Thread Tools
Jul 24, 2017, 09:00 PM
Registered User
Have you looked at the F3-RES thread in the thermal section? That appears to be an inexpensive and interesting alternative too.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jul 24, 2017, 09:15 PM
Overkill is underrated
elac2az's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz
The idea behind the circles is to try to keep people from inadvertently wandering into the path of another plane.... particularly one launching.
Wiz, given you fly F3K, I think you're aware already that wandering into the path of a QT is a concern in that format. Though the TALES planes are 1/2m larger, and at least twice as heavy, I don't think the landing circles makes TALES safer than an F3k event. All the "hazards" one would encounter in F3k are still present and just as avoidable IMO, if TALES is flown like an F3K contest- no circles required. And I have thought about the set-up of a TALES contest site and the circles just don't strike me as simple overhead. If you can land your plane in a circle, I will posit the pilot(s) can simply avoid each other as they do in F3K.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz
If we're to have a launch bonus, I'd rather have it done exactly like F5J but the way the rules are now, scoring is simple and the equipment is simple and affordable too so I'm willing to live with it for awhile to see how it goes.
I've offered an approach but am the first to admit the only way to know if it can work is to try it out and adjust the task window until reading and recording an Altis altitude and relaunching fits the level of challenge you are seeking for a given task.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz
Since it was my goofy idea in the first place, I'm hoping it takes off. The more people/clubs fly it, the more input for improvements we'll get and the better this will be. Please just keep in mind that while being dirt cheap isn't a goal, keeping it reasonably affordable is.
And affordability is an excellent goal! I'm glad you put this contest idea out here on RCG and if EVEF chooses to fly it, I will be sure you get feedback in the interest of improving TALES.


-Ed
EVEF Prez'
Jul 24, 2017, 10:09 PM
Charles Martin
BavarianCharles's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by fv38wheels
Have you looked at the F3-RES thread in the thermal section? That appears to be an inexpensive and interesting alternative too.
Only if ARF planes become available. Not many US pilots want to invest the many hours it takes to build an F3 RES kit.

Jul 24, 2017, 10:12 PM
Time for me to Fly...
Mr. Wiz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by fv38wheels
Have you looked at the F3-RES thread in the thermal section? That appears to be an inexpensive and interesting alternative too.
Forgive me but that just seems like a giant step backwards. I don't want to fly planes with spoilers instead of flaps, nor do I want to fly planes without ailerons. Lastly, I don't want to bring launching devices every time I go fly. Other than that, it sounds great!
Latest blog entry: The latest and greatest
Jul 24, 2017, 10:26 PM
Dark Side of the Red Merle
Curtis Suter's Avatar
The pilots stations are just that, a place to line up folks so that launches and landings are orderly. Folks will be launching and landing simultaneously. By having lanes or corridors it works quite well. If a pilot is unable to make it back to his/her landing spot and are within 75m they get their flight points. However, the time it takes to retrieve the model, and get back to the launch area the task window is ticking away. So when the rules say you don't get penalized for landing in an unused pilot station it makes sense. Many times we have five stations setup for ALES and only have four per group. So one station is never used but pilots may choose any of the five available. If you have flown an ALES event this system works well if CD's enforce launch and land lanes as the rules state.

Oh, recall TALES has already been tested in actual contests by some great minds and it seems reasonable to me from a TD/ALES/F5J experiences.
Last edited by Curtis Suter; Jul 25, 2017 at 09:43 AM.
Jul 24, 2017, 10:40 PM
Time for me to Fly...
Mr. Wiz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by elac2az
Let me first address the rules as written: the pilot either flies the default 100m launch cut-off for all three flights in a 2, 4, 6 minute task OR they select the 60m for 20 bonus points per flight and are stuck with their read of the conditions for the entire round if the air goes kaput. Though the rules don't state this, I am assuming that the pilot has to make the target time to earn the 20pt bonus...otherwise why wouldn't you always declare for the lower launch height?

Also, the option to launch to 60m means the pilot's plane has to be equipped with an Altis which allows the launch cut-off to be easily changed between a pilot's rounds- but you have to take the time to change it. Just having to change it means you have already read conditions beforehand and are convinced they will hold up until your round flies. And the conditions will need to remain consistent enough for you to have any hope of making all the tasks from 60m. I think we all know that conditions aren't likely to last long enough. So I suspect that the 60m option will quickly be ignored as it will prove to much a risk to making the target time. Making the target time is NUMERO UNO.

As to your original question Curtis... for an F5J launch bonus to work, where you have not one flight (like F5J) but multiple flights being made in a task window (like F3K), all the flights need a launch altitude recorded for scoring. So either the pilot must land- read and record the launch altitude from an Altis before their next flight OR the Altis records would have to be looked at on a laptop after the round to extract each of the launch heights. The laptop option sounds like a death blow to this concept. Not acceptable. So the question is could the pilot land, read off his launch altitude (timer records it) and relaunch in 30 seconds...? Maybe the task windows would need to be lengthened another minute to allow for this. And the Altis (to the best of my knowledge) is the only device suited to recording an altitude, then being relaunched and recording another altitude, and so on.

Not sure that my answer addresses all the elements of scoring Curtis, but first the idea of using an F5J launch height points system has to be found something worth trying inlight of what I pointed out regarding reading an Altis between relaunches in a multiple flight task.

-Ed
I agree about the launch height option problem and FWIW, I was against it. What "I" had in mind, is launch height similar to that of a good DLG launch so that's where the 60m came from. That may be a little too low for many 2m planes available today but I believe there are some that 60m would be good for. Now, most people have a CAM device now and its limited to 100m so that where that height limitation came from. The Altitude Permit device Kennedy sells will allow you to dial in any height you want and it's affordable. I have one and I like it! We could fly this and decide that 65m makes more sense.... or 70m. We just need to play with it and help from other clubs in this regard would be great.

So why am I pushing for lower launch heights? Because I like the nature of flying and working low level lift, like we do in F3K. I think it's challenging and fun but I hate asking people to buy anything new.... But here is the issue: If we launch too high the tasks can end up too easy. If we make the tasks harder for a higher launch, the flight windows get too long and I also think we loose the intended F3Kish nature of the event. What we need is for more people to take the framework we've put together and fly it....and give us your feedback. I believe this format has some merit. So far, we've had a great time flying it but there is no sense in carving the rules in stone until we've done some more research.
Latest blog entry: The latest and greatest
Jul 25, 2017, 09:13 AM
Oleg Golovidov
olgol's Avatar
CAMs used to come in two varieties, one being 50/100/200m. Not sure if Randy still sells that one. If you set the bonus launch to 50m instead of 60m, people could use CAMs also.
Just FYI.
Jul 25, 2017, 09:30 AM
Time for me to Fly...
Mr. Wiz's Avatar
Nope. I emailed him and he doesn't but if I had a big enough order, he'd make some.
Latest blog entry: The latest and greatest
Jul 25, 2017, 12:40 PM
Registered User
Sensoar's Avatar
+1 on some great comments and 60m launches


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz
I agree about the launch height option problem and FWIW, I was against it. What "I" had in mind, is launch height similar to that of a good DLG launch so that's where the 60m came from. That may be a little too low for many 2m planes available today but I believe there are some that 60m would be good for. Now, most people have a CAM device now and its limited to 100m so that where that height limitation came from. The Altitude Permit device Kennedy sells will allow you to dial in any height you want and it's affordable. I have one and I like it! We could fly this and decide that 65m makes more sense.... or 70m. We just need to play with it and help from other clubs in this regard would be great.

So why am I pushing for lower launch heights? Because I like the nature of flying and working low level lift, like we do in F3K. I think it's challenging and fun but I hate asking people to buy anything new.... But here is the issue: If we launch too high the tasks can end up too easy. If we make the tasks harder for a higher launch, the flight windows get too long and I also think we loose the intended F3Kish nature of the event. What we need is for more people to take the framework we've put together and fly it....and give us your feedback. I believe this format has some merit. So far, we've had a great time flying it but there is no sense in carving the rules in stone until we've done some more research.
Jul 25, 2017, 01:08 PM
Overkill is underrated
elac2az's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz
I agree about the launch height option problem and FWIW, I was against it. What "I" had in mind, is launch height similar to that of a good DLG launch so that's where the 60m came from. That may be a little too low for many 2m planes available today but I believe there are some that 60m would be good for. Now, most people have a CAM device now and its limited to 100m so that where that height limitation came from. The Altitude Permit device Kennedy sells will allow you to dial in any height you want and it's affordable. I have one and I like it! We could fly this and decide that 65m makes more sense.... or 70m. We just need to play with it and help from other clubs in this regard would be great.

So why am I pushing for lower launch heights? Because I like the nature of flying and working low level lift, like we do in F3K. I think it's challenging and fun but I hate asking people to buy anything new.... But here is the issue: If we launch too high the tasks can end up too easy. If we make the tasks harder for a higher launch, the flight windows get too long and I also think we loose the intended F3Kish nature of the event. What we need is for more people to take the framework we've put together and fly it....and give us your feedback. I believe this format has some merit. So far, we've had a great time flying it but there is no sense in carving the rules in stone until we've done some more research.
Wiz,
I agree with all you say above. Especially with regards to using an altitude adjustable device to help seek out what might be the best compromise for launch height cut-off. The more I've thought about it, the more I believe the event should sport one launch height with no attempt to include a "bonus" height. One launch height is K.I.S.S. Good rules are created when they are simple to read and execute. IMO, the Bonus launch height aspect of the proposed rules is not simple to execute, and may be overly penalizing to pilots given changing conditions (air).

Clubs should take the proposed rules and experiment with the elements of them that they may feel need a attention (like trying different launch height cut-offs). Their results/finding/recommendations should be reported back to Jack so he can consider possible changes prior to a vote of the pilots.

-Ed
EVEF Prez'
Jul 25, 2017, 01:25 PM
Time for me to Fly...
Mr. Wiz's Avatar
Something to keep in mind, if anyone is considering trying this... Many of the 2m F5J type planes available out there are ideal. For instance, I'm flying a Reichard Magic and it's a pretty good place to start... not too expensive. If the conditions aren't too heavy, the Electron from Kennedy works well too. I'm sure there are some others that would be ideal, like the Kappa or Taser but they a bit spendy for a try it and see situation. Again, we at GDSHS have been having a blast with it and nobody is flying an expensive plane, so far.... Some are flying Radians.
Latest blog entry: The latest and greatest
Jul 25, 2017, 01:47 PM
Dark Side of the Red Merle
Curtis Suter's Avatar
I am excited that my Tarantula Hawk will be her Thursday!
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...k-2M-Sailplane

Curtis
Jul 25, 2017, 03:18 PM
Closed Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by BavarianCharles
Only if ARF planes become available. Not many US pilots want to invest the many hours it takes to build an F3 RES kit.

You are probably dead right and I personally I find that really sad.
Jul 25, 2017, 03:20 PM
Closed Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis Suter
I am excited that my Tarantula Hawk will be her Thursday!
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...k-2M-Sailplane

Curtis
Curtis, That is a very pretty airplane and would fit right in with this stuff.
Jul 25, 2017, 05:04 PM
Overkill is underrated
elac2az's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz
Something to keep in mind, if anyone is considering trying this... Many of the 2m F5J type planes available out there are ideal. For instance, I'm flying a Reichard Magic and it's a pretty good place to start... not too expensive....snip...
I'll be using a Pulsar Pro FH.

-Ed


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Delaware DLG contest for 2017. eteet Hand Launch 3 Jan 23, 2017 09:51 AM
Discussion Not as bad as the gun or flame thrower, but not good for the multirotor image either J Mitchel Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 2 Jun 14, 2016 07:27 PM
Discussion DLG Throwers Back? fishbed Hand Launch 30 Jan 25, 2014 07:52 AM
Question Any DLG throwers in Fargo, ND or Moorhead? Batmanwpg Hand Launch 0 Jun 01, 2008 09:07 PM
Discussion DLG launch for non-DLG Fling rcsoar4fun Hand Launch 6 Aug 07, 2006 12:05 PM