stunthanger.com

Speed,Combat,Scale,Racing => Scale Models => Topic started by: Clancy Arnold on March 15, 2010, 10:52:35 AM

Title: One Final Rules Change Proposal for this cycle
Post by: Clancy Arnold on March 15, 2010, 10:52:35 AM
I have submitted one more Rules Change Proposal.

See CLS 11-22 posted on the AMA web site. 

This proposal establishes a new event to replace the old AMA Precision Scale that was dropped by AMA and the pending elimination of FAI - F4B Control Line Scale from the FAI Sporting Code.

It is to use the current 2010 F4B rules until new rules can be written and agreed upon.

One suggestion is to amend these rules now using the Cross Proposal procedures.

The first change, that everyone seems to agree on, is to eliminate the 18 foot "Normal Level" flight requirement.  This should save a few models!

Are there other areas that need to be adjusted?

Clancy
 

Title: Re: One Final Rules Change Proposal for this cycle
Post by: John Witt on March 15, 2010, 05:37:32 PM
I'm not very knowledgable about this, but if we modify F4B, perhaps we should go back to Precision Scale rules?

What was so good about F4B (other than the international arena)?

John W
Title: Re: One Final Rules Change Proposal for this cycle
Post by: chuck snyder on March 15, 2010, 06:19:11 PM
John, I really like the F4B rules. They create an event that is somewhat more challenging than AMA Sport Scale, both static and flight. I can't compare to Precision Scale because I never flew that. The static judging has "outline" done from a distance (slightly less than Sport Scale's  15') and detail is done up close and personal. I don't believe it is necessary to measure a model as in Precision to determine how faithfully it replicates the original. The biggest difference is that the models are compared to each other rather than some standard. All models are viewed together prior to being individually judged. I did a statistical analysis of the 2004 World Championship static scores (R/C, there were not enough C/L to be significant, but they followed the same pattern) and they were almost a perfect Normal Distribution. Did the same for Sweden in 2006 and the distribution was flat. After the static judging the head judge reviews the scores and makes sure there has not been an "inappropriate" ranking of the models. This gives the judges an opportunity to sread out the scores and give a meaningful reward to the superior model. Sport Scale scores tend to be compressed (even more so in R/C). I have done the statistical analysis on that too.

I have seen a lot of groaning and moaning here about things that happen in competition, and almost all of the root causes are covered in the FAI rules.

Chuck
Title: Re: One Final Rules Change Proposal for this cycle
Post by: john e. holliday on March 15, 2010, 08:31:49 PM
Again who says that F4B is being done away with?  It is just the current Worlds that it is not being held for lack of interest.  It has happened in the past< if I remember right. R%%%% H^^
Title: Re: One Final Rules Change Proposal for this cycle
Post by: Paul Smith on March 15, 2010, 08:37:05 PM
Correctomundo, Johnny.

WC or no, F4B is still in the rule book.  Somebody could still run contests that way and maybe the WC will revive itself some day.

This may be the beginning of an age, or
The end of an age, or
The end of ages.
The wheel weaves as the wheel wills and
None can see the pattern until is done.
Title: Re: One Final Rules Change Proposal for this cycle
Post by: john e. holliday on March 15, 2010, 08:40:24 PM
Hey Paul, shall we start our scale birds?  I am getting the shop in better order and have a kit I would like to do.  Just need to get documentation. #^ #^ H^^
Title: Re: One Final Rules Change Proposal for this cycle
Post by: Will Hinton on March 16, 2010, 10:50:36 AM
Hey Paul,
It appears you might be a Robert Jordan reader!  Great stuff!
Will

I favor keeping the F4B rules with the exception of the 18 feet rule.  All else is a good route to take.
Title: Re: One Final Rules Change Proposal for this cycle
Post by: John Witt on March 16, 2010, 12:22:18 PM
I concur with the dropping of the 18 ft rule. 18 ft is a little high for the low wing loading models in any kind of wind.

John W
Title: Re: One Final Rules Change Proposal for this cycle
Post by: Paul Smith on March 16, 2010, 12:48:27 PM
What 18-foot rule?

All I see is bunch of killos and meters and other French stuff.
Title: Re: One Final Rules Change Proposal for this cycle
Post by: Clancy Arnold on March 16, 2010, 08:42:50 PM
Paul
The 18 foot rule refers to the Normal Flight Level at approximately 6 meter height.  That is the height most of the flying is at and most maneuvers start and finish at.

Low Flight is at 2 meters, Normal Flight is at 6 meters and High Flight between 30 and 45 degrees line elevation.

To download the FAI - F4B rules:

go to: www.fai.org
Select: Air Sports & Technical Commissions
Select: FAI Aeromodelling Commission
Select: Documents
Select: Sporting Code Section 4 - 2010 Edition
click on the FAI download site to download this secton of the rules in english.  All 82 pages.

I then printed out pages 9 - 12, General Rules for Static Judging
pages 13 - 16, Control Line Flying Scale Models
pages 21 - 24, Annex 6A Static Judges Guide
pages 25 - 41, Annex 6B F4B Judges Guide - Flying
page 72, Annex 6E - Competitor's Declaration Form

If you want to be competitive read the rules!
Clancy
Title: Re: One Final Rules Change Proposal for this cycle
Post by: Allen Goff on March 17, 2010, 05:34:02 AM
I'm with Will, keep F4B, throw away the 18ft. rule.

Blessings
Allen
Title: Re: One Final Rules Change Proposal for this cycle
Post by: John Witt on March 17, 2010, 10:34:39 AM
Clancy,

That 6m height sounds supiciously like something from the R/C side of things.  You don't suppose... n~

John W
Title: Re: One Final Rules Change Proposal for this cycle
Post by: Dick Byron on March 18, 2010, 05:57:10 AM
Ditto. H^^ H^^ H^^ H^^ H^^ H^^ H^^
Title: Re: One Final Rules Change Proposal for this cycle
Post by: Paul Smith on March 18, 2010, 07:32:05 AM
Considering the range of line lengths, ALL altitudes ought to be in degrees.  This is what you get when you have CL event under an RC committee.  I wonder if they every got one down to 6 meters?
Title: Re: One Final Rules Change Proposal for this cycle
Post by: john e. holliday on March 18, 2010, 04:03:12 PM
Landing. LL~ LL~ LL~Or was it a controlled crash? n~