rrTV-PHOTO   New HD TV
HOME   rrTV-PHOTO   GALLERIES   MY GALLERY   HELP-FAQ
myHOME PM pmRR MEMBERS 612 ONLINE 41 EVENTS SEARCH REGISTER  START HERE
 
3 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3     NEXT    >> ]3076 viewsPOST REPLY
Ron’s HeliProz South . Century Helicopter . MTA Hobbies

.
.
Aerobatic FAI F3C Contest > New F3C rules for 2006 (Proposal by Scott Gray)
 
 
Jarno
Veteran
Location: Finland

Check out Scott's updated proposal too. Same place but follow the link "F3C 2006 uusin ehdotus".

Jarno
07-20-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
Wayne Mann
Senior Heliman
Location: United States of America

WM
07-22-2004 Over year old.
 
 
r2160
Senior Heliman
Location: Sydney,Australia

Wayne,

Good point, I guess I never thought about K factors affecting things quite that much.

What about the suggestion I made regarding a known and an unknown schedule?

Having two schedules may not be a bad thing, but what about having amongst the rounds an A and B schedule that everybody flies perhaps two rounds of each. Schedule A may be similar to what transpires now and perhaps B may be just a flying round, perhaps even an unknown schedule.

Glenn
07-22-2004 Over year old.
 
 
Secret Squirrel
Key Veteran
Location: New Zealander living in Melbourne, Australia

I think having an A and B round is still important, most countries concentrate only on the A round anyway.

The problem with 'unknown' rounds is that the difficulty of the round will vary depending on where you are. It is already difficult to get consistent juding of F3C rounds when you travel round the place.

Si

-------------
Simon Lockington
07-22-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
Taipan
Key Veteran
Location: Sydney, Australia

I gotta agree with Wayne. 90 size is more than enough, any bigger is just more expensive & dangerous to boot. That size prolly came around due to more power required for 3D. 60 is still enough for FAI, jeez those were the good old quality days as manufacturers just rushed into design of 90 engines.

Makes sense what Wayne said about K-Factors. The hovering maneuvers are too bloody critical. I'd be happier if all the factors were dropped or equalized - same thing. As it currently gives those who hover well an advantage. In other words, be nice to have more emphasis on aeros.

I'm just theorizing, it's been 4 years since my one & only F3C comp! Want to get back in it.
07-22-2004 Over year old.
 
 
funky3d
Senior Heliman
Location: Fareham, Hampshire, UK

Good Points Wayne.

I'm in favour of no K's to weight hovering.

Regards,
Kev
07-22-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
Chopper
Key Veteran
Location: Stow,Oh- oops, I mean St Louis, nope Stow again

I can't think of anyone more knowledgeable about flying FAI than Wayne. I have entertained re-entering the FAI contest, but the thought of pouring gallons of fuel through a 90 engine to hover a couple hours a day just doesn't do it for me anymore. It also doesn't work for a lot of people. Allot of the contest guys would quit and just go to fun flys if they thought they could maintain sponsorship.

Bigger engines are definitely out. Hovering needs to be a part of the contest, but not the whole contest as Wayne said. The maneuver has to be simple enough to ENTISE pilots to enter.

Wayne you are on a roll, keep going.

Paul Soha
07-22-2004 Over year old.
 
 
Taipan
Key Veteran
Location: Sydney, Australia

Well, why not go back to a 61?

At least for practising hovering maneuvers to save on fuel.
07-22-2004 Over year old.
 
 
GM1
Elite Veteran
Location: Tallahassee, Florida US

Practice

It would seem using a smaller model/motor would be a good idea and save fuel and money but after spending literally thousands of hours practicing, I find that unless I use one of my two contest models to practice, I just learn bad habits as a model of any other weight and power just teaches me to make the wrong corrections. It seems like a good idea but in practice, it doesn't seem to work very well.
Gordie

On a dog sled team, if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes.
07-26-2004 Over year old.
 
 
bald eagle
Veteran
Location: detroit michigan

hey i have an idea about k factors and correct scoring for the wind.
how about a sliding k factor for the wind there has been talk of adding
palm pilots for scoring to take the paper out of it .if the palm pilots and
main computer were in perfect time sync or give or take a few seconds.
then the main computer could be hooked up to a wind guage and as the guy or gal dose the hovering the wind guage takes the reading
and the scoring gives a curved k factor depending on the speed
for that . i guess how much more would depend on the speed of the wind 5mph 1.3 6 mph 1.4 and so on if all computers were in sync
accurate k factors could be given i think the software is ther for that


just my idea


thanks jeff
07-28-2004 Over year old.
 
 
ScottyGray
Heliman
Location: Kitchener, Ontario Canada

Hello all,

Thank you for the comments on my proposal, both good and bad. I didn't think I'd please everyone, but wanted to get my ideas into FAI committe so at least they'd have something else to work with when making up all the new rules that us pilots will have to live with for 3 or more years.

I'm mostly concerned about the manuevers we fly. All the other stuff in the proposal on engine size, model size, fuselages are all just personal ideas and wishful thinking. Good for stirring up the pot and get people thinking of other possible ways to generate interest in F3C.

I am partial to fuses because they look cool in the air, and on the ground when everyone is taking pictures and making magazines that reach thousands of modellers. This was honestly not a grab for points for me, but really just an idea to help keep F3C different, and unique.

In the end, the committee will likely pick and choose from a variety of proposals what they like to create the final ruling. I hope everyone who has any proposal ideas of their own make up a proposal and send it to the F3C committee. That way your own thoughts and ideas will be considered too.

Scott
07-29-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
GM1
Elite Veteran
Location: Tallahassee, Florida US

Hoorah!

Hey Scott, et al,
I told you about having a thick skin if you put your proposal out for public comment .
Seriously, everyone I have spoken to really appreciates the work you did to get your proposal together and think most of the ideas you have espoused have some (or a lot) of merit, as do I.
It is really hard to separate yourself from the process as you try to write things like this. I have spent so many hours practicing to improve my hovering that it is hard for me to de-emphasize the hovering in any new proposal. At the same time, while it takes 2/3 of the flight time to get through the hovering maneuvers they are worth 50% of the score and are so dramatically affected by weather conditions. Are K factors the solution? I seriously don't know. This is the first time since I have been competing that I'm not even sure the folks who will be competing may not even be able to do some of the maneuvers. One question is, must we change the schedules because the flyers are so close together that we need some diffculty to separate them? The joke we older F3C guys make is that there may be more judges than flyers. At the World level, there may be 25 flyers that are pretty close but there are some flyers at the Worlds that even I would beat pretty handily and if the schedule difficulty is increased much more, some of the lower ability flyers there may even become dangerous, but will still come and enter. One of my personal requirements for me to move to F3C was that I was able to at least do all the maneuvers and, while they may not be pretty or score very well, I was no threat, under none failure situations, to hurt someone. So far so good but the last schedule change has required me to spend LOTS of hours to become safe enough to even enter. Any of the new proposals I have seen would require me to spend hundreds of hours (maybe thousands) to get to the point I can get through the schedule without having a zero thrown in as an unrecognizable maneuver. As Paul has mentioned, I'm not sure I'm willing to do that, especially at my age, with my eyesight and reflexes (I suffer from tortoise nervosa )
I know the US is working on an additional proposal and I am submitting some ideas for that but am very concerned about cost, difficulty, and safety. This is tough and it may all be for no reward.
Gordie

On a dog sled team, if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes.
07-29-2004 Over year old.
 
 
Jarno
Veteran
Location: Finland

Quote 
I am partial to fuses because they look cool in the air, and on the ground when everyone is taking pictures and making magazines that reach thousands of modellers. This was honestly not a grab for points for me, but really just an idea to help keep F3C different, and unique.


Yes. Fuselages are awesome. But it's the cost factor that goes hand in hand with the fuses. We are having Finnish Championship next weekend and just heard yesterday that one of the guys in national team had crashed his Eagle 3 WC with Nova 4 body to the outer limits. Don't even want to think about how much that smash did cost, but the body itself is worth over 500 euros here. I would get a fuse for my Freya EX WC too, but just can't afford it. I will rather spend my cents to fuel instead. But in any case, you have a point in this issue.

Quote 
I told you about having a thick skin if you put your proposal out for public comment


Not sure about Scotts skin, but it was me who placed the link on RR

Jarno
07-29-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
a_korandr
Veteran
Location: Chicago, IL

Great job, Scott !
07-29-2004 Over year old.
 
 
GM1
Elite Veteran
Location: Tallahassee, Florida US

HeeHee

jarno,
I got a copy of the proposal from Scott at the US Nationals and commented about being able to take criticism to him in person so he knows where it came from. I heard there is a fourth proposal now (other than Scott, Fritz, and Dag) but have not seen it.
Gordie

On a dog sled team, if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes.
07-29-2004 Over year old.
 
 
Jarno
Veteran
Location: Finland

Gordie,

Oki. Just had to say it hehee

I've seen Dags proposal too, but not the rest you mentioned.

More proposals the better FAI F3C will get Great job all of you who have written those or commented!

Jarno
07-29-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
Helipilot01
Senior Heliman
Location: ColliervilleTn

Hi All,

I missed seeing everyone at the Nat's this year so I'm sure I missed out on a lot of good discussion on this subject, so here is my 2 cents. Adjusted for inflation, it’s probably worth just that.....

Several years ago competitive rc model helicopter flying enjoyed it greatest attendance ever. Today, I’d say we are at about 30%, except for FAI, of that previous attendance. FAI numbers remain high because there is no where to advance to. Anyone wanting to fly competition will eventually point out of the lower classes and advance to FAI. This decline in the lower classes was well noted in the years past and much discussion was given to bringing new pilots into competitive flying. At this same time, 3D style flying was growing rapidly. It was decided that the maneuvers in competition should as least reflect the style of 3D in order to draw new pilots into this type of flying. I believe it's easy to see; this did not go as planned and instead maybe went the other way...
Today, we see we have lost a lot of great competitive pilots to 3d or freestyle flying. I personally owe a lot to Paul Soha and Gary Wright for the trophies I collected...They certainly gave me goals to strive for!!!!
Not only are these guys gone...But so are many others. While there are a host of reasons that could apply to each person’s absence, in my opinion, I believe we have made flying competition difficult. I spoke with Horace Hagan at Toledo this year on this same subject. I expressed to him that I believe one of the factors effecting attendance at contest is the two schedules. I believe we would have better attendance with just one schedule. I’ve seen some of the very top in this country make mistakes and forget which schedule they were flying. They lost placement and others advanced not because of their skill, but because of another’s confusion.
I know personally it's tough to finance a competitive year in FAI. I am certainly thankful for the sponsorships I have had over the years, but there was still the lions share that I had to bear. Don't get me wrong, I’m in this hobby because I want to be and I make this choice knowing that some things in my life will be sacrificed. However, that being said, it’s a hard sell to someone flying his one or two models 3D to invest in two FAI type machines and the time necessary to become competitive in two schedules in many different wind, sun, and temp conditions. In my opinion, this person must be asking "Why should I?" when our maneuvers are becoming so much like theirs and his cost currently are so much less, not to mention the dedication that must be there to become competitive in those two schedules. From my vantage point, I see that modelers are flying in competition because they want to, but the system we have now is what causes them to eventually leave.

I commented to Scott via e-mail several weeks ago about his proposal. I believe it has merit and is workable. The one maneuver I didn't like was the inside outside Horz. 8. My concern is for safety on this one maneuver. However, I do like the idea of using Fuse's for FAI. I know that might sound hypocritical based on what I said above about cost, but basic economics says cost in rarely a factor in product sales, especially in a hobby. I have judged and flown a lot of FAI rounds in the past years. I can tell you that points are not given if it’s not clear what the model is doing. Fuses make it easier for the judge to see the model, and therefore easier to score the points you’ve already earned. Even more, I believe FAI flying should be just that. The fuse separates it from 3D style flying and it becomes unique to this style of flying. I believe FAI style flying should distinguish itself for other types of model helicopter flying events. Case in point, look at the differences between r/c pylon racing and pattern ….The pattern guys don’t require themselves to fly 6 at a time and do their turn around maneuvers around a pole…Even more, the pylon guys aren’t doing slow rolls on long legs of the course!! Each style of flying is unique to itself and attracts those wishing to follow.

Just my .002……..

Mike Fortune
08-02-2004 Over year old.
 
 
GM1
Elite Veteran
Location: Tallahassee, Florida US

Mike,
I also have to thank you, Paul, Gary, Dana, and some others for motivating me. You guys were good role models. I found a really good group of friends while competing and have maintained those friendships through a lot of years. I wish a lot more guys could experience this feeling.
I also would prefer to go with one schedule as I could then double the amount of practice I can do in the same time but don't think that will happen as too many others seem to prefer it.
As far as the fuse goes, I think you made the best argument for not requiring them. You are automatically rewarded if you fly one because the judges will score you better unconsciously because they see the model better and it presents so much better. Most pilots will choose to fly them because they will score higher but all requiring them will do is increase cost for everyone, as you pointed out. If I want to try competitive flying, needing two fuse models is pretty intimidating. I flew Class II and most of Class III with only one model. I found that having a second backup model made good sense so when I built a new model, I kept the one I had been flying as a backup. I always knew it was a good idea but have only needed a backup twice in my whole competitive career but both times it saved me good finish in the contest.
Gordie

On a dog sled team, if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes.
08-02-2004 Over year old.
 
 
w.pasman
Elite Veteran
Location: Netherlands

Wayne,

Some maneuvers are harder than others. For example a straight diagonal is easier than a pirouetting triangle. Otherwise everyone would fly straight lines, right? That's why we have k factors.

Someone decided that many hovering figures are harder to do right than the average flying-around figures, and thus need higher k. As you said yourself, every error can be seen, the hovering figures last longer and you dont have room for error. That alone would justify a higher k factor. Also most people find accurate hovering figures harder than flying around, which also justifies higher k for the hovering figures.

Wind indeed hits some people harder than others. That's why we have multiple rounds and do averaging. Weighing the k's with the wind speed/gustiness or something might be a nice idea.
08-02-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
w.pasman
Elite Veteran
Location: Netherlands

Wayne

Quote 
K factors were originally put into our current schedule to place more emphasis on the hovering maneuvers or in other words to make them as important as the aerobatics, as we have three times the aerobatic maneuvers as we do hovering maneuvers.


Our F3C program doesn't have three times the aerobatic maneuvers as hovering maneuvers, I think it's about 50-50. What F3C are you talking about
08-02-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
3 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3     NEXT    >> ]3076 viewsPOST REPLY
Model Rectifier Corp . PowerHelis . JR-Spektrum

.
.
Aerobatic FAI F3C Contest > New F3C rules for 2006 (Proposal by Scott Gray)
  UPDATE SCREEN   PRINT TOPIC Advertisers 

Subscribe to This Topic

Saturday, September 6 - 7:34 pm - Copyright © 2000 - 2008 runryder.com | email | link to rr | runryder needs cookie