F3M - To Be or Not To Be

[Jim Woodward]

Mike - thanks for jumping in. I believe at this point we should disuss anything on the table, and make efforts for contests as the opportunities arise. For instance, the Miami AMPs club is going to host a pattern contest in January 2010. We are (with club support), going to include the F3M class too.

Yes - I agree strongly that we should not food-fight with IMAC topics. But this is also an opportunity to fix certain things so I do expect some comparison discusion.

Thanks,
Jim

[mike chandley]

Are our current 40 % airplanes within the size limitations for F3M?

[Jim Woodward]

Yup - The .pdf attacement spells out the criteria. There is a minimum dimension. I believe our typical scale aero 40% planes are good to go
Jim

[Judge]

Here's my take. I think F3M is an interesting new class and it would be exciting to see it developed. Keep in mind that this is new to FAI as well. I have not done any research yet so I am not sure how it has gone so far as a provisional FAI class over in Europe.

IMAC has already indicated that F3M is incompatible with IMAC/Scale Aerobatics, and I agree with this conclusion. I think if F3M were to be integrated into an existing contest structure that pattern is the better place for it. Pattern has a box set up, pattern has judges used to using the FAI/F3A scoring criteria which F3M uses, and pattern has experience working with the FAI.

Having said that, I think there will be considerable resistance on the part of pattern pilots to having large gasoline powered planes at their events.

While it is true that IMAC or the NSRCA cannot tell an individual CD what they can do at a contest, you still need to consider the attitudes of the potential pilot pool. IMAC CDs will be reluctant due to both time constraints but also judging issues, box issues, etc.

Pattern CDs will be wary due to potential noise and timing issues along with resistance from long time pattern pilots who simply do not want big gas planes at "their" contests.

Another issue for both IMAC and pattern CDs is the question of sanctions. F3M does not exist in the AMA rulebook and I am not clear how that would impact a contest sanction. The early contests may need to be stand alone under a non-AMA rulebook sanction.

In the end, I think that if this is to be done it needs to be done as a stand alone concept right from the get go. The current F3M sequence is a challenging one that will only be of interest to the upper class pilots in either IMAC or pattern. If I were to do something like this I would develop at least 2 other (no more) less challenging sequences to allow pilots not up to the task of the full blown F3M sequence to get into it.

Contest structure is another challenge. I think one of the things that makes F3M interesting is the integration of the three sequences, Known, Unknown, freestyle. Freestyle in this sense would need to be defined as something more than hovering or playing "how low can you go". Sort of a flying freestyle with both 3D and precision aerobatic elements integrated into a free routine.

Here's what I would do to get started. I would look at doing a single demonstrate event where you try to get some of the better known pilots to attend. Perhaps even approach the TAS folks or similar about doing something similar to F3M at their contest for the invitational class. Once you can gain the attention of the top pilots it will automatically generate interest for other pilots.

Another approach would be to some local contests as a proof of concept. Maybe hold a small 2 or 4 contest series and see if you can get some industry support for prizes, etc. If you can make it work locally then that might be enough to attract national interest. This would be a good place to work in a couple of less challenging sequences to attract a broader spectrum of pilots.

Either way you will need to bring the judge pool up to speed. But pattern judges who judge FAI will already be ready since the rules are the same.

That's what pops to mind as a first pass for now.

[Judge]

	Quote: Originally Posted by mike chandley
	Are our current 40 % airplanes within the size limitations for F3M?

Here are the aircraft specifications:

	Quote:
	5L.1.3. General Characteristics of a large R/C Aerobatic Power Model Aircraft Minimum overall span for monoplanes 2.1 m Minimum overall span for biplanes............................. 1.8 m Maximum flying weight without fuel............................ 20 kg Paragraph B.3.1. of Section 4b (Builder of Model Aircraft) is not applicable to class F3M.

So in fact a fairly large number of current planes qualify, including many 50cc planes. 2.1 meters is 82.67 inches. 1.8 meters for biplanes is 70.87 inches.

20kg = 44.09 pounds

ANd a bit more from the FAI rulebook for F3M:

	Quote:
	5L.1. CLASS F3M – LARGE RADIO CONTROLLED AEROBATIC POWER MODEL AIRCRAFT 5L.1.1. Definition of a Large Radio Controlled Aerobatic Power Model Aircraft Model aircraft, but not a helicopter, which is aerodynamically manoeuvred by control surface(s) in attitude, direction, and altitude by a pilot on the ground using radio control. The model aircraft must be a scaled-down version of a full-size aircraft that is able to perform aerobatics. The competitor must prove this by providing a dossier to the contest director, including a minimum of a three-view drawing and a photograph of the full-size aircraft.

[Jim Woodward]

Thank you Judge for adding your nod and experience in these matters.
Jim

[Judge]

	Quote: Originally Posted by psk560
	Jim, In the loop, is the 1/4 roll integrated for the entire 1/2 loop and then a neg-snap to another integrated 1/4 roll? Looping rolls... Kewl... Craig

Here is what the rules say:

	Quote:
	02- Inside loop, upper half in knife edge flight, full snap roll (positive or negative) on top: Model performs ¼ of inside loop, then ¼ roll to knife edge in which performs second ¼ of the loop, then full snap roll (positive or negative) and third ¼ of loop in knife edge position, then ¼ roll and last ¼ of loop to level flight. Judging notes: · • Wing of the model is not in vertical plane during the knife edge flight · • Model is not keeping round shape of the manoeuvre

[1bwana1]

Scaled down, but no mention of a 10% deviation rule. How is scale defined? What about control surfaces? Do most IMAC legal planes really fit this rule? This definition seems like it can be taken as much more restrictive, or much more liberal than the IMAC rule.

[MattyMatt]

Guys... take a few minutes to read the PDF that Jim has posted. It is very staight forward and clear in it's descriptions.

EDIT: I just checked the sporting code and it is the same deviation requirement as IMAC +/- 10%

Like in IMAC, F3M rules require the Pilot to provide documentation that the plane is with in the rule dimensions.


BTW FAI is not French... it is Swiss based.

[300sflyer]

For those who are interested in a brief history of the FAI, have a look here.

http://www.fai.org/about/history

The FAI goes back more than a 100 years to 1905. They are the world governing body for both model and full scale aviation, and a true "International" organization in every sense of the word.

[BreadBowl]

Bill,

A little food for thought, since any AMA legal aircraft is fair game for Sportsman, there are several guys around here that have flown with GS airplanes. Before this man got a pattern plane, he flew a 100cc Aeroworks Yak in his first contest, and there is another gentleman that has flown in a couple contests with a 40% Aerotech Extra 300. There were no gripes regarding the large aircraft being there.

I see it being somewhat crowded if it were attached to a pattern contest, as there would be an additional class, but more importantly, there would be two FAI classes. I think this would be a little much to shoulder, and would only go the route of including it with a pattern contest as a last resort.

edit- I only read to the point where you stated that pattern guys would gripe about the airplanes. After I read the rest of your post, I believe you are on the right track.

[Judge]

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression, but I do know that there are many pattern pilots who would object. But I agree, there are other reasons that trying to integrate an F3M contest into an exisiting pattern or IMAC contest poses significant problems.

[Judge]

	Quote: Originally Posted by 1bwana1
	Scaled down, but no mention of a 10% deviation rule. How is scale defined? What about control surfaces? Do most IMAC legal planes really fit this rule? This definition seems like it can be taken as much more restrictive, or much more liberal than the IMAC rule.

Here are the rules for scale from the FAI rulebook. Keep in mind that in IMAC you only need to document the plane if teh CD questions it. In F3M it looks to be an absolute requirement that you provide proof of scale.

	Quote:
	To be eligible to compete, the competitor or his helper/team manager must submit the following documentation, before the start of the competition: a) An accurate three-view drawing of the subject aircraft (home made drawings by the competitor or other draftsman are not acceptable). b) The dimensions are considered on the top view and side view of the subject aircraft. c) The scale of the model aircraft is calculated from the wing span. d) Dimensions described on the drawing overleaf can be measured. A tolerance is allowed as follows: D is the full size measure in cm, s is scale, d is model measure in cm: (D x s)*0.9 -0.5 <= d <= (D x s)*1.1 + 0.5 e) The area of control surfaces compared to fixed surfaces will not be considered. Example: only the outline of the wing, stabiliser and fin will be considered, not the ailerons, elevator, or rudder, but the concept of moving surfaces must be the same as on the subject aircraft. (Aileron perhaps in two parts, moving part of the fin for aerodynamic balance, etc. Trim tabs are forbidden, if not on the full-size aircraft.) f) The competitor must be able to provide any technical data for technical checking. If the dimensions are not in accordance with the rules, the model aircraft is not allowed to fly and the competitor is disqualified.

[300sflyer]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Judge
	Here are the rules for scale from the FAI rulebook. Keep in mind that in IMAC you only need to document the plane if teh CD questions it. In F3M it looks to be an absolute requirement that you provide proof of scale.

I would suggest that would only be enforced at an FAI F3M world championship, and not at a local contest with contestant judging. In my 12 years of IMAC, I have never seen or heard of a plane being disqualified.

It would however, be interesting to know how many of our "IMAC" type aircraft actually fall within 10% of scale.

What folks also need to keep in mind, is that any of the FAI rules can be altered. Unlike IMAC, there is a true democratic process by which any participating country can submit a rule change, and it is then voted on by each member country.

[Jim Woodward]

I think careful consideration should be given if F3M can be added into a Pattern contest. For instance, CD's know from historical #'s if they are going to expect a 15 person, or 35 person event. They also know what the local competitor draw is. For some areas, it would help gather more participation to offer it (with proper adevertising of course). For other areas, it may be an unwanted distraction.

I see F3M as a "win win" for the pattern comunity. Mostly, it will expose guys who already have competition quality equipment, who already hit the contest trail, to what "precision aerobatics" really is. I hope it reinvigorates people that have left r/c aerobatics for one reason or another. They may also end up wanting to get involved with AMA/F3A pattern too. So from my perspective, the pattern community has only to gain from any association to F3M (scale aerobatics flown in the 3-zone angled box).
Thank You,
Jim