Outdoor Free Flight
OFF-09-1 – Return AMA Free Flight Power to separate events: 101, 102, 103, 104 & 105 from the recently changed 101, 102/103, 104/105.
Free Flight Power .3
Change:
101 Class 1/2A: 000-.050 Cubic Inch
102-103 Class A/B: .051-.300 Cubic Inch
104-105 Class C/D: .301-.670 Cubin Inch
To:
101 Class 1/2A: .000-.050 Cubic Inch
102 Class A: .051-.200 Cubic Inch
103 Class B: .201-.300 Cubic Inch
104 Class C: .301-.400 Cubic Inch
105 Class D: .401-.670 Cubic Inch
Logic:
The decision to combine classes A/B & C/D was a big mistake and was made for the wrong reason. Participation in AMA A/B & C/D at this year NATS was abysmal (10 & 7 respectfully) and was a reflection of the effect of combining these classes. People are not inclined to travel great distances to participate in only three events.
The present rule tends to reduce participation, in general by those who must travel a long distance to the contest site and if a person doesn't fly both 102-103 and 104-105 events, they will have no power event to fly, save for possibly 1/2A in the case that 1 day of a 2 day contest is blown or rained out - no a too unusual occurrence. For many people, the present rule, depending on the view point, obsoletes or surpluses several hundreds of dollars worth of engines, creates disgust and drives people away from the hobby, the same can be said for some of the airplanes affected by this rule.
Finally, it seems the effect of the change to the present rule was already provided for by paragraph 3.3. It seems much more appropriate to leave the option of combining the events to the contest organizers or the CD who may know the attendance history of the contest, recent weather forecasts, etc, than by a rule change.
Submitted by: Faust Parker, AMA #15980 and James Grove, AMA 62929
OFF-09-2 – Eliminate the number of models limitation in Outdoor Free Flight.
Under Free Flight General 13.
Change: The contestant shall be allowed two (2) models & but in no case may the contestant use more than two (2) models in an event
To: There is no limit on the number of models a contestant may use in an event.
Then remove specific references to number of models in the rest of the rulebook pertaining to Free Flight events.
This rule has been unfair for a long time, especially in events where fly-aways are common (P-30, HLG< CLG, etc). In any event a contestant can become ineligible to continue flying if he/she loses (or crashes) two models during an event. This is especially unfair to contestants that ravel long distances to compete. An outfall of this change will be the elimination of the need to process models at the NATS prior to flying. Winners can be processed at the CD’s discretion.
Submitted by: Faust Parker, AMA #15980
OFF-09-3 – Allow options on the size of rubber used in the Catapult Glider event, equivalent to ¼” x 1/16” currently specified.
Free Flight Outdoor Catapult Glider 4.1:
Change: and a two-stranded loop of ¼ inch flat model airplane rubber (FAI, Pirelli, etc.) made from a piece that is 18 inches long
To: and a two-strand loop of ¼ inch (or equivalent, i.e. two stands of 1/8”x 1/16”) rubber (FAI, Pirelli, etc.) made from a piece(s) that is 18 inches long.
Logic:
¼ inch rubber is going away. The standards are now 1/8 inch and 3/32 inch.
Submitted by: Faust Parker, AMA #15980
OFF-09-4 – This proposal eliminates the requirement of the Builder of the Model (BOM) rule for Outdoor Free Flight Events 101 through 164 inclusive. It has no effect on FAI rules or Outdoor Scale Free Flight events. This proposal is intended to remove the current barriers to wider participation in Free Flight.
The current rulebook has in the General Information Section under Sanctioned Events, page 7, Section 6, a Builder of the Model (BOM) rule that applies to all classes of competition models unless specifically modified in the General Rules section for that class of competition models. This reads as follows:
The CD shall make every reasonable effort to assure himself/herself that each flier has completely “constructed” the model(s) he/ she uses in competition, including the covering where used, with “constructed” to be interpreted as the action required to complete a model starting with no more prefabrication than the amount used in the average kit. Models which are completely prefabricated and require only a few minutes of unskilled effort for their completion shall be excluded from competition. In the cause of rubber powered models (excluding indoor duration models), commercially available balsa, plastic and hardwood propellers may be sued. Materials and design may be obtained from any source including kits. The builder-of-the-model rule applies to every AMA event unless specifically noted otherwise in the rules governing that event.
Add section 14 as shown below to the General rules for Outdoor Free Flight:
14. Exclusion of the Builder of the Model Rule. The requirements of Section 6 (Builder of the Model) from General Information for Sanctioned Events shall not apply to Outdoor Free Flight Events 101 through 162 inclusive). Events 150 through 157 inclusive are governed inclusively by the FAI Sporting Code. Events 501, 403 and 504 (Scale) are not included in this exclusion.
14.1 Any model flown in sanctioned competition shall be owned by the flier. (Except as permitted under Proxy rules) A model shall not be shared, borrowed, loaned or rented for purposes of competition.
14.2 For a model to be flown in competition it shall be owned by the flier prior to the contest start time for the event in which the model is flown.
Logic:
Building and designing has been a part of Free Flight since its beginnings. Most of this was because there were few kits or plans and economics mostly dictated building from raw wood. In earlier times, free time to pursue hobbies was easier to come by. Today, time and even space demands makes it harder to construct Free Flight planes than in the past. Many adults today have not been exposed to the tools and hand skills that many of us learned early in our lives. Flying sites are fewer and more distant than in the past. Free Flight participation is shrinking, while other aspects of model aviation, such as RC, are growing. The strong interest in Park Fly RC is an indication that the allure of flying models has not disappeared. So, why is Free Flight not seeing growth? Perhaps the answer is partially learned at the mall show, where crowed will gather to see displays of model planes. After the typical questions of “Haw fast will it go?” and “How high will it fly?” comes the question of “Where can I buy it?” For Free Flight, the answer is “Oh, you have to make it”. The enthusiasm suddenly disappears.
Now it the time to unburden ourselves of a rule that in the beginning was so natural it was not given a second thought. We are losing potential recruits to Free Flight by imposing a requirement that seems daunting to one (young or old) who does not possess the time or skills to build. Certainly, one would expect such skills to be learned over time and exposure to the hobby, but at the front end, it is a tall hurdle. As an example of this, one only has to pay close attention to what is happening in the area of Park Fly models. The number of active participants is now in the tens of thousands all over the world. (Data from the AMA reveals that between 750,000 and 1,000,000 park fly planes are being shipped a year). Whereas most of the participants gained entry into the sport by way of out-of-the-box Styrofoam models, a large number of them are now building balsa kits, and yes, even designing their own planes.
By eliminating the Builder of the Model rule, we will tear down a major entry barrier into the FF hobby. Those who build today will continue to build. Those who enter by use of a model purchased or made by someone else will hopefully experience the joy of flying Free Flight and learn that building is not as complicated as it may seem. But, even if they do not desire to build themselves, we will have gained a member of our esteemed hobby. Everyone wins and no one loses. Free Flight can certainly accommodate a lot more people on the field than we have now and today’s competitive winners will continue to win with their well-honed trimming and flying skills. The more competent a flier is, the more he/she is that the secret of winning is not in the plane, but in the person doing the flying. And, one could hope that by bringing in new people, there is chance of one of them being instrumental in locating more flying sites.
And, when one thinks of all the models going to waste today from the estates of deceased comrades, what better tribute to them than have their creations help a new person enter the hobby or let an experienced flier try a new event? AT the same time, those of us who may have lost the steadiness of hand to build any longer can still enjoy flying with a plane built by someone else.
This debate is not about a clash of FF philosophies between the conservative and the liberal, or the old and the new. It is about redefining involvement in FF to coincide with the parameters of all other model aviation. It does, however, point out the significance of focusing on the competitor rather than the origin of any particular model. In this respect, FF is now being given the opportunity to join the mainstream of model aviation.
Every facet of model aviation has those who embrace the satisfaction and personal reward of model building. For these individuals, model design and construction is an integral element of the hobby and will remain so regardless. Of note are the many detailed construction articles present in the model magazines, representing all forms of model aviation. In the same vain is the issue of commercial support for model aviation in general. ARF and RTF models are readily available to all other aspects of model aviation. The proliferation of commercially produced models has provided a valuable and frequently necessary avenue for the newly initiated to enter into any are of the hobby, with the single exception of FF. This phenomenon of resource availability has made any BOM rule not only obsolete, but also counter productive. The issue of prefabricated models and model components is already a point of contention with respect to FF. The commercial model industry should be allowed to provide its resources to the FF community as it now does for all other aspects of the model hobby.
The BOM rule does nothing to foster growth in Free Flight and eliminating it has the potential to encourage more new people of all ages to join us in enjoying this great hobby.
Submitted by: James Juhl, AMA #25866
OFF-09-5 – Propose that Free Flight disregard the proxy rule under General Information of the rulebook and permit proxy flying.
Add 14. Proxy Flying on page 4. Both the builder and flyer’s AMA number, name and identification of builder and flyer are to appear on the right wing of the model. In addition, effective dates, starting and ending, of the proxy authorization by the builder are to appear opposite the builder’s identification. Both addresses are also to appear on the model.
The flyer will be totally responsible for the model during the possession period. Model must be complete, ready to fly. Flyer may add trim tabs and make adjustments and repairs but must not change the character of the model.
Awards will be to the flyer only unless otherwise declared by the sponsoring contest organization. The builder may aid the flyer but is not permitted to be an official timer of the proxy model. The builder may enter a contest in which he/she has a proxy model but not in the same event as the proxy.
Logic:
The reason for this rule change is to permit experienced builders who are unable or don’t wish to participate in flying to still be actively engaged by allowing them to sponsor a flyer. Also, to encourage would be flyers, without time or ability to build, to actively fly. I view it as a win-win effort for builder and flyer alike and a way of expanding contest flying.
Submitted by: Gilbert Morris, AMA #94509
OFF-09-6 – This proposal has been cancelled
Proposal applies to Free Flight power, paragraph 3. This proposal re-establishes separate event numbers for classes A, B, C and D.
Change 102-103 Class A/B: .051-.300 cubic inch
To: 102 Class A: .051-.200 cubic inch and 103 Class B: .201-.300 cubic inch.
Change 104-105 Class C/D: .301-.670 cubic inch.
To: 104 Class C: .301-.400 cubic inch and 105 Class D: .401-.670 cubic inch.
Logic:
The present rule tends to reduce participation, in general by those who must travel a long distance to the contest site and if a person doesn’t fly both 102-103 and 104-105 events, they will have no power event to fly, save for possibly 1/2A in the case that 1 day of a 2 day contest is blown or rained out – no a too unusual occurrence.
For many people, the present rule, depending on the view point, obsoletes or surpluses several hundreds of dollars worth of engines, creates disgust and drives people away from the hobby, the same can be said for some of the airplanes affected by this rule.
Finally, it seems the effect of the change to the present rule was already provided for by paragraph 3.3. It seems much more appropriate to leave the option of combining the events to the contest organizers or the CD who may know the attendance history of the contest, recent weather forecasts, etc, than by a rule change.
The implementation of the present rule really seems to be just senseless commotion for no useful purpose. It is scary to think that such a rule could have ever been passes.
If the intent was just to reduce the number or events then delete Classic Gas.
Submitted by: James Grove, AMA #62929
OFF-09-7 – This proposal relates to Free Flight Power. In paragraph 3 it deletes 101C, 102C-103C, 104C-105C, the definition and all reference to C and adds paragraph 3.01 which is similar to C for Category III competitions.
In Paragraph 3, delete 101C, 102C-103C, 104C-105C, the definition of C(Classic) and all references to Classic.
Change Paragraph number 3 to 3.00 add Paragraph 3.01 after 3.
3.01 Events for Category III only, for land planes with fixed surfaces except for dethermalizing purposes. No geared engines or folding propellers.
165 CIII 1/2A: .000-.050 cubic inch
166 CIII A: .051-.200 cubic inch
167 CIII B: .201-.300 cubic inch
168 CIII C: .301-.400 cubic inch
169 CIII D: .401-.670 cubic inch
The deletion of C(Classic) is based on the assumption that there is no need for these events in CAT I and CAT II in that the advantage of auto surface over fixed surface, if there is one, would be most preponderant only in the shorter engine runs of CAT III competitions, in particular for third and succeeding flyoff flights.
Also 102C-103C begs the question – is a contest with a 6 to 1 ratio in engine displacement really a contest? Not hardly, if you believe in the old adage that bigger flies better.
The elimination of the Classic Class also removes 3 events from CAT I and CAT II competitions and reduces the dilution of flyers over a large number of events. It also removes the awkward situation of the entwinement of Classic event designators with the numerical designators of other events listed in Paragraph 3.
Submitted by: James Grove, AMA #62929
OFF-09-8 – Limit Hand Launched glider wing span to 1 meter (39.3705 inches).
2. General. An Outdoor Hand Launched Glider is a non-powered model aircraft designed to fly outdoors.
Simply add after the word “outdoors” the following: “with a projected wingspan less than 1 meter”.
Logic:
Discus gliders are revolutionizing this event. The performance increases are spectacular. Old arms and very young arms are far more competitive than they have ever been. The increase in interest and participation is heartening to see. The event has never been healthier.
Nevertheless, clearly the technology exists to build discus gliders with carbon in the 80” span range or even bigger. Such larger planes would have a competitive advantage and would seriously limit the ability or willingness of the vast majority of modelers to compete.
All we have to do is look at our Radio Control brethren to understand what is possible and what is reasonable. RCHLG has limited their span to 1.5 (59+”). Some special events are flown with 50”, 40” or even 30” models. The bigger planes always have a competitive advantage over the smaller ones.
The effective limits of balsa construction seem to be about 40” (~1 meter). The length is also close to the general length of balsa sheets – 36”.
Submitted by: Art Ellis, AMA #3266