FAI Course
01-12-2004, 06:46 PM
#2
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Waseca,
MN
Posts: 8,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAI Course
What would be the point in changing?
The only class that would make sense to me is Q40. I'm not a fan of making changes without a good reason. I can see difficulties with field setups with the wider pylons at 2 and 3.
The only class that would make sense to me is Q40. I'm not a fan of making changes without a good reason. I can see difficulties with field setups with the wider pylons at 2 and 3.
01-12-2004, 10:28 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chatsworth,
CA,
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAI Course
While in theory I have nothing against the FAI course, why do it? Someone said we should conform to the rest of the world! Well maybe he or she should look at the numbers. At the 2001 F3D worlds in Australia there were about 40 entries four of which were from the USA, three from Canada and two from Mexico (all of whom fly one of the AMA courses). We generally get about 70 Q40 entries at the Nats and in excess of 50 at the PHX JR Gold. There are probably not more than 30 F3D races in the world while we have 40 or 50 Q40 races and well over 100 428 and 424 races. Last year, we had well over 100 pilots accumulating NMPRA Q40 points while the international group in total has about 40.
Our classes are not flown in most international venues. Aus. has a Q40 like class but different in fuel, scale appearance, and props as well as a couple of other classes which bear no resemblance to ours. GB flies Q500 with Irvine quiet engines and Club 20.
Most countries don’t have enough racers to have team trials. They are lucky to make the F3D team requirement of 3 utilizing all their guys.
If we were to change to the FAI course a couple of things would happen. 1st all the records would be obsolete and the AMA would be obliged to keep the new FAI records as well as, all the old ones plus publishing a new set of rules defining the course, setbacks and so on. Fields like ours that have permeate pylon pads would have to spend about $1,000.00 to pour new pads.
Another thing are the FAI rules. I suppose we should adopt them also. No more man on man racing just fly against the clock using a 1 second stagger start. To do FAI right you would have to go at least 10 rounds, because of the dropouts, which would pretty much eliminate 1-day races. Of course one of the good things is that if you get a cut on a pylon just hold up elevator and go around again and if you get in a mid-air you get a refly.
And what about our slower classes that fly shorter courses. Put a slo-quickee on the FAI course and you could take a nap between pylons. (You’d probably have to put bigger tanks in them). I guess the two pole guys would be SOL. Don’t think they would take to kindly to that. It would be interesting to see the Giant Scale guys on the FAI course.
So again I say why? How about the FAI community takes a hint from the world’s pylon powerhouse and change to our course?
Thought you all would like this. We haven’t had any heated discussions on these boards lately.
Barry
Our classes are not flown in most international venues. Aus. has a Q40 like class but different in fuel, scale appearance, and props as well as a couple of other classes which bear no resemblance to ours. GB flies Q500 with Irvine quiet engines and Club 20.
Most countries don’t have enough racers to have team trials. They are lucky to make the F3D team requirement of 3 utilizing all their guys.
If we were to change to the FAI course a couple of things would happen. 1st all the records would be obsolete and the AMA would be obliged to keep the new FAI records as well as, all the old ones plus publishing a new set of rules defining the course, setbacks and so on. Fields like ours that have permeate pylon pads would have to spend about $1,000.00 to pour new pads.
Another thing are the FAI rules. I suppose we should adopt them also. No more man on man racing just fly against the clock using a 1 second stagger start. To do FAI right you would have to go at least 10 rounds, because of the dropouts, which would pretty much eliminate 1-day races. Of course one of the good things is that if you get a cut on a pylon just hold up elevator and go around again and if you get in a mid-air you get a refly.
And what about our slower classes that fly shorter courses. Put a slo-quickee on the FAI course and you could take a nap between pylons. (You’d probably have to put bigger tanks in them). I guess the two pole guys would be SOL. Don’t think they would take to kindly to that. It would be interesting to see the Giant Scale guys on the FAI course.
So again I say why? How about the FAI community takes a hint from the world’s pylon powerhouse and change to our course?
Thought you all would like this. We haven’t had any heated discussions on these boards lately.
Barry
01-12-2004, 11:11 PM
#4
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Arvada,
CO
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAI Course
ORIGINAL: bl10
<snip>
Someone said we should conform to the rest of the world!
<snip>
Another thing are the FAI rules. I suppose we should adopt them also. No more man on man racing just fly against the clock using a 1 second stagger start. To do FAI right you would have to go at least 10 rounds, because of the dropouts, which would pretty much eliminate 1-day races. Of course one of the good things is that if you get a cut on a pylon just hold up elevator and go around again and if you get in a mid-air you get a refly.
<snip>
<snip>
Someone said we should conform to the rest of the world!
<snip>
Another thing are the FAI rules. I suppose we should adopt them also. No more man on man racing just fly against the clock using a 1 second stagger start. To do FAI right you would have to go at least 10 rounds, because of the dropouts, which would pretty much eliminate 1-day races. Of course one of the good things is that if you get a cut on a pylon just hold up elevator and go around again and if you get in a mid-air you get a refly.
<snip>
That "Someone" would be me--in the other thread in the Q40 forum. Perhaps the Moderator will combine these two threads?
So far Barry, the only person to mention using FAI rules was you. I would not advocate this as I believe the point system we use now provides exciting and close competition.
How about the FAI community takes a hint from the world’s pylon powerhouse and change to our course?
01-13-2004, 02:07 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAI Course
Barry, I agree, you brought up many good points, I feel change just to change is not warranted. Change to the rest of the world, well we barely have enough racers in our country as it is and to make changes of this kind now makes little sense to me. How many racers get to fly in other countries and of those, how many would prefere to fly the fai course all the time? Not many I would think. If more racing was going on and there was justification to change to another course then I would be all for it, but with the wider 2-3 sections it could be harder to maintain safety lines and think of all the practice that would be out the window on 2-3 turns... I think John S. is a great guy and he has some good ideas on how to help the pylon community, but this is one I feel is better left unsaid, unchanged, unmoved etc....
John W.
John W.
01-14-2004, 01:18 PM
#8
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Potomac, MD
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAI Course
Never seen the course layout given as a reason for not racing by a potential racer. Besides... it would obsolete all our permanent field setups as well as our current generation of airplanes... being generally non-metric.
01-14-2004, 01:59 PM
#9
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Arvada,
CO
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAI Course
ORIGINAL: DMyer
Never seen the course layout given as a reason for not racing by a potential racer. Besides... it would obsolete all our permanent field setups as well as our current generation of airplanes... being generally non-metric.
Never seen the course layout given as a reason for not racing by a potential racer. Besides... it would obsolete all our permanent field setups as well as our current generation of airplanes... being generally non-metric.
01-14-2004, 02:37 PM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Stansbury Park,
UT
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAI Course
Did this thread start out with the same question as the on on the Q40 forum? I have to ask, because the responses can't really be more opposite...
Like I said on the Q40 side, I wouldn't be against the FAI course for 244,428, and even 424. I don't think it should be used for all events, like slow quickie, etc. Just like many events aren't suited for the current 2.5 mile long course.
It surprised me how much less crowded I felt flying when there was an extra 30 feet between 2 and 3, even though the majority of people are still standing in the same general area.
I don't believe Kevin said anything about going to the FAI scoring system, or changing the current airplanes, which some people seem to think would need to happen. Why would those need changed? Yes, the AMA would have to keep new records, is that a big deal? Remember there was a time that Q500 and Q40 were being flown on the 2 mile course (the last records for each are still listed in Model Aviation). Why would it be so much harder to keep records for the FAI course?
Another arguement people have commented about is permanent field setups. I believe most of the permanent setups have been around for a few years, and were primarily done to make it easier for the workers on the course. The starting lines wouldn't need to be changed, and since all that is needed at the pylons is the pylon, how permanent does it need to be? If the pylon is sitting in dirt, is that a big deal since there isn't a person that has to be there?
Yes, pylons 2 and 3 are wider by 30 feet. Will the extra 15 feet on each side be that difficult to overcome at fields currently capable of doing the 2.5 mile course? Also remember that the distance to pylon 1 is approximately 25 feet shorter. If it's possible that the extra width would cause us to lose some fields, isn't it just as possible that the shorter length could allow racing at fields that can't handle the 2.5 mile course?
I would have to agree with Kevin that there is a possiblity that if we were to use the FAI course, we may get a little more interest. The Electric F5D pylon racers use the FAI course, and are now consistantly under 1:10. I think if we were on the same course, we'd have a better shot at getting some of them involved.
Just my thoughts,
GS
Like I said on the Q40 side, I wouldn't be against the FAI course for 244,428, and even 424. I don't think it should be used for all events, like slow quickie, etc. Just like many events aren't suited for the current 2.5 mile long course.
It surprised me how much less crowded I felt flying when there was an extra 30 feet between 2 and 3, even though the majority of people are still standing in the same general area.
I don't believe Kevin said anything about going to the FAI scoring system, or changing the current airplanes, which some people seem to think would need to happen. Why would those need changed? Yes, the AMA would have to keep new records, is that a big deal? Remember there was a time that Q500 and Q40 were being flown on the 2 mile course (the last records for each are still listed in Model Aviation). Why would it be so much harder to keep records for the FAI course?
Another arguement people have commented about is permanent field setups. I believe most of the permanent setups have been around for a few years, and were primarily done to make it easier for the workers on the course. The starting lines wouldn't need to be changed, and since all that is needed at the pylons is the pylon, how permanent does it need to be? If the pylon is sitting in dirt, is that a big deal since there isn't a person that has to be there?
Yes, pylons 2 and 3 are wider by 30 feet. Will the extra 15 feet on each side be that difficult to overcome at fields currently capable of doing the 2.5 mile course? Also remember that the distance to pylon 1 is approximately 25 feet shorter. If it's possible that the extra width would cause us to lose some fields, isn't it just as possible that the shorter length could allow racing at fields that can't handle the 2.5 mile course?
I would have to agree with Kevin that there is a possiblity that if we were to use the FAI course, we may get a little more interest. The Electric F5D pylon racers use the FAI course, and are now consistantly under 1:10. I think if we were on the same course, we'd have a better shot at getting some of them involved.
Just my thoughts,
GS
01-14-2004, 05:51 PM
#11
RE: FAI Course
All of what Gary said, I agree.
I'll keep it short.
The start line is only 1.6' closer to pylons 2 and 3 so I don't agree that new takeoff pads would have to be made.
The FAI course is 21' shorter and 31.2' wider. I think there's a safety advantage in the pilots' area. It gets crowded back there.
Just use the course - keep the N. American scoring.
I think the NMPRA and MAAC need to have a more global mindset. Using an international standard course will at least enable more potential racing and eliminate one more barrier to countries racing against each other. If you want to play at a world level you have to adopt the world championship specifications.
Ed, should we bring up SI (metric system ???)
Randy S.
I'll keep it short.
The start line is only 1.6' closer to pylons 2 and 3 so I don't agree that new takeoff pads would have to be made.
The FAI course is 21' shorter and 31.2' wider. I think there's a safety advantage in the pilots' area. It gets crowded back there.
Just use the course - keep the N. American scoring.
I think the NMPRA and MAAC need to have a more global mindset. Using an international standard course will at least enable more potential racing and eliminate one more barrier to countries racing against each other. If you want to play at a world level you have to adopt the world championship specifications.
Ed, should we bring up SI (metric system ???)
Randy S.
01-14-2004, 07:01 PM
#12
Senior Member
My Feedback: (7)
RE: FAI Course
It's always fun to try and explain to my daughter why I have a dial caliper that measures in 10ths, 100ths, and 1,000ths of an inch, then I convert that to something like "17/32 of an inch" for the callouts on the plans, then I try to calculate wing area and loading by dividing the square inches by 144 and the ounces by 16. She says, "Why don't you just use metric, Dad? Then you wouldn't have to do so much math." 
The FAI course is already "fudged" to make the overall distance come out to 2-1/2 miles, the same as the AMA long course. The effect on existing records, if any, should be negligible.
As for moving Pylon #2 or #3 fifteen feet closer to the sideline, I would hope the AMA Technical Director could use his existing authority under the rules to make an exception for a tight field layout. He did for the Bowie Gold Cup.
I'm not saying we ought to make the change, or that we ought to make the change for all our events. I'm just saying the metric thing, the records thing, and the sideline thing are not valid reasons not to make the change.
The FAI course is already "fudged" to make the overall distance come out to 2-1/2 miles, the same as the AMA long course. The effect on existing records, if any, should be negligible.
As for moving Pylon #2 or #3 fifteen feet closer to the sideline, I would hope the AMA Technical Director could use his existing authority under the rules to make an exception for a tight field layout. He did for the Bowie Gold Cup.
I'm not saying we ought to make the change, or that we ought to make the change for all our events. I'm just saying the metric thing, the records thing, and the sideline thing are not valid reasons not to make the change.
01-14-2004, 07:12 PM
#13
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Monroe,
NC
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAI Course
ORIGINAL: js3
...
That "Someone" would be me--in the other thread in the Q40 forum. Perhaps the Moderator will combine these two threads?
...
...
That "Someone" would be me--in the other thread in the Q40 forum. Perhaps the Moderator will combine these two threads?
...
I think that switching over is a good idea ... at some time. I'm not sure now is the time though, especially if it causes any insurance red flags.
The permanent installations have more than just pylons to deal with. In some cases wires are laid in the ground. Plus the extra 15.6' on each side of the centerline could cause a problem for some fields, since some are down to the foot on the setbacks and deadlines.
Since the time has passed for proposals for the 2005-2007 rulebook, it is probably something to think about for the future, but in my opinion it needs to go through the rules process.
I do believe that promoting F3D and running it on the FAI course is something to look at in the more immediate future.
01-15-2004, 02:35 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Stansbury Park,
UT
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAI Course
First of all, Don't anybody take this personally or as a shot. I'm just playing Devil's advocate again.
Don--Ok, so I didn't think about buried wires at fields which have them for the permanent course setup. Would it be that hard to run 15-25 feet of exposed wiring (or even bury it) from the current locations to the FAI pylon locations? Seems like people think they would need to remove all the current wiring and start over with new stuff.....not true. As far as insurance red flags. I've heard of races being run that have been short on the safety distance, but been approved by the AMA. I'm not sure what an additional 15 feet is going to hurt. Perhaps, because of the shorter distance to pylon 1, the entire course location on the field can be changed slightly? Maybe moving the entire course twenty feet in a certain directioin could help reduce or eliminate the safety distance problem?
John W.--Flying the FAI course isn't nearly as different as people think. All I do is back the elevator off a couple percent, and stand closer to #2 (sounds strange because I'm a lot farther from #3, but it works for me). I've never heard of anybody flying the FAI course and feeling like they were out to lunch on it. Most people get the hang of it within a couple flights. I think it's more difficult for most people to adjust to a new flying field, than changing to the FAI course.
Barry--I can't agree with your statement that the rest of the world should do what the we are doing. There were actually 108 pilots that flew in the Eurocup F3D series in 2003. Five of them were North Americans. F5D pylon is flown on the same FAI course as F3D, and is gaining popularity in Europe and here. If you add the Electric racers in, as well as the Asian, Australian, and New Zealand racers that didn't fly in the Eurocup (five Aussies did collect Eurocup points), there are far more people flying the FAI course that our current 2.5 mile AMA course.
I really don't care if the course is changed or not. I do, however, see that by doing so, it would put us in line with another group of racers already using it. I don't know how changing to the same course would hurt our form of racing, and can see that there could be a possibily to get more people involved in our racing. The whole thing is kind of moot right now anyways, the deadline for rules proposals for the next cycle is past.
Well, enough for now. I'll see some of you at Winterfest this weekend. I'll be flying my new airplane with metric measurements, just in case we end up switching to the FAI course. For starters, it's a Neme-Q+ with a 32.258 square decimeter wing and a 6.5cc Nelson on the front......
See ya!
GS
Team Futaba
Don--Ok, so I didn't think about buried wires at fields which have them for the permanent course setup. Would it be that hard to run 15-25 feet of exposed wiring (or even bury it) from the current locations to the FAI pylon locations? Seems like people think they would need to remove all the current wiring and start over with new stuff.....not true. As far as insurance red flags. I've heard of races being run that have been short on the safety distance, but been approved by the AMA. I'm not sure what an additional 15 feet is going to hurt. Perhaps, because of the shorter distance to pylon 1, the entire course location on the field can be changed slightly? Maybe moving the entire course twenty feet in a certain directioin could help reduce or eliminate the safety distance problem?
John W.--Flying the FAI course isn't nearly as different as people think. All I do is back the elevator off a couple percent, and stand closer to #2 (sounds strange because I'm a lot farther from #3, but it works for me). I've never heard of anybody flying the FAI course and feeling like they were out to lunch on it. Most people get the hang of it within a couple flights. I think it's more difficult for most people to adjust to a new flying field, than changing to the FAI course.
Barry--I can't agree with your statement that the rest of the world should do what the we are doing. There were actually 108 pilots that flew in the Eurocup F3D series in 2003. Five of them were North Americans. F5D pylon is flown on the same FAI course as F3D, and is gaining popularity in Europe and here. If you add the Electric racers in, as well as the Asian, Australian, and New Zealand racers that didn't fly in the Eurocup (five Aussies did collect Eurocup points), there are far more people flying the FAI course that our current 2.5 mile AMA course.
I really don't care if the course is changed or not. I do, however, see that by doing so, it would put us in line with another group of racers already using it. I don't know how changing to the same course would hurt our form of racing, and can see that there could be a possibily to get more people involved in our racing. The whole thing is kind of moot right now anyways, the deadline for rules proposals for the next cycle is past.
Well, enough for now. I'll see some of you at Winterfest this weekend. I'll be flying my new airplane with metric measurements, just in case we end up switching to the FAI course. For starters, it's a Neme-Q+ with a 32.258 square decimeter wing and a 6.5cc Nelson on the front......
See ya!
GS
Team Futaba
01-16-2004, 09:01 AM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Stockholm, SWEDEN
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAI Course
I'm not sure but, if there will be a change of the course in the US and most of us here in Europe already have the FAI course. Is'nt there a possibility the to have a World Champion ship even in the other classes then?
01-16-2004, 10:30 AM
#16
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Arvada,
CO
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAI Course
ORIGINAL: Per_N
I'm not sure but, if there will be a change of the course in the US and most of us here in Europe already have the FAI course. Is'nt there a possibility the to have a World Champion ship even in the other classes then?
I'm not sure but, if there will be a change of the course in the US and most of us here in Europe already have the FAI course. Is'nt there a possibility the to have a World Champion ship even in the other classes then?
There is still the issue that we fly by a different set of rules quite literally speaking
. I think there could be a World Champion in F3D, Q40, Q500 or anything else really. But right now, if we were to call the winner of the AMA Nationals a World Champion (rather than a National Champion) it would be like our Super Bowl. Sure the winners of the Super Bowl are the World's Champion albeit a champion of a game nobody else plays.To me, the biggest benefit of using the FAI course would be that the infield would be less crowded. Thus it would be safer. Another big plus I see is that if someone wanted to use Q40 as a stepping stone to F3D, the course would already be familiar to the pilot.
There have been on occasion some people who have attended Q40 contests in North America coming from as far away as Europe and Asia. Perhaps we would attract more international participation (in Canada/Mexico/USA) if we were to use the FAI course.
For the record, I'm not really that invested in changing over to the FAI course; I probably will never compete in F3D or F5D. I just think it makes sense for North American style racing to conform to the same course layout as the rest of the world.
01-19-2004, 05:36 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Stockholm, SWEDEN
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAI Course
John
Thanks for your reply. My first thought was to get more people interested for this wonderful habit. Here in Sweden we are usually no
more then 15 people on our Quickie class, and thats are a little few. And i thought if the classes would be a little more standard, maybe more people will come.
Just a thought....
Sorry for broken English [:'(]
Per
Thanks for your reply. My first thought was to get more people interested for this wonderful habit. Here in Sweden we are usually no
more then 15 people on our Quickie class, and thats are a little few. And i thought if the classes would be a little more standard, maybe more people will come.
Just a thought....
Sorry for broken English [:'(]
Per
01-19-2004, 10:55 PM
#18
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Arvada,
CO
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAI Course
Per,
Please do not apologize for your English. It is infinitely better than my Swedish (or anything else)!
One of my frustrations about "entry level" racing in the US is that there are so many different styles of racing. Each location does something different than everybody else. We've worked hard to standardize our rules. I see standardization as a good thing.
By the way, I like your web site. Very nice!
Please do not apologize for your English. It is infinitely better than my Swedish (or anything else)!
One of my frustrations about "entry level" racing in the US is that there are so many different styles of racing. Each location does something different than everybody else. We've worked hard to standardize our rules. I see standardization as a good thing.
By the way, I like your web site. Very nice!
01-21-2004, 12:15 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAI Course
Maybe you are right, it would be safer if the pylons are farther apart, I did not consider that part of the equation, I know some of the newer guys are having trouble trying to fly as tight as I or you or any of the other national circuit guys do. They are afraid of being in so close and I have personally seen pilots freeze coming down the line from one to two, they were not used to being so close and tight and it scared them, so that would help that problem and would help the overall safety of pilots on the course,
I am not sure how much work would be envolved in such a change, but its really not all that bad of an idea.
Of course, all records are obselete, start over...
I am not sure how much work would be envolved in such a change, but its really not all that bad of an idea.
Of course, all records are obselete, start over...
