Re: [RCSE] Just a Flying Contest (2m)
Hi Tom, There has been a lot of talk recently about 2Meter gliders and of the disadvantages they have verses open class gliders. At times, do to conditions, a 2M is at a disadvantage but I have flown my 2M against open class planes and won. As I recall, 2 years ago a 2m plane beat everyone at Visalia and that was against the best around. We fly a 2M class at about every contest we hold and they fly the same times and landings as the open planes. come to our field and my brother and i will fly our 2M's against your open's any time. Thermals, Art Tom Koszuta wrote: > From an "ease of flying" standpoint a poly is smuch easier to circle in > lift (see the MA article on dihedral). Light, two meter gliders have > certain advantages, the most obvious is that min sink is usually lower. > Large birds have an overal efficiency advantage because the Reynolds numbers > are higher and the higher aspect ratio tends to reduce drag. I fly a two > meter scratch design with TWO channels and have done well enough in the lift > conditions in Western New York to beat the big boys or at least place well. > Our club, however, does not use the 100 point tape. We usually have a > landing circle that is in or out at about 10 feet radius. Lift is NOT > guaranteed at our field, so 3 maxes of 10 minutes is not typical. You can > place well or even win in our contests with three 9 minute flights and a > couple of "in" landings. It helps a little that my 2M is about 9 oz/sqft, > so I do have some range to play with. > > You will run into the limitation of a fixed camber bird when you need a > really wide envelope in speed characteristics, like in F3B type > competitions. I designed my 2 meter with an S3021 to take advantage of > the low sink characteristics. I also designed my wing with enough wooden > spar to take 35# of line tension without flinching, so I can launch more > like the moldies. It's fun to zoom a poly when the guys with $900 planes > are watching. This is from the experience of a folded Spirit. I make up > for the speed range by being able to go up in lighter lift. > > I have a 2.9 M full-house that I just cannot get to do well over flat > land. There is no doubt that I could launch it higher and get an overall > better l/d out of it. I can just fly the 2M poly better, so I stick with my > experience. The aileron, full camber adjusting bird just is not as > forgiving as the 2M, so I take the good with the bad. Lower overall > efficiency for the sake of being able to hook lighter lift and stay with it > a while, even in moderately windy conditions. > > Bottom line is to fly what you are best at flying on contest days and > accept that you may give up range or launch height to the moldies with the > knowlege that you can work lighter, narrower lift than they can. > > BTW, I am going to redo some wings for a molded 2M fuse over the winter > with flaps and ailerons so that I can get closer to the expensive moldie > performance. It will, no doubt, take more practice so that I can make it > outperform a poly. Everything is a trade off. Large spans are better, but > they cannot circle in a 15 or 20 foot thermal to climb out. Smaller planes > can, but if the lift is all 100 feet across, then your advantage goes away. > Flapped planes can, in general, come in at slower speeds and ailerons are > more responsive, even at low speeds, than a yaw coupled roll. You can > still do better if you fly smoother and climb better because of lower min > sink, which the 2M polys are really good at. If range is the need of the > day, then you will probably not do as good. If every one is making maxes, > then it becomes a landing contest and the poly has a slight disadvantage. > Consider taking a couple of planes to the contest and deciding on one over > the other based on prevailing conditions and forecast. > > I like polys. I went out of my way to reduce the advantage that the > zooming moldies inherently have in launch height. I can fly it well, now > that I am used to the new plane. Fly what you like and minimize your > disadvantages and maximize your advantages. > > If you have a large, full house, then fly it in your fun flying. You > need to be comfortable with the plane and know how to take advantage of its > capabilities and work around the disadvantages. > > Tom Koszuta > Clarence Sailplane Society > (Buffalo) NY > > - Original Message - > From: "Dean Jansa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 2:17 PM > Subject: Re: [RCSE] Just a Flying Contest (2m) > > All good points, I just take issue on your last point, you don't > *have* to fly un
Re: [RCSE] Just a Flying Contest
--- david cousins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Transfer the data to a spreadsheet. Integrate (or calculate) the > area > under the curve, and in simple terms, the guy with the most area > wins. > The down side of this is the extra time to download the data, and > time > to crunch the numbers. You could just have a connector sticking out of your plane, and the scorekeeper would go from plane to plane sucking data out. You could put the whole program on a PDA. The scoring process would be faster and more foolproof than now. If the launch was MOM, the area under the curve would test your ability to climb to and maintain altitude, which is part of what's tested by a cross-country race. __ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RCSE] Just a Flying Contest
At 07:59 PM 8/12/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Let's probe the muddy bottom of this crystal clear vision. Who is the >superior pilot? The guy laying down tickling the bottoms of the clouds for >10 minutes, or the guy dancing on the treetops for 10 minutes? I guess in a duration contest the score is the same, although one pilot had to work a heck of a lot less. I guess that is a reason we need a landing task to settle that question? 8-)) In a accumulated altitude contest the guy tickling the clouds obviously found the big air and worked it for altitude, which will then allow him to range and reacquire, so he is going to be rewarded more. Jim Downers Grove, IL Member of the Chicago SOAR club, AMA 592537LSF 7560 Level III ICQ 6997780R/C Soaring Page at www.jimbacus.net RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RCSE] Just a Flying Contest
In a message dated Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:40:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > --- "James V. Bacus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just a flying contest... I think about this quite a bit.> > > When electronic loggers and telemetry become readily affordable, > > (which we > > are on the threshold of now), maybe there could be a format that > > emphasized > > flying alone with each contestant having a logging device onboard. > > I'll bet that some form of Jim's idea becomes the contest of the > future. For the price of a winch/retriever, a club can buy a few ALTis > or LoLos. Maybe soon there'll be a micro-GPS unit (I have a Garmin > Vista, which is cool, but it's not practical for this use). That would > open up even more possibilities. > > Anyway, it's obvious that the present F3J format, for example, will > have to be changed. Planes are on the towline for 5 seconds, they max > whatever time is required, and then get 95 or 100 landing points. The > field is bunched so that the 5th place flyer has 99.7% of the winner's > score. The WC may well be decided by a slow or quick punch of a timer's > button. > > Fiddling with target times, relative importance of landings, and launch > mechanisms won't change the fundamental issue. Adding speed, as Daryl > slyly suggests, would turn F3J into F3B. Jim's suggestion is, in my > mind, the one that could promise to spread out the field, clearly > identifying superior flying. Let's probe the muddy bottom of this crystal clear vision. Who is the superior pilot? The guy laying down tickling the bottoms of the clouds for 10 minutes, or the guy dancing on the treetops for 10 minutes? > > So what's the task? A pure calculation of cumulative altitude gained > creates a need for energy compensation, which complicates matters quite > a bit. How about this: a 10-minute task, with points for duration and > additional points for the maximum altitude gained during any 180 > seconds during the flight. > How about this, additional points for the least altitude gained for a max flight? > Altitude gained over any 3-minute window would be less subject to > fiddling. If you found strong lift, you could dive, zoom back up, then > circle and climb. Sure, an uncompensated vario would credit you with > the zoom. But only the first one would count, since your gain would be > from the bottom of that dive to the window's end 3 minutes later. And > there would be lots of tactical decision-making involved in such a > task. Think about the many dilemmas that would face the pilot -- it's > quite interesting! > > Anyway, we need good new ideas for a contest format. Cool techno > gimmicks are present everywhere in this sport -- why have our > championships determined by a thumb-operated stop watch, > and a ruler? Don't mind me, I'm a little giddy from qualifying for F3B (actually, not a bad contest format, though a little labor intensive, and a fair measure of piloting skills to boot, with plenty of opportunities to "spread" your score) with my first 4 flights on Saturday. I had to relaunch in distance... Bill Wingstedt RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RCSE] Just a Flying Contest
At 12:44 PM 8/12/2002, Paul Breed wrote: >The real danger to this format is that any quest for maximum altitude >will result in pilots flying to altitudes that are unsafe. > >Unsafe, because they are too far away. >Unsafe because you are high enough to interfere with regular full size air >traffic. >Unsafe because one would want to maximize the dive back down speed, >high speed missiles loosing their wings and impacting randomly around the >pits would be very bad. Really, we are not breaking any new ground here. These things are common occurrences in sailplane contests. Not that we are being unsafe, but we already fly to the limits of our vision, and people burn off big altitude with dives all the time. We just need to have the same common sense we always practice at contests. >With GPS one could add some additional tasks to make the event more >challenging. > >Limit the boundary that you can fly in. This would require electronic telemetry feedback to the pilot and I don't want to go there in a contest environment. >Make it altitude gain from the 1st minute of flight, >this would eliminate the whole zoom launch, gorilla tow motor problem. I would like to include launch height as it's a part of every sailplane contest. There is more skill to launching high than standing on the pedal. Just like a normal TD contest in dead or light air, it might be the only difference between winning the round. >Add some precision. > Pilots put in bids, I can gain 5Kft in 10 minutes, > Hitting within 5% of your bid is worth something, >this would add the skill of predicting the performance given the >conditions before flying. Interesting, but it would slow down the contest as pilots would have to report it somehow before the round just starts. >Lots of possibilities... Agreed! 8-) Jim Downers Grove, IL Member of the Chicago SOAR club, AMA 592537LSF 7560 Level III ICQ 6997780R/C Soaring Page at www.jimbacus.net RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RCSE] Just a Flying Contest
GPS could be used to do total energy, as it has both ground speed and altitude. (I know wind contribution to airspeed is lost) The real danger to this format is that any quest for maximum altitude will result in pilots flying to altitudes that are unsafe. Unsafe, because they are too far away. Unsafe because you are high enough to interfere with regular full size air traffic. Unsafe because one would want to maximize the dive back down speed, high speed missiles loosing their wings and impacting randomly around the pits would be very bad. With GPS one could add some additional tasks to make the event more challenging. Limit the boundary that you can fly in. Make it altitude gain from the 1st minute of flight, this would eliminate the whole zoom launch, gorilla tow motor problem. Add some precision. Pilots put in bids, I can gain 5Kft in 10 minutes, Hitting within 5% of your bid is worth something, this would add the skill of predicting the performance given the conditions before flying. Lots of possibilities... Paul At 01:01 PM 8/12/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Interesting discussion. Although some type of electronic measurement of >in flight performance might become a contest of the future I'm not so sure >that problems with existing formats can or should be solved that way. > >If the tight scoring in F3J is a problems perhaps FAI should simply impose >a wing span limit on the planes. I submit that this would be relatively >simple to implement and leaves all the other elements of F3J intact. If >the wing span were limited to, say, 2 meters the flying skill required to >max the rounds would certainly be increased and spread the scores >accordingly. A 2.5 meter limit would probably do as well. > >Just another thought. > >Rick > > >At 09:40 AM 8/12/02 -0700, tony estep wrote: >>--- "James V. Bacus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Just a flying contest... I think about this quite a bit.> >> > When electronic loggers and telemetry become readily affordable, >> > (which we >> > are on the threshold of now), maybe there could be a format that >> > emphasized >> > flying alone with each contestant having a logging device onboard. >> >>I'll bet that some form of Jim's idea becomes the contest of the >>future. For the price of a winch/retriever, a club can buy a few ALTis >>or LoLos. Maybe soon there'll be a micro-GPS unit (I have a Garmin >>Vista, which is cool, but it's not practical for this use). That would >>open up even more possibilities. >> >>Anyway, it's obvious that the present F3J format, for example, will >>have to be changed. Planes are on the towline for 5 seconds, they max >>whatever time is required, and then get 95 or 100 landing points. The >>field is bunched so that the 5th place flyer has 99.7% of the winner's >>score. The WC may well be decided by a slow or quick punch of a timer's >>button. >> >>Fiddling with target times, relative importance of landings, and launch >>mechanisms won't change the fundamental issue. Adding speed, as Daryl >>slyly suggests, would turn F3J into F3B. Jim's suggestion is, in my >>mind, the one that could promise to spread out the field, clearly >>identifying superior flying. >> >>So what's the task? A pure calculation of cumulative altitude gained >>creates a need for energy compensation, which complicates matters quite >>a bit. How about this: a 10-minute task, with points for duration and >>additional points for the maximum altitude gained during any 180 >>seconds during the flight. >> >>Altitude gained over any 3-minute window would be less subject to >>fiddling. If you found strong lift, you could dive, zoom back up, then >>circle and climb. Sure, an uncompensated vario would credit you with >>the zoom. But only the first one would count, since your gain would be >>from the bottom of that dive to the window's end 3 minutes later. And >>there would be lots of tactical decision-making involved in such a >>task. Think about the many dilemmas that would face the pilot -- it's >>quite interesting! >> >>Anyway, we need good new ideas for a contest format. Cool techno >>gimmicks are present everywhere in this sport -- why have our >>championships determined by a thumb-operated stop watch, and a ruler? >> >> >> >> >>__ >>Do You Yahoo!? >>HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs >>http://www.hotjobs.com >>RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" >>and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" >and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RCSE] Just a Flying Contest
>At 11:10 PM 8/11/2002, you wrote: >I've thought about this "altitude zooming" issue before I posted. >On one side of this you could debate that one had to gain the >altitude prior to doing this maneuver, and maybe it's a strategy >that would not play out too well. Unless you can DS the gradient. - David [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
