Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

The MORAL aspect of shutoffs

Expand Messages
  • atopunov
    Just want to cut and past shutoff info that I found interesting. It has a big point to it. Especially from F2D pilot point of view, because it seems like
    Message 1 of 28 , Nov 9, 2007
      Just want to "cut and past" shutoff info that I found interesting. It
      has a big point to it. Especially from F2D pilot point of view,
      because it seems like that F2D rules makers forgot about their
      opinion.

      Text :


      The MORAL aspect of shutoffs

      Some fliers don't want to spend their time and effort to play with
      shutoffs and make them work 100%. It is easier to have something
      that looks like a shutoff and works like a shutoff on the ground, but
      has unknown effectiveness in the air. If the pilot has one flyaway
      per year and gets disqualified once per year, it is definitely not
      worth the effort to spend time, money, and possibly crashed models
      for testing. Just simple look back to previously introduced
      restriction in F2D and there are clearly some analogies between them.

      The same thing is going on Wright Now with mufflers. I am running
      analysis for new muffler configuration every year, to improve
      existing mufflers. It means that we are looking for muffler that
      won't work as muffler. We are looking for configuration that will
      take lass power away from the engine. Was that original intend of
      introducing mufflers? I don't know any F2D pilots who will look for
      muffler that will slowdown their engines.

      Form pilot perspective:

      If one is losing a match and knows that his opponent's and his own
      shutoff are not 100% reliable, will that person try to cutaway
      opponent plane to get his opponent disqualified if opponent shutoff
      may not work? Yes of course!!! This will not necessary happen by
      sawing the lines, but just cutting the opponent lines
      by "accidentally" crashing in opponents inboard wing if it is
      possible. ( 99% reliable shutoff will not work in this case, because
      there is 1% chance to win) In this case shutoff will increase number
      of flyways in F2D!



      --- In combat-l@yahoogroups.com, "Gordon Price" <gordon.price1@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Before the last CIAM meeting about shutoffs I sent the stuff below
      to
      > the UK CIAM delegate. I was concerned that they were making a
      rushed
      > decision and that they at least needed some input from combat
      flyers
      > who were not directly represented. The eventual outcome was to
      delay
      > the implementation to 2009 and that that they would evaluate
      shutoffs
      > and invited people to demonstrate at the Euro champs in Belgrade.
      >
      > I was the only one who took something to show to Belgrade, what
      were
      > the rest of you doing apart from Henning who did not go to
      Belgrade?,
      > You can see it in the photos section under 'Gordons Shutoff'and the
      > previous message about it.
      >
      > I had a good chat to Henning Forbech in Moscow and interestingly my
      > conclusions are similar to Hennings, hard to do something reliable
      > and suitable for the heat of a full on F2d battle where the pitcrew
      > and pilots are already stretched.
      >
      > On re-reading what I wrote below the only bit that is not right is
      > that you can fly upwing with a line tension shutoff, I have now
      > prooved that, however it is a very fine balance between the force
      to
      > shutoff against a full set of lines versus the little line tension
      > you have when flying to keep the valve open. I also had more
      success
      > arming with full down rather than line tension so I can get them to
      > take off reliably now.
      >
      > You will see Jeffrey Rein is mentioned below, he answered a lot of
      my
      > questions a year ago as he had already worked out some of the
      forces
      > involved , and has monitored the performance if shutoffs in fast at
      > the bladder grabber. Thanks Jeffrey.
      >
      > Thsi should give you something to read and debate. Before you flame
      > me note that I really have done some testing and measurements so do
      > have a bit of a grasp of things.
      >
      >
      > Gordon
      >
      >
      > *********************************message to UK delegate*********
      > Shutoff discussion at CIAM
      >
      > I email you with some of the information that I have accumulated,
      as
      > you are the UK CIAM delegate. By way of background I have an
      > engineering degree and prefer facts to wild rumour and speculation.
      I
      > hope that by providing you with some information and my conclusions
      > based on that information you will be able to help the CIAM come to
      a
      > sensible decision.
      >
      > I started investigating shutoffs a year ago and so far have flown
      > with two different version on a F2d model. I have made some
      > measurements of my own and got some information from some americans
      > who have worked with shutoffs for some time.
      >
      > First lets look at the American Fast combat experience. They have
      had
      > shutoffs mandated for 10 years. Over that period Jeffery Rein (a
      keen
      > supporter and provider of shutoffs) has recorded the performance in
      > flyaway situations. Line tension based shutoffs are 90% effective
      > whilst centrifugal swing weight ones are only 25% effective. This
      > must be considered with respect to the type of model they are used
      > on, which is quite different to a F2d model.
      >
      > Fast models are quite heavy and have a real pull on the lines,
      doing
      > 120MPH on 60 foot lines. Typically 14 or 16 lbs, say 6 to 7Kg line
      > tension. Speaking to people who have flown them they pull all the
      > time and never lose line tension, don't float about and don't go
      > light in tight manouvers. It is not uncommon for pilots to suffer
      > from sore shoulders after a days flying. A belcrank based line
      > tension shutoff in fast will arm at 7lbs or 3.1Kg, and shut off if
      > the tension reduces to below 4lb/1.8Kg. To shut off against a full
      > set of lines takes 1lb/0.45kg minimum, and they use 4lb to make
      > sure. The arming mechanism means that it will keep the fuel line
      > open until the line tension rises above that level after take off,
      > its a one time latch set by the pitcrew before starting the engine.
      > Also worth bearing in mind is the nature of fast combat, 1 model
      and
      > a kill rule (you win if you take off the whole streamer) means the
      > bouts are typically under 1 minute long. They still have some
      trouble
      > with shutoffs tripping before the model is fully up to speed.
      >
      > Interested in the comparison with F2d I measured the line pull of a
      > F2d model using a spring balance whilst flying. This gave 2kg while
      > flying level in calm conditions which is not enough to even arm a
      > fast shutoff or reliably keep it open. In a wind it is under 1kg
      > upwind and 3-4 downwind. When manouvering the tension varies a lot,
      > and it is perfectly feasible to fly upwind with under 0.5kg
      tension.
      > It is usual that a model will go light on the lines at times in a
      > bout. This is the crux of the matter, as you need to have a line
      > tension shutoff operate against a minimum of 450grams line tension
      > which is approximately the drag of a full set of lines cut of at
      the
      > handle.
      >
      > What this means in reality is that a F2d model will stop due to a
      > line tension shutoff operating at certain points in a bout,
      > especially on a windy day. I conclude that use of a line tension
      > shutoff will result in models stopping during a bout.
      >
      > Further issues result with the need to have the mechanic run with
      an
      > engine running model, without tripping the shutoff arming device. I
      > believe that these are fixable up to a point but will make F2d more
      > complicated and make the overworked pitmans life even harder.
      >
      > Having considered the proposed rule to disqualify a non operating
      > shuoff in a flyawy situation, and the liklehood of a flyaway versus
      > the shutoff tripping when flying costing me downtime my conclusion
      is
      > that I would show a shutoff that operates at the pre bout check,
      and
      > then make very sure that it would never work when flying, as the
      > arming device would never work. I reach this conclusion as it is
      much
      > more likely that I will loose due to ground time due to the shutoff
      > going off when flying a bout, than due to a fly away. I will not be
      > the only flyer to reach this conclusion as it is fairly obvious,
      and
      > so the rule implementing shutoffs will not make any difference to
      the
      > danger of a long range flyaway injuring someone. I am not happy
      about
      > this conclusion but you need to know about it and discuss it. If
      you
      > factor this in with a success rate of shutoffs that will be well
      > below the 90% experienced in FAST then you see that there will be a
      > lot of hassle for little improvement in safety.
      >
      > My gut feel is that for a line tension shutoff to be reasonably
      > flyable in a bout there is a less than 50% chance that it will work
      > pulling a full set of lines. The forces that you have to play with
      > are really too small to work reliably in a combat situation. It can
      > work but not consistently, and no one will want to fly the event
      > under that basis. This is bourne out by my flying tests so far
      which
      > have not been very impressive. If you get a system up and flying
      and
      > armed (about 50% of the time) then the model stops when
      manouevering
      > upwind. This is with a marginal 400g cutoff operating point. I do
      not
      > have a solution that is useable in a bout yet, and i am now not
      > confident that it can be done due to the forces involved.
      >
      > To put all this difficult technology in perspective we should
      > consider last years 2006 world championships in Spain. There were 3
      > flyaways, all of which landed well within the proposed 2 second
      > shutoff operation period, 2 within the 20m circle and one some 5-
      10m
      > outside. From this you can see that no shutof in spain would have
      had
      > to operate. Why then do we need them? My non operational shutoff
      > mentioned above aould not have got anyone disqualified but would
      have
      > passed the proposed rules for checking before hand. The situation
      in
      > spain was due to the officials in applying the rules properly and
      > fully, and there was still room for further improvement. Good line
      > checks and inspections also helped. All the flyers know this, if
      you
      > apply the rules properly and outlaw dangereous flying you don't get
      > many flyaways. The way to safety is to make the rules enforce safe
      > flying. A simple "one or both pilots gets disqualified in the event
      > of a flyaway" rule will help a lot, the jury and judges must
      > diqualify one of the pilots at least. That will make pilots try to
      > avoid flyaways which is what we want. Also a yellow card - red card
      > warning system for dangerous flying through the competition would
      > also work.
      >
      > Due to me having a Electronics degree, and my conclusion that line
      > tension shutoffs won't work properly, I believe that a radio
      control
      > shutoff is the way forward, with a failsafe mode. This would shut
      off
      > on range from the keep alive transmitter at the centre circle, and
      > would also allow shutoff of all models at the press of a button. I
      am
      > going to try to prototype this next and if it works i will try to
      > demonstrate it, ideally at the Euro champs. The problem with this
      > will be cost, and the complexity it brings.
      > ********************end of input to UK delegate************
      >
    • Brad LaPointe
      Exactly ,whack the other guy-win by DQ.Remember if you change the rules not everyone will interpret them in an altogether altruistic way.Running headlong into
      Message 2 of 28 , Nov 10, 2007
        Exactly ,whack the other guy-win by DQ.Remember if you change the rules not
        everyone will interpret them in an altogether altruistic way.Running
        headlong into this change may make the problem much worse than it is now!I
        tried to make this point about a year ago,This one is for all you NASCAR
        fans "if ya ain't cheatin' ya ain't racin' " or winning .Changing the rules
        can open it up to those who may be inclined to take any advantage.

        Brad
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "atopunov" <atopunov@...>
        To: <combat-l@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 2:31 PM
        Subject: [combat-l] The MORAL aspect of shutoffs


        > Just want to "cut and past" shutoff info that I found interesting. It
        > has a big point to it. Especially from F2D pilot point of view,
        > because it seems like that F2D rules makers forgot about their
        > opinion.
        >
        > Text :
        >
        >
        > The MORAL aspect of shutoffs
        >
        > Some fliers don't want to spend their time and effort to play with
        > shutoffs and make them work 100%. It is easier to have something
        > that looks like a shutoff and works like a shutoff on the ground, but
        > has unknown effectiveness in the air. If the pilot has one flyaway
        > per year and gets disqualified once per year, it is definitely not
        > worth the effort to spend time, money, and possibly crashed models
        > for testing. Just simple look back to previously introduced
        > restriction in F2D and there are clearly some analogies between them.
        >
        > The same thing is going on Wright Now with mufflers. I am running
        > analysis for new muffler configuration every year, to improve
        > existing mufflers. It means that we are looking for muffler that
        > won't work as muffler. We are looking for configuration that will
        > take lass power away from the engine. Was that original intend of
        > introducing mufflers? I don't know any F2D pilots who will look for
        > muffler that will slowdown their engines.
        >
        > Form pilot perspective:
        >
        > If one is losing a match and knows that his opponent's and his own
        > shutoff are not 100% reliable, will that person try to cutaway
        > opponent plane to get his opponent disqualified if opponent shutoff
        > may not work? Yes of course!!! This will not necessary happen by
        > sawing the lines, but just cutting the opponent lines
        > by "accidentally" crashing in opponents inboard wing if it is
        > possible. ( 99% reliable shutoff will not work in this case, because
        > there is 1% chance to win) In this case shutoff will increase number
        > of flyways in F2D!
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In combat-l@yahoogroups.com, "Gordon Price" <gordon.price1@...>
        > wrote:
        >>
        >> Before the last CIAM meeting about shutoffs I sent the stuff below
        > to
        >> the UK CIAM delegate. I was concerned that they were making a
        > rushed
        >> decision and that they at least needed some input from combat
        > flyers
        >> who were not directly represented. The eventual outcome was to
        > delay
        >> the implementation to 2009 and that that they would evaluate
        > shutoffs
        >> and invited people to demonstrate at the Euro champs in Belgrade.
        >>
        >> I was the only one who took something to show to Belgrade, what
        > were
        >> the rest of you doing apart from Henning who did not go to
        > Belgrade?,
        >> You can see it in the photos section under 'Gordons Shutoff'and the
        >> previous message about it.
        >>
        >> I had a good chat to Henning Forbech in Moscow and interestingly my
        >> conclusions are similar to Hennings, hard to do something reliable
        >> and suitable for the heat of a full on F2d battle where the pitcrew
        >> and pilots are already stretched.
        >>
        >> On re-reading what I wrote below the only bit that is not right is
        >> that you can fly upwing with a line tension shutoff, I have now
        >> prooved that, however it is a very fine balance between the force
        > to
        >> shutoff against a full set of lines versus the little line tension
        >> you have when flying to keep the valve open. I also had more
        > success
        >> arming with full down rather than line tension so I can get them to
        >> take off reliably now.
        >>
        >> You will see Jeffrey Rein is mentioned below, he answered a lot of
        > my
        >> questions a year ago as he had already worked out some of the
        > forces
        >> involved , and has monitored the performance if shutoffs in fast at
        >> the bladder grabber. Thanks Jeffrey.
        >>
        >> Thsi should give you something to read and debate. Before you flame
        >> me note that I really have done some testing and measurements so do
        >> have a bit of a grasp of things.
        >>
        >>
        >> Gordon
        >>
        >>
        >> *********************************message to UK delegate*********
        >> Shutoff discussion at CIAM
        >>
        >> I email you with some of the information that I have accumulated,
        > as
        >> you are the UK CIAM delegate. By way of background I have an
        >> engineering degree and prefer facts to wild rumour and speculation.
        > I
        >> hope that by providing you with some information and my conclusions
        >> based on that information you will be able to help the CIAM come to
        > a
        >> sensible decision.
        >>
        >> I started investigating shutoffs a year ago and so far have flown
        >> with two different version on a F2d model. I have made some
        >> measurements of my own and got some information from some americans
        >> who have worked with shutoffs for some time.
        >>
        >> First lets look at the American Fast combat experience. They have
        > had
        >> shutoffs mandated for 10 years. Over that period Jeffery Rein (a
        > keen
        >> supporter and provider of shutoffs) has recorded the performance in
        >> flyaway situations. Line tension based shutoffs are 90% effective
        >> whilst centrifugal swing weight ones are only 25% effective. This
        >> must be considered with respect to the type of model they are used
        >> on, which is quite different to a F2d model.
        >>
        >> Fast models are quite heavy and have a real pull on the lines,
        > doing
        >> 120MPH on 60 foot lines. Typically 14 or 16 lbs, say 6 to 7Kg line
        >> tension. Speaking to people who have flown them they pull all the
        >> time and never lose line tension, don't float about and don't go
        >> light in tight manouvers. It is not uncommon for pilots to suffer
        >> from sore shoulders after a days flying. A belcrank based line
        >> tension shutoff in fast will arm at 7lbs or 3.1Kg, and shut off if
        >> the tension reduces to below 4lb/1.8Kg. To shut off against a full
        >> set of lines takes 1lb/0.45kg minimum, and they use 4lb to make
        >> sure. The arming mechanism means that it will keep the fuel line
        >> open until the line tension rises above that level after take off,
        >> its a one time latch set by the pitcrew before starting the engine.
        >> Also worth bearing in mind is the nature of fast combat, 1 model
        > and
        >> a kill rule (you win if you take off the whole streamer) means the
        >> bouts are typically under 1 minute long. They still have some
        > trouble
        >> with shutoffs tripping before the model is fully up to speed.
        >>
        >> Interested in the comparison with F2d I measured the line pull of a
        >> F2d model using a spring balance whilst flying. This gave 2kg while
        >> flying level in calm conditions which is not enough to even arm a
        >> fast shutoff or reliably keep it open. In a wind it is under 1kg
        >> upwind and 3-4 downwind. When manouvering the tension varies a lot,
        >> and it is perfectly feasible to fly upwind with under 0.5kg
        > tension.
        >> It is usual that a model will go light on the lines at times in a
        >> bout. This is the crux of the matter, as you need to have a line
        >> tension shutoff operate against a minimum of 450grams line tension
        >> which is approximately the drag of a full set of lines cut of at
        > the
        >> handle.
        >>
        >> What this means in reality is that a F2d model will stop due to a
        >> line tension shutoff operating at certain points in a bout,
        >> especially on a windy day. I conclude that use of a line tension
        >> shutoff will result in models stopping during a bout.
        >>
        >> Further issues result with the need to have the mechanic run with
        > an
        >> engine running model, without tripping the shutoff arming device. I
        >> believe that these are fixable up to a point but will make F2d more
        >> complicated and make the overworked pitmans life even harder.
        >>
        >> Having considered the proposed rule to disqualify a non operating
        >> shuoff in a flyawy situation, and the liklehood of a flyaway versus
        >> the shutoff tripping when flying costing me downtime my conclusion
        > is
        >> that I would show a shutoff that operates at the pre bout check,
        > and
        >> then make very sure that it would never work when flying, as the
        >> arming device would never work. I reach this conclusion as it is
        > much
        >> more likely that I will loose due to ground time due to the shutoff
        >> going off when flying a bout, than due to a fly away. I will not be
        >> the only flyer to reach this conclusion as it is fairly obvious,
        > and
        >> so the rule implementing shutoffs will not make any difference to
        > the
        >> danger of a long range flyaway injuring someone. I am not happy
        > about
        >> this conclusion but you need to know about it and discuss it. If
        > you
        >> factor this in with a success rate of shutoffs that will be well
        >> below the 90% experienced in FAST then you see that there will be a
        >> lot of hassle for little improvement in safety.
        >>
        >> My gut feel is that for a line tension shutoff to be reasonably
        >> flyable in a bout there is a less than 50% chance that it will work
        >> pulling a full set of lines. The forces that you have to play with
        >> are really too small to work reliably in a combat situation. It can
        >> work but not consistently, and no one will want to fly the event
        >> under that basis. This is bourne out by my flying tests so far
        > which
        >> have not been very impressive. If you get a system up and flying
        > and
        >> armed (about 50% of the time) then the model stops when
        > manouevering
        >> upwind. This is with a marginal 400g cutoff operating point. I do
        > not
        >> have a solution that is useable in a bout yet, and i am now not
        >> confident that it can be done due to the forces involved.
        >>
        >> To put all this difficult technology in perspective we should
        >> consider last years 2006 world championships in Spain. There were 3
        >> flyaways, all of which landed well within the proposed 2 second
        >> shutoff operation period, 2 within the 20m circle and one some 5-
        > 10m
        >> outside. From this you can see that no shutof in spain would have
        > had
        >> to operate. Why then do we need them? My non operational shutoff
        >> mentioned above aould not have got anyone disqualified but would
        > have
        >> passed the proposed rules for checking before hand. The situation
        > in
        >> spain was due to the officials in applying the rules properly and
        >> fully, and there was still room for further improvement. Good line
        >> checks and inspections also helped. All the flyers know this, if
        > you
        >> apply the rules properly and outlaw dangereous flying you don't get
        >> many flyaways. The way to safety is to make the rules enforce safe
        >> flying. A simple "one or both pilots gets disqualified in the event
        >> of a flyaway" rule will help a lot, the jury and judges must
        >> diqualify one of the pilots at least. That will make pilots try to
        >> avoid flyaways which is what we want. Also a yellow card - red card
        >> warning system for dangerous flying through the competition would
        >> also work.
        >>
        >> Due to me having a Electronics degree, and my conclusion that line
        >> tension shutoffs won't work properly, I believe that a radio
        > control
        >> shutoff is the way forward, with a failsafe mode. This would shut
        > off
        >> on range from the keep alive transmitter at the centre circle, and
        >> would also allow shutoff of all models at the press of a button. I
        > am
        >> going to try to prototype this next and if it works i will try to
        >> demonstrate it, ideally at the Euro champs. The problem with this
        >> will be cost, and the complexity it brings.
        >> ********************end of input to UK delegate************
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Please visit MACA's Web Site:
        >
        > www.maca.hobby-site.org
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this email list, send a blank email message to:
        >
        > combat-l-unsubscribe@egroups.com
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Oleg
        Please you make me what is (Monster Truck) is it same (Speed Limit Combat)! Oleg
        Message 3 of 28 , Nov 10, 2007
          Please you make me what is (Monster Truck) is it same (Speed Limit Combat)!
          Oleg

          --- In combat-l@yahoogroups.com, "jeffrey_a_rein" <jeffrey_a_rein@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In combat-l@yahoogroups.com, "Gordon Price" <gordon.price1@>
          > wrote:
          >
          > Great information, testing, and great work that you have done here.
          > You know we have another silly sport here called Monster Trucks. When
          > one of these 2,000 HP trucks left the arena and killed a bunch of
          > people, the sport was over until they made mandatory electronic
          > shutoff's for the Monster trucks. Now the sport is bigger than ever.
          > Hurry up and make one! If it is reliable and everyone had the same
          > unit in there planes, there would be no advantade or disadvantade to
          > anyone.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > > Before the last CIAM meeting about shutoffs I sent the stuff below
          > to
          > > the UK CIAM delegate. I was concerned that they were making a
          > rushed
          > > decision and that they at least needed some input from combat
          > flyers
          > > who were not directly represented. The eventual outcome was to
          > delay
          > > the implementation to 2009 and that that they would evaluate
          > shutoffs
          > > and invited people to demonstrate at the Euro champs in Belgrade.
          > >
          > > I was the only one who took something to show to Belgrade, what
          > were
          > > the rest of you doing apart from Henning who did not go to
          > Belgrade?,
          > > You can see it in the photos section under 'Gordons Shutoff'and the
          > > previous message about it.
          > >
          > > I had a good chat to Henning Forbech in Moscow and interestingly my
          > > conclusions are similar to Hennings, hard to do something reliable
          > > and suitable for the heat of a full on F2d battle where the pitcrew
          > > and pilots are already stretched.
          > >
          > > On re-reading what I wrote below the only bit that is not right is
          > > that you can fly upwing with a line tension shutoff, I have now
          > > prooved that, however it is a very fine balance between the force
          > to
          > > shutoff against a full set of lines versus the little line tension
          > > you have when flying to keep the valve open. I also had more
          > success
          > > arming with full down rather than line tension so I can get them to
          > > take off reliably now.
          > >
          > > You will see Jeffrey Rein is mentioned below, he answered a lot of
          > my
          > > questions a year ago as he had already worked out some of the
          > forces
          > > involved , and has monitored the performance if shutoffs in fast at
          > > the bladder grabber. Thanks Jeffrey.
          > >
          > > Thsi should give you something to read and debate. Before you flame
          > > me note that I really have done some testing and measurements so do
          > > have a bit of a grasp of things.
          > >
          > >
          > > Gordon
          > >
          > >
          > > *********************************message to UK delegate*********
          > > Shutoff discussion at CIAM
          > >
          > > I email you with some of the information that I have accumulated,
          > as
          > > you are the UK CIAM delegate. By way of background I have an
          > > engineering degree and prefer facts to wild rumour and speculation.
          > I
          > > hope that by providing you with some information and my conclusions
          > > based on that information you will be able to help the CIAM come to
          > a
          > > sensible decision.
          > >
          > > I started investigating shutoffs a year ago and so far have flown
          > > with two different version on a F2d model. I have made some
          > > measurements of my own and got some information from some americans
          > > who have worked with shutoffs for some time.
          > >
          > > First lets look at the American Fast combat experience. They have
          > had
          > > shutoffs mandated for 10 years. Over that period Jeffery Rein (a
          > keen
          > > supporter and provider of shutoffs) has recorded the performance in
          > > flyaway situations. Line tension based shutoffs are 90% effective
          > > whilst centrifugal swing weight ones are only 25% effective. This
          > > must be considered with respect to the type of model they are used
          > > on, which is quite different to a F2d model.
          > >
          > > Fast models are quite heavy and have a real pull on the lines,
          > doing
          > > 120MPH on 60 foot lines. Typically 14 or 16 lbs, say 6 to 7Kg line
          > > tension. Speaking to people who have flown them they pull all the
          > > time and never lose line tension, don't float about and don't go
          > > light in tight manouvers. It is not uncommon for pilots to suffer
          > > from sore shoulders after a days flying. A belcrank based line
          > > tension shutoff in fast will arm at 7lbs or 3.1Kg, and shut off if
          > > the tension reduces to below 4lb/1.8Kg. To shut off against a full
          > > set of lines takes 1lb/0.45kg minimum, and they use 4lb to make
          > > sure. The arming mechanism means that it will keep the fuel line
          > > open until the line tension rises above that level after take off,
          > > its a one time latch set by the pitcrew before starting the engine.
          > > Also worth bearing in mind is the nature of fast combat, 1 model
          > and
          > > a kill rule (you win if you take off the whole streamer) means the
          > > bouts are typically under 1 minute long. They still have some
          > trouble
          > > with shutoffs tripping before the model is fully up to speed.
          > >
          > > Interested in the comparison with F2d I measured the line pull of a
          > > F2d model using a spring balance whilst flying. This gave 2kg while
          > > flying level in calm conditions which is not enough to even arm a
          > > fast shutoff or reliably keep it open. In a wind it is under 1kg
          > > upwind and 3-4 downwind. When manouvering the tension varies a lot,
          > > and it is perfectly feasible to fly upwind with under 0.5kg
          > tension.
          > > It is usual that a model will go light on the lines at times in a
          > > bout. This is the crux of the matter, as you need to have a line
          > > tension shutoff operate against a minimum of 450grams line tension
          > > which is approximately the drag of a full set of lines cut of at
          > the
          > > handle.
          > >
          > > What this means in reality is that a F2d model will stop due to a
          > > line tension shutoff operating at certain points in a bout,
          > > especially on a windy day. I conclude that use of a line tension
          > > shutoff will result in models stopping during a bout.
          > >
          > > Further issues result with the need to have the mechanic run with
          > an
          > > engine running model, without tripping the shutoff arming device. I
          > > believe that these are fixable up to a point but will make F2d more
          > > complicated and make the overworked pitmans life even harder.
          > >
          > > Having considered the proposed rule to disqualify a non operating
          > > shuoff in a flyawy situation, and the liklehood of a flyaway versus
          > > the shutoff tripping when flying costing me downtime my conclusion
          > is
          > > that I would show a shutoff that operates at the pre bout check,
          > and
          > > then make very sure that it would never work when flying, as the
          > > arming device would never work. I reach this conclusion as it is
          > much
          > > more likely that I will loose due to ground time due to the shutoff
          > > going off when flying a bout, than due to a fly away. I will not be
          > > the only flyer to reach this conclusion as it is fairly obvious,
          > and
          > > so the rule implementing shutoffs will not make any difference to
          > the
          > > danger of a long range flyaway injuring someone. I am not happy
          > about
          > > this conclusion but you need to know about it and discuss it. If
          > you
          > > factor this in with a success rate of shutoffs that will be well
          > > below the 90% experienced in FAST then you see that there will be a
          > > lot of hassle for little improvement in safety.
          > >
          > > My gut feel is that for a line tension shutoff to be reasonably
          > > flyable in a bout there is a less than 50% chance that it will work
          > > pulling a full set of lines. The forces that you have to play with
          > > are really too small to work reliably in a combat situation. It can
          > > work but not consistently, and no one will want to fly the event
          > > under that basis. This is bourne out by my flying tests so far
          > which
          > > have not been very impressive. If you get a system up and flying
          > and
          > > armed (about 50% of the time) then the model stops when
          > manouevering
          > > upwind. This is with a marginal 400g cutoff operating point. I do
          > not
          > > have a solution that is useable in a bout yet, and i am now not
          > > confident that it can be done due to the forces involved.
          > >
          > > To put all this difficult technology in perspective we should
          > > consider last years 2006 world championships in Spain. There were 3
          > > flyaways, all of which landed well within the proposed 2 second
          > > shutoff operation period, 2 within the 20m circle and one some 5-
          > 10m
          > > outside. From this you can see that no shutof in spain would have
          > had
          > > to operate. Why then do we need them? My non operational shutoff
          > > mentioned above aould not have got anyone disqualified but would
          > have
          > > passed the proposed rules for checking before hand. The situation
          > in
          > > spain was due to the officials in applying the rules properly and
          > > fully, and there was still room for further improvement. Good line
          > > checks and inspections also helped. All the flyers know this, if
          > you
          > > apply the rules properly and outlaw dangereous flying you don't get
          > > many flyaways. The way to safety is to make the rules enforce safe
          > > flying. A simple "one or both pilots gets disqualified in the event
          > > of a flyaway" rule will help a lot, the jury and judges must
          > > diqualify one of the pilots at least. That will make pilots try to
          > > avoid flyaways which is what we want. Also a yellow card - red card
          > > warning system for dangerous flying through the competition would
          > > also work.
          > >
          > > Due to me having a Electronics degree, and my conclusion that line
          > > tension shutoffs won't work properly, I believe that a radio
          > control
          > > shutoff is the way forward, with a failsafe mode. This would shut
          > off
          > > on range from the keep alive transmitter at the centre circle, and
          > > would also allow shutoff of all models at the press of a button. I
          > am
          > > going to try to prototype this next and if it works i will try to
          > > demonstrate it, ideally at the Euro champs. The problem with this
          > > will be cost, and the complexity it brings.
          > > ********************end of input to UK delegate************
          > >
          >
        • Antonello Cxxxx
          We have many many good rules, but its respect ? : any example: Safety strap handle, downright have a design in rule, but before the 2005, this design not had
          Message 4 of 28 , Nov 10, 2007
            We have many many good rules, but its respect ? :
            any example:
            Safety strap handle, downright have a design in rule,
            but before the 2005, this design not had respect,
            too much pilots, had used only one circle.. and any models
            flyaway with all, lines, cables, handle,
            Fuel, in World Cup, the fuel not is giving from organizer,
            in the competition when it is give, not have other controls,
            Attack model without streamer , not disqualifier, never,
            is 'go rear', in defence....??
            Tangle, I not had see again 1 disqualification,..
            Cut lines deliberately, read up, and more...
            Air intake-exit muffler , any competition not have
            any control, (but not have sense change the diameter,
            for this all engines are ok),
            notice-board ,many competition not use it...
            when have... is write in Russian language...
            results later combat, to pilots, not one use it...
            and other who now I not remeber..

            now we have other rule, for me is a playing:
            Shut-off , control before, and later the fly, at end of the fly,
            the functionality of the shut...,(mechanic not work on shut...,
            before the final control, I hope).
            excuse me but I have any doubt, about it correct,
            and punctual, application...


            I had propose in the 2005, later my experience with shut:
            reinforced the lines, not giving to any advantage.
            In all competition the control of diameter is the only rule
            respect, safety to little costs. Increase the index of safety
            from 20 to 25-26 (25-26 x weight of complete model),
            and the difficulty to cut
            change the exit muffler, reduce the power, (and noise),
            my experience: 6,5 mm. (reduce of 1,5 mm. the diameter
            of exit muffler), reduce to 1.500 R.P.M.
            (If we reduce 1.500 R.P.M. we missing 0,051 C.V.,
            we lost speed, ecc.)
            change the design of mufflers for reduce the power,
            no conic, only tube and closers to 90°, rectangular,
            for not resonance.

            This porposal are many many economic, and we increase
            many the safety.

            Any free consideration:
            -The shut in any situation not will have possibility
            of work, (breaking of handle, missing of handle without
            use of safety strap...)
            -If one pilot, in losting, cut deliberately the lines of opponent,
            and the shut work, the model not go out the place,
            the his pilots not will have possibility of search the refly,
            he have penalty without responsability.
            Is many interesting, for win the combat, this shut rule,
            the scenario is open...C'on
            -If we increase the cutting of lines, remember who the
            our mecahnics are down.....not is accettable
            -The junior with this complication..
            -Stability of rules increase the numbers of competitor..
            .......
            The original introducing of muffler is for reduce the rumors,
            because the rumors damaged the ear of the mechanics.
            Any old pilot/mechanics have, the ear damaged ...

            > To: combat-l@yahoogroups.com> From: bradlf2d@...> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:31:31 -0500> Subject: Re: [combat-l] The MORAL aspect of shutoffs> > Exactly ,whack the other guy-win by DQ.Remember if you change the rules not > everyone will interpret them in an altogether altruistic way.Running > headlong into this change may make the problem much worse than it is now!I > tried to make this point about a year ago,This one is for all you NASCAR > fans "if ya ain't cheatin' ya ain't racin' " or winning .Changing the rules > can open it up to those who may be inclined to take any advantage.> > Brad> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "atopunov" <atopunov@...>> To: <combat-l@yahoogroups.com>> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 2:31 PM> Subject: [combat-l] The MORAL aspect of shutoffs> > > > Just want to "cut and past" shutoff info that I found interesting. It> > has a big point to it. Especially from F2D pilot point of view,> > because it seems like that F2D rules makers forgot about their> > opinion.> >> > Text :> >> >> > The MORAL aspect of shutoffs> >> > Some fliers don't want to spend their time and effort to play with> > shutoffs and make them work 100%. It is easier to have something> > that looks like a shutoff and works like a shutoff on the ground, but> > has unknown effectiveness in the air. If the pilot has one flyaway> > per year and gets disqualified once per year, it is definitely not> > worth the effort to spend time, money, and possibly crashed models> > for testing. Just simple look back to previously introduced> > restriction in F2D and there are clearly some analogies between them.> >> > The same thing is going on Wright Now with mufflers. I am running> > analysis for new muffler configuration every year, to improve> > existing mufflers. It means that we are looking for muffler that> > won't work as muffler. We are looking for configuration that will> > take lass power away from the engine. Was that original intend of> > introducing mufflers? I don't know any F2D pilots who will look for> > muffler that will slowdown their engines.> >> > Form pilot perspective:> >> > If one is losing a match and knows that his opponent's and his own> > shutoff are not 100% reliable, will that person try to cutaway> > opponent plane to get his opponent disqualified if opponent shutoff> > may not work? Yes of course!!! This will not necessary happen by> > sawing the lines, but just cutting the opponent lines> > by "accidentally" crashing in opponents inboard wing if it is> > possible. ( 99% reliable shutoff will not work in this case, because> > there is 1% chance to win) In this case shutoff will increase number> > of flyways in F2D!> >> >> >>
            _________________________________________________________________
            Crea i tuoi biglietti da visita con Windows Live Messenger!
            http://www.messenger.it/biglietti_da_visita.html

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Bryce Gibson
            I totally agree. The strategic aim of flying combat is to win the contest by being the last person with a life . The tactical aim is to give your opponent a
            Message 5 of 28 , Nov 10, 2007
              I totally agree.
              The strategic aim of flying combat is to win the contest by being the last person with a "life".
              The tactical aim is to give your opponent a loss in the match.
              The "Double DQ" for a fly away would mean that a fly away gives your opponent a loss. If you are doomed anyway, why not try to get a DQ for the opponent? If he's on the bubble and you aren't, you would be stupid not too.
              The refly rule isn't perfect either. The one fly away I have had in a contest in 27 years was at the 2002 worlds. When Don cut me off when he was 5-2 up and going for a sixth. Free flight is a thing of beauty, particularly when the model lands undamaged in wheat 20 yards out from the fly away line.
              The large number of fly aways in 02 was I believe a result of the deliberate use of marginal line so that a fly away was possible as a tactical option.Bryce GibsonDictator for LifeNOCLASS MAC


              To: combat-l@yahoogroups.comFrom: bradlf2d@...: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:31:31 -0500Subject: Re: [combat-l] The MORAL aspect of shutoffs




              Exactly ,whack the other guy-win by DQ.Remember if you change the rules not everyone will interpret them in an altogether altruistic way.Running headlong into this change may make the problem much worse than it is now!I tried to make this point about a year ago,This one is for all you NASCAR fans "if ya ain't cheatin' ya ain't racin' " or winning .Changing the rules can open it up to those who may be inclined to take any advantage.Brad----- Original Message ----- From: "atopunov" <atopunov@...>To: <combat-l@yahoogroups.com>Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 2:31 PMSubject: [combat-l] The MORAL aspect of shutoffs> Just want to "cut and past" shutoff info that I found interesting. It> has a big point to it. Especially from F2D pilot point of view,> because it seems like that F2D rules makers forgot about their> opinion.>> Text :>>> The MORAL aspect of shutoffs>> Some fliers don't want to spend their time and effort to play with> shutoffs and make them work 100%. It is easier to have something> that looks like a shutoff and works like a shutoff on the ground, but> has unknown effectiveness in the air. If the pilot has one flyaway> per year and gets disqualified once per year, it is definitely not> worth the effort to spend time, money, and possibly crashed models> for testing. Just simple look back to previously introduced> restriction in F2D and there are clearly some analogies between them.>> The same thing is going on Wright Now with mufflers. I am running> analysis for new muffler configuration every year, to improve> existing mufflers. It means that we are looking for muffler that> won't work as muffler. We are looking for configuration that will> take lass power away from the engine. Was that original intend of> introducing mufflers? I don't know any F2D pilots who will look for> muffler that will slowdown their engines.>> Form pilot perspective:>> If one is losing a match and knows that his opponent's and his own> shutoff are not 100% reliable, will that person try to cutaway> opponent plane to get his opponent disqualified if opponent shutoff> may not work? Yes of course!!! This will not necessary happen by> sawing the lines, but just cutting the opponent lines> by "accidentally" crashing in opponents inboard wing if it is> possible. ( 99% reliable shutoff will not work in this case, because> there is 1% chance to win) In this case shutoff will increase number> of flyways in F2D!>>>> --- In combat-l@yahoogroups.com, "Gordon Price" <gordon.price1@...>> wrote:>>>> Before the last CIAM meeting about shutoffs I sent the stuff below> to>> the UK CIAM delegate. I was concerned that they were making a> rushed>> decision and that they at least needed some input from combat> flyers>> who were not directly represented. The eventual outcome was to> delay>> the implementation to 2009 and that that they would evaluate> shutoffs>> and invited people to demonstrate at the Euro champs in Belgrade.>>>> I was the only one who took something to show to Belgrade, what> were>> the rest of you doing apart from Henning who did not go to> Belgrade?,>> You can see it in the photos section under 'Gordons Shutoff'and the>> previous message about it.>>>> I had a good chat to Henning Forbech in Moscow and interestingly my>> conclusions are similar to Hennings, hard to do something reliable>> and suitable for the heat of a full on F2d battle where the pitcrew>> and pilots are already stretched.>>>> On re-reading what I wrote below the only bit that is not right is>> that you can fly upwing with a line tension shutoff, I have now>> prooved that, however it is a very fine balance between the force> to>> shutoff against a full set of lines versus the little line tension>> you have when flying to keep the valve open. I also had more> success>> arming with full down rather than line tension so I can get them to>> take off reliably now.>>>> You will see Jeffrey Rein is mentioned below, he answered a lot of> my>> questions a year ago as he had already worked out some of the> forces>> involved , and has monitored the performance if shutoffs in fast at>> the bladder grabber. Thanks Jeffrey.>>>> Thsi should give you something to read and debate. Before you flame>> me note that I really have done some testing and measurements so do>> have a bit of a grasp of things.>>>>>> Gordon>>>>>> *********************************message to UK delegate*********>> Shutoff discussion at CIAM>>>> I email you with some of the information that I have accumulated,> as>> you are the UK CIAM delegate. By way of background I have an>> engineering degree and prefer facts to wild rumour and speculation.> I>> hope that by providing you with some information and my conclusions>> based on that information you will be able to help the CIAM come to> a>> sensible decision.>>>> I started investigating shutoffs a year ago and so far have flown>> with two different version on a F2d model. I have made some>> measurements of my own and got some information from some americans>> who have worked with shutoffs for some time.>>>> First lets look at the American Fast combat experience. They have> had>> shutoffs mandated for 10 years. Over that period Jeffery Rein (a> keen>> supporter and provider of shutoffs) has recorded the performance in>> flyaway situations. Line tension based shutoffs are 90% effective>> whilst centrifugal swing weight ones are only 25% effective. This>> must be considered with respect to the type of model they are used>> on, which is quite different to a F2d model.>>>> Fast models are quite heavy and have a real pull on the lines,> doing>> 120MPH on 60 foot lines. Typically 14 or 16 lbs, say 6 to 7Kg line>> tension. Speaking to people who have flown them they pull all the>> time and never lose line tension, don't float about and don't go>> light in tight manouvers. It is not uncommon for pilots to suffer>> from sore shoulders after a days flying. A belcrank based line>> tension shutoff in fast will arm at 7lbs or 3.1Kg, and shut off if>> the tension reduces to below 4lb/1.8Kg. To shut off against a full>> set of lines takes 1lb/0.45kg minimum, and they use 4lb to make>> sure. The arming mechanism means that it will keep the fuel line>> open until the line tension rises above that level after take off,>> its a one time latch set by the pitcrew before starting the engine.>> Also worth bearing in mind is the nature of fast combat, 1 model> and>> a kill rule (you win if you take off the whole streamer) means the>> bouts are typically under 1 minute long. They still have some> trouble>> with shutoffs tripping before the model is fully up to speed.>>>> Interested in the comparison with F2d I measured the line pull of a>> F2d model using a spring balance whilst flying. This gave 2kg while>> flying level in calm conditions which is not enough to even arm a>> fast shutoff or reliably keep it open. In a wind it is under 1kg>> upwind and 3-4 downwind. When manouvering the tension varies a lot,>> and it is perfectly feasible to fly upwind with under 0.5kg> tension.>> It is usual that a model will go light on the lines at times in a>> bout. This is the crux of the matter, as you need to have a line>> tension shutoff operate against a minimum of 450grams line tension>> which is approximately the drag of a full set of lines cut of at> the>> handle.>>>> What this means in reality is that a F2d model will stop due to a>> line tension shutoff operating at certain points in a bout,>> especially on a windy day. I conclude that use of a line tension>> shutoff will result in models stopping during a bout.>>>> Further issues result with the need to have the mechanic run with> an>> engine running model, without tripping the shutoff arming device. I>> believe that these are fixable up to a point but will make F2d more>> complicated and make the overworked pitmans life even harder.>>>> Having considered the proposed rule to disqualify a non operating>> shuoff in a flyawy situation, and the liklehood of a flyaway versus>> the shutoff tripping when flying costing me downtime my conclusion> is>> that I would show a shutoff that operates at the pre bout check,> and>> then make very sure that it would never work when flying, as the>> arming device would never work. I reach this conclusion as it is> much>> more likely that I will loose due to ground time due to the shutoff>> going off when flying a bout, than due to a fly away. I will not be>> the only flyer to reach this conclusion as it is fairly obvious,> and>> so the rule implementing shutoffs will not make any difference to> the>> danger of a long range flyaway injuring someone. I am not happy> about>> this conclusion but you need to know about it and discuss it. If> you>> factor this in with a success rate of shutoffs that will be well>> below the 90% experienced in FAST then you see that there will be a>> lot of hassle for little improvement in safety.>>>> My gut feel is that for a line tension shutoff to be reasonably>> flyable in a bout there is a less than 50% chance that it will work>> pulling a full set of lines. The forces that you have to play with>> are really too small to work reliably in a combat situation. It can>> work but not consistently, and no one will want to fly the event>> under that basis. This is bourne out by my flying tests so far> which>> have not been very impressive. If you get a system up and flying> and>> armed (about 50% of the time) then the model stops when> manouevering>> upwind. This is with a marginal 400g cutoff operating point. I do> not>> have a solution that is useable in a bout yet, and i am now not>> confident that it can be done due to the forces involved.>>>> To put all this difficult technology in perspective we should>> consider last years 2006 world championships in Spain. There were 3>> flyaways, all of which landed well within the proposed 2 second>> shutoff operation period, 2 within the 20m circle and one some 5-> 10m>> outside. From this you can see that no shutof in spain would have> had>> to operate. Why then do we need them? My non operational shutoff>> mentioned above aould not have got anyone disqualified but would> have>> passed the proposed rules for checking before hand. The situation> in>> spain was due to the officials in applying the rules properly and>> fully, and there was still room for further improvement. Good line>> checks and inspections also helped. All the flyers know this, if> you>> apply the rules properly and outlaw dangereous flying you don't get>> many flyaways. The way to safety is to make the rules enforce safe>> flying. A simple "one or both pilots gets disqualified in the event>> of a flyaway" rule will help a lot, the jury and judges must>> diqualify one of the pilots at least. That will make pilots try to>> avoid flyaways which is what we want. Also a yellow card - red card>> warning system for dangerous flying through the competition would>> also work.>>>> Due to me having a Electronics degree, and my conclusion that line>> tension shutoffs won't work properly, I believe that a radio> control>> shutoff is the way forward, with a failsafe mode. This would shut> off>> on range from the keep alive transmitter at the centre circle, and>> would also allow shutoff of all models at the press of a button. I> am>> going to try to prototype this next and if it works i will try to>> demonstrate it, ideally at the Euro champs. The problem with this>> will be cost, and the complexity it brings.>> ********************end of input to UK delegate************>>>>>>> Please visit MACA's Web Site:>> www.maca.hobby-site.org>> To unsubscribe from this email list, send a blank email message to:>> combat-l-unsubscribe@egroups.com> Yahoo! Groups Links>>>>






              _________________________________________________________________
              Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
              http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Bob Mears
              So...looks like, in the event of a flyaway, and a shutoff works, the cut loose airplane should be scored an extra 100 points! ... rules not ... way.Running ...
              Message 6 of 28 , Nov 10, 2007
                So...looks like, in the event of a flyaway, and a shutoff works, the
                cut loose airplane should be scored an extra 100 points!


                --- In combat-l@yahoogroups.com, "Brad LaPointe" <bradlf2d@...> wrote:
                >
                > Exactly ,whack the other guy-win by DQ.Remember if you change the
                rules not
                > everyone will interpret them in an altogether altruistic
                way.Running
                > headlong into this change may make the problem much worse than it
                is now!I
                > tried to make this point about a year ago,This one is for all you
                NASCAR
                > fans "if ya ain't cheatin' ya ain't racin' " or winning .Changing
                the rules
                > can open it up to those who may be inclined to take any advantage.
                >
                > Brad
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: "atopunov" <atopunov@...>
                > To: <combat-l@yahoogroups.com>
                > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 2:31 PM
                > Subject: [combat-l] The MORAL aspect of shutoffs
                >
                >
                > > Just want to "cut and past" shutoff info that I found
                interesting. It
                > > has a big point to it. Especially from F2D pilot point of view,
                > > because it seems like that F2D rules makers forgot about their
                > > opinion.
                > >
                > > Text :
                > >
                > >
                > > The MORAL aspect of shutoffs
                > >
                > > Some fliers don't want to spend their time and effort to play with
                > > shutoffs and make them work 100%. It is easier to have something
                > > that looks like a shutoff and works like a shutoff on the ground,
                but
                > > has unknown effectiveness in the air. If the pilot has one
                flyaway
                > > per year and gets disqualified once per year, it is definitely not
                > > worth the effort to spend time, money, and possibly crashed models
                > > for testing. Just simple look back to previously introduced
                > > restriction in F2D and there are clearly some analogies between
                them.
                > >
                > > The same thing is going on Wright Now with mufflers. I am running
                > > analysis for new muffler configuration every year, to improve
                > > existing mufflers. It means that we are looking for muffler that
                > > won't work as muffler. We are looking for configuration that will
                > > take lass power away from the engine. Was that original intend of
                > > introducing mufflers? I don't know any F2D pilots who will look
                for
                > > muffler that will slowdown their engines.
                > >
                > > Form pilot perspective:
                > >
                > > If one is losing a match and knows that his opponent's and his own
                > > shutoff are not 100% reliable, will that person try to cutaway
                > > opponent plane to get his opponent disqualified if opponent
                shutoff
                > > may not work? Yes of course!!! This will not necessary happen by
                > > sawing the lines, but just cutting the opponent lines
                > > by "accidentally" crashing in opponents inboard wing if it is
                > > possible. ( 99% reliable shutoff will not work in this case,
                because
                > > there is 1% chance to win) In this case shutoff will increase
                number
                > > of flyways in F2D!
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In combat-l@yahoogroups.com, "Gordon Price" <gordon.price1@>
                > > wrote:
                > >>
                > >> Before the last CIAM meeting about shutoffs I sent the stuff
                below
                > > to
                > >> the UK CIAM delegate. I was concerned that they were making a
                > > rushed
                > >> decision and that they at least needed some input from combat
                > > flyers
                > >> who were not directly represented. The eventual outcome was to
                > > delay
                > >> the implementation to 2009 and that that they would evaluate
                > > shutoffs
                > >> and invited people to demonstrate at the Euro champs in Belgrade.
                > >>
                > >> I was the only one who took something to show to Belgrade, what
                > > were
                > >> the rest of you doing apart from Henning who did not go to
                > > Belgrade?,
                > >> You can see it in the photos section under 'Gordons Shutoff'and
                the
                > >> previous message about it.
                > >>
                > >> I had a good chat to Henning Forbech in Moscow and interestingly
                my
                > >> conclusions are similar to Hennings, hard to do something
                reliable
                > >> and suitable for the heat of a full on F2d battle where the
                pitcrew
                > >> and pilots are already stretched.
                > >>
                > >> On re-reading what I wrote below the only bit that is not right
                is
                > >> that you can fly upwing with a line tension shutoff, I have now
                > >> prooved that, however it is a very fine balance between the force
                > > to
                > >> shutoff against a full set of lines versus the little line
                tension
                > >> you have when flying to keep the valve open. I also had more
                > > success
                > >> arming with full down rather than line tension so I can get them
                to
                > >> take off reliably now.
                > >>
                > >> You will see Jeffrey Rein is mentioned below, he answered a lot
                of
                > > my
                > >> questions a year ago as he had already worked out some of the
                > > forces
                > >> involved , and has monitored the performance if shutoffs in fast
                at
                > >> the bladder grabber. Thanks Jeffrey.
                > >>
                > >> Thsi should give you something to read and debate. Before you
                flame
                > >> me note that I really have done some testing and measurements so
                do
                > >> have a bit of a grasp of things.
                > >>
                > >>
                > >> Gordon
                > >>
                > >>
                > >> *********************************message to UK delegate*********
                > >> Shutoff discussion at CIAM
                > >>
                > >> I email you with some of the information that I have accumulated,
                > > as
                > >> you are the UK CIAM delegate. By way of background I have an
                > >> engineering degree and prefer facts to wild rumour and
                speculation.
                > > I
                > >> hope that by providing you with some information and my
                conclusions
                > >> based on that information you will be able to help the CIAM come
                to
                > > a
                > >> sensible decision.
                > >>
                > >> I started investigating shutoffs a year ago and so far have flown
                > >> with two different version on a F2d model. I have made some
                > >> measurements of my own and got some information from some
                americans
                > >> who have worked with shutoffs for some time.
                > >>
                > >> First lets look at the American Fast combat experience. They have
                > > had
                > >> shutoffs mandated for 10 years. Over that period Jeffery Rein (a
                > > keen
                > >> supporter and provider of shutoffs) has recorded the performance
                in
                > >> flyaway situations. Line tension based shutoffs are 90% effective
                > >> whilst centrifugal swing weight ones are only 25% effective. This
                > >> must be considered with respect to the type of model they are
                used
                > >> on, which is quite different to a F2d model.
                > >>
                > >> Fast models are quite heavy and have a real pull on the lines,
                > > doing
                > >> 120MPH on 60 foot lines. Typically 14 or 16 lbs, say 6 to 7Kg
                line
                > >> tension. Speaking to people who have flown them they pull all the
                > >> time and never lose line tension, don't float about and don't go
                > >> light in tight manouvers. It is not uncommon for pilots to suffer
                > >> from sore shoulders after a days flying. A belcrank based line
                > >> tension shutoff in fast will arm at 7lbs or 3.1Kg, and shut off
                if
                > >> the tension reduces to below 4lb/1.8Kg. To shut off against a
                full
                > >> set of lines takes 1lb/0.45kg minimum, and they use 4lb to make
                > >> sure. The arming mechanism means that it will keep the fuel line
                > >> open until the line tension rises above that level after take
                off,
                > >> its a one time latch set by the pitcrew before starting the
                engine.
                > >> Also worth bearing in mind is the nature of fast combat, 1 model
                > > and
                > >> a kill rule (you win if you take off the whole streamer) means
                the
                > >> bouts are typically under 1 minute long. They still have some
                > > trouble
                > >> with shutoffs tripping before the model is fully up to speed.
                > >>
                > >> Interested in the comparison with F2d I measured the line pull
                of a
                > >> F2d model using a spring balance whilst flying. This gave 2kg
                while
                > >> flying level in calm conditions which is not enough to even arm a
                > >> fast shutoff or reliably keep it open. In a wind it is under 1kg
                > >> upwind and 3-4 downwind. When manouvering the tension varies a
                lot,
                > >> and it is perfectly feasible to fly upwind with under 0.5kg
                > > tension.
                > >> It is usual that a model will go light on the lines at times in a
                > >> bout. This is the crux of the matter, as you need to have a line
                > >> tension shutoff operate against a minimum of 450grams line
                tension
                > >> which is approximately the drag of a full set of lines cut of at
                > > the
                > >> handle.
                > >>
                > >> What this means in reality is that a F2d model will stop due to a
                > >> line tension shutoff operating at certain points in a bout,
                > >> especially on a windy day. I conclude that use of a line tension
                > >> shutoff will result in models stopping during a bout.
                > >>
                > >> Further issues result with the need to have the mechanic run with
                > > an
                > >> engine running model, without tripping the shutoff arming
                device. I
                > >> believe that these are fixable up to a point but will make F2d
                more
                > >> complicated and make the overworked pitmans life even harder.
                > >>
                > >> Having considered the proposed rule to disqualify a non operating
                > >> shuoff in a flyawy situation, and the liklehood of a flyaway
                versus
                > >> the shutoff tripping when flying costing me downtime my
                conclusion
                > > is
                > >> that I would show a shutoff that operates at the pre bout check,
                > > and
                > >> then make very sure that it would never work when flying, as the
                > >> arming device would never work. I reach this conclusion as it is
                > > much
                > >> more likely that I will loose due to ground time due to the
                shutoff
                > >> going off when flying a bout, than due to a fly away. I will not
                be
                > >> the only flyer to reach this conclusion as it is fairly obvious,
                > > and
                > >> so the rule implementing shutoffs will not make any difference to
                > > the
                > >> danger of a long range flyaway injuring someone. I am not happy
                > > about
                > >> this conclusion but you need to know about it and discuss it. If
                > > you
                > >> factor this in with a success rate of shutoffs that will be well
                > >> below the 90% experienced in FAST then you see that there will
                be a
                > >> lot of hassle for little improvement in safety.
                > >>
                > >> My gut feel is that for a line tension shutoff to be reasonably
                > >> flyable in a bout there is a less than 50% chance that it will
                work
                > >> pulling a full set of lines. The forces that you have to play
                with
                > >> are really too small to work reliably in a combat situation. It
                can
                > >> work but not consistently, and no one will want to fly the event
                > >> under that basis. This is bourne out by my flying tests so far
                > > which
                > >> have not been very impressive. If you get a system up and flying
                > > and
                > >> armed (about 50% of the time) then the model stops when
                > > manouevering
                > >> upwind. This is with a marginal 400g cutoff operating point. I do
                > > not
                > >> have a solution that is useable in a bout yet, and i am now not
                > >> confident that it can be done due to the forces involved.
                > >>
                > >> To put all this difficult technology in perspective we should
                > >> consider last years 2006 world championships in Spain. There
                were 3
                > >> flyaways, all of which landed well within the proposed 2 second
                > >> shutoff operation period, 2 within the 20m circle and one some 5-
                > > 10m
                > >> outside. From this you can see that no shutof in spain would have
                > > had
                > >> to operate. Why then do we need them? My non operational shutoff
                > >> mentioned above aould not have got anyone disqualified but would
                > > have
                > >> passed the proposed rules for checking before hand. The situation
                > > in
                > >> spain was due to the officials in applying the rules properly and
                > >> fully, and there was still room for further improvement. Good
                line
                > >> checks and inspections also helped. All the flyers know this, if
                > > you
                > >> apply the rules properly and outlaw dangereous flying you don't
                get
                > >> many flyaways. The way to safety is to make the rules enforce
                safe
                > >> flying. A simple "one or both pilots gets disqualified in the
                event
                > >> of a flyaway" rule will help a lot, the jury and judges must
                > >> diqualify one of the pilots at least. That will make pilots try
                to
                > >> avoid flyaways which is what we want. Also a yellow card - red
                card
                > >> warning system for dangerous flying through the competition would
                > >> also work.
                > >>
                > >> Due to me having a Electronics degree, and my conclusion that
                line
                > >> tension shutoffs won't work properly, I believe that a radio
                > > control
                > >> shutoff is the way forward, with a failsafe mode. This would shut
                > > off
                > >> on range from the keep alive transmitter at the centre circle,
                and
                > >> would also allow shutoff of all models at the press of a button.
                I
                > > am
                > >> going to try to prototype this next and if it works i will try to
                > >> demonstrate it, ideally at the Euro champs. The problem with this
                > >> will be cost, and the complexity it brings.
                > >> ********************end of input to UK delegate************
                > >>
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Please visit MACA's Web Site:
                > >
                > > www.maca.hobby-site.org
                > >
                > > To unsubscribe from this email list, send a blank email message
                to:
                > >
                > > combat-l-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
              • Iskandar Taib
                ... This is where I think the analysis breaks down. Sure, a full set of .018 lines on a Nelson .36 powered model might produce 1 lb. of force on the lines, but
                Message 7 of 28 , Nov 12, 2007
                  Gordon Price <gordon.price1@...> wrote:

                  > This is the crux of the matter, as you need to
                  > have a line
                  > tension shutoff operate against a minimum of
                  > 450grams line tension
                  > which is approximately the drag of a full set of
                  > lines cut of at the
                  > handle.

                  This is where I think the analysis breaks down. Sure,
                  a full set of .018 lines on a Nelson .36 powered model
                  might produce 1 lb. of force on the lines, but I doubt
                  a F2D dragging 52 feet of .015 wire will generate
                  anything near that. So you can afford to make a
                  shutoff that stays open with, say, 200g of force on
                  the lines. This is what Jeff did with his F2D version
                  of his shutoff, I believe. It's got a smaller spring
                  on it. If you designed your shutoff to shut off at 450
                  grams, that's perhaps why it didn't work so well.

                  Iskandar
                • Phil C
                  One thing I can see from all this discussion is that there are a lot of problems with the current rules and adding shutoffs is going to require a complete
                  Message 8 of 28 , Nov 12, 2007
                    One thing I can see from all this discussion is that there are a lot of
                    problems with the current rules and adding shutoffs is going to require
                    a complete rewrite. I can't see any way to drop an engine shutoff
                    requirement into the current rules and not create more problems than we
                    solve. We haven't even got a good idea or list of all the areas
                    affected, no consensus on how or when to test, and what appropriate
                    penalties might be for various infractions.

                    There also seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction with pilots who use the
                    quirks in the rules to win, rather than outflying an opponent-
                    purposeful line tangles, deliberate midairs, trying to cut the other guy
                    loose, forcing(positioning your body) to help the other guy step out of
                    the pilot's circle, oversize intakes and exhausts, tuning mufflers, and
                    the list goes on.

                    The bottom line: is F2D a competition amongst pilots to see who can get
                    more cuts to win a match, is it a demolition derby, or is it a team
                    sport where the pilot and two pit crew navigate a complicated set of
                    rules to score points and try and get the opponent to lose points. The
                    big question is what set of rules will encourage the most number of flyers?
                  • bmears9413@aol.com
                    My testing results proved to be much different than I expected. My shutoff took 7lbs. to trip. That seems like an awful lot when your just pulling on the line.
                    Message 9 of 28 , Nov 12, 2007
                      My testing results proved to be much different than I expected. My shutoff took 7lbs. to trip. That seems like an awful lot when your just pulling on the line. AND, thats ONLY on the up line! I'm not pulling both lines at te same time with my scale. On my first flight I was quite surprised to see it trip. I was also quite surprised to see it stay open when maneuvering up wind. I think these F2D's?pull much harder than were thinking they do. When I was up wind, my lines were sagging and dragging to the point the plane was hard to control. only whe I would "leap" into the plane on?a hard turn would the engine sag, and that was only for a second. Also was quite surprising. BTW, I was doing consecutive outsides up wind so my shutoff line, the up line, would have had the least tension.
                      We have more pressures here to deal with than we think, use them to our advantage.

                      Bob Mears



                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Iskandar Taib <ntaib@...>
                      To: combat-l@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:15 am
                      Subject: Re: [combat-l] My input to the last CIAM via the UK delegate






                      Gordon Price <gordon.price1@...> wrote:

                      > This is the crux of the matter, as you need to
                      > have a line
                      > tension shutoff operate against a minimum of
                      > 450grams line tension
                      > which is approximately the drag of a full set of
                      > lines cut of at the
                      > handle.

                      This is where I think the analysis breaks down. Sure,
                      a full set of .018 lines on a Nelson .36 powered model
                      might produce 1 lb. of force on the lines, but I doubt
                      a F2D dragging 52 feet of .015 wire will generate
                      anything near that. So you can afford to make a
                      shutoff that stays open with, say, 200g of force on
                      the lines. This is what Jeff did with his F2D version
                      of his shutoff, I believe. It's got a smaller spring
                      on it. If you designed your shutoff to shut off at 450
                      grams, that's perhaps why it didn't work so well.

                      Iskandar




                      ________________________________________________________________________
                      Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • bmears9413@aol.com
                      I think if we eliminated all or the rules we wouldnt have anymore flyers, maybe fewer whiners. Bob Mears ... From: Phil C To:
                      Message 10 of 28 , Nov 12, 2007
                        I think if we eliminated all or the rules we wouldnt have anymore flyers, maybe fewer whiners.

                        Bob Mears


                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Phil C <philcartier@...>
                        To: combat-l@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:27 am
                        Subject: [combat-l] Re: The MORAL aspect of shutoffs






                        One thing I can see from all this discussion is that there are a lot of
                        problems with the current rules and adding shutoffs is going to require
                        a complete rewrite. I can't see any way to drop an engine shutoff
                        requirement into the current rules and not create more problems than we
                        solve. We haven't even got a good idea or list of all the areas
                        affected, no consensus on how or when to test, and what appropriate
                        penalties might be for various infractions.

                        There also seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction with pilots who use the
                        quirks in the rules to win, rather than outflying an opponent-
                        purposeful line tangles, deliberate midairs, trying to cut the other guy
                        loose, forcing(positioning your body) to help the other guy step out of
                        the pilot's circle, oversize intakes and exhausts, tuning mufflers, and
                        the list goes on.

                        The bottom line: is F2D a competition amongst pilots to see who can get
                        more cuts to win a match, is it a demolition derby, or is it a team
                        sport where the pilot and two pit crew navigate a complicated set of
                        rules to score points and try and get the opponent to lose points. The
                        big question is what set of rules will encourage the most number of flyers?




                        ________________________________________________________________________
                        Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Iskandar Taib
                        ... Just out of curiosity.. how does one make one s own airplane fly away, marginal line or no marginal line? Just trying to figure out how they did it. I keep
                        Message 11 of 28 , Nov 12, 2007
                          Bryce Gibson <flyf2d@...> wrote:

                          > The large number of fly aways in 02 was I believe a
                          > result of the deliberate use of marginal line so
                          > that a fly away was possible as a tactical
                          > option.Bryce GibsonDictator for LifeNOCLASS MAC

                          Just out of curiosity.. how does one make one's own
                          airplane fly away, marginal line or no marginal line?
                          Just trying to figure out how they did it. I keep
                          hearing they did it, but not how it was done.

                          Iskandar
                        • Iskandar Taib
                          ... Hmmm.. Why didn t I think of that? Carrot instead of stick... Iskandar
                          Message 12 of 28 , Nov 12, 2007
                            Bob Mears <bmears9413@...> wrote:

                            > So...looks like, in the event of a flyaway, and a
                            > shutoff works, the
                            > cut loose airplane should be scored an extra 100
                            > points!

                            Hmmm.. Why didn't I think of that? Carrot instead of
                            stick...

                            Iskandar
                          • bmears9413@aol.com
                            Me too Iskander. I did take my plane up wind and did hard outsides untill it stalled and flew into the circle. I was confident enough already that the shutoff
                            Message 13 of 28 , Nov 12, 2007
                              Me too Iskander. I did take my plane up wind and did hard outsides untill it stalled and flew into the circle. I was confident enough already that the shutoff would work before I even tried that one. but, I aint just lettin go of my handle! Now I'll build you a shutoff and you can test it that way if you like ;)

                              Bob Mears


                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Iskandar Taib <ntaib@...>
                              To: combat-l@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:36 am
                              Subject: RE: [combat-l] The MORAL aspect of shutoffs






                              Bryce Gibson <flyf2d@...> wrote:

                              > The large number of fly aways in 02 was I believe a
                              > result of the deliberate use of marginal line so
                              > that a fly away was possible as a tactical
                              > option.Bryce GibsonDictator for LifeNOCLASS MAC

                              Just out of curiosity.. how does one make one's own
                              airplane fly away, marginal line or no marginal line?
                              Just trying to figure out how they did it. I keep
                              hearing they did it, but not how it was done.

                              Iskandar




                              ________________________________________________________________________
                              Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Gordon Price
                              Iskander, see Jeffreys post on the other thread: I quote: Here, let me see if I can add some more confusion and discontent. My shutoff starts to trip at about
                              Message 14 of 28 , Nov 12, 2007
                                Iskander,

                                see Jeffreys post on the other thread:

                                I quote:
                                "Here, let me see if I can add some more confusion and discontent. My
                                shutoff starts to trip at about four pounds. It will shut off
                                instantly in most cases. When I was flying at the team trials in 25
                                MPH winds, my lines were cut at the handle due to a tangle. The plane
                                took off overhead and strait up wind. With the added drag on the
                                lines caused by the high winds, it took my shutoff about 2 seconds to
                                start shutting down. So 4 pounds is about right for worse case
                                scenario. If you just want it to shut down if it is cut at the lead-
                                outs, 1/4 pound of tension is plenty. I wanted mine to work in all
                                cases, hence the 4 pound tension.
                                Now here is the part that everyone will find unacceptable. To keep
                                the proper tension at all times, I use more lead-out rake and a
                                longer inboard wing. I am sure the drop in performance for using
                                these techniques is unacceptable to most. "

                                Most modern F2d models pull about 2kg flying level - thats 4.4lbs. Not
                                enough to play wiht.

                                Gordon


                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: combat-l@yahoogroups.com [mailto:combat-l@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf
                                Of Iskandar Taib
                                Sent: 12 November 2007 16:16
                                To: combat-l@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [combat-l] My input to the last CIAM via the UK delegate


                                Gordon Price <gordon.price1@...> wrote:

                                > This is the crux of the matter, as you need to
                                > have a line
                                > tension shutoff operate against a minimum of
                                > 450grams line tension
                                > which is approximately the drag of a full set of
                                > lines cut of at the
                                > handle.

                                This is where I think the analysis breaks down. Sure,
                                a full set of .018 lines on a Nelson .36 powered model
                                might produce 1 lb. of force on the lines, but I doubt
                                a F2D dragging 52 feet of .015 wire will generate
                                anything near that. So you can afford to make a
                                shutoff that stays open with, say, 200g of force on
                                the lines. This is what Jeff did with his F2D version
                                of his shutoff, I believe. It's got a smaller spring
                                on it. If you designed your shutoff to shut off at 450
                                grams, that's perhaps why it didn't work so well.

                                Iskandar





                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Bryce Gibson
                                Fly it up wind in a tangle turning tight, it will start banging on the lines. When it goes loose get your arm as tight as possible so it really bangs on the
                                Message 15 of 28 , Nov 12, 2007
                                  Fly it up wind in a tangle turning tight, it will start banging on the lines.
                                  When it goes loose get your arm as tight as possible so it really bangs on the lines when it comes tight. A good pull against the lines so that if the lines don't break this time it bounces again. Maybe have full deflection on so one line goes first.
                                  I think the static arm is the key.
                                  I have always had insufficent power so I am used to models going light on the lines. When they do I try to have my elbow bent to act as a gradual stop. One fly away in contests in 27 years.Bryce GibsonDictator for LifeNOCLASS MAC


                                  To: combat-l@yahoogroups.comFrom: ntaib@...: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:36:46 -0800Subject: RE: [combat-l] The MORAL aspect of shutoffs




                                  Bryce Gibson <flyf2d@...> wrote:> The large number of fly aways in 02 was I believe a> result of the deliberate use of marginal line so> that a fly away was possible as a tactical> option.Bryce GibsonDictator for LifeNOCLASS MACJust out of curiosity.. how does one make one's ownairplane fly away, marginal line or no marginal line?Just trying to figure out how they did it. I keephearing they did it, but not how it was done. Iskandar






                                  _________________________________________________________________
                                  Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
                                  http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Gordon Price
                                  measure the pull with a spring balance while flying. Very exciting to do - askme how i know! The line tension varies greatly between model designs and setup.
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Nov 12, 2007
                                    measure the pull with a spring balance while flying. Very exciting to do -
                                    askme how i know! The line tension varies greatly between model designs and
                                    setup.

                                    Then you say trip do you mean it arms at 7lbs, or it shuts off at 7lbs?



                                    Gordon

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: combat-l@yahoogroups.com [mailto:combat-l@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf
                                    Of bmears9413@...
                                    Sent: 12 November 2007 16:29
                                    To: combat-l@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: Re: [combat-l] My input to the last CIAM via the UK delegate


                                    My testing results proved to be much different than I expected. My shutoff
                                    took 7lbs. to trip. That seems like an awful lot when your just pulling on
                                    the line. AND, thats ONLY on the up line! I'm not pulling both lines at te
                                    same time with my scale. On my first flight I was quite surprised to see it
                                    trip. I was also quite surprised to see it stay open when maneuvering up
                                    wind. I think these F2D's?pull much harder than were thinking they do. When
                                    I was up wind, my lines were sagging and dragging to the point the plane was
                                    hard to control. only whe I would "leap" into the plane on?a hard turn would
                                    the engine sag, and that was only for a second. Also was quite surprising.
                                    BTW, I was doing consecutive outsides up wind so my shutoff line, the up
                                    line, would have had the least tension.
                                    We have more pressures here to deal with than we think, use them to our
                                    advantage.

                                    Bob Mears

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: Iskandar Taib <ntaib@...>
                                    To: combat-l@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:15 am
                                    Subject: Re: [combat-l] My input to the last CIAM via the UK delegate

                                    Gordon Price <gordon.price1@...> wrote:

                                    > This is the crux of the matter, as you need to
                                    > have a line
                                    > tension shutoff operate against a minimum of
                                    > 450grams line tension
                                    > which is approximately the drag of a full set of
                                    > lines cut of at the
                                    > handle.

                                    This is where I think the analysis breaks down. Sure,
                                    a full set of .018 lines on a Nelson .36 powered model
                                    might produce 1 lb. of force on the lines, but I doubt
                                    a F2D dragging 52 feet of .015 wire will generate
                                    anything near that. So you can afford to make a
                                    shutoff that stays open with, say, 200g of force on
                                    the lines. This is what Jeff did with his F2D version
                                    of his shutoff, I believe. It's got a smaller spring
                                    on it. If you designed your shutoff to shut off at 450
                                    grams, that's perhaps why it didn't work so well.

                                    Iskandar

                                    __________________________________________________________
                                    Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! -
                                    http://mail.aol.com

                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • bmears9413@aol.com
                                    it arms at 7lbs. I havent measured where it shuts off besides 0 Bob Mears ... From: Gordon Price To: combat-l@yahoogroups.com
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Nov 12, 2007
                                      it arms at 7lbs. I havent measured where it shuts off besides "0"

                                      Bob Mears


                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Gordon Price <gordon.price1@...>
                                      To: combat-l@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:24 pm
                                      Subject: RE: [combat-l] My input to the last CIAM via the UK delegate






                                      measure the pull with a spring balance while flying. Very exciting to do -
                                      askme how i know! The line tension varies greatly between model designs and
                                      setup.

                                      Then you say trip do you mean it arms at 7lbs, or it shuts off at 7lbs?

                                      Gordon

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: combat-l@yahoogroups.com [mailto:combat-l@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf
                                      Of bmears9413@...
                                      Sent: 12 November 2007 16:29
                                      To: combat-l@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: Re: [combat-l] My input to the last CIAM via the UK delegate

                                      My testing results proved to be much different than I expected. My shutoff
                                      took 7lbs. to trip. That seems like an awful lot when your just pulling on
                                      the line. AND, thats ONLY on the up line! I'm not pulling both lines at te
                                      same time with my scale. On my first flight I was quite surprised to see it
                                      trip. I was also quite surprised to see it stay open when maneuvering up
                                      wind. I think these F2D's?pull much harder than were thinking they do. When
                                      I was up wind, my lines were sagging and dragging to the point the plane was
                                      hard to control. only whe I would "leap" into the plane on?a hard turn would
                                      the engine sag, and that was only for a second. Also was quite surprising.
                                      BTW, I was doing consecutive outsides up wind so my shutoff line, the up
                                      line, would have had the least tension.
                                      We have more pressures here to deal with than we think, use them to our
                                      advantage.

                                      Bob Mears

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Iskandar Taib <ntaib@...>
                                      To: combat-l@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:15 am
                                      Subject: Re: [combat-l] My input to the last CIAM via the UK delegate

                                      Gordon Price <gordon.price1@...> wrote:

                                      > This is the crux of the matter, as you need to
                                      > have a line
                                      > tension shutoff operate against a minimum of
                                      > 450grams line tension
                                      > which is approximately the drag of a full set of
                                      > lines cut of at the
                                      > handle.

                                      This is where I think the analysis breaks down. Sure,
                                      a full set of .018 lines on a Nelson .36 powered model
                                      might produce 1 lb. of force on the lines, but I doubt
                                      a F2D dragging 52 feet of .015 wire will generate
                                      anything near that. So you can afford to make a
                                      shutoff that stays open with, say, 200g of force on
                                      the lines. This is what Jeff did with his F2D version
                                      of his shutoff, I believe. It's got a smaller spring
                                      on it. If you designed your shutoff to shut off at 450
                                      grams, that's perhaps why it didn't work so well.

                                      Iskandar

                                      __________________________________________________________
                                      Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! -
                                      http://mail.aol.com

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                                      ________________________________________________________________________
                                      Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Iskandar Taib
                                      ... Ah, OK. Yeah, a stiff arm rather than openly jerking on the line(s), which can be construed as sawing, particularly in a tangle. If that works on the brown
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Nov 12, 2007
                                        Bryce Gibson <flyf2d@...> wrote:

                                        > Fly it up wind in a tangle turning tight, it will
                                        > start banging on the lines.
                                        > When it goes loose get your arm as tight as
                                        > possible so it really bangs on the lines when it
                                        > comes tight. A good pull against the lines so that
                                        > if the lines don't break this time it bounces again.
                                        > Maybe have full deflection on so one line goes
                                        > first.
                                        > I think the static arm is the key.

                                        Ah, OK. Yeah, a stiff arm rather than openly jerking
                                        on the line(s), which can be construed as sawing,
                                        particularly in a tangle. If that works on the brown
                                        Ukrainian wire it'd work even better on the American
                                        stainless. Perhaps we should have a "jerk test" in
                                        addition to the pull test? Test one line, use a pulley
                                        and a dropping weight. On the other hand, they've all
                                        quit using these lines and tactics, right?

                                        Iskandar
                                      • Bryce Gibson
                                        Yeah if you really want to make sure, get some angular separation from your opponents lines. I have had demonstrated to me on a ropes course how to cut a 15mm
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Nov 12, 2007
                                          Yeah if you really want to make sure, get some angular separation from your opponents lines.
                                          I have had demonstrated to me on a ropes course how to cut a 15mm braid in one pass with a 3mm brail line. Anything over about 10 degrees from parallel and it's like a knife edge.
                                          If by the brown wire you mean that 7 strand I haven't seen that for a long time,It sure was crap.The 97 team trial my pilot had bought some wire from a noted US Supplier, it was brown 7 strand and crumbled when you looked at it.
                                          I don't know if that was the bad stuff in 02.
                                          Bryce GibsonDictator for LifeNOCLASS MAC


                                          To: combat-l@yahoogroups.comFrom: ntaib@...: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:45:44 -0800Subject: RE: [combat-l] The MORAL aspect of shutoffs




                                          Bryce Gibson <flyf2d@...> wrote:> Fly it up wind in a tangle turning tight, it will> start banging on the lines.> When it goes loose get your arm as tight as> possible so it really bangs on the lines when it> comes tight. A good pull against the lines so that> if the lines don't break this time it bounces again.> Maybe have full deflection on so one line goes> first.> I think the static arm is the key.Ah, OK. Yeah, a stiff arm rather than openly jerkingon the line(s), which can be construed as sawing,particularly in a tangle. If that works on the brownUkrainian wire it'd work even better on the Americanstainless. Perhaps we should have a "jerk test" inaddition to the pull test? Test one line, use a pulleyand a dropping weight. On the other hand, they've allquit using these lines and tactics, right? Iskandar






                                          _________________________________________________________________
                                          News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now!
                                          http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Iskandar Taib
                                          ... No, it s 4 strand from Yuvenko. Haven t had any break, it seems pretty strong, but I do notice there s rust coming off on my fingers when I roll it up. The
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Nov 13, 2007
                                            Bryce Gibson <flyf2d@...> wrote:

                                            > Yeah if you really want to make sure, get some
                                            > angular separation from your opponents lines.
                                            > I have had demonstrated to me on a ropes course how
                                            > to cut a 15mm braid in one pass with a 3mm brail
                                            > line. Anything over about 10 degrees from parallel
                                            > and it's like a knife edge.
                                            > If by the brown wire you mean that 7 strand I
                                            > haven't seen that for a long time,It sure was
                                            > crap.The 97 team trial my pilot had bought some wire
                                            > from a noted US Supplier, it was brown 7 strand and
                                            > crumbled when you looked at it.
                                            > I don't know if that was the bad stuff in 02.

                                            No, it's 4 strand from Yuvenko. Haven't had any break,
                                            it seems pretty strong, but I do notice there's rust
                                            coming off on my fingers when I roll it up. The
                                            Indonesians bought some stainless when some of the
                                            Euro wire (not sure about provenance) rusted and broke
                                            at the terminations. Rather humid here. Might try
                                            using this stuff called "Stuph" - the RC Warship
                                            Combat people use it to waterproof their radio
                                            equipment, which gets submerged on a regular basis.

                                            The brown stuff from the US was stainless steel.
                                            Probably from Sevenstrand Corp., Bob Bearden sold some
                                            back in the early 80s, still have a set or two of it.
                                            Don't think it was much different from the "bright"
                                            line. I think someone else was selling this to the
                                            Stunt fliers.

                                            I have a bunch of galvanized carbon steel 7 strand,
                                            don't know how it matches up to stainless or Euro
                                            wire, but haven't had any break so far (nor does it
                                            rust). I have (and use) the .018 for Fast Combat, it
                                            cost about half the price of stainless.

                                            Iskandar
                                          • Dalibor Toman
                                            On Monday, November 12, 2007 5:28 PM , ... v = 40m/s, r = 16m m =
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Nov 13, 2007
                                              On Monday, November 12, 2007 5:28 PM ,
                                              bmears9413@... <bmears9413@...> wrote:

                                              > My testing results proved to be much different than I expected. My
                                              > shutoff took 7lbs. to trip. That seems like an awful lot when your
                                              > just pulling on the line. AND, thats ONLY on the up line! I'm not
                                              > pulling both lines at te same time with my scale. On my first flight
                                              > I was quite surprised to see it trip. I was also quite surprised to
                                              > see it stay open when maneuvering up wind. I think these F2D's?pull
                                              > much harder than were thinking they do.

                                              v = 40m/s,
                                              r = 16m
                                              m = <0.4Kg (plane + engine, no fuel)
                                              F=m . v2 / r = m . 100 = 40 [N] ~ 4Kgs (~8lbs)

                                              So you have about 4Kg of tension for both lines (when flying level, no
                                              wind) . The tension lower flying on the top of the sphere (minus the
                                              model weight).
                                              If your shut-off really requires 7lbs (~3.5Kg) of tension on one line
                                              it cannot work (the equation above gives you about 2Kg (~ 4lbs) on
                                              each line of tension...


                                              Regards
                                              Dalibor Toman
                                            • bmears9413@aol.com
                                              Thats why I dont screw with formulas. I build it first, then test it, then make a few assessments on for inquiring minds. I dont care how it looks on paper. It
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Nov 13, 2007
                                                Thats why I dont screw with formulas. I build it first, then test it, then make a few assessments on for inquiring minds. I dont care how it looks on paper. It works in the air.

                                                Bob Mears


                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: Dalibor Toman <dtoman@...>
                                                To: combat-l@yahoogroups.com
                                                Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:01 am
                                                Subject: Re: [combat-l] My input to the last CIAM via the UK delegate






                                                On Monday, November 12, 2007 5:28 PM ,
                                                bmears9413@... <bmears9413@...> wrote:

                                                > My testing results proved to be much different than I expected. My
                                                > shutoff took 7lbs. to trip. That seems like an awful lot when your
                                                > just pulling on the line. AND, thats ONLY on the up line! I'm not
                                                > pulling both lines at te same time with my scale. On my first flight
                                                > I was quite surprised to see it trip. I was also quite surprised to
                                                > see it stay open when maneuvering up wind. I think these F2D's?pull
                                                > much harder than were thinking they do.

                                                v = 40m/s,
                                                r = 16m
                                                m = <0.4Kg (plane + engine, no fuel)
                                                F=m . v2 / r = m . 100 = 40 [N] ~ 4Kgs (~8lbs)

                                                So you have about 4Kg of tension for both lines (when flying level, no
                                                wind) . The tension lower flying on the top of the sphere (minus the
                                                model weight).
                                                If your shut-off really requires 7lbs (~3.5Kg) of tension on one line
                                                it cannot work (the equation above gives you about 2Kg (~ 4lbs) on
                                                each line of tension...

                                                Regards
                                                Dalibor Toman





                                                ________________________________________________________________________
                                                Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com


                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Bryce Gibson
                                                If, and thats a big if we could get someone to build an elctronic shut off. I think doing shut down on Loss of signal would be the best. (like the RC failsafes
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Nov 13, 2007
                                                  If, and thats a big if we could get someone to build an elctronic shut off. I think doing shut down on Loss of signal would be the best. (like the RC failsafes that go to low throttle on loss of signal).
                                                  I thought I had it cracked with the idea of sending an RF pulse from the handle down the lines every 50 M/sec or so, If the fail safe doesn't "hear" any signal after 300 M/sec it shuts off.
                                                  Only slight flaw in the logic is as Gordon pointed out; it's not really possible to send signal down the lines this way.Damn facts getting in the way.
                                                  If we went to a centre marshall dead man switch. Yes reaction time becomes a factor but the whole point of the shut off rulle is not to protect the people 50' away ( although it's nice if it does) but people who are not part of our acitivity within a 5 Mile radius. If the centre marshall takes 1.5 sec to realise then thats acceptable.
                                                  Nothing is ever completely safe, Risk management is the name of the gameBryce GibsonDictator for LifeNOCLASS MAC


                                                  To: combat-l@yahoogroups.comFrom: ntaib@...: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:18:05 -0800Subject: Re: [combat-l] Fly aways for beginners




                                                  Bryce Gibson <flyf2d@...> wrote:> Yeah if you really want to make sure, get some> angular separation from your opponents lines. > I have had demonstrated to me on a ropes course how> to cut a 15mm braid in one pass with a 3mm brail> line. Anything over about 10 degrees from parallel> and it's like a knife edge.> If by the brown wire you mean that 7 strand I> haven't seen that for a long time,It sure was> crap.The 97 team trial my pilot had bought some wire> from a noted US Supplier, it was brown 7 strand and> crumbled when you looked at it. > I don't know if that was the bad stuff in 02.No, it's 4 strand from Yuvenko. Haven't had any break,it seems pretty strong, but I do notice there's rustcoming off on my fingers when I roll it up. TheIndonesians bought some stainless when some of theEuro wire (not sure about provenance) rusted and brokeat the terminations. Rather humid here. Might tryusing this stuff called "Stuph" - the RC WarshipCombat people use it to waterproof their radioequipment, which gets submerged on a regular basis. The brown stuff from the US was stainless steel.Probably from Sevenstrand Corp., Bob Bearden sold someback in the early 80s, still have a set or two of it.Don't think it was much different from the "bright"line. I think someone else was selling this to theStunt fliers. I have a bunch of galvanized carbon steel 7 strand,don't know how it matches up to stainless or Eurowire, but haven't had any break so far (nor does itrust). I have (and use) the .018 for Fast Combat, itcost about half the price of stainless. Iskandar






                                                  _________________________________________________________________
                                                  News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now!
                                                  http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx

                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Iskandar Taib
                                                  ... One could build one NOW with existing RC equipment. If you wanted the FM failsafe mode, it would cost a little more, but if it s simply a judge-controlled
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Nov 13, 2007
                                                    Bryce Gibson <flyf2d@...> wrote:

                                                    > If, and thats a big if we could get someone to build
                                                    > an elctronic shut off. I think doing shut down on
                                                    > Loss of signal would be the best. (like the RC
                                                    > failsafes that go to low throttle on loss of
                                                    > signal).

                                                    One could build one NOW with existing RC equipment. If
                                                    you wanted the FM failsafe mode, it would cost a
                                                    little more, but if it's simply a judge-controlled
                                                    shutoff, you'd just need a radio transmitter, a
                                                    receiver, a servo and a battery pack. We'd all have to
                                                    agree as to the brand of transmitter and frequency,
                                                    however.

                                                    Failsafe is usually programmable, just program it to
                                                    trip the shutoff.

                                                    Iskandar
                                                  • Gary James
                                                    ... While I understand that most of us combat flyers do not participate in the dark side of aeromodeling i.e. R/C, the new 2.4 GHz spread spectrum systems do
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Nov 15, 2007
                                                      --- In combat-l@yahoogroups.com, Iskandar Taib <ntaib@...> wrote:

                                                      > We'd all have to
                                                      > agree as to the brand of transmitter and frequency,
                                                      > however.

                                                      While I understand that most of us combat flyers do not participate in
                                                      "the dark side" of aeromodeling i.e. R/C, the new 2.4 GHz spread
                                                      spectrum systems do not require the selection of a particular RF shift
                                                      or frequency since they work somewhat similar to a CDMA "cell phone"
                                                      system.
                                                    • Iskandar Taib
                                                      ... There are probably quite a few on the list like me, who actually read RC articles in the magazines, on the sly. Turns out the current 2.4 GHz systems do
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Nov 15, 2007
                                                        Gary James <gsjames@...> wrote:

                                                        >In combat-l@yahoogroups.com, Iskandar Taib
                                                        > <ntaib@...> wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > > We'd all have to
                                                        > > agree as to the brand of transmitter and
                                                        > frequency,
                                                        > > however.
                                                        >
                                                        > While I understand that most of us combat flyers do
                                                        > not participate in
                                                        > "the dark side" of aeromodeling i.e. R/C, the new
                                                        > 2.4 GHz spread
                                                        > spectrum systems do not require the selection of a
                                                        > particular RF shift
                                                        > or frequency since they work somewhat similar to a
                                                        > CDMA "cell phone"
                                                        > system.

                                                        There are probably quite a few on the list like me,
                                                        who actually read RC articles in the magazines, on the
                                                        sly. Turns out the current 2.4 GHz systems do NOT use
                                                        frequency shifting, they simply look for two
                                                        unoccupied frequencies within the band and use them.
                                                        This limits their use to maybe 50 planes at one time
                                                        (unless you're at a ProBro mass-hover event, that's
                                                        far more than you'd ever need at a particular field).
                                                        There are reasons NOT to use this band - the signals
                                                        depend strongly on antenna orientation, so you need to
                                                        install TWO receiver units in your plane, with
                                                        antennas at right angles, AND none of this stuff is
                                                        currently cheap. I'd say our first efforts should
                                                        center around GWS sets, since they're cheap and
                                                        available, and also available in 27 MHz, which is a
                                                        universally accepted RC band.

                                                        I can imagine running a Combat meet near an RC field,
                                                        we'd go over, remove one of the frequency pins, and
                                                        stick it on a flagpole. The flag would be the
                                                        frequency number we're using...

                                                        Iskandar

                                                        Iskandar
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.