Topics

CIAM F5 proposal 2017

Alan Flockhart
 

But what about the plane size?

The power angle is clearly sensible

Sent from my phone.


-----Original Message-----
From: "George Shering george.shering@... [f5b_uk]" <f5b_uk@...>
To: f5b_uk@...
Sent: Sat, 01 Apr 2017 7:11
Subject: Re: [f5b_uk] Fwd: CIAM F5 proposal 2017

 

I agree with the German proposal for F5F. Very good. Support.

George Shering


On 1 Apr 2017 11:49, "alan@... [f5b_uk]" <f5b_uk@...> wrote:
 
[Attachment(s) from alan@... included below]

Proposal to lower f5f wmin to 900 and 6S setups.

Thoughts?

I agree they need to bring it back as a beginner level. I guess a 10S f5b spec motor when running on 6S would be on the right ballpark. So power wise is sensible

Only challenge I have is the airframes should bring the f5b ones into play otherwise you need 2 planes if you want to subsequently move up to f5b.



Sent from my phone.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Proctor <mike@...>
To: Alan Flockhart <alan@...>
Sent: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 22:46
Subject: CIAM F5 proposal 2017

Hi Alan

I have the CIAM proposals from Peter Halman, for our consideration prior to voting

There is only the 900W/min proposal for F5B, which I have attached.

If you can let me know whether we(you ) are   For/Against/Abstain or have any amendments (which I would need written in the correct "FAI speak") I can add them to Peter's document.

Could do with them by a week today please - or sooner!!

Regards

Mike


jjmouris
 

Have any of you have read the relevant discussion on the German RC-network forum?

We currently do not fly F5F in the UK, as such do we qualify to vote on this subject? How would you feel if some F5J blokes decided to vote that F5B should loose the distance task and cut the energy to 250 wmin?

No amount of changing the F5F rules is going to bring F5F to the UK or help grow F5B. We currently already have the option for people to start flying using a plane that is not rule conform or has any wmin managing equipment and hardly get interest. Mainly due to not visiting enough clubs and other ways to promote the class.

Changing the F5F rules will likely only serve to kill off the class on the continent.

As of this year they have already got the option to fly up to 6S. This is a good move as it allows old F5B setups to be used for those that want to. However changing the plane size forces everyone to change airframes. Again, how do you feel about flying an F5D size airframe in F5B ? That's not what you got into F5B for, right?

My vote as such would be NO or not vote at all.

J

Steve Burns
 

Jos makes some very valid points here and we should certainly consider the option of abstaining from the vote due to the class not being or ever likely to be flown in the UK.

Steve

------ Original Message ------
From: "Josef Mouris jjmouris@... [f5b_uk]" <f5b_uk@...>
To: "f5b_uk@..." <f5b_uk@...>
Sent: 01/04/2017 08:42:17
Subject: [f5b_uk] Re: Fwd: CIAM F5 proposal 2017

 

Have any of you have read the relevant discussion on the German RC-network forum?

We currently do not fly F5F in the UK, as such do we qualify to vote on this subject? How would you feel if some F5J blokes decided to vote that F5B should loose the distance task and cut the energy to 250 wmin?

No amount of changing the F5F rules is going to bring F5F to the UK or help grow F5B. We currently already have the option for people to start flying using a plane that is not rule conform or has any wmin managing equipment and hardly get interest. Mainly due to not visiting enough clubs and other ways to promote the class.

Changing the F5F rules will likely only serve to kill off the class on the continent.

As of this year they have already got the option to fly up to 6S. This is a good move as it allows old F5B setups to be used for those that want to. However changing the plane size forces everyone to change airframes. Again, how do you feel about flying an F5D size airframe in F5B ? That's not what you got into F5B for, right?

My vote as such would be NO or not vote at all.

J

Alan Flockhart
 

Good point.   I hadn't seen an actual thread about the rules for F5F on RC-Network - Just a few comments in various threads.  Is there a thread you can point us to?

TBH maybe the FAI should be looking to drop F5F as an FAI class?   It isn't flown at a World or Euro Champ (not that these are run any more) Level is it?   FAI are saying there are too many F classes so this could be one to drop from there.

I am not saying stop flying it just drop from FAI.   Once that is done then we can have a world wide x5F class which can be run at all comps as an entry level to F5B?  Something with lower power levels so the same or older power trains can be used - and ability to use any airframe as long as it is current F5B spec or larger?   People fly that class for a period of time to get used to things and then can move up when they want.   It can still be part of eurotour and country events.  We have a similar class in the UK as do various other countries.

The crucial thing is that people should not fly both F5B and x5F at the same comp.  It is an "entry level" class and hence no reason why the top pilots in B should be trying to pick up trophies in that :)

Now going to run for the bunker when the 'hate' mail from around the world comes flooding in :)


On 01/04/2017 09:11, Steve Burns steve.burns@... [f5b_uk] wrote:
 

Jos makes some very valid points here and we should certainly consider the option of abstaining from the vote due to the class not being or ever likely to be flown in the UK.

Steve

------ Original Message ------
From: "Josef Mouris jjmouris@... [f5b_uk]" <f5b_uk@...>
Sent: 01/04/2017 08:42:17
Subject: [f5b_uk] Re: Fwd: CIAM F5 proposal 2017

 

Have any of you have read the relevant discussion on the German RC-network forum?

We currently do not fly F5F in the UK, as such do we qualify to vote on this subject? How would you feel if some F5J blokes decided to vote that F5B should loose the distance task and cut the energy to 250 wmin?

No amount of changing the F5F rules is going to bring F5F to the UK or help grow F5B. We currently already have the option for people to start flying using a plane that is not rule conform or has any wmin managing equipment and hardly get interest. Mainly due to not visiting enough clubs and other ways to promote the class.

Changing the F5F rules will likely only serve to kill off the class on the continent.

As of this year they have already got the option to fly up to 6S. This is a good move as it allows old F5B setups to be used for those that want to. However changing the plane size forces everyone to change airframes. Again, how do you feel about flying an F5D size airframe in F5B ? That's not what you got into F5B for, right?

My vote as such would be NO or not vote at all.

J


jjmouris
 

Alan, you have that right with regards to hate mail. It's a sensitive subject.

While we are at it, might as well drop F5B at the FAI and have another drone racing class. ;)

The thread




George Shering
 

I agree that the plane size should be reduced to 26.67 dm2 so that it becomes just a low powered F5B and we can use the same planes.
The argument was that F5F people like the larger planes because they glide like gliders and not like stones!
But the smaller batteries and motors should so reduce the F5F wingloading that that objective will be achieved even with 26.67 dm2.
Hopefully someone will propose it.
George

On 1 April 2017 at 07:12, alan@... [f5b_uk] <f5b_uk@...> wrote:
 

But what about the plane size?

The power angle is clearly sensible

Sent from my phone.

-----Original Message-----
From: "George Shering george.shering@... [f5b_uk]" <f5b_uk@...>
To: f5b_uk@...
Sent: Sat, 01 Apr 2017 7:11
Subject: Re: [f5b_uk] Fwd: CIAM F5 proposal 2017

 

I agree with the German proposal for F5F. Very good. Support.

George Shering


On 1 Apr 2017 11:49, "alan@... [f5b_uk]" <f5b_uk@...> wrote:
 
[Attachment(s) from alan@... included below]

Proposal to lower f5f wmin to 900 and 6S setups.

Thoughts?

I agree they need to bring it back as a beginner level. I guess a 10S f5b spec motor when running on 6S would be on the right ballpark. So power wise is sensible

Only challenge I have is the airframes should bring the f5b ones into play otherwise you need 2 planes if you want to subsequently move up to f5b.



Sent from my phone.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Proctor <mike@...>
To: Alan Flockhart <alan@...>
Sent: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 22:46
Subject: CIAM F5 proposal 2017

Hi Alan

I have the CIAM proposals from Peter Halman, for our consideration prior to voting

There is only the 900W/min proposal for F5B, which I have attached.

If you can let me know whether we(you ) are   For/Against/Abstain or have any amendments (which I would need written in the correct "FAI speak") I can add them to Peter's document.

Could do with them by a week today please - or sooner!!

Regards

Mike



Mark Haigh
 

I think the power rule is sensible. I agree with Jos on Airframe  - ruling out current f5f airframes causes Costs to be pushed up

Mark


On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 at 8:42 am, Josef Mouris jjmouris@... [f5b_uk]
wrote:
 

Have any of you have read the relevant discussion on the German RC-network forum?

We currently do not fly F5F in the UK, as such do we qualify to vote on this subject? How would you feel if some F5J blokes decided to vote that F5B should loose the distance task and cut the energy to 250 wmin?

No amount of changing the F5F rules is going to bring F5F to the UK or help grow F5B. We currently already have the option for people to start flying using a plane that is not rule conform or has any wmin managing equipment and hardly get interest. Mainly due to not visiting enough clubs and other ways to promote the class.

Changing the F5F rules will likely only serve to kill off the class on the continent.

As of this year they have already got the option to fly up to 6S. This is a good move as it allows old F5B setups to be used for those that want to. However changing the plane size forces everyone to change airframes. Again, how do you feel about flying an F5D size airframe in F5B ? That's not what you got into F5B for, right?

My vote as such would be NO or not vote at all.

J