FAI F5J rules revisited

[Gord...@aol.com]

If you guys have not seen this link, this is the new FAI F5J rules.  The big difference between FAI F5J and ALES is the last line of Section 1.12.2.

 

ALES is altitude "limited" and FAI F5J is Altitude penalized.  (the ole' 5 points per meter landing tape is the second giveaway that the event was born of powered model flyers, where the pilots have never been judged on stopping their models precisely on a spot (and on the clock's zero....and landing anywhere on the runway was considered a great landing.)  Seriously boys, a Meter is 39", are you really going to high five your timer when you put your  model's nose 38.9999" from the nail? I know the FAI landing point max is 50 points but if you land 1 meter, one millimeter away from the nail... if you have been an America TD pilot...all you deserve is "45" points! :-) 

 

 

(this is the rule that describes "altitude penalized".
e. Each meter of the launch altitude results in a deduction of half a point (0,5) point up to 200m and 3 points above it.

You say potato I say potAto? 

Sailplane versus Glider. (a sailplane goes up with out a motor, a glider comes down with out a motor). 

 

5.5.10.1.1. Definition of a Radio Controlled Glider with Electric Motor
"A model aircraft which is equipped with an electric motor, as a launching device, and in which lift is generated by aerodynamic forces acting on surfaces which remain fixed (except control surfaces). "

 

The apparently universal misunderstanding sailplane versus glider is partially the cause of pilots not grasping the concept of electric launch versus electric powered... I believe that misunderstanding comes from the fact that F5J was born of 'motor guys' who got involved with sailplanes.  Powered flight was their normal , having the motor turned off resulted in 'gliding'....seldom "soaring" (yes I know some learned to glide upwards :-)..

 

However the difference between glider and sailplanet is 'exactly' described in the FAI rule above. 

"Lift is generated by forces acting on surfaces which remain fixed..."

That means after the launch - the model only goes up using the wing - not the propeller......Those of you ALES hopefuls who don't realize the cost (to your flying skills) of restarting the motor prior to landing need to remind yourselves on that one word...."remain"... that is IF you want to improve your ALES scores. If not - motor on!

 

You?
Gordy

 

[Hobby Club]

How many times have you seen and real glider done a "spot landing"..?

ALES, F5J (with a winch on the nose) are more down to earth type of landing.

On the other hand if you want a flyer to be disqualified of the contest, because in order to save his model
he decided to take a zero and be able to bring his model back, why we do not ask also that TD pilots that are
landing outside the perimeter of the landing area (namely: trees, crops, swamps, etc.) to be DQ.

You do want to make it so ALES-F5J contestants are doing exactly same tasks to other TD events, then why we
do not make it more evenly and reinstate the BOM (builder of the model rule).

Because modelers that do not build and fly their own creations, are missing one of the most enjoyable part of our aeromodeling hobby.
Then will find out the real heroes of the story,

Alberto

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RCSE" group.
To post to this group, send email to rc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rcse+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rcse?hl=en.

[GordySoar]

It's interesting and thank you for the "real" glider comparison!

 In fact as a full size sailplane pilot you'd better learn to our the nose exactly where you need it or risk damage from landing lights rocks posts cars or other parked aircraft. 

You seem fixated on making some point by using the dramatic/intimidating "spot"  word when a simple and friendly runway landing not only emulates full scale, voids any need to dork and yet can be measured in millimeters or inches from the center line of the runway ( you know where none of those obstacles are located and full size ships are supposed to aim for (unless we are talking an emergency landing dead center between to groups of cattle...opps sorry same reason for the pilot to practice precise control of his landings.

And I guess the model pilot shouldn't take the same responsibility for his flight plan as a full size pilot by learning his and his models' limits.  If he can't restart his motor he won't range beyond his safe zone.... Same as sailplane guys.

Finally lost planes create sales....you sell them:)
Gordy 

[Dennis Hoyle]

Actually, I did a 6’ spot landing in 1971 with a Schweitzer 2-22 in Ionia MI. I came down after a decent flight and the wind was really cooking down the runway. I brought it down about a 1’ off the runway and slowed it up until the wheel touched in front of the takeoff area. I rolled about 6’, ready for hookup and the next flight.

 

Dennis Hoyle

WMSS

[Don Harban]

Gordy,

As promised, I'm notta gonna rise to the "motor restart debate". And
if you had any respect for the other respondents here you'd give it a
rest too. I think everybody gets it.

As to your observation concerning the landing task, the prescribed
landing task is a reflection of competitors who have seen how TD and
F3J landings have evolved and simply don't want to go there. After
all, Moses left the third tablet which said that "Thou shalt dork your
plane" on th mountain. It is not a reflection of a character weakness
--it is simply a choice.

I cannot say personally that is the world's greatest choice. I rather
suspect that when competitors get more experience and when they show
up with full house planes that are no heavier than their TD cousins,
That 40 point landings will be pretty boring. I am one of the world's
worst landers and I am pretty consistent inside of 40 points. That
being said, a significant part of the thought process behind the
landing task that has been chosen relates to a combination of
economics and safety. If the potential gain is high enough, serious
competitors WILL stick their planes in harder than is prudent
considering that nasty $300 device in e nose that you worry about so
much. And if the money is no object for serious competitors, the
safety of thumping the weedwhacker that we call a propeller into the
ground and then cranking it up to 8000 rpm for the next round oughht
to cause everyone but the stupidest among us to think twice about
placing too much value on turning your plane into a motorized javelin.

I have suggested repeatedly that ALES and F5J can be expected to
emulate -- but not duplicate -- their soaring analogs. Those who do
not understand this may well be disappointed. But those who. An grasp
this simple notion that some of what is "lost" in the emulation may be
replaced with something which is new, different and better.

[Gord...@aol.com]

Don wrote:....."a significant part of the thought process behind the

landing task that has been chosen relates to a combination of
economics and safety.  If the potential gain is high enough, serious
competitors WILL stick their planes in harder than is prudent
considering that nasty $300 device in e nose that you worry about so
much."

 

A 50' runway tape means no need to dork anything.  As in Full Scale, piloting the model straight up a runway, letting it slide along for up to 50' should have no affect on a $300 motor prop combo...on the other hand, ALES is not a race to altitude so having over powered high rpm motor combos is a thing of the past (LMR) days.  I bought a motor as big as my fist for a 112" J3 Cub for $49 new. It swings a 20x24 prop...so not sure where or why a $300 motor for a model who's entire flight consists of the motor being off.

 

FAI is promoting 39" landings, I'm talking about 50' landings....but you get your points by measuring from the center of that 50' runway to the nose.  Scale up 39" (that's 5 points off the max) to full size measurements and very likely you are taking out runway lights etc that exist on either side of the runway. 

FAI and ALES has circles for landings, that means the pilots can come in from any direction, or at least end up landing in any direction.  If ALES actually does grow, that means powered models coming in from all over the place.  A runway landing forces them to stay in a lane.  Which is safer?

 

Full scale sailplane pilots have to be able to thread a needle of an approach and control the travel of their landings...or die. 

ALES doesn't have to be dumb'd down to protect motors, it just needs an appropriate landing task, pilots with practice and skills and rewards for doing it precisely. Inch per point will mean that at the end of an ALES event, other pilots can see what the average landing skill was that day... then work at home to hone their skills so that they average a point better. 

A runway landing measured off the center means never having to dork, means emulating full scale ships and provides plenty of margin for beginners to still earn points.

 

The length of the tape doesn't make much difference except to allow some safety margin for newbies and guys to lazy to put out a landing tape during their practices. (I suppose you could put some shoes out for those guys who claim they practice by landing at their feet :).

 

The rest of the world looked at ALES and decided it wasn't competitive.
The rest of the world looked at TD and realized that the landing WAS important, then changed to reward precision control of the landing.  We chose to use skegs to stop our models, they chose pointed drooped noses.

 

So to sum up, I'm saying make ALES landings 'real' and safe for the model and the pilot.  Are you sure you're against that?

Gordy :)

PS, Restart to all of your hearts content....but its going to cost you if you do.  There's no reason to learn to swim if you always swim with a floaty. Those who condone restarting during practices are dooming other pilots who think that it must be okay to mediocrity.  Any pilot who is 'fearless' because he can restart his motor and only loose the contest will never win a contest...because he's relying on something other than his skills and practice to do the task for him.  Same as those who are buying and using $300 motors to get a sailplane up to altitude in 30 seconds or less.  You see you are thinking about the rule, I'm thinking about the pilots.  Ask the few hundred I have coached along my travels.

 

 

[Don Harban]

Gordy,

I think I noted that the 10 meter tape might not have been my first
choice. In fact, we fly the L6 landing frequently around here and
like it -- a lot. But when I have discussed the subject with guys who
fly a lot in your part of the world, the most common argument (if not
the real objection) against it is that it is too troublesome to use in
any significant contest because of having to move it to accommodate
wind shifts (their observation -- not mine).

As to the problem of planes "landing from all directions", that is a
problem of contest administration, not the intrinsic nature of the
landing task chosen. I have flown runway landings at contests where
approaches were made from all directions including over the area where
pilots were standing. I have seen L6 landings where contestants have
used the "runway" as a landing arrester.. And I have flown in
contests which used simple tapes (including the Nats) where the
instructions specified the allowable direction for landing. Gordy,
some of this is not so much a matter of rules as it is common sense
and proper contest administration.

I do not know how the proposed (suggested) landing task will work in
the full context of these rules. That will ultimately be determined
by the RELATIVE difficulty of the combination of the flying AND
landing tasks that are chosen. I do know that, notwithstanding your
certainty of the way that things should be, that other reasonable and
experienced people have different views which will get the fair
consideration that they deserve. And I do know that your implication
that the guys who wrote the F5J rules were a bunch of ignorant "power
rubes" is utterly ignorant in and of itself. I participated in that
process in a very small way furnishing some numerical modeling to
predict how the measurement of the "starting altitude" methodology
would work. While I do not remotely consider myself in the same sage
category of experience and knowledge as you, I can assure you that
many of the participants and members of the committee that devised the
rule had every bit as much soaring experience as you do.

As it stands right now we have two very good rules to serve as
starting points for US and International competition. And just like
the kinds of competitions with which you are accustomed, we have no
rule which prevents interested parties from trying other innovations
which might (or might not) improve the competition experience.

What is not particularly constructive is standing on the sidelines and
characterizing the people who are working to bring this together as
being more or less ignorant of what constitutes a "real" soaring
experience. It would be presumptuous for either of us to do that. We
are in the most fortunate of situations where there are people who are
actually willing to work to make it happen. If you are interested
enough to burn bandwidth on ther subject, get a plane and fly the
events. And then your understanding of esoaring will eventually match
your wealth of knowledge on string soaring.

Happy Landings,

Don