4-Leaf Clover Exit Change
Peter G
as per the agenda of the upcoming CIAM Plenary Meeting from April 16 &
17 in Lausanne, the members of the F2 Subcommittee will have to
discuss a formally submitted proposal asking for a change of rule
related to how to fly the recommended exit from the 4-leaf clover
manoeuvre.
For your reference, I have posted the details of the current rule and
the proposal in question under "Files".
As I will participate in the F2 S/C meeting, I would like to find out
what you think about the suggested change in order to report
accordingly to the S/C.
Thank you and kind regards
Keith Renecle
As most of you are aware, I have made the rules describing the clover one of
my personal challenge for many years now, so I sincerely believe that I
understand this manoeuvre very well. I therefore do not see any good reason
to change the exit for safety reasons. I have suggested to the members for
quite some time now, to change the entry point and the method of entering
the first loop. There is no real problem with the vertical exit, because the
model really builds up speed going through loop 4, and climbing vertically
directly downwind is no problem for a vertical exit and climbing past
overhead and levelling out upwind. If there is a power loss however, then
there may be a small difficulty, but with the inertia gained from loop 4,
the model should still have enough momentum. Remember too, that the judging
stops once the model passes directly overhead the pilot, so the pilot can
always pull out after this point without penalty.
On the other hand, I have witnessed many crashes while flying into loop 1 at
the 38 to 42 degrees elevation angle. This is simply due to the model
slowing down while climbing, and if the engine loses power at this point,
then the lines will really lag behind into a bad curve. The wind will then
tend to pull the model downwards towards the centre of the circle. I'm sure
that most of us have seen this happen many times. Even if the model is saved
by quick action from the pilot, this is the nasty situation, and not the
exit. This is why Igor and myself have suggested that the entry point should
be 9 o'clock on loop 1, and that the entry can be via a vertical pull-up
directly downwind. This definitely makes the manoeuvre a lot safer, and has
the added bonus of giving both the pilot and the judges an absolute
reference for the whole manoeuvre. Of course it also completely removes the
problem of trying to figure out where an elevation angle of 38 to 42 degrees
is.
If we are going to suggest a rule change at this time, then I would strongly
suggest that the entry be changed and not the exit.
Regards,
Keith Renecle
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "F2B Group" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to f2b-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> f2b-group+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/f2b-group?hl=en-GB.
>
Joan McIntyre
I will be sending in my response to the survey in relation to F2 voting in
detail in the next day or so, but I would like to comment separately on the
formally submitted proposal in the CIAM Agenda in regard to exiting the
4-Leaf Clover manoeuvre.
I am strongly opposed to any change to the rule wording, which Peter and the
group have worked so tirelessly on over a period of years.
There is no problem with the exit and the manoeuvre is completed when the
model is directly overhead. The ending of the manoeuvre is quite clearly
defined and leaves no room for variance or misinterpretation as it stands.
Peter's document is clear and concise. It is a document which, to my mind,
gives clear guidance to both pilots and judges. The starting point of the
manoeuvre was often a contentious issue previously, but with the new
starting point, there is no problem.
I would very much appreciate it if either yourself, Peter, or Bill Lee could
put forward my position on this at the preliminary meeting, if you would be
so kind.
Kindest regards,
Joan McIntyre. (Australia)
-----Original Message-----
From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Peter G
Sent: Thursday, 11 March 2010 1:24 AM
To: F2B Group
Subject: 4-Leaf Clover Exit Change
Dear Friends
--
aagewiberg
Like Joan and Keith I see no problem in leaving the clover leaf. For me as a
pilot of less competence than the top pilots the exit of the clover leaf has
always given me a feeling of relax ness because I know I am then over the
peaks of the program.
However I think Keith has an important point in the entry of this figure.
Keith has done a job that will go over into the history of stunt with his
work at his computer concerning the whole program and deserves great favour
for that tremendous effort!
For safety reasons I agree totally with Keith that the first loop of the
cloverleaf is one of the most risky moments where we have a risk of the
model going totally slack and then suddenly go tight again with risk of
overloading the lines.
So I back up Keith totally on this one.
Another point of safety is the line pull test before every flight of 20
kilos load on the lines and model which clearly exceeds the loads of the
flight.
In my eyes we risk to weaken the system in the pull tests to have models and
lines that are weaker after the tests than before.
When we see systems break down at the pull test it is mostly as a result of
the many? earlier pull tests rather than weakness coming from flying the
program.
I am in favour of a reduce of the kilo load in the pull test in order to
have safer models flying which have more left in them to cope with sudden
pull from a model tightening up from a free flight.
Regards,
Aage Wiberg
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] På vegne
af Keith Renecle
Sendt: 10. marts 2010 18:30
Til: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Emne: Re: 4-Leaf Clover Exit Change
Roger Ladds
Before I give my comments I would like to state that this and other F2B related proposals have not been communicated to the F2B community in the UK for their comments and as such do not represent the wishes of the UK F2B members!
From a Judges point of view this proposal is unsatisfactory! the proposal actually gives the flyer an option which would be difficult for the judge to detect and then give a truly representational score, was it an error or a deviation?
Any manoeuvre description should be clear and precise, this is not.
I do however fully agree with Keith Renecles proposal.
Regards
Roger ladds
========================================
Message Received: Mar 10 2010, 02:24 PM
From: "Peter G"
To: "F2B Group"
Cc:
Subject: 4-Leaf Clover Exit Change
Peter G
With all due respect for those regulary fighting heavy wind (living
far from the seas in alpine terrain I dont) I would like to mention a
couple of points:
- Having flown in almost all World- and Continental Championships
since the eighties, I do not remember an above the average number of
incidents caused by the current 4-leaf clover exit procedure. Despite
the 12 m/sec limit being in force then.
- In order to further minimize the risk, the wind speed limit was
meanwhile reduced to 9 m/sec.
- As there are many more places in an F2B pattern where wind may
become critical (Vertical- and Overhead Eights, Hourglass)a
modification of a single manoeuvre would be of limited value only.
- If the F2B community considers the current 9 m/sec as being to high,
a related reduction should be suggested.
Flying F2B is a highly demanding sport and distinguishing the best
from the good has become very difficult meanwhile. Reducing the degree
of difficulty and/or "making it easier to fly" does not improve
differentiation and I therefore do not support the proposal.
Kind regards Peter Germann
go_s...@comcast.net
I remember that in Landers at the 2000 World Champs that level flight was a danger to the safety of the model. Forget about the velocity of the wind, it was the trees and buildings that made it dangerous.
Focusing on the velocity isn't the right answer. If there are no trees and the wind is "clean", you can fly in a fairly strong wind.
Paul Walker
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter G" <peterd...@bluewin.ch>
To: "F2B Group" <f2b-...@googlegroups.com>
Peter G
Thank you for contributing. All your comments have today been
submitted to the members of the CIAM F2 Subcommitee, as an attached
file to this message:
F2B; rule 4.2.15.16 4-Leaf Clover
Dear all,
related to item 36 on Bengt-Olof's Voting Survey, I have submitted the
proposal suggesting a change of the exit procedure to the members of
the F2B Working Group. Please take note of the attached findings of
the Group.
Thank you and kind regards,
Peter Germann, F2B Working Group Coordinator
Joan McIntyre
I am most appreciative of all the work done by the group and Peter. Everyone
in the group has put their points of view forward over the last few years,
and there has been a great amount of very worthwhile discussion, which has
culminated in what I believe to be a highly commendable document.
I do sincerely hope that this document will proceed without any change to
the Clover Leaf description and exit procedure.
Thank you, again, Peter, for all your work.
Kind regards,
Joan McIntyre.
-----Original Message-----
From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Peter G
Sent: Thursday, 25 March 2010 2:21 AM
To: F2B Group
Subject: Re: 4-Leaf Clover Exit Change
--