F3M - To Be or Not To Be

[MattyMatt]

	Quote: Originally Posted by BoneDoc
	By that definition, NONE of our 3D capable model has control surfaces within the 10% scale of the original probably.

BoneDoc... please read again. It says that the control surface does NOT have to be within 10%. Again, same as IMAC.

[BoneDoc]

Did you edit your post to reflect that information ?

[MattyMatt]

no... that is what i originally posted. I did word it a little confusingly though... sometimes my typing can't keep up with the brain!

[Judge]

Not for nothing, but I posted the actual rule in post #28

http://www.flyinggiants.com/forums/825929-post28.html

Post #35 has the reference about using the Aresti Catalog in the F3M rules.

http://www.flyinggiants.com/forums/826272-post35.html

[JAS]

As I sit here car less (in the shop) and no way to fly in the rain... what better time to share experiences and thoughts.

Avoidance: I believe it was the 2000 Nats/Team Trials where I suffered a Mid-Air with my new purchased Angel Shadow from Ivan Kristensen. Well I had the option to finish the flight (I passed on it) and continued with my Topline which had 30 flights on it and not set-up. For the rest of the contest that was flown with another plane at the same time, I made my own avoidance calls by just moving out of the way. I did this again at the 2007 Nats when after my first flight/maneuver my prop slipped and caused my OS to stop running and I HAD to finish the next 3 flights. One round I was flying with Quique and I told him to maintain his line and I would fly around him. I only had to 'hover' once to let our paths cross at different times to not risk either plane. But to me, I'll take a couple of points off here and there to keep my plane. And no one thought the mid-air was going to happen in 00... it just didn't look it.

Now I think the rules are written with the understanding that FAI is flown 1 pilot at a time at a Worlds, so there is no need for an avoidance rule. Of course locally, I see no reason to allow a plane to stay clear IF it appears to be on a path with another plane. But I have seen a flight with 3 breaks and one was not needed.

F3M: Finally, IMAC with rules...lol. Box, proof-of-plane scale.... nice. I have always designed my planes to meet the old TOC rules for 10%, including stab location and no balances (since the Comp 260 is the only plane I have had actually go from drawings to production, so far, I know it's legal), at least I know I have a plane that meets the rules. Granted, for the first few contests, maybe first 'Nats' (if it gets that far) some of the numbers could be eased for ARF planes on the market until more make changes in future production runs. I know my next plane will be legal by all standards according to F3M rules just in case as well. I know the Dalton 260 is legal too as it's an old TOC plane.

Box: Glad to have a box and a CENTER POLE back in GS flying. I'm so glad the TOC never did away with this and just wished IMAC never did either. I would love to fly more IMAC (might need to upgrade my car to a van though) but with whatever the 'flight area' is doesn't give me any motivation to do so, other than the occasional contest to let friends fly in them. I miss GS flying, but my pattern discipline tells me that I'm not 'welcome' in IMAC because I can do anything anywhere. I also find that when I try to fly in a box or on center, I fail cause the sequences aren't designed to be flown that way. IMAC certainly isn't hurting without a box, so I'm sure there is no reason to look into changing it.

Judging: Is there really a difference in how you judge a round loop, square corner, straight roll?... hope not. There are only a few needs of pts off per degrees off, some understanding of some new maneuvers being flown and getting used to staying in the box and using a center pole for down gradable judging criteria. I'm sure there's more, but it's still judging lines, loops and rolls (in some shape, form or fashion).

I like the idea to try it, and if I could borrow a plane for the first meet, I'd give it a whirl (no 260 flying yet). Would bring back my fond TOC memories (most of them are fond at least).

[MattyMatt]

JAS Your thoughts are directly in line with mine as well.

I miss the "good old days" that you are reflecting on.

I think F3M is a great opportunity or as some would say... "it's a taint" it ain't pattern, and it ain't IMAC. It's in between.

[BreadBowl]

Jason,

Terry Darr tells that story every time he gets. Didn't you midair with Allen Ecklund?

[JAS]

Sure did... and everyone knew it. His spinner to right behind my motor... nothing lived.

[McFueler]

Taint ! I like the way you think Matt !

[Judge]

Like I've said, I really like this concept. What would make it perfect in my mind is using the actual Aresti catalog to derive the figures and K factors. They actually have this rule in the F3M rules, but seem to ignore it using instead the F3A "catalog" of figures.

[NJRCFLYER]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Judge
	Like I've said, I really like this concept. What would make it perfect in my mind is using the actual Aresti catalog to derive the figures and K factors. They actually have this rule in the F3M rules, but seem to ignore it using instead the F3A "catalog" of figures.

I can see both sides of this. The purist has a good argument that every figure should be from the Aresti catalog, but on the other hand, that does limit innovation. AMA Scale Aerobatics sequence design have generally followed the Aresti catalog, with some notable deviations in the past, but it does eliminate some very cool and challenging figures that can be constructed.

I think it is a good way to take a lead position to demonstrate to the entire aerobatics community, full scale or model sized, what can be done in a well designed precision sequence. It would not be suprising to see some cross pollination in the opposite direction (models to full scale) for some of these figures in the future. This has happened to some extent with "3D' (extended flight envelope) aerobatics.

[1bwana1]

IMAC contests I have been to score the precision, and freestyle separately. That is, the freestyle results do not affect the precision results. In the F3M the scores all lead to a single contest result. Do the rules require that the same plane be used for all rounds, or will you be allowed to fly different planes, one optimized for precision, and one for freestyle. It could get expensive to be competitive....

[NJRCFLYER]

	Quote: Originally Posted by 1bwana1
	IMAC contests I have been to score the precision, and freestyle separately. That is, the freestyle results do not affect the precision results. In the F3M the scores all lead to a single contest result. Do the rules require that the same plane be used for all rounds, or will you be allowed to fly different planes, one optimized for precision, and one for freestyle. It could get expensive to be competitive....

You've touched on the one thing I don't like so much about the rules. I'm still debating what to do as a CD of a future F3M contest. At the moment, I'm leaning towards waiving that and scoring the freestyle separately. However I definitely want to hear a lot more feedback on this idea.

As far as needing two separate models to compete in sequence flying and freestyle, you don't really find that happening in the AMA Scale Aerobatics world. It wasn't the case when I was competing at least. I for one would like to see a greater emphasis on artistic, well coregraphed freestyles that do not rely excessively on 3D. Skillfully done 3D is fun to watch for brief periods, but really gets tedious after a while, at least for me.

[Judge]

	Quote: Originally Posted by NJRCFLYER
	I can see both sides of this. The purist has a good argument that every figure should be from the Aresti catalog, but on the other hand, that does limit innovation.

Just quoting their own rule Ed, nothing "purist" about it. It's their rule, but obviously do not follow it. I wish they did.

[Judge]

FWIW Ed, I agree about the Freestyle. People here think this automatically means 3D "how low can you go" flying. That is not what I get from reading the F3M rules:

	Quote:
	5L.1.15. Marking criteria Judging of the Freestyle task comprises five elements. Each element contains several criteria, with marks ranging from 10 to 0. Each mark is multiplied by a difficulty coefficient (K-Factor). Originality: Three criteria: New Manoeuvres: K= 2 The use of completely new manoeuvres, or manoeuvres not often used, or a diverse range of manoeuvres. Enhancers. Smoke producing devices, or streamers. K=1. The use of these devices should be used only to accentuate or emphasise some manoeuvres. Improper or inefficient use, even if impressive, should not result in full marks being given. Harmony with music: K= 3 If there is musical accompaniment, the flying and the manoeuvres should be in complete harmony with the music, and the music must not be used only as background. Harmony and Rhythm: Two criteria Setting of the manoeuvres: K= 2 The schedule must be well structured, with good placement and positioning of the manoeuvres, giving judges the best visibility of the entire performance. Safety is of prime importance. Sequence of manoeuvres: K= 2. The entire flight must retain the interest of judges, with a natural flow from start to finish, with coherent matching of manoeuvres. Performing of the manoeuvres: Three criteria Technicality of the manoeuvres: K= 2 . Complicated and technically challenging manoeuvres must be awarded higher marks, provided there is not a lack of quality in their execution. Simple and less complex manoeuvres should attract fewer marks. Quality: K= 2. The entire flight must be devoid of “missed” manoeuvres, and must exhibit all-round good quality. The fact that it is a freestyle schedule must not allow the performance to become substandard in technicality and quality. It is not intended to be a circus performance. Diversity: K= 2 The competitor must avoid repetitive use of the same manoeuvres, and only in exceptional circumstances will repeat manoeuvres be tolerated to emphasise a particular passage in the music. Safety of the flight: Safety: The impression must be created with the judges that the competitor is in absolute control of the model aircraft. The safety of persons or equipment should never be endangered during a flying performance.