Flite Fest 2017 International Air Races

[mybad]

Some Inspiration ...

Interesting: Golden Age of Aviation ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDac6-q3D4g

http://www.goldenageair.org/collection.htm

 

[jim_buxton]

Has there been any mention of dates for FTFF 2017?

 

[HilldaFlyer]

As far as scoring, the rough plan is as far as fast as you can go. We're looking at some scheme of average lap time with a correction factor reducing the average for every lap flown. Run it crazy fast once, the average is low, but as somebody puts around their 12th lap, their corrected average may beat the zippy one-lapper. Tortus might beat the hare, but the slower the tortus goes the farther he will need to go to make up for the low average. The math is in debate at the moment, but suggestions are welcome.

As far as energy goes.... For the moment, the plan is everybody has the same to start with. Sip or guzzle, it's up to you, but too slow or too short will hurt your final score.

For the endurance race, I think the overarching goal is to promote innovation and see what kind of aircraft and power setups are developed to produce a longer sustained flight (not gliding). If this is the goal, then I would like to promote the "open class" - all and anything goes (except for fuel, of course). I believe that we are all in it for the fun of it and learning and not the win.

I like the concept of some formula for balancing the speed with time in the air - but I wouldn't have a clue how to come up with such a formula that would balance the two. The real issue for me is that I wouldn't want to be the one counting laps - I'd loose track at 15.

Just a note about the amount of energy. If you want to include alternative chemistry batteries like the NCR18650B which has 3500 mAh capacity, then the rule/guideline should include that capacity since it doesn't come in a variety of sizes.

 

[Craftydan]

For the endurance race, I think the overarching goal is to promote innovation and see what kind of aircraft and power setups are developed to produce a longer sustained flight (not gliding). If this is the goal, then I would like to promote the "open class" - all and anything goes (except for fuel, of course). I believe that we are all in it for the fun of it and learning and not the win.

I like the concept of some formula for balancing the speed with time in the air - but I wouldn't have a clue how to come up with such a formula that would balance the two. The real issue for me is that I wouldn't want to be the one counting laps - I'd loose track at 15.

lap counts would be the spotter's job . . . and yeah, not exactly an exciting one. The FPV at least allowed for longer laps, which would keep the count low, but issues with FPV are another concern.

You bring up an interesting point . . . how do we prevent thermaling? This isn't a TD (Thermal Duration) contest, so perhaps a minimum wingloading to reduce the effects of buoyant air? A minimum cube wing loading? Opinions? Other ideas?

Just a note about the amount of energy. If you want to include alternative chemistry batteries like the NCR18650B which has 3500 mAh capacity, then the rule/guideline should include that capacity since it doesn't come in a variety of sizes.

That's why I lean Wh. While differing chemistry may have different charge densities (by mass or volume) and different instantaneous power output, if we stick to a measure of contained energy your motor cannot draw any more than that amount of power in a flight -- sipping or slurping. Pick a high voltage pack? It's still voltage * current-time. Think single cell NiCad will win? Then it's 1.2v * capacity in Ah = Wh. I find it completely fair to have a 2S 1000mAh pack run head to head with a 5S 400mAh . . . or a 1S 6200mAh NiCad, if the builder thought they could get what they need out of that. This allows the builder to balance the technology -- if it's plusses (like less mass) out-weigh the minuses (lower power output), then make the most of it.

We could even convert the fuel down to contained Wh and limit that . . . but it'd be a mighty small fuel tank.

 

[willsonman]

I really like where you are going Dan. Please come up with a reasonable energy that would be fair. Keep in mind that if you want to go FPV on that you need to power your equipment as well.

I think if we stick to a square wing loading that would complicate things less and also, keep the debates free and clear of Reynolds numbers and such

I had envisioned that the subjects would all be nearly the same size or so if they are all built around the power pod. I'm still hopeful that folks can like this "neutralizer" to try and make things more fair. How you power it will be the challenge. If you can come up with a way to save weight than go for it. Want to glass your foam? Fine. There are just more ways to make something go better without having to re-design it. Keeping the "look" of the 30's racers is part of that fun factor but we can get Steven to make some sweet skins... all the better.

 

[Tench745]

I don't know if I'll ever get to Flitefest, but I'd love to compete in one of these if I do. I'd be in favor of anything in the "spirit of the era." I also think that the FT powerpod might not be the best equalizer. It's too big for what it does and too small to be very useful. I think they've realized this themselves as they've been getting away from the designs that use it more and more lately. Perhaps requiring an FT elements style firewall would be a better compromise?

 

[willsonman]

My contribution to the excitement announced here.

 

[offaxis]

willsonman, will the bugatti 100p be a dtfb build with a power pod? Is my understanding of the build-off requirements for DTFB flitetest stype plans and powerpod correct?

 

[RCBuildIdeas]

This sounds like a fun idea. What about a couple different classes of racers; one class that has the power pod constraint and another that uses just the firewall? class A would race in a class A race and so on...

 

[willsonman]

No, the Bugatti will be a one-off scratch build. Not an entry in the design off at all.

The design around the powerpod is just for sizing. If you want to eliminate it to save weight by all means. Its just incentive for people to get more creative in the spirit of friendly competition.

 

[HilldaFlyer]

FF2017 Int. Race: Crosby CR-5

Well, I finally made a decision for a racer
Crosby CR-5

The plan is to build close to 1/3 scale which puts the wingspan just over 60". Construction will be made primarily with foam core skinned with fiberglass. The rest will be figured out as I go.

Build Thread Here

 

[Aviator08]

This sounds like a interesting challenge. I pick this one. The Laird Super Solution. 1931

 

[Mid7night]

Ok, I don't even know if I'll be able to go or not, but I want to claim a design:

Boeing Monomail, 1930-1933:

 

[RCBuildIdeas]

FPV element is partially to grab those interested in FPV racing, but more than anything else it overcomes the long-range problems an endurance course has. You're right, duration and limited channels is going to be a damper on this...maybe not enough to stop it, but it is something that hasn't been considered yet.

Perhaps shorter entry heats with lower packs to narrow down to a few for the full endurance run? Dunno. I'm seeing this is a place we need a few more ideas. . .

As far as scoring, the rough plan is as far as fast as you can go. We're looking at some scheme of average lap time with a correction factor reducing the average for every lap flown. Run it crazy fast once, the average is low, but as somebody puts around their 12th lap, their corrected average may beat the zippy one-lapper. Tortus might beat the hare, but the slower the tortus goes the farther he will need to go to make up for the low average. The math is in debate at the moment, but suggestions are welcome.

As far as energy goes.... For the moment, the plan is everybody has the same to start with. Sip or guzzle, it's up to you, but too slow or too short will hurt your final score.

Just a thought about the endurance challenge; Assuming that the racers will have fully charged packs at the start of their flight and if the lap count was kept to something like...10 laps, could a calculation be made at the end of a successful 10 lap flight that measures the voltage left in the battery, the battery size, and the time it took to complete the 10 laps? I'm not putting FPV into the equation here, but if you know what the FPV power draw is this might be put into the equation also. Just trying to think about how to allow as many participants as possible.

 

[willsonman]

I think it is fantastic that people are digging into the history and finding subject they want to contribute. I still would love to hear more ideas about scoring and contest design.

In the meantime, a few pictures of the progress of my prototype of Art Chester's Goon.
Dry fit of one wing half into the front end of the fuselage. Fuselage is made of two sheets of foam. Internal structuring supports the pod and maintains the shape.


Completed fuselage with hatch. Some tweaking is needed on the plans based on its assembly. Nothing major. I will say that this fuselage is exceptionally light for its size. I stripped off the paper on the inside to save weight and you really can tell the difference.

 

[HilldaFlyer]

Just a thought about the endurance challenge; Assuming that the racers will have fully charged packs at the start of their flight and if the lap count was kept to something like...10 laps, could a calculation be made at the end of a successful 10 lap flight that measures the voltage left in the battery, the battery size, and the time it took to complete the 10 laps? I'm not putting FPV into the equation here, but if you know what the FPV power draw is this might be put into the equation also. Just trying to think about how to allow as many participants as possible.

Endurance Contest:
My cautionary note to a plan like this is the added complexity to measuring, recording and remeasuring... calculating - all in the name of good fun (KIS). If PFV is going to be a requirement, then that will limit the number of flights at one time... unless the contest will allow for logging the flight at the pilots home field with video and use that as submission to the contest - kind of like what Ed at Experimental Airlines does with his contests.

I see this as the FT community bringing their innovations to the table to increase the range of flight. I think there will be more learned and shared if the rules were simple and fairly open in order to promote the most envelope-braking concepts. One idea I had was to just have power classes (like weight classes in wrestling, dragsters, etc.) where pilots enter into a power class based on their battery, run their planes with/without FPV under a flight ceiling to prevent thermalling and the last plane in the air wins that power class. All planes could fly at the same time and some of the lower power class may out last the higher power classes. People with FPV could run larger circuit around the entire field (which would increase endurance due to minimized turning) while those using LOS would just circle closer. If FPV is a requirement - perhaps a weight equal to an FPV setup could be added to the non-FVP aircraft.

The reason I am promoting a non-FPV entry for this contest is that I am just getting into FPV and I am finding it rather difficult to fly a plane from that perspective and entry level with FPV has a high financial cost hurdle that might inhibit innovation.

 

[RCBuildIdeas]

I agree with HilldaFlyer that the post flight measurements and calculations might take some of the fun out of the contest if it gets too complicated. I like the idea of the power classes also. I guess if the endurance contest focus is on distance flown (and I'm not sure that's the case), how do we keep the flight times down and yet know which model had the potential for the longest distance flown? If it's distance covered in a fixed amount of time, based on power class; maybe that's an idea?

 

[Rasterize]

Well here is my "if/then" Statement for the Flite Fest 2017 International Air Races...
If I have the time to design it and if I can get it to fly and if I even make it to FTFF 2017 then...
I'm doing a Travel Air Type R "Mystery Ship". They were built by the Travel Air company in the late 1920s and early 1930s. They got the name "Mystery Ships" because the first plane of the series (R614K) was built entirely in secrecy and kept under cover for the 1929 Cleveland Air Races.



Either of these color schemes. Do they have a race category for the "Best Dressed Aircraft"? I motion for one. lol!

 

[kevparang]

I pick this one if I can get it LOL:
AIRBUS A380!!!!!!

 

[Craftydan]

Keeping an endurance race short and lively is indeed at cross purposes

Speed races are simple -- you can build inside XYZ boundaries, cross the finish line first. Endurance races . . . not so much.

For power class I have concerns of fracturing the contestant pool. I'd love to see so many pilots we have to break them down by class, but I doubt that will happen. I half hope for 10-ish rather spectacular contestants . . . not the 30-50-ish we'd need to start breaking down by class and still have fair sized heats. While it's under the same umbrella, fracturing into classes creates separate "events". If this catches on, then perhaps future events will have enough to pre-define a few classes, but I don't think we'll be there by FTFF-17.

Separating average lap time by power class just becomes a speed race among the members of that class -- not a solid measure of endurance if the winner was just about tapped out as he crossed the line but planes lower in the ranking could have flown twice as far and had power left. Endurance races need to let the turtle beat the hare if the turtle has the longer range . . . but do we want to wait for the turtle to finish?!? Not exactly nail biting excitement Dunno where the balance is on that.

As for the measure-to-win idea . . . two issues I see:

1. Voltage sag. The power hungry approach will be penalized from deeper sag than the sipper. The low C pack will be penalized by sagging deeper than the high C pack. The pilot who landed at his feet and measured immediately gets a worse score than the pilot that landed in the beans . . . because of the walk. Wait a while to measure? Well, that is issue #2 . . .

2. I'd like the announcer to be able to declare as the last plane slips across the line win/loose. As the timer creeps up and the lap count rises, total score can be on-the-fly calculated for each plane. I'd like to be able to say to the last hanger-on, you've gotta complete 2 more laps in 30s or 3 in 50 to win . . . or tell them you might as well land as your score is only getting worse. I'd like to give the announcer the ability to say that slowpoke still has a chance, but it's gotta complete two more laps. That means simple math . . . which I haven't worked out an idea for that yet

"Simple" has me stepping away from "Average Time - Lap Correction" and leaning more toward "Total Time - Lap correction". What "Lap Correction" means is very much in flux, but it would be increasing with lap count. How fast? In what way? Other ideas? I'm open to suggestions.


One last element to running full packs: I like the "pit-stop" gamble running a full pack puts the pilot into, particularly if there's a couple of heats. Do I land and take my loosing score with grace, or do I sacrifice the lipo for glory . . . or gamble loosing it all because I crossed that last lap a split second too late.

Yes -- I want this race to torture the contestants