V současné době se v ACES projednávají návrhy na úpravu pravidel pro WW1. Zde je návrh z Polska. sdělte mi prosím Vaše názory na jednotlivé body návrhu. Stačí zavolat, nebo to připojte pod můj příspěvek.
K jejich návrhu: nelíbí se mi zvýšení hmotnosti na 1800g, extra (+) body za konstrukci bych uděloval jen v případě, že model je celý konstrukční, tj křídlo, trup i ocasní plochy. Tj. ne pouze pokud má model konstrukční křídlo a trup např. z laminátu. Nesouhlasím s jejich názorem na profil křídla. Pokud se na modelu použije originální profil křídla (tj ten samý, jako měl vzor), může být jeho tloušťka menší než 10%. Souhlasím s jejich názorem na „trhače stuh“. Povolil bych jejich pouřívání ve stejném omezení, jaká máme stanovena pro WW2. Souhlasím se zachováním bonusu za 4T spalovací motor. Nakonec „vlajky“ zamezující prudké zatáčení ihned za pozemními cíli. Mě se návrh na jejich instalaci zdá rozumný. Cílem je snížit riziko srážky modelů v oblasti pozemních cílů, když jeden z modelů prudce zahne.
Polish Aircombat pilots have some proposals for new Rules.
We want that our suggestions were taken into account when you will create the new Rules.
pkt. 22.214.171.124 The Wing
What does it mean: „Exception: Original concave profiles can keep the original thickness.“? Is this mean that we can use, in our constructions,original plane airfoil and then we can keep their original thickness or we can use original modeller airfoils in example: http://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/afplots/goe499.gif with thickness less than 10%?
Do we approved to use symetrical or biconvex airfoils? I.E.: http://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/afplots/naca2412.gif or http://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/afplots/naca64a010.gif . If not then we must have this clearly written.
In our regulation we approve only flat or concave airfoils with thickness min. 10%.
This is good becouse we can not build aerobatic or too fast models.
pkt. 126.96.36.199 Wing structure
We agree that we must promote and reward classical wooden construction of wing. We think that write: „If the leading edge, the trailing edge and the rips are made of wood the airplane gets 40 (?) bonus points.“ is OK. We should not take this restriction to elevator or rudder.
But at all we should not forbid other type of construction or technologies. So high extra points for wooden construction makes, that building them are really profitable. It is simillar point like with choice: monoplane or biplane. Most of us flying biplanes not only because their more beautiful but for getting extra points too. By limitation of technologies we provide to less no of pilots in this cathegory. We should make this cathegory of aircombat more popular by pull more number of pilots.
In all technologies is possibilities to build „killer“ wings, in classic wooden constructions from ribs, in GFK/CFK composites or covered styropor. Technology is not so important like constructor meaning.
Models with composites GFK/CFK are expensive and delicate (if there are light weight) and there are difficult to repair. Light models in this cathegory are even more or equal delikate like wooden. Covered styropor is perfect for new pilots who builds WWII models, for their this is simplest for beginning.
So we prefer high score for classical wooden construction of wing without restrictions to others.
pkt. 3.1.3 Streamer catcher
We think that we should allow using streamer catchers but with limitation like in ACES WWII. Then, there is no danger in catching streamer at the and of wing. We think that using them, we reducing aggresive flying because it is a little bit easier to cut streamer not only by propeller.
We propose to add this point to discussion.
pkt. 3.2.1 Engine points
10 points for 4 stroke engine is much too less. It should be equal to biplane or structure points. The sound of 4 stroke engine is too much beautiful to loosing them by electricity without soul 🙂
pkt. 3.5. Model weight
What is the weight of your models? In Poland, weight of plane is between 1200g and 1650 g(older models) without fuel or with fuel 1300g to 1750g.
Many models in full construction is not light and weighs about 1600g – a new model. This applies to large models with wooden fuselage, like .: Fokker D.VII, Balilla, Aviatic Berg DI …
We suggested that maximum weight should be up to 1800g.
pkt. 188.8.131.52. Start
Remark: the same procedure as in Austria.
We think that the starting procedure should begin with preparation/starting time. This is for the safety and concern about the possibility of a collision during take-off. In the Polish Rules we have 2 minutes preparation/starting time, but we all think that it is necessary to reduce the time to revive the startup, but not remove completely. WW1 models are very sensitive to the wind during take-off but many times we can not set direction of safetyline in to the wind to help models to take-off. 60 seconds preparation time will allow us to quickly start the engine and standing in line for safe and easy start into the wind, and not only perpendicular to the safety line. We still talking about the collision in air and forget about the possibility of a collision at the take-off when several models start in the same time.
pkt. 4.11.3 Flags
We think that they are unnecessary but can be as optional.
pkt. 4.12 Collision
Here, opinions are divided. Part agrees to the proposals by the German Rules, and some want to remain unchanged.
We agree with the opinion that the point should be reduced, but … we have a suggestion:
Maximum: 120 pts.
4 stroke – +40
multiwing (biplane, triplane, quadruplane etc.) – +40
wing structure (only wood) – +40
We agree that the pilot figure, guns, struts and wires in monoplane should always be in the model at the start. If any part is damaged during take-off, flight or landing points will not be deleted.
NC1 Poland WW1 Daniel Skiba
NC2 Poland WW1 Karol Wdowikowski