[NSRCA-discussion] New FAI rule changes

Mon Apr 10 07:42:35 AKDT 2023

Not disagreeing but more wondering how practical power limits are today.
Power limits on electric is challenging due to the number of variables
involved; Battery technology, battery charge state, esc, motor and prop
choice all influence the max power. Not to mention someone setting a radio
limit. Tech inspections would be quite hard with all the battery connectors
people use as well. However SPA does it but not sure they do rigorous tech
inspections at their contests (we don’t either outside the Nats).

On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 11:21 AM Vicente Bortone via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

>
>
> 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 #*
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-- 

Thanks,
Jon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20230410/88f40397/attachment.html>