Eind 2005 worden er weer regelwijzigingen voorgesteld die vanaf 2006 aktief zouden kunnen worden.
Een heet hangijzer is de groei naar groter en sneller en het (te) grote verschil tussen de 2,5cc klasse en de 3,5/4cc klasse.
En het langzaam verdwijnen van de 2,5cc modellen uit de combatterij.
Er zijn momenteel voorstellen over langere linten voor de "grotere" modellen en het nog verder beperken van toeren en prop maten voor alle modellen.
Deze discussies gaan tussen de NC's van alle landen en zou moeten worden gecoordineerd door de IC.
Als NC van NL ontvang ik dus ook deze mail en ik wil op deze manier de diverse stellingen van andere landen delen.
Omdat niet alle voorstellen naar mijn idee zinnig zijn zal ik niet alles maar in het forum plaatsen maar wel de concretere voorstellen.
Graag zie ik ook jullie mening over deze materie. Zijn die 4cc kisten nou zo veel meer in het voordeel? Is een prop maat van 13 nog wel te doen met een gezonde 4cc motor. Kunnen de linten voor de grotere kisten langer worden gemaakt? Moeten de 3,5cc kisten worden verboden?
Moeten alle prototypes en andere onduidelijke modellen worden verboden.
Willen we regelwijzigingen????????
SHOOT :wink:
Discussies over nieuwe regels voor 2006
-
Wondermike
- Topper
- Berichten: 189
- Lid geworden op: ma mar 08, 2004 6:04 am
Discussies over nieuwe regels voor 2006
Hij die piep snijdt zal linten oogsten.
Hij die linten oogst zal winnen!!!
Hij die linten oogst zal winnen!!!
-
Wondermike
- Topper
- Berichten: 189
- Lid geworden op: ma mar 08, 2004 6:04 am
rules
Ik zal de emails die ik ontvang hier posten zodat een ieder ze kan lezen.
Let wel het zijn nu nog allemaal losse flodders en nog niets concreets.
Pelle Scherdin wrote:
Gentlemen and fellow aviators!
I have been following the recent debate of our existing rules and “anticipated proposal” for new ones and have these reflects of the matters:
First of all, I like to draw the attention to what rule the IRC should take in these questions and how voting to new rules will be conducted. Myself, as well as all other Swedish pilots, did think that the idea of an IRC would be a good way of handling the international rules by the time it was implemented. However, the IRC was never given a proper job description with clear roles and responsibilities and for this reason it will never be fully recognised within the governmental body in this respect until this is fulfilled. Also, following the debate, I am convinced that we must create a solid, stable system of how and when new roles shall be implemented.
Proposal:
- The rule of the International Rule Committee, IRC, is to consolidate rules of International Air Combat competition.
- Voting for new rules will take place every 2nd year starting with 2005.
- All rules voted for, except rules inflicting on models performance, will be implemented the year after - starting with 2006.
- New rules inflicting on the models performance will be implemented the 2nd year after the year of voting, starting with 2007.
- Proposals for new rules must be the IRC at hand not later than September 30’st, the year of voting. All proposals for new rules must be written in English and distributed to all members of the IRC not later than October 15’th. Any contradictions recognized within the proposals of new rules, or as a result to existing rules, must be described and fully understandable to all members of the IRC.
- Last day for voting is November 30, i.e. at hand of the IRC.
- New rules shall be distributed to all members of the IRC and to all NC´s not later than December 31´st.
- All nations have 1 vote per nation and additional 1 vote per 10 pilots participated in the respective national Air Combat Cup the year of voting. Any pilot scoring in at least 3 heats documented in the internet based “CORE” is considered a participant in this respect.
- Any proposal to new rules must get at least 50,1% in favour of the total number of votes.
- The IRC has the right to judge and interpret the international rules when so called for.
Second, regarding the ongoing debate, the Swedish pilots are in favour of a decrease of the speed in the international Air Combat competitions.
To save the .15 size airplanes, and to even out the performance, we would like to adjust the power of the bigger size engines to a more modest level. Any other way to solve this problem will be to create new rules to cover for other rules. As everybody is aware of, the performance of a good .21 or .25 engine is enough even without special modifications to drive a pitch “4” propeller at 16.000 rpm. We think this is the best way to go – reduce the prop-sum to “13” for these engines. This will give a slight reduction in speed and performance of these models and give the .15 size airplanes a more fair fight without any complementary and “difficult to control” new rules. Also, this will benefit the recruitments of new pilots as anybody can buy an engine to meet his, or hers, demand for power without being an “engine guru”.
Proposal for new international rules:
- Max propeller size and rpm for .15 size engines is: Prop-sum 12 / 17.000 rpm, (no change)
- Max propeller size and rpm for .21 size engines is: Prop-sum 13 / 16.000 rpm, (reduce by “1” of the prop-sum)
- Max propeller size and rpm for .25 size engines is: Prop-sum 13 / 16.000 rpm, (reduce by “1” of the prop-sum)
For your information, the Swedish pilots have already voted for an even more restrictive performance for all competitions in the Swedish Air Combat Cup:
- Max propeller size and rpm for .15 size engines is: Prop-sum 12 / 16.000 rpm, (reduction of rpm)
- Max propeller size and rpm for .25 size engines is: Prop-sum 13 / 15.000 rpm, (reduction of rpm and “1” of the prop-sum)
(These new rules are pending implementation – the outcome of the international voting is of great concern weather the Swedish pilots are willing to skip the national rules and accept to compete by the international rules alone.)
As of years back, we do not accept .21 engines according to international rules as we think these models are too fast and thereby too dangerous. Instead, these models may be flown with .15 size engines and the lower weight of 700 gr – which we consider more accurate performance vice and also a lot safer.
Finally; Let’s bring the Air Combat Show back on track, lower the speeds a little and have more fun again!
Let wel het zijn nu nog allemaal losse flodders en nog niets concreets.
Pelle Scherdin wrote:
Gentlemen and fellow aviators!
I have been following the recent debate of our existing rules and “anticipated proposal” for new ones and have these reflects of the matters:
First of all, I like to draw the attention to what rule the IRC should take in these questions and how voting to new rules will be conducted. Myself, as well as all other Swedish pilots, did think that the idea of an IRC would be a good way of handling the international rules by the time it was implemented. However, the IRC was never given a proper job description with clear roles and responsibilities and for this reason it will never be fully recognised within the governmental body in this respect until this is fulfilled. Also, following the debate, I am convinced that we must create a solid, stable system of how and when new roles shall be implemented.
Proposal:
- The rule of the International Rule Committee, IRC, is to consolidate rules of International Air Combat competition.
- Voting for new rules will take place every 2nd year starting with 2005.
- All rules voted for, except rules inflicting on models performance, will be implemented the year after - starting with 2006.
- New rules inflicting on the models performance will be implemented the 2nd year after the year of voting, starting with 2007.
- Proposals for new rules must be the IRC at hand not later than September 30’st, the year of voting. All proposals for new rules must be written in English and distributed to all members of the IRC not later than October 15’th. Any contradictions recognized within the proposals of new rules, or as a result to existing rules, must be described and fully understandable to all members of the IRC.
- Last day for voting is November 30, i.e. at hand of the IRC.
- New rules shall be distributed to all members of the IRC and to all NC´s not later than December 31´st.
- All nations have 1 vote per nation and additional 1 vote per 10 pilots participated in the respective national Air Combat Cup the year of voting. Any pilot scoring in at least 3 heats documented in the internet based “CORE” is considered a participant in this respect.
- Any proposal to new rules must get at least 50,1% in favour of the total number of votes.
- The IRC has the right to judge and interpret the international rules when so called for.
Second, regarding the ongoing debate, the Swedish pilots are in favour of a decrease of the speed in the international Air Combat competitions.
To save the .15 size airplanes, and to even out the performance, we would like to adjust the power of the bigger size engines to a more modest level. Any other way to solve this problem will be to create new rules to cover for other rules. As everybody is aware of, the performance of a good .21 or .25 engine is enough even without special modifications to drive a pitch “4” propeller at 16.000 rpm. We think this is the best way to go – reduce the prop-sum to “13” for these engines. This will give a slight reduction in speed and performance of these models and give the .15 size airplanes a more fair fight without any complementary and “difficult to control” new rules. Also, this will benefit the recruitments of new pilots as anybody can buy an engine to meet his, or hers, demand for power without being an “engine guru”.
Proposal for new international rules:
- Max propeller size and rpm for .15 size engines is: Prop-sum 12 / 17.000 rpm, (no change)
- Max propeller size and rpm for .21 size engines is: Prop-sum 13 / 16.000 rpm, (reduce by “1” of the prop-sum)
- Max propeller size and rpm for .25 size engines is: Prop-sum 13 / 16.000 rpm, (reduce by “1” of the prop-sum)
For your information, the Swedish pilots have already voted for an even more restrictive performance for all competitions in the Swedish Air Combat Cup:
- Max propeller size and rpm for .15 size engines is: Prop-sum 12 / 16.000 rpm, (reduction of rpm)
- Max propeller size and rpm for .25 size engines is: Prop-sum 13 / 15.000 rpm, (reduction of rpm and “1” of the prop-sum)
(These new rules are pending implementation – the outcome of the international voting is of great concern weather the Swedish pilots are willing to skip the national rules and accept to compete by the international rules alone.)
As of years back, we do not accept .21 engines according to international rules as we think these models are too fast and thereby too dangerous. Instead, these models may be flown with .15 size engines and the lower weight of 700 gr – which we consider more accurate performance vice and also a lot safer.
Finally; Let’s bring the Air Combat Show back on track, lower the speeds a little and have more fun again!
Hij die piep snijdt zal linten oogsten.
Hij die linten oogst zal winnen!!!
Hij die linten oogst zal winnen!!!
-
Wondermike
- Topper
- Berichten: 189
- Lid geworden op: ma mar 08, 2004 6:04 am
rules
Hi Pelle and all IRC Members!!
They were all very good arguments, I totally agree with you! Specially regarding the second point!
Little by little, many pilots lost the real stuff of the Air Combat: they consider it a competition (maybe a speed competition), instead of a beautiful game.
I think we have to reach two goals: slow down the bigger models and totally equalize performances, so that
1) Contests become enjoyable and safe again
2) Pilots feel themselves free of choose whatever type of airplane they want, without compromise performances against other types.
Well… the easiest way to do that were simply one: same wingspan and same engine size.
In any case, nowadays we allow the +/- 5% range of measures… so, a Corsair and a Mustang with the same wingspan were not more strange than a 89 cm wingspan Mustang and a 98 wingspan Mustang.
But I think this is pure utopia. Pity!
Handling instead the actual rules, I totally agree with decreasing .21-.25 props and rpm.
Other tricks could be:
1) A minimum wingtip thickness for .21-.25 models.
Rationale: to slow down those airplanes another little bit. Acting only on the wing tip, we not overturn original projects, templates, molds etc. The only adjustment should be the tip template… a very little change. Furthermore, the tip verify were very easy, with a simple self-made calibre.
2) A 10 mt. streamer for .15 airplanes and a 14 mt. streamer for .21-.25 airplanes.
Rationale: obvious
I think that still .21-.25 were more powerful (and mainly DANGEROUS), but at least it were a stride…
Lastly: Pelle is right !! We’re wrecking and exasperating our game. Let’s return back on our steps, please.
Best Regards
/Alberto Santillo
They were all very good arguments, I totally agree with you! Specially regarding the second point!
Little by little, many pilots lost the real stuff of the Air Combat: they consider it a competition (maybe a speed competition), instead of a beautiful game.
I think we have to reach two goals: slow down the bigger models and totally equalize performances, so that
1) Contests become enjoyable and safe again
2) Pilots feel themselves free of choose whatever type of airplane they want, without compromise performances against other types.
Well… the easiest way to do that were simply one: same wingspan and same engine size.
In any case, nowadays we allow the +/- 5% range of measures… so, a Corsair and a Mustang with the same wingspan were not more strange than a 89 cm wingspan Mustang and a 98 wingspan Mustang.
But I think this is pure utopia. Pity!
Handling instead the actual rules, I totally agree with decreasing .21-.25 props and rpm.
Other tricks could be:
1) A minimum wingtip thickness for .21-.25 models.
Rationale: to slow down those airplanes another little bit. Acting only on the wing tip, we not overturn original projects, templates, molds etc. The only adjustment should be the tip template… a very little change. Furthermore, the tip verify were very easy, with a simple self-made calibre.
2) A 10 mt. streamer for .15 airplanes and a 14 mt. streamer for .21-.25 airplanes.
Rationale: obvious
I think that still .21-.25 were more powerful (and mainly DANGEROUS), but at least it were a stride…
Lastly: Pelle is right !! We’re wrecking and exasperating our game. Let’s return back on our steps, please.
Best Regards
/Alberto Santillo
Hij die piep snijdt zal linten oogsten.
Hij die linten oogst zal winnen!!!
Hij die linten oogst zal winnen!!!
-
Electro ACE
regels 2006
We zijn echt aan de limiet!
Misschien al tever.
Als er iets gedaan moet worden om het veschil niet uit de hand te laten lopen, is de propsom toch wel makelijker dan toerental. Je moet regels hebben die makkelijk te kontroleren zijn.
Zie jij een scheidsrechter rondlopen met een toerenteller?? Als het al zin zou hebben om te meten.
Hier heb ik meteen mijn tweede punt.
De prop beperking voor electro kisten.
Met een propsom van 13 kunnen we nooit grotere kisten (meer dan 1m)competatief vliegen.
Ook bied dit geen mogelijkheid voor aandrijvingen met vertraging.
Om een eerlijke concurentie te hebben zou minimaal 14 moeten mogen.
En mischien een aparte maat voor aandrijvingen met vertraging.
Bernard
Misschien al tever.
Als er iets gedaan moet worden om het veschil niet uit de hand te laten lopen, is de propsom toch wel makelijker dan toerental. Je moet regels hebben die makkelijk te kontroleren zijn.
Zie jij een scheidsrechter rondlopen met een toerenteller?? Als het al zin zou hebben om te meten.
Hier heb ik meteen mijn tweede punt.
De prop beperking voor electro kisten.
Met een propsom van 13 kunnen we nooit grotere kisten (meer dan 1m)competatief vliegen.
Ook bied dit geen mogelijkheid voor aandrijvingen met vertraging.
Om een eerlijke concurentie te hebben zou minimaal 14 moeten mogen.
En mischien een aparte maat voor aandrijvingen met vertraging.
Bernard
Wie is er online
Gebruikers op dit forum: Geen geregistreerde gebruikers en 1 gast