RunRyder - New F3C rules for 2006 (Proposal by Scott Gray)

rrTV-PHOTO

New HD TV

HOME rrTV-PHOTO GALLERIES MY GALLERY HELP-FAQ

myHOME PM pmRR MEMBERS 451 ONLINE 29 EVENTS SEARCH REGISTER START HERE

3 pages [ << < ( 1 ) 2 3 NEXT >> ]

3081 views

POST REPLY

Autography FlightPower	.	Advantage Hobby	.	Revolution Models
	.		.

Aerobatic FAI F3C Contest > New F3C rules for 2006 (Proposal by Scott Gray)

Jarno
Veteran
Location: Finland

Check this out. I found it very interesting. Not sure if you guys/gals have already seen this, but you can find it at our home page (Helicopter Team Finland).

Here is the link.

www.ilmailuliitto.fi/lennokki/hctf

Then just click "KILPAILEMINEN" on the left and there you see a link "F3C 2006 ehdotus". Sorry for the inconvenience, the site is in Finnish only but the proposal is written in English

Cheers

Jarno

07-14-2004 Over year old.

HOMEPAGE

Secret Squirrel
Key Veteran
Location: New Zealander living in Melbourne, Australia

Yeah it's not a bad proposal I reckon. I heard some Germans also had a proposal, but no one was really that keen on the backwards inverted auto with two 90 degree turns and you can either flip or roll out at the end?

-------------
Simon Lockington

07-14-2004 Over year old.

HOMEPAGE

Taipan
Key Veteran
Location: Sydney, Australia

Yikes!

G'day Jarno, how is Brendan's EX WC? I was sad to see it go.

I don't think Scott is flying enough 3D!

Maximum 140 size engines?? Can you say OS140RX EFI or the like?

Great, higher running costs.

9kg or 20lb limit. Don't any of you need a permit for heavy models like this? Here in Aussie it's 7kg or more.

Some of his maneuvers are cool, like the 3 leaf clover. Others are a real doozy. Only thing about the looping auto is it wouldn't be wholly within the 120 deg (?) window.

Bonus points for using a fuse? Gimme a break, seems like he's written this up to his advantage. If that happens, then I guess most competitors would put on one as well.

However won't using a fuse hamper the more 3D maneuvers?

07-14-2004 Over year old.

GM1
Elite Veteran
Location: Tallahassee, Florida US

Proposal

I read this proposal several times and have corresponded to Scott with comments and suggestions. First, let me say how much I appreciate all the thought and work that went into this proposal and I think it has real posibilities. I wrote the current AMA Class I, II, and III rules and know how much time, thought, discussion, and rewriting it takes and you cannot be sensitive to criticism or you'll quit after the first day. There are a few things that I would like to promote discussion on in this proposal.
1. Motor size increase to 1.4 cu in.
My opinion: Other than the obvious increase in fuel burn, we are currently right on the edge of development for the current size models. If we increase the horsepower by 40%, the current models will be too small to absorb the power increase and thus necessitate an increase in model size. Current street price on the Hirobo Eagle WC3 in the US is around $2900. Increase the model size and the price of components will increase correspondingly. Granted, many of the competitors are sponsored so model cost would not be of any consequence to them but since I buy my models, it would matter to me. Servos would also necessarily require an increase in power to be safe and, probably would also be more expensive. Main blades and TR blades would get longer, more $$. Would the larger model fly and present itself to the judges better? Yes, probably absolutely yes. Would the increase promote more people participating in the sport? Here I have no clue about the reality of it, only a thought: " As cost increases, particpation decreases." I could be wrong here.
2 Turnaround maneuvers.
As a flyer, I would probably like this as I have more opportunities to score points (or lose points) but as a contest official, I would hate this as it has just doubled the number of people required to run a contest as it would require scribes to record each of the judge's scores so he could watch the model continuously.
3. Maneuvers
I have no particular bias for or against any of Scott's proposed maneuvers, in fact I like a lot of them. I do have a concern about one, the three leaf clover. While the maneuver is VERY cool, the concern I have is requiring the model to fly directly toward the flight line and particularly at the pilot and judges. If there were a problem with the model while traveling in that general direction, it might end up crashing in a very undersirable location. Now while I agree that any model can go any direction at any time, a model traveling parallel to the flight line has the highest statistcal chance to follow a ballistic path and stay out front of any particpants or spectators, thus with minimum risk to life and limb.
Like I said, this is to promote interest and discussion . What do you guys think?

On a dog sled team, if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes.

07-15-2004 Over year old.

Secret Squirrel
Key Veteran
Location: New Zealander living in Melbourne, Australia

Gidday Geordie,
I also wrote Scott a few pages of feedback. I totally missed the point about the 3 leaf clover having a segment coming back at the crowd. I had a different interpretation, but looking at it now after your description I can see it.

I had a couple of reservations in regarding the engine size and the fuselage bonus. My point was that the fuselage bonus should only apply during the hovering as that is the point where fuses are at a disadvantage over pod and boom. I feel that during the aeros, fuses have an advantage as they present better.

Overall though, I think Scott has done a great job with this. It will certainly keep us on our toes if it gets passed!

Si

-------------
Simon Lockington

07-15-2004 Over year old.

HOMEPAGE

hpais
Senior Heliman
Location: Sao Paulo, SP - Brazil

23cc rule allows for gassers

I personally own a gasoline powered helicopter, the Predator Gasser with the Zenoah G23PUH engine. A rule allowing 23cc would allow all the gasser machines to participate in the F3C contests. Current rules eliminate any gasser machine from participating, since as far as I know, there are no gasser machines smaller than 23cc.

Speaking of costs, the cost of gasoline versus glow fuel is like 1/10. Hence the cost of fuel will be almost eliminated for those pilots flying gassers, hence allowing more people to train, evolve, be prepared and disciplined, get the hours of training and discipline F3C requires.

07-15-2004 Over year old.

GM1
Elite Veteran
Location: Tallahassee, Florida US

Gassers

Current rules allow for 15cc two stroke glow, 20 cc 4 stroke glow, and 25cc gas. It also allows electric with 42V unloaded max and one battery change per flight. Turbines have not been addressed to my knowlege.
Gordie

On a dog sled team, if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes.

07-15-2004 Over year old.

Secret Squirrel
Key Veteran
Location: New Zealander living in Melbourne, Australia

Yeah gassers up to 25cc have been allowed for ages.

Si

-------------
Simon Lockington

07-15-2004 Over year old.

HOMEPAGE

Jarno
Veteran
Location: Finland

This is very interesting discussion!

Geordie, you pointed out many important things and safety sure is one of them. When thinking of new manouvers we should all the time keep safety in mind. F3C helicopter with a full fuselage can whizz past very, very quickly and it can be compared to a ballistic missile when things go wrong enough. Another thing is the blades. I'm not sure if the metal blades should be allowed?! How can we be totally sure that the blades are ok and there is no minor cracks on them etc. I'm not any bright spark, but I can sure tell that if a metal blade will brake up in a crash it won't be just dust and sticks like carbon.

What comes to fuselages thing. I think that Scott has a bit of his own preferencies buried in this particular case

As far as I know he has that hybrid-fuse-thing on his Vigor and that might be considered as a full fuselage by this new proposal. So he may maximize his points without having much problems in hovering in cross winds. So this would end up so that all the pilots will have similar body

Turnarounds would be judged likewise as they do in F3A or am I wrong? Not sure how many judges they have, so I have no idea if the need for judges will expand or not.

As for the manouvers I like them mostly. Those will definitely challenge pilots more than nowadays, but have to keep newcomers in mind too. If the A-program comes too difficult to fly, then it will decrease the number of those who will try out competing in F3C.

The engine thing is what I don't like. If we are heading to 140-size engines and even bigger helis it means that I hardly can afford it in the future. Or at least I'll have to stop eating to save all my hard earned cents to finance my competing. And I'm sure that here in Finland it sure means that the number of newcomers will most likely decrease.

Taipan, The EX WC is going strong. It's pure fun!

Jarno

07-15-2004 Over year old.

HOMEPAGE

Secret Squirrel
Key Veteran
Location: New Zealander living in Melbourne, Australia

Hi Jarno,
Yeah I'm concerned about the cost of entry also if the engine regs grow and also the fuselage thing. Especially for those who prefer machines that don't have one readily available (ie Raptor/Vigor etc).

Also, most countries will now have a pretty large skill gap between their 'intermediate' class and the new F3C class. However this is something for each country to sort out.

Si

-------------
Simon Lockington

07-15-2004 Over year old.

HOMEPAGE

Jarno
Veteran
Location: Finland

skill gap

Yep, more practise then

Or each country will have to raise the bar on intemediate class too. Perhaps this current F3C program could work as a basis for a new 'Sports' program...

Jarno

07-15-2004 Over year old.

HOMEPAGE

johnb
Key Veteran
Location: Guildford, Surrey UK

we (UK) noticed the large jump from our sportsmans competition up to the F3C competitions and introduced the Advanced Sportsmans schedule - so far we've had 0 entrants for it.

Schedule details can be found here

07-15-2004 Over year old.

GM1
Elite Veteran
Location: Tallahassee, Florida US

participation

One of my greatest concerns is getting the rules so difficult that it drives particpants away before they actually get involved. In the US, we have three classes before we begin F3C. Class I is only hovering, Class II requires basic aerobatics, stall turn, loop, roll, and Class III uses nearly all of the F3C skills, multi position hovering, combination maneuvers, and autorotations. Over the years, participation has very gradually decreased despite our best efforts to promote events and get new people involved.
We hoped Class I would be an entry level, with 30 size models and moderate radio systems. What we have seen instead is 90 size F3C models sometimes even with fuselages in competition so it has not worked out like we planned. Since it appears that all the lower class flyers are flying F3C capable models, it would seem that if we increase the motor and model size of the F3C model, we are automatically increasing the size and cost for the other classes, and hence, the cost of competing. I see this as a BIG negative. I am a partially sponsored pilot, that is, I get reduced prices on all my models, motors, radios, fuel but with the current models, I am stretched pretty thin just to keep up with replacement models and spare parts.
I have flown fuselages, and I really LOVE them for aerobatics as they present the model so well and generate speed to help in vertical lines. I, personally, think that a fuse bonus is a double +, or a double minus if you don't use one. I think you will get extra points if you fly a nice fuse automatically when the judges see it as it makes their job easier and they will subconsciously give a higher score. I'm not sure giving an additional bonus is necessary.
So far the discussion has provided some reinforcement for the problems I have forcasted for Scott's proposal. I still like it, way better than the other two proposals I have seen. Keep those cards and letters coming in, folks.
Gordie

On a dog sled team, if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes.

07-15-2004 Over year old.

Chopper
Key Veteran
Location: Stow,Oh- oops, I mean St Louis, nope Stow again

Hi Gordie, Hi Scotty.

Whew. That was a lot of work on that proposal. We talked about a turnaround type of event before. The technical difficulty in the scoring seems to outweigh any benefit. One alternate suggestion might be to do the maneuvers in a group...that is, do three maneuvers in turnaround, and then break. You can then set up for the next group of three maneuvers and let the judges score that group of three. It also allows the occasional confused pilot to "re-group" if he blows a maneuver and gets out of shape in the wrong direction.

My personal opinion is that we have plenty of power right now. Frankly, I wonder how these things stay together as well as they do.

All in all, it is a good start. There was a proposal to do a F3N that (I believe) would be in addition to the F3C schedule. That simply won’t work. You may get 3 people that will do both, and you can pretty much hand out the ribbons before the event starts. FAI needs to change, but it needs to do it in a consolidated manner.

When the current rules were proposed, they were a lot of the maneuvers that came from the Gauntlet. Some griped that this was 3D, and back then it was relative to the rolling stall turn. The fact now is that unless FAI goes past center to the 3D side of flying, you will not generate much interest, either from the pilots or spectators. I new approach to flying is needed and Scotty knows this. It is reflected in his proposal. Just HOW to do this is the only real discussion.

Making the flying fun for the pilot AND the spectators is the key. When you say contest, 10 guys show up. When you say FUN FLY, 75 guys (and girls) show up. This type of fun can be married to a disciplined type of flying just like the XFC and the 3D Masters. The problem is that it has to appeal to England, Japan, France, Netherlands…etc. That is a tall order.

Scotty, you are on the right track with some of the maneuvers. The FORMAT needs some more discussion in my opinion.

Paul Soha

.

07-19-2004 Over year old.

GM1
Elite Veteran
Location: Tallahassee, Florida US

discussion

Paul,
We have been discussing this for a couple of years now. The question we cannot answer seems to be, "If we change to a more 3D style format, will the 3D types ACTUALLY compete?" You are absolutely correct about the attendance at a contest vs the fun fly but how many of those guys would EVER compete? So, are we changing the format for a good reason and will it accomplish what we want, which is increased participation? Most of the fun fly guys I have talked to just flat out say, they will never compete, no matter what. They do not want to be compared to anyone or have to put in the time to practice. They would rather just go out and "fly". I do not know what the "solution" is but I think we all agree we are willing to try anything that will promote competitive flying, if we can figure out what that is without alienating the few flyers we have now.
Gordie

On a dog sled team, if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes.

07-19-2004 Over year old.

w.pasman
Elite Veteran
Location: Netherlands

Here (netherlands) we also have a proposal for a new 'F3N' 3D program for 2005.
You can find the figures and program at
http://heli.pruts.nl/sportprogramma/
[I think this is related to the german 3D proposal]

For the F3C 2006 I even see FOUR proposals here
http://heli.pruts.nl/f3c/
Scott's proposal is one of them.

07-19-2004 Over year old.

HOMEPAGE

w.pasman
Elite Veteran
Location: Netherlands

GM1

I think for a 3D program we have to accept the heli flying towards the pilot. There would be too many figures ruled out if we don't...
But I agree that some safety limit has to be set. Esp the low high-speed coming in inverted with piroetting stallturn-exit is highly popular now but very dangerous in case of a failure.

07-19-2004 Over year old.

HOMEPAGE

w.pasman
Elite Veteran
Location: Netherlands

I agree with Paul on the attendance of competition vs funfly.
But the cause is not only in the word 'competition' I think. In fact for a competition the organizers DO NOT want many public, they just want a smooth competition without any disturbing factors. Public is kept at VERY safe distance [they won't see anything of the hovering figures,they just wonder when it starts] and usually no announcements are done in local newspapers.
I once was on a competition that was announced in newspapers, combined with other public attractions, barbecue etc, and there were a lot of people. However it interfered quite some with the competition:
- the 'fun' parts use to take more time than planned
- three rounds of f3c competition already easily take a whole day and usually do so.
- transmitter and field control was less strict than usual. Nothing bad happened but I saw quite some 'opportunities' that luckily didn't happen.

07-19-2004 Over year old.

HOMEPAGE

GM1
Elite Veteran
Location: Tallahassee, Florida US

Interesting

I have been told that contests in Japan draw large crowds and think that would be great but, again from what I have heard, the Japanese audience is very well informed. for us here, it would require that the attendees be informed about what is happening, an announcer, programs, a festival atmosphere, like F1, NASCAR, or NHRA. However, if we did manage to attract a crowd of spectators, we would then also be liable for their safety, and the larger the crowd, the bigger the problem.
The problem arises when the "real life" personnel needs surface and it would take a large group of people willing to work for a couple of days for no pay and damned little recognition. While a large national event may be able to draw that kind of work force, a local "contest" almost certainly cannot. Also, the larger the spectator crowd, the more people you would need to run the event, more crowd control, more food, more sanitary facilities, and so on.
Interesting thoughts and ideas.
Gordie

On a dog sled team, if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes.

07-19-2004 Over year old.

r2160
Senior Heliman
Location: Sydney,Australia

I agree with engine size here.

I must admit that I cannot understand the need for a larger engine.

Here in the land downunder we have (at the past couple of fun flies) had a radar trap running.

We have clocked a couple of machines (setup for F3C) Calibre 90 and Vigor 90 to name but two, clocked at between 180 and 220 kmh (112mph to 140mph).

I wonder why we need more power. The machines are going well, they have plenty of speed, why more power?

I must admit however that while some of the maneouvres in scotts proposal seem a little daunting, skill level is what we are all trying to improve and it will certainly move the bar.

The only thing that I see as a problem now is the difference between full time pilots and those of us that have a job to pay for our gear. Full time pilots that have the time to practice (being that it is their job) can also be offputting to the "normal" flyer.

Going to a contest knowing that the full time pilots are going to beat you isnt always the best incentive. Thats not to say that they havent earnt it, but for some it must be a little disheartening.

I wonder if there was some way to separate the groups or perhaps maybe even put a 'k' factor on these pilots (just a thought).

The other thing with F3C is that there is quite a range of maneouvres available now. What about having a known and unknown round similar to aircraft.

We have competitors who practice very hard on the compulsory maneouvres but having a schedule that they learn in 10 minutes may be a way to separate the men from the boys so to speak. What does everyone think?

Just a thought . . .

Glenn

07-20-2004 Over year old.

3 pages [ << < ( 1 ) 2 3 NEXT >> ]

3081 views

POST REPLY

CarbonXtreme	.	Midland Helicopters	.	HeliProz
	.		.

Aerobatic FAI F3C Contest > New F3C rules for 2006 (Proposal by Scott Gray)

UPDATE SCREEN PRINT TOPIC

Advertisers

Subscribe to This Topic