[NSRCA-discussion] New FAI rule changes

[Vicente Bortone]

On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 10:13 AM Dr Mike Harrison, DDS via NSRCA-discussion
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> 100%,  the true limiter needs to be power and size limits. Period.  Should
> have limited power years ago,.,  that is the key.
>
> Mike Harrison
>
>  Good point Mike   At least the 2x2 meters limit remains the same.   For
> sure this will allow gasoline power to be feasible.  There are many pilots
> that prefer gas power for different reasons.   Also small gasoline power
> engines have been improving a lot.  Easy for beginners pilots that already
> have airplanes like Extras with 35-40 cc gas engines to try pattern.
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> *On
> Behalf Of *davel322--- via NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Friday, April 7, 2023 7:46 AM
> *To:* 'Andrew Palmer' <f3akiwi at gmail.com>; 'General pattern discussion' <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] New FAI rule changes
>
>
>
> 100% spot on.
>
>
>
> I have been making the argument for years that 12S and/or increased weight
> limits will be detrimental to pattern.  Anyone that does not see how 5.5kg
> and 12S will accelerate the diminishing numbers in pattern is either
> dismissive (or unaware) of history and is not considering the opportunities
> for escalation from the viewpoint of a competitor (who will easily find
> ways to exploit 12S and 5.5kg for a competitive advantage).  In time, the
> average cost of a pattern airplane will increase, and we will still have
> the exact same people complaining that 6kg is needed to accommodate
> overweight models.
>
>
>
> I most certainly hope incredible work from Andrew (and others) will
> convince FAI to abandon the foolishness of the “geometry clarification”,
> and I most certainly hope the USA AMA pattern community does not adopt the
> “geometry clarification”.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Andrew Palmer via NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Friday, April 7, 2023 4:09 AM
> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] New FAI rule changes
>
>
>
> I think others are now seeing the difficulty and problems with some of the
> (now passed) rule changes for F3A.
>
>
>
> The weight limit increase:
>
> I think few people would argue that nitro and electric models are not
> currently evenly matched for power – in fact most would say the electrics
> have an advantage both for usable power and constant speed.
>
> The weight change increase will mean electrics will become proportionally
> bigger (more bulky) than the nitro models will be able to. Why? Because
> weighing the nitro models with fuel will mean they can only ‘grow’ by say
> 150g, whereas an electric model can ‘grow’ by the full 500g. Historically
> F3A model specification changes have only ever lead to cost increase and a
> decrease in participation. Unfortunately I don’t really see a hundred (or
> even ten) people with models just over 5kg that will suddenly come out and
> fly F3A. Most countries don’t weigh models anyway, except maybe at a
> National Championships. In a couple of years we will all be trying to make
> it under the 5.5kg mark – and so the cycle will repeat. And all our current
> models will be outdate and not worth much… everyone will be looking for the
> new 5.5kg model to be competitive. And of course our 10s setups will be a
> bit exposed by the added power required – so another cost round if we go
> 12s….
>
>
>
> The geometry ‘clarification’:
>
> This was described as a ‘clarification’, as it was (is) assumed this is
> how we are all flying and judging anyway. Which clearly we are not! America
> (like New Zealand and many other countries) has a long history of flying
> true geometry from the point of view of the aircraft. We innately
> understand how a loop flown at the end of the box will look (just like
> looking at a round circle on te wall from an angle). We are taught what a
> ‘true’ 45 degree line looks like at the end of the box….
>
>
>
> Do I think anything will change with this clarification? Not really…. I
> think ‘everyone’ flies true geometry from the point of view of the model…
> and that will continue. The judges wont change what they are looking for.
> All that will happen is the rule book makes even less sense…. If a loop at
> the end of the box needs to look round from the point of view of the judges
> (BTW, see my demo video here: https://youtu.be/TDM0p_sWEGs  - lets see
> you do that at ‘constant 3D velocity) then what about a rolling circle? Oh
> hang on, of course a rolling circle does not need to look round from the
> point of view of the judges – they understand it will look like an ellipse…
> (just like they understand the shape of a true geometrically correct loop
> at the end of the box!). Lets see anyone fly a ½ 8 sided loop at the end of
> the box that is ‘geometrically correct from the point of view of the
> judges’ – it is impossible…..
>
>
>
> Some of you may be aware of our autonomous aerobatic project (some info
> here:
> https://discuss.ardupilot.org/t/ardupilot-autonomous-aerobatics-update/99051
> ) - the idea is for pilot and judge training. These manoeuvres are flown
> geometrically correct – and the schedule looks ‘right’. Over the next while
> we will work on flying manoeuvres that fit with the “judging criteria” –
> which will be a great demonstration as to why the rule is not workable 😊
>
>
>
> Unfortunately I don’t have any good video, but for those interested here
> is a scale schedule example (all autonomous except take off and landing)
> flown in a howling gale 😊 https://youtu.be/dD6QmfTw4gM
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-- 
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
*NSRCA 1140.  Be Proud to show your NSRCA #*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20230410/067c4aae/attachment.html>