!!!

Z idejo da bi se maksimalni čas letenja v prvem turnuso podaljšal na 240s, se marsikdo strinja in bi znala biti v predlogu sprememb za prihodnje leto. Eden od sogovornikov meni, da bi naj leteli le 5 turnusov, prvi in zadnji naj bi bila na 240s. Tu je sicer bil malo nerazumljiv, saj je omenjal primer letenja na CRO Cupu, ko naj bi bili zadnji leti prepozno in da zato nekateri tekmovalci zaradi iskanja modelov po temi niso mogli prisostvovati podelitvi priznanj (no ja, bolj zgodnji flyoffi v boljšem zraku, pa ne bi ničesar rešili)
Omejevanje 'delovnega časa' bi sicer lahko pomagalo pri zmanjšanju števila tekmovalcev v flyoff-ih, vendar je to lahko težava za organizatorje (dodatne štoparice, težko nadzorovati začetek...), po mnenju sogovornika, pa je to lahko tudi VELIKA priložnost za nešportno obnašanje.

Skratka, mogoče res ni treba se toliko ukvarjati z modeli, temveč preizkusiti ideje, mogoče se da priti do bolj poštenih rezultatov in omogočiti uporabo manjših terenov.

ZAključek je bil - Na nek način pa je dobro, da je prišlo do tega wikileaksa, da nas vse skupaj malce prisili razmišljati o tem problemu.

Bostjan · Objavljeno: 07 Nov 2014 13:09 Naslov sporočila:

Mogoče bi bilo pametno na sestanku podkomisije določiti skupino, ki bi oblikovala nekše predloge (pridobljenje od vseh), mogoče tudi kaj testirala in potem se nek naš končni predlog pošlje naprej.

Bogdan · Objavljeno: 09 Nov 2014 16:51 Naslov sporočila:

Jan Vosejpka se je na račun nekaterih od teh idej takole pošalil na FB, takole bi lahko izgledal F1A model med vleko leta 2016:

(Upam, da bo slikica vidna vsem)

Smile

Damjan · Objavljeno: 25 Nov 2014 20:30 Naslov sporočila:

Kot je pisal Allard na FB, naj bi bili vsi predlogi o spremembah umaknjeni.

Bogdan · Objavljeno: 04 Dec 2014 08:48 Naslov sporočila:

Debate o predlogih za spremembe se še kar nadaljujejo... vseh ne moremo povzeti, kakšno pa že... Tule je nekaj iz SEN-a (v angleščini).

Najprej pismo Didierja Chevenarda, ki mu sledi mnenje urednika Rogera Morrella
---
It's the flying sites that are important.

F1ABC Performance

From: Didier Chevenard

Hi Roger

Just a comment on point 1 which could be misunderstood by our American friends. FAI rules are worldwide and must comply with situations which could be different in other countries.
In Europe we have not the chance to benefit of large areas for flying, and 10 min. flights are in most places impossible to organize. The pressure of civil authorities is more and more severe. The definition of our sport, the very one that we use for discussing on drones or immersion is: the model must remain at sight.
The problem cannot be reduced to the timekeepers issue! Rules have been created with a 3min flight target and we are far from that now.
Flying fields is as much important as the technology issue or the cost issue for limiting the access to our sport, unlike what is said by many.
This has to be taken in consideration as a rational for adjusting the rules!

Take care.

Didier

Editorial reply

Didier

Flying fields are just a big a problem in the USA as any where else. While some sites such as Lost Hills, Denver, El Dorado Dry Lake and probably some in Texas are quite large others like Muncie, Sacramemnto, Wawayanda and Pensacola are quite small.

There are all kinds of free flight competition, including some that can be flown on quite small sites. To the sportsman in the World Champs classes, American or not some of the proposed changes appear to be very arbitary and not well thought out. The people suggesting the changes are not appearing to consult those flying.

The days are past where the the national or international federations can seemingly arbitarily impose rule changes. It might work better if there was better communication with the sportsmen.
---
Nekdo drug pa se je osredotočil na uporabo dodatne tehnologije za zagotavljanje točnosti beleženja časov letenja, ideja pa je vzeta kar iz sveta "pravih" jadralcev, kjer se različne tehnike za dokazovanje dosežkov leta uporabljajo že dolgo... Razmišljanje govori o uporabi sledilcev, če hočete "črne skrinjice".
Merjenje sposobnosti z drugačnim pogledom (Point-Of-View) torej...
---
Performance measuring from another POV

From: Martin Gregorie

Roger,

Here's a bit more input to the F1ABC discussion, this time from soaring wing of sport aviation.

==================
In addition to Roger's comments about motor racing, there are parallels in the world of competitive glider flying too.

Gliding competitions are multi-day events, with all pilots in the same class of glider flying the same task each flyable day. The task is set to suit the weather for the day, so bigger tasks are set on better days.
There are different types of task, but the simplest is the Racing task, a straight-forward race around three or four turnpoints from a starting line to a finish line. Unlike yachting, there is no starting gun. Once the gate is open pilots can start at will. The winner is the pilot who completes the course in the shortest elapsed time or, if the task turned out to be over-set for the day, pilots are scored on how far round the task they got before landing out or, if they had an auxiliary engine on board, how far they'd got when it was started.

Up until GPS technology became available, times were measured on stopwatches by observers at the start and finish lines. Pilots photographed turnpoints as they rounded them with a film camera that was sealed to the glider. The uncut film was developed and examined after the pilot and glider got back to base to prove they had actually gone round all the turnpoints. Landout points were measured as well as possible from maps. As you might guess, scoring was time consuming and labour-intensive. As far as I know there have always been penalties for infringing controlled airspace and, as you might imagine, applying these penalties would have been almost impossible unless the organisers got called by controllers in the infringed airspace and they'd got the glider registration.

About the same time that GPS started to be used as a FF retrieval aid, the first dedicated flight recorders appeared on gliders. These soon became mandatory for competition use. They record a 3-D flight log during the task by registering a fix in position and time at 1 to 4 second intervals. Currently scoring is only done from the flight log. Special purpose programs are used that can examine a competitor's flight log and read off elapsed times for finishers, verify that turnpoints were rounded correctly, pinpoint landout positions and calculate airspace infringement penalties. Gliders with auxiliary engines use flight recorders with a microphone or vibration sensor (known as an Engine Noise Listener, ENL) that mark the log to show if, when and where an engine start ocurred.

Flight recorders are also used for non-competition achievement badges such as height gains, distances covered and time spent in the air. For this type of flight the flight is considered to start on release from aero tow or from the winch. This is marked by 'cutting a notch' in the log, i.e. to mark the fact that you've released you rapidly loose 100 ft or so to put an obvious kink on the log. The end of the flight is also obvious: when the glider has landed and stops moving.

But, enough about glider racing: hopefully that shows that quite a simple, and much lighter and smaller, flight recorder could be used for scoring FF competitions. The end of all flights can be quite easily read off a GPS log: when motion stops the model has landed. Similarly, the start of any flight except F1AH is fairly obvious: it is when the model starts to accelerate upwards. I think the equivalent of an ENL could be used by F1ACHJPQ to mark motor shut-down on the flight log, with the usual processing, jury or a referee doing random spot checks to keep the engine stop mechanism honest. The mark could be triggered by a microswitch on a towhook or mechanical timer or by a signal from an electronic timer for any class that carries one, both to indicate the start of the timed flight for gliders or the end of the engine run for power and electric classes.

There are only two outstanding issues that must be solved before flight recorders can be used in FF competitions:

- sub-second timing for F1CJQ engine runs needs a non-GPS timer. This is because a GPS is at least as accurate a timer as a stopwatch but it only works in whole seconds. The other is organisational.

- how can we score a flight if the model is a flyaway, is lost or stolen or gets damaged so badly, e.g. by D/Ting on a power line, that the flight recorder is destroyed before it can be read by the timekeepers.

----

Some thought needs to be given to limiting performance in F1ABC for a reason that nobody seems to be considering, or at least discussing: the distance that models are now routinely covering in flyoffs and windy contests are steadily increasing while the available flying fields are shrinking in both size and availability. This is something that needs attention sooner rather than later or one day we'll wake up and find there are no usable fields for running competitions on, and by then it will be too late to fix the problem.

Just sayin'.....

Martin Gregorie

Bogdan · Objavljeno: 13 Jan 2015 09:09 Naslov sporočila:

Ian Kaynes je pripravil dokument s predlogi sprememb FAI pravilnika. Predlog se skriva tule, spodaj pa je pregled.

---
Model performance and proposals for 2015

By Ian Kaynes, December 2014

The CIAM Free Flight Subcommittee always keeps model performance under review, but this has been brought into particular focus by the performance evident in the 2013 World Championships and 2014 European Championships. There is a mismatch between our model performance and the typical size of fields available and the competition format. This is shown by the 7 round flights leaving half the competitors with a full score, when flights of over 10 minutes are possible in flyoffs, and when timekeeping eyesight becomes a factor in flyoff results when there is any wind. The basic problems are thus the

- number of flights needed to complete the competition because performance exceeds the maximums required in most rounds

- the distances model fly are much larger than many flying fields - timekeeper eyesight can be a limiting factor.
The problem is what to do about this and how to reduce performance without immediately making existing models obsolete. A difficulty in making any more fundamental changes is the current CIAM rule change schedule whereby proposals are only accepted for the Plenary meeting in the year in which the World Championships are held and any proposals which are accepted become effective the following January. Thus proposals which have now been submitted will be discussed at the April 2015 Plenary meeting and if accepted become effective in January 2016. There is currently no possibility of delaying implementation in order to give more notice of changes which might make models obsolete.

An apparently simple model change is to increase the minimum weight. However, the effect of this would be reduced by developing new wing sections to suit the faster flight speed and use the additional weight for installing more complexity in the models, again making existing models obsolete in a short time.

A fundamental option would be to change to the small classes (F1G F1H F1P) but this would represent a considerable break with tradition, render all models obsolete and so probably be even more unpopular than restrictions on the ABC models. Other possibilities for each class include the following.

F1A
This is the class which has probably seen the greatest increase in performance in the recent years. The zoom height obtained by LDA or flapper models doubles what used to be achieved as a launch height. Line length could be reduced to scale down the performance, but this is the type of change which expands the gap between expert and average competitor, and makes the zoom launch more important. Changes which reduce the zoom launch height could reduce the recent increase in performance. This might be done by ruling that the line cannot be released when launching, having a line strength limit – having a “fuse” in the line which would break at a specified tension, or increasing line drag via a minimum line diameter or a pennant with increased drag. Larger and nonporous pennants were tested by two members of the FFSC and found to reduce launch height but to make towing much less pleasant.

On the aircraft banning flaps would simplify some models but would not reduce performance significantly, just drive models to use LDA sections. A more fundamental limit would be to ban incidence changes of the tailplane, which would totally change launch concept.

F1B
This is possibly the most difficult class on which to reduce performance, but probably also the class with least need of reduction. To reduce motor weight is the easy way, but this falls into the category of a change which increases the gulf between expert and average flyer. Banning delayed prop release or variable pitch props would simplify models but only reduce performance by a few percent. Flaps have not really demonstrated their value, but banning them now would remove another potential complexity before it has become widespread. Limiting the competitor to using only VIT or rudder – but not both – would reduce performance but would also make trimming harder and possibly less satisfactory.

F1C
There are several features on power model which contribute to performance, complexity, cost of models, and unreliability: .geared motors, flaps, folding wings. Reducing the motor run would be possible immediate change. Reducing motor air intake size with a maximum venture diameter (used in some other model categories) would be simple to implement but would need evaluation for what value of limit to set for F1C. Banning geared motors or the model simplifications would need to be on a longer timescale in view of the investment in current models. Banning folding and flapped wings would have the advantage of improving model reliability and possibly reducing the number of crashes, and that danger part of our consideration for F1C.

Organisation of flying
From a performance standpoint the F1A first round max could be brought into line with the other classes at 4 minutes.

The concept of a working time could bring added pressure on finding lift during the rounds. At a championship a limit of 10 minutes could be applied from the time you have engaged a timekeeper, if you have not launched by the end of that time it is counted as an attempt. Each flight would thus be similar to a flyoff as regards the preparation and launch time. Easy to apply to F1B and F1C but rather harder for the flyer to know the time in F1A when towing, but similar to a flyoff in that regard.

This could be extended to a group flying concept where groups of competitors fly together in a limited time window, with some form of normalisation to allow for different weather conditions for each group.

If performance could be reduced a little or more extended maximum flights made, it would be possible to reduce the number of flights below seven. This would reduce the current marathon of a very long competition day for competitors and timekeepers.

Proposals for 2015
The following is a summary of the proposals submitted for changes to the Volume F1 of the
Sporting Code. Full details will be contained in the agenda for the April 2015 CIAM Plenary meeting.

MODEL CHANGES

Germany propose to ban variable geometry of variable wing area in the specifications of F1A, F1B, F1C, F1G F1H F1K F1P. The reasons are given as:
1 not too complex to build
2 not too complex to handle
3 not too expensive
4 to give a newcomer a lot of fun and satisfaction from the beginning
5 to keep the gap between a good flyer and a high-end flyer limited

Poland propose reducing the F1A towline length from 50m to 40m in order to reduce the numbers of fly-offs. Austria propose reducing the F1A towline length from 50m to 35m. The reason is given as: “Performance of F1A models is too high for nowadays flying sites under nowadays rules. The reduction of towline length is a good means to reduce performance. “

United Kingdom propose:-
In F1A the towline diameter must be at least 1.75mm and the line must not be released by the competitor until after the model has been launched.
In F1B the propeller must have been released before the model leaves the competitor’s hands.

In F1C the maximum motor run is reduced from 5 to 4 seconds.

These are one element of a proposed series of restrictions on F1A F1B and F1C postulated for future years. See the UK discussion document.

Germany propose reducing the maximum weight of an F1B motor from 30g to 25g. This will reduce the height of the climb and it is suggested that glide time after the propeller has folded will be of the order of 200 to 220 seconds. This will reduce the numbers in the flyoff.

Austria propose a requirement that all F1C models must have RDT, in order to reduce the feasibility of accidents with physical injury to minimum.

Austria also propose that the F1C standard fuel should use ethanol instead on methanol. Thi is said to offer the two advantages that performance is reduced about 20% without any design changes and toxic agents are no longer used. Germany also propose the same change, with similar reasons

Poland propose to reduce the F1C motor run from 5 seconds to 4 seconds, in order to reduce the numbers in the flyoffs.

The FFSC propose to ban flaps on the classes which have not yet started to use them: F1E, F1G, F1H, F1J, F1K , F1P. This is to eliminate the potential for added complexity in these classes. There was not a clear majority in favour of extending the ban to F1B and so that class is not included.

The USA propose to introduce the E36 class as new FAI class F1S, which proposal was made last year by the FFSC but then withdrawn for lack of support.

FLIGHT TIME AND CONTEST ORGANISATION

The FFSC propose to increase the maximum for F1A in the first round to 4 minutes. Poland also propose this change.

As another change of maximum for F1A F1B and F1C, the FFSC propose also using a 4 minute maximum for the last round if conditions allow. In addition the number of flights should be reduced from 7 to 5. This aims to reduce the marathon nature of flying 7 rounds before the flyoff, with this ease of reaching the flyoff offset by the increased difficulty of a second long maximum flight. The maximum duration is still subject to change according to conditions. A number of World Cup events are already flown to a 5 round format without any problems.

The FFSC propose that the maximum first flyoff be increased to 6 minutes. The 5 minute flyoff represents only a small increase over the rounds and is often rather easy to achieve.

The FFSC propose a system for splitting flyoffs with 12 or more competitors into 2 groups. This would ease the organisational difficulty of large flyoffs which are always possible in good weather. These stretch the facilities to the extreme both in terms of the number of timekeepers and the number of starting positions required. The proposed scheme, a simplification of a system used in Finland, endeavours to balance the potential unfairness of different flying conditions for the two groups. It is possible that on some occasions (item 7) there may be another flyoff required which might not have happened without the group flyoff system. However, this is considered worthwhile for avoiding a final choice of winner based on the results within the different conditions of 2 group flyoffs. The flight times are used directly for ordering the people eliminating the people in the group flyoff irrespective of the different flying conditions. With another flyoff guaranteed by (7) this ordering will not determine the winners but just the lower places. The chance element of being in a group with good or bad air is no different to the starting position draw for F1B and F1C when good air goes past only one end of the starting line.

The proposal requests adding a new item (f) to the bottom of paragraph 3.1.8:-

If the number of competitors in a flyoff is 12 or more and is greater than 25% of the number of competitors in the competition, then the flyoff shall be split into two groups

1.) The number of competitors in each group will be as closely as possible equal

2.) Competitors are allocated a group and starting position by a single draw

3.) A flyoff is flown for each group according to the other regulations of 3.1.8

4.) The second group flyoff must be flown as soon as possible after the first group.

5.) From both groups all flyers who achieve the maximum duration proceed to the next round

6.) An equal number of flyers from each group may proceed to the next round by including competitors from one group those with the best flights below the maximum time, providing the flight times are at least 75% of the maximum.

7.) If the selections (5) and (6) result in fewer than 4 competitors proceeding to the next round, then the two competitors with the highest flight times in each of the groups will proceed to the next round.

8.) Competitors eliminated in group flyoffs will be classified with final placing according to time achieved in the group flyoff

UK Proposal

INCREASING FAI PARTICIPATION

Lots of you will have seen the discussions on e-mail, chat rooms and social media about the proposals that the BMFA (the UK's NAC) has put up for presentation at the 2015 CIAM Plenary.

Many will say they're ridiculous but they've missed the point we need to be talking not about what we do next season but the season 5 years on from now. In other words we need a long-term plan.

When you see these proposals (there's a summary further on) you'll realise that they contain the ideas for a proper future - not yet another 'reactive' quick fix.

The aim is to get more people involved in flying models in the FAI Free Flight Classes that aren't too complex or too expensive or beyond their building skills. What will still be needed from those people, whatever they fly, there will still be a lot of commitment.

We’ve been thinking of a way to do all this without creating a new set of classes, but at the same time gradually reducing the impact of current technology.

Some people have wondered whether a lot of today’s flyers would give up if there was a "ban" on current advanced technology models and of course the last thing we want is for any of today’s flyers to give up; we think there’s a way of having our cake and eating it.

We need to reduce the technology - content and impact - gradually. Not in a knee jerk one-season effort but over a five-year thought through plan that gives FAI model flying an assured future. What we need is more people flying and that flying needs to be more accessible.

We need to remember all the factors that impact on our activity and take account of the real World.

The aim of the BMFA proposal is to begin this process. We believe that CIAM as a whole (a lot of this applies to all the disciplines - not just Free Flight) needs to consider the long term future for the FAI classes and this may well mean altering CIAM's legislative process to allow this to happen.

PROPOSAL TO CIAM TO CONTAIN F1 PERFORMANCE

The premise for the rule changes
The UK holds it to be self-evident that the performance of F1 class Free Flight models has reached a level at which now exceeds sensible limits.

We believe CIAM should commit to a planned step change in performance reduction over a period of five years. The CIAM bureau should mandate the free flight subcommittee to take the appropriate action to create and implement the necessary changes.

Current F1 class models have become extremely effective in achieving the maximum times and Championships are now decided on the fly off. The numbers reaching the fly off are far too high a proportion of the entry. In the last two events some 50% of the entry made the cut. In addition to the management of the numbers we have the situation of models out flying the sites available to us, especially at fly off time when flights of 10 minutes may be required to achieve a result. We need a long-term plan to reduce performance, and hence flight times, without emasculating the event.

In addition we should seek to reduce complexity and thus the cost. The models should be brought closer to the reach of the competent and ambitious sportsman and reduce the need for commercial involvement.

The levels of performance reduction needed are in the order of 50%, to enable a meaningful competition with a round maximum of 2.30 and maximum model performance of no more than 4 minutes.

The change process will require firm management but must avoid the danger of killing enthusiasm for the discipline. We suggest that a programme of change should be staged over 5 years with final complete replacement of models at the end of that time.

The structure of CIAM has meant that in the past changes have been made to model specifications and organisation on a reactive rather than a proactive basis. The effect of this has been to drive the models into ever-greater complexity. Rather than being driven by events we believe that CIAM should change this approach and adopt a proactive plan in order to tackle the current issues. The suggestions are as follows:

The staging of change
Stage 1 - Reductions in performance without model changes – with effect from 2016.
These changes are to show that CIAM is serious in its ambition to take proactive control. Stage 2 - Elimination of devices/technologies that may require re-trimming of models but will not make complete airframes redundant – effective from 2018
Stage 3 - Changes that that will require completely new airframes and will deliver still-air times of no more than 4.0 minutes and enable round maximums to be reduced to 2.30. - Effective from 2020

In order to comply with CIAM procedures only stage 1 changes are tabled as specific proposals at this time. This paper is appended in order to show their position within the phasing of the overall plan.

Detailed rule changes
Stage 1 rule changes
This stage is for simple ideas that will limit the existing performance without a wholesale change to the specification. The existing models can still be flown but there are some limitations placed upon their performance.
• F1A. The diameter of the towline to be increased (specified as 1.75mm diameter) the drag will reduce the launch speed. The towline is not to be released on launch. The launcher final contact point to be within one metre of the end of the line. This will cut the launch impetus and thus the altitude gain.
• F1B. DPR prohibited – A two handed launching is required. This will cut the launch impetus and thus climb height.
• F1C. Cut the engine run to 4 seconds.

Stage 2 rule changes
This stage starts the changes to the model specification. The following “devices” to be prohibited and restrictions introduced. This would be in 3 years (January 2018) these changes can be made without making total model fleets immediately redundant.
• F1A.
o Flaps to wings banned
o Restrict tow movement to three functions being straight, circle and launch.
o Release functions restrict to only launch and glide settings.
• F1B.
o VP props banned
o Flaps to wings banned
o DPR prop start banned
o Only a single timer function other than DT
o Limit prop diameter to 500mm.
o Discus launch banned
• F1C.
o Geared engines banned
o Flapped wings banned
o Folding wings banned
o VP props banned

Stage 3 rule changes
In 5 years (January 2020) further stages that will mean totally new aircraft. The limitations in stages 1 and 2 would be retained but in addition

Span limitation for all classes
• F1A 1.90 metres
• F1B 1.30 metres
• F1C 2.10 metres

Management of the event
• Reduce rounds to 5. The consistency of models means that in good conditions models will still max, the number of flights has a minimal impact. This change allows more time to organise the eventual fly off.
• Within rounds allow a 10-minute working time to launch after the commitment to fly.
• At final stage a reduction of the max to 150 seconds. There will be a sufficient reduction in performance from all the changes to make this a suitable challenge and reduce the size of the flying site size required.

The effect
We believe that the above will start the debate and bring the performance of the F1 classes under control. The changes will still provide exciting models.

Bogdan · Objavljeno: 13 Jan 2015 13:58 Naslov sporočila:

Hm, mislim, da bi bilo nujno odreagirati na to, kar se pripravlja za sestanke CIAM-a v Švici, pripraviti uradni predlog Slovenije oziroma zavzeti stališče do vseh predlogov. Ti so tako koreniti, da vse skupaj kliče po sestanku podkomisije - verjetno dopisna seja ne bi bila najbolj učinkovita, lažje bi bilo predebatirati predloge v živo. Ker do sedaj običajno nismo imeli svojega glasovalca v Lausanni, bi bilo dobro, če bo temu tako še naprej, pooblastiti nekoga iz tujine, da zastopa naša stališča.

Bostjan · Objavljeno: 13 Jan 2015 21:20 Naslov sporočila:

Mogoče še najbolj razumljiva, najcenejša in najlažja rešitev bi bila dvig min. teže za vsaj 50g. v kat F1A,
lp

Damjan · Objavljeno: 15 Jan 2015 19:44 Naslov sporočila:

Na tole temo, ki sem jo poslal predstavnikom vseh aktivnih FF društev, žal nisem dobil niti enega odgovora.
najlažje bo potem za kakšnim vogalom kritizirat, kako sprejemajo vse mimo nas....

Bogdan · Objavljeno: 16 Jan 2015 08:23 Naslov sporočila:

Damjan, mogoče je komu težava angleščina in dožina zapisa, ostali pa si dajemo čas, med drugim mogoče tudi zato, ker še ni čisto uraden. Ti si izkušen in cenjen tekmovalec, poznaš vse kategorije. Verjamem, da bi se večina kar strinjala s tvojim mnenjem. Vem, da si že marsikaj napisal na to temo na FB, na forumih in še kje drugje. Lahko ti zbereš svoje vtise, mnenja in predloge in jih oblikuješ v predlog dokumenta, ki bi ga člani PLPLM pregledali in v nadaljevanju o njem glasovali. To bi bil uradni predlog LZS, obveza našemu delegatu pri CIAM, če pa se ta ne namerava udeležiti sestanka pa bi za naš glas pooblastili predstavnika katere od bližnjih članic FAI, recimo hrvaškega HZS-ja.

Damjan · Objavljeno: 16 Jan 2015 12:35 Naslov sporočila:

Moje mnenje je, da se na modelih ne spremeni nič. Podpiram pomoč tehnologije pri merjenju časov, pod pogojem, da so višinomeri homologirani oz. enotni. Osebno bi sicer prepovedal višinomere povezane s timerjem, saj je to lahko praktično vodljiv model v odvisnosti od pogojev....

Kar se tiče F1B ali F1C, je stvar enostavna. Zmanjšati čas delovanja motorja in težo gume za 10% po moje zadošča. F1B že sedaj niso kritični, pri F1C pa to pomeni 20 % manjšo višino.
Večji problem je pri F1A. Minimalna debelina vrvice 1,75 mm je bebast predlog. Večja zastavica tudi, saj velikost zastavice nima vpliva, dokler le ta ne frfota pri odpenjanju. Zmanjšanje vrvice na 35 ali 40 m je varianta, ki bi zmanjšala št. tekmovalcev v fly offu (sploh po močnejšem vetru) zaradi povečanja št. napak, v samem fly offu pa se da LDA-ja s krajšo vrvico prav tako špricniti, saj tudi s krajšo vrvico lahko dosežeš potrebno oz. še večjo hitrost
Povečanje teže je brez veze, saj imajo LDA-ji že sedaj + 10 % teže...prav tako F1C modeli, ali pa F1B z malo več elektronike...

Predvsem pa sem proti tem predlogom, saj je čisto vseeno, če ti model v termiki odpneš na 100 m (LDA), ali pa navadnega na 60 m in ti v 20 sec. dozešže višino 100 m... Oba modela končata na 300 ali več m višine in padata lahko 5-6 minut.kar pa se dogaja že vse od leta 1972, ko sem se jaz začel ukvarjati z modelarstvom....

Da število modelarjev ni odvisno od cene dejavnosti, je lepo videti pri kategoriji F1Q, ki je najcenejša, kkjub temu pa ima v cele svetu nekaj 10 tekmovalcev....nekajkrat manj, kot nekajkrat dražji F1A, B in C...

Klavdij · Objavljeno: 16 Jan 2015 16:52 Naslov sporočila:

Živjo!

Damjan, strinjam se z vsemi tvojimi kritikami glede F1A (debelejša in krajša vrvica, večja zastavica...). Sam pozdravljam predloga glede omejevanja časa kroženja na vrvici in povečanje max. časa v prvem turnusu. Glede dolžine tekmovanja (5 turnusov) pa sem itak na to navajen na 7... Smile

Samo nekaj mi ni jasno.
Bi prosil če lahko pojasniš tale stavek: "Osebno bi sicer prepovedal višinomere povezane s timerjem, saj je to lahko praktično vodljiv model v odvisnosti od pogojev.... ". Kako lahko model oz. timer z višinomerom postane vodljiv??

Možen scenarij (v razvoju timer-jev):
Lahko se podatke iz višinomera (v stvarnem času) uporabi tako, da model (sam med planiranjem) ustrezno popravlja kote repa/smernika za čimbolj optimalen let.
To pa ne krši pravil.... po moje.

Simon
_________________
Lep pozdrav

Damjan · Objavljeno: 16 Jan 2015 20:40 Naslov sporočila:

Glede uporabe sklepaš pravilno. V primeru dviganja bi model krožil, v primeru slabega zraka pa bi šel naravnost.
To je absolutno sprto z definicijo prostega leta pri modelih, ki prepoveduje povratne funkcije na modelih, ki bi bile odvisne od leta modela oz. od "zunanjih" dejavnikov od trenutka, ko model odpneš.

Domene | Spletno gostovanje | Reseller gostovanje | EMAIL gostovanje SSL certifikati | Spletne aplikacije na klik | Brezplačna spletna stran (Website Builder) | WordPress gostovanje Spletne strani, brezplačna izdelava in namestitev | Poceni letalske karte | Letalske karte | Poceni hoteli

Domene | Spletno gostovanje | Reseller gostovanje | EMAIL gostovanje
SSL certifikati | Spletne aplikacije na klik | Brezplačna spletna stran (Website Builder) | WordPress gostovanje
Spletne strani, brezplačna izdelava in namestitev | Poceni letalske karte | Letalske karte | Poceni hoteli