One World Rules

Gentleman,
From the first time I ever heard about FAI as a kid, I wondered, why not one set of rules. Any stunt flyer could fly anywhere in the world and know that the rules would always be the same. I figured I would list some of my thoughts on this forum and see what the feedback would be. Here goes:

1. 23 meter maximum line length.
2. 17cc (1.037 cubic inches)max engine size 2 or 4 stroke.
3. 4 engines max.
4. 2.5 meter square maximum plane size.
5. 10 minute time limit (helps multiple engine planes).
6. Scoring 1-10 points. No half points. No K factors.
7. No weight penalty. 4000 gram max weight.
8. Separate Concourse(appearance)contest. Pilots decide.
9. No flyoffs between various classes.
10. 15% nitro maximum.
11. 3 classes only: Beginner, Advanced, Masters.
12. Beginner is Profile 40 only. Mandatory 1st place prize, is a full fuselage stunter kit with video on how to build it.
13. ALL maneuvers done twice. Except inverted laps, 4 total.
14. 1971 cut off for Classic.
15. Current rules for Old Time.
16. No separate skill classes for Vintage or Old Time.

All official stunt contests world-wide, would follow these rules.

Milton,

What do you hope to accomplish with this version of FAI rules?

>Milton,
>
>What do you hope to accomplish with this version of FAI
>rules?

My thought precisely. You have modified virtually every rule that you set down. Rules changes need to be carefully thought out and reasoned. Some are arbitrary, granted, such as the cut off for classic or old time. But any change is arbitrary, also, and would have no better rationale for change.

Some have very definite reasons such as line length (to fit existing circles) and flight time (to accomodate the contest schedule). Change here could produce chaos. And for safety reasons weight needs to be tied in some way to line size. (FAI rules currently does it reasonably with pull test based on weight. AMA does it not so reasonably based on engine size.)

And, no, I do not want to debate builder of the model here or elsewhere! So let's don't even go into that.

But otherwise, without rational reason for change, you have proposed nothing of value or worthy of consideration. I or anyone else could just as well propose any other set of numbers for the same no reason. Any rules proposal change needs to be made based on the current rule and rational reason for change. I see none in your proposal(s). (And besides, if you are really serious, wait for the next rules change cycle and make a proposal with the rationale attached.)

Milton:

Short response: What Len said with at least 10 !'s.

man you guys are not open to listen to anything.

I feel your pain, but I can't understand where, how or why you are hurting!

>man you guys are not open to listen to anything.

Brad, you are wrong; if his proposal made sense we would definitely listen to it. What is the point in his proposal? See Leonard's post above. Doug Moon made a proposal a couple of days ago re: a TOC for C/L; we pretty much thought it had plenty of merit (see Paul Walker's post on that thread).

>2. 1.00cc max engine size 2 or 4 stroke. 4 engines max.
This would result in us all flying .061 engines or smaller

>3. 2.5 meter square maximum plane size.
A .061 engine would have trouble pulling this and why in limit the plane size anyway we don't now and the nature of the event seems to automatically impose a limit

>4. 10 minute time limit (helps multiple engine planes).
I've never observed any problem with the 8 minute limit even with twins/multis especially being able to use electric starters.

>5. Scoring 1-10 points. No half points. No K factors.
This is way too course of a scale, there are small differences between pilots.

>7. Separate Concourse(appearance)contest. Pilots decide.
Current system at the Nats.

>9. 15% nitro max.
Why? people using 0% win contests beating people using 15%, the nitro content doesn't give an advantage as it does in racing.

>11. Beginner is Profile 40 only. Mandatory 1st place prize,
>is a full fuselage stunter kit with video on how to build
>it.
This would limit beginners, some people are better builders than others, a lot of people like smaller planes, and prefer profiles over full body stunters.

>12. ALL maneuvers done twice. Except inverted laps, 4 total.
Except for those who suffer brain cramps doing the pattern WHY?

>15. No separate classes for Vintage or Old Time.
Which pattern will they fly, the modern or old time, would be impossible to judge a meet where two different patterns are being flown.

The entire world flies the same pattern now, the problem is judging. Do we all fly large, small, or rulebook size maneuvers?

>>2. 1.00cc max engine size 2 or 4 stroke. 4 engines max.
>This would result in us all flying .061 engines or smaller
>
>Your right. I forget to put the 1.00 max size in cc. 1.00 is in cubic inches. What it should have read is 17cc or 1.037 cubic inches.
4 engines totaling .061 would be pretty darn small!!
17cc in conjunction with a 4 engine max limit allows for say; 2 Supertigre .50's, or 4 Max .25's or 1 Saito .91 etc.
O.S. Max makes a 1.08 2 stroke which would just not make it.
I believe Paul Walker used 4 .15's. Also, I believe his plane may have weighed 106 oz which appears to be 3005.047 grams
I listed everthing in metric, since that is what most of the world uses.
I tend to think in english!
Thanks

Well,

Not to sneer, just to ask some further thought...

The FAI adopted the (current) AMA figures after PA had become well established in the USA. Of course, they had to make changes so the cowboys and ex-colonials over here would be brought down to more like the same level as the guys in the cultured parts of the world who were just starting to learn this event's requirements...

(I'm not quite kidding, here...)

The international, committee, politicking approach from mostly-European-diplomacy traditions evolved FAI into a package that I doubt anyone truly loves, but where everyone faces a similar level of misery. At the same time, their little differences shift some of the emphasis in flying and scoring the flights. Fliers in the FAI-only world can concentrate on that approach exclusively, while USA fliers fly AMA, AND, if they try for the World's team or compete in other countries, FAI.

The top fliers in the world are all at unbelievably high levels of performance, and deeply trained in the FAI (and/or AMA) pattern. For any one individual to suggest a different approach to all these guys might not earn their friendship -- they have a lot invested in reaching their levels of excellence.

"...sometimes things are so obvious no one thinks of them..."

I don't fly expert any more but the TOC suggestion sounds interesting. Some one should try it and see.

I flew R/C pattern for 25 years. During that time the pattern fraturnity decided to go to the FAI pattern. It was a very big change in the way the pattern was flown here in the good old US of A. Alot of pattern flyers quit flying pattern all together. Many went to non competative flying such as IMAA.
As I see it, Stunt in this country is an American icon that has stayed very close to its roots, and is steeped in tradition. Just one of the things I really like is the fact that we don't change the pattern every two years as they did in R/C pattern. You can build a plane, and be fairly certain it will be good for several years because you do not have to change it just to meet a new set of requirements of a new pattern. If we were to go to FAI just to unify stunt the world over, it would not be long before the FAI would be dictating what we do here in stunt. I like the way we do it here. My two cents.

i agree the toc sounds very interesting. im sorry it just seems like a lot of people are quick to say no it wont work. keep it the way it is. and i have to agree if you changed the fai it would tick off alot of people.

Hi

I think that a lot of problems with rules arise from people having
different understandings of the aims or reasons for the rule.
You need to clearly state what your trying to achieve, not only
overall but with each and every rule. That way people can have a
sensible exchange of ideas and refine the rule to best achieve the
stated aim. If we have different aims in mind, that's when arguments
start because people think your aim must be the same as theirs and
it's not so your rule just seems stupid to them and they just think
your being pig headed.

People hold to different aims for their view of the ideal contest
and that really in the basis for having different contest events
with their own set of rules.

I'm not into C/L competition but was into RC glider years ago and I
think this sort of thing provided the impetus for LSF, Man on man
soaring etc as more enjoyable alternatives to F3B. From my perspective, it has been a real success story to have different
events designed to get more flying and more enjoyment for the competators. Those who like F3B still do that, those who don't,
do something else. Making just one contest event is not necessarily
a good thing IMHO. If however the differents events are very similar
in aim and intent, it seems a waste of resources not to consolidate
them.

>Hi
>
>I think that a lot of problems with rules arise from people
>having different understandings of the aims or reasons for the
>rule. You need to clearly state what your trying to achieve, not
>only overall but with each and every rule. That way people can
>have a sensible exchange of ideas and refine the rule to best
>achieve the stated aim.
>
>Regards,
>Ken

Hi Ken,
I think your response is excellent and quite thoughtful to say the least. You are absolutely correct, I know exactly whats going on in my head concerning my proposals, but without explanation of EACH and EVERONE of the rules, then you leave things up in the air, so to speak. The list is merely things that I have been thinking about for a long time. They represent MY personal rules list. I would be just as interested in seeing your rules list.
What I particularly like about your response is, while it suggests changes or improvements as to how to proceeed, you do not discourage, denegrate or revile in any matter. COOL!!

>Gentleman,
>From the first time I ever heard about FAI as a kid, I
>wondered, why not one set of rules. Any stunt flyer could
>fly anywhere in the world and know that the rules would
>always be the same. I figured I would list some of my
>thoughts on this forum and see what the feedback would be.
>Here goes:
>
>1. 23 meter maximum line length.
>2. 17cc (1.037 cubic inches)max engine size 2 or 4 stroke.
>3. 4 engines max.
>4. 2.5 meter square maximum plane size.
>5. 10 minute time limit (helps multiple engine planes).
>6. Scoring 1-10 points. No half points. No K factors.
>7. No weight penalty. 4000 gram max weight.
>8. Separate Concourse(appearance)contest. Pilots decide.
>9. No flyoffs between various classes.
>10. 15% nitro maximum.
>11. 3 classes only: Beginner, Advanced, Masters.
>12. Beginner is Profile 40 only. Mandatory 1st place prize,
>is a full fuselage stunter kit with video on how to build
>it.
>13. ALL maneuvers done twice. Except inverted laps, 4 total.
>14. 1971 cut off for Classic.
>15. Current rules for Old Time.
>16. No separate skill classes for Vintage or Old Time.
>
>All official stunt contests world-wide, would follow these
>rules.

I think a better starting point would be to use the latest FAI rules proposal. This is not an event where you want to or need to start from scratch.

Otherwise, you are specifying a lot of things that don't need specification. Nitro - why? Classic and OTS - why? Specifying prizes?

I assume this is an earnest attempt, but there's just no way this is anything but DOA. We can't even get the FAI to accept the basic tenets of the event, much less something as intrusive and extensive a change as this.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but really, I don't see what problems this solves, and we are not starting with a clean sheet of paper after 60 years of a very, very successful event.

Whoa! And I get accused of being a smash-mouth sort of person. Nice job, Len. Give the guy room to put forward his reasons for the changes; you just jumped on him.

My sense of the situation is that proparc has put some thought into his proposals.

That said, tilting at windmills does come to mind. Some **really good** ideas go in one end of the FAI rules-making mill only to be unrecognizable once spewed forth in an official pronouncement.

For an example, using a sundial, sum the number of hours required to get through first round of W/Cs competition next month. To place in context, look around at number of circles available for use.

I don't recall who mentioned this, nor the exact statement, but it does appear to me as if we in the U.S. have the best of both worlds: Access to FAI events such as the World Champs for the small numbers of people interested, the even smaller numbers of people making the team. The rest of the time we enjoy the much neater, more narrowly focused way AMA handles the rules-making process.

And the events are sufficiently similar that practice for one applies to the other. I've flown both, and the only differences I noticed are that one can do the overhead eights a lap earlier in F2B and the F2B max flight time is 7 minutes, rather than 8. If you fly an AMA pattern within 7 minutes, you should be OK anywhere in the world.

>And the events are sufficiently similar that practice for
>one applies to the other. I've flown both, and the only
>differences I noticed are that one can do the overhead
>eights a lap earlier in F2B and the F2B max flight time is 7
>minutes, rather than 8. If you fly an AMA pattern within 7
>minutes, you should be OK anywhere in the world.

Precisely, Howard. We (personally) time it out for the engine to quit at about 6 minutes, 20 seconds. And that gives about ten or twelve laps after completing the clover. Ample time under AMA or FAI. Otherwise, with the exception of the description of the landing, you fly the same pattern. Who cares if they use a different scoring system? (Well, I guess if you fly lumpy square eights, one would.) But if you do good in one, you will do good in the other.

Anyone have any secret practice sites scouted out for those of us who are coming up to watch the Worlds but would like to get a little practice in as well?

Sorry Dan, but there has to be a logical reason for doing things. If the World Champs are going to be a drag out contest this year because (as usual) they will be contested on one circle, what would happen if we gave each flyer 10 minutes instead of the present 7? And we wouldn't have four circles available if we went to 75 foot lines. (But I am sure the AMA would have no problem extending the L-pad for us to accomodate the additional 20 feet needed in each direction.) There is already a proposal to increase engine size. Why go different? We always have people proposing a different cut-off date for the Classics. Why stop there? I suggest that we make it ten years after each contestant's birthday. That way there would be different cut-off dates for each flyer and the younger flyers could fly newer equipment to compensate for the older flyers' age and experience. Makes just as much sense, correct?

Every one of us could come with a proposal like this with just different numbers and I am sure we could all "justify" our thinking.

I have already consumed too much time on this.

Moving on....

>Sorry Dan, but there has to be a logical reason for doing
>things.

Imagine that, Len lecturing me on logic. What is this world coming to?

>Gentleman,
>From the first time I ever heard about FAI as a kid, I
>wondered, why not one set of rules. Any stunt flyer could
>fly anywhere in the world and know that the rules would
>always be the same. I figured I would list some of my
>thoughts on this forum and see what the feedback would be.

My reaction to all of this is "Why?!"

Right now, except for one country, you can go to any other country in the world where there is organized model flying and will find a standard set of rules for CL Aerobatics. Except for the United States, I do not know of any country that uses anything for their CL Aerobatics event other than the FAI rules. The rules are the same all over the world, except for what we do here. I do not think there would be a very warm response to any of the ideas proposed here.

- 75 foot lines will not fit on many existing facilities.
- Why should there be a limit on the number of engines?
- Does the 2.5 meter square limit the length and span to 2.5 meters each (about 100 inches), or is this 9,500 square in max area?
- Why 10 minute max flight. FAI is 7 minutes and is adequate, even for four engine bomber pilots that have to hand start the engines.
- Why only 10 point spread in whole numbers. Half point increments are not enough and that is why FAI scoreing is going to decimal or 0.1 point increments.
- It will be a long time before FAI does away with K-factors.
- For safety reasons, the current weight restrictions seem to be adequate as does the FAI and AMA pull test requirements. why change?
- Concours: this is not recognized in FAI or AMA now. why change?
- There are no flyoff between classes in FAI or AMA now except for the Walker Cup at our Nationals for the Walker Cup to be recognized as the National Stunt Champion. This is a tradition that is over 50 years old and there is no reason to change it now.
- A 15% limit on nitro would be meaningless in most countries.
- Let individual countries handle any proficiency classes. The FAI rules do not accommodate proficiency classes now, nor is there any reason to do so.
- Mandatory prizes??
- Double the number of manuevers. Why? (This would be fun, but will unnecessarily extend the length of any contest.)
- Classic and OT events simply and logically need to be kept separate from any standard set of rules used on a world wide basis.

I is great to think outside the box, but there is already a standard world-wide set of stunt rules that have evolved over the years.

Instead of discussing every one of those rules and their acceptability, I would like to suggest that we look at the other point of Proparc's posting: one set of rules.

I really like "one set of rules" idea. With US being the only country in the world with its own set of rules, why don't we adapt FAI rules? With one exception/addition though: appearance judging and appropriate point handicap/advantage. I think FAI should adapt appearance judging into F2B regulations as it is currently defined in AMA regulations. I think building skills should be celebrated and awarded accordingly!

Entire world using the same set of regulations is a really good idea. I think FAI+Appearance is the best best combination possible.

Steven Yampolsky
Webmaster for www.control-line.org

P.S. I used to be on the fence(more like didn't care either way) about appearance points in stunt competition until this past Sunday. Last weekend I went to Ron Connors contest in Massachusetts. Present at the contest were two amaizingly beautiful models: "Miss Olson" built by Guerry Byers and "The Coke machine" by Dan Fish. I mean they were BEAUTIFUL! If we had no regulations on appearance judging, chances are, Guerry and Dan would not have spent as much effort on building the models and we would not have had a chance to enjoy those works of art. Even though I am currently flying a model I did not build, I beleive people who built their own models deserve the advantage. I would go as far as suggest that appearance should get the same max amount of points as a maneuver instead of half the number of points.

One other optiion would be for the FAI to adopt the AMA rules. Then, there would be one set of rules for the whole world. Seems kind of backwards that the country that established the sport would have to change to suit everybody else

>One other optiion would be for the FAI to adopt the AMA
>rules. Then, there would be one set of rules for the whole
>world. Seems kind of backwards that the country that
>established the sport would have to change to suit everybody
>else

AMEN!!!

That's the way the world is, sometimes.

Jim:-(

On that basis it's about time you guys gave up baseball and took up cricket.
On second thoughts don't. Every time we introduce a new sport to a country, in a very short time they are thrashing us at it.