Flite Fest 2017 International Air Races
- Thread starter willsonman
- Start date
That's interesting, but coming up with a correction factor (to me) just seems like an argument waiting to happen. Either beforehand in the planning committee or afterwards among the contestants who lost and didn't agree with the factor.
When I think about an endurance "race", where we're measuring time-aloft, not distance-covered; it's basically an "All Up, Last Down" contest. I don't think it's fair to allow racers to risk setting their planes on fire, just to stay up one more lap...that kind of breaks the 'energy equality' part of the contest. Every brushless ESC has a low-voltage cutoff, I have an idea...
Every racer is required to set their low-voltage cutoff to the same voltage (3.2, to be safe) and "Hard"; such that the ESC cuts power to zero when it reaches the LV cutoff point, at which point their plane becomes a glider and they now must maximize their descent energy.
Assuming everyone starts with full packs, and takes off together, this equalizes the amount of available energy to each racer, and puts the onus entirely on their aircraft design and piloting skills to win.
RCBuildIdeas
Active member
...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....
I agree that it would be more fun for participant and spectator if the winner could be determined as the last plane glides to a landing. What if for the Bixler Trophy race, everyone uses the same power system; same motor, esc and low mah battery (like 800 or less). The winner is the model that completes the most laps. Probably a different model than used for the Furey Cup? Could be fun to design the plane around the power system (still keeping with a golden era model idea), with the thought of endurance in mind.
RCBuildIdeas
Active member
Okay, here's what I would like to build:
It's modeled after a Percival Gull style of aircraft. If/when I get started on it, I'll post a build thread.
It's modeled after a Percival Gull style of aircraft. If/when I get started on it, I'll post a build thread.
AircPirateNinsei
Foam Board and Filament Shugenja
This is my project:
It is a Messerschmitt Me 209/Bf 109R (V-1).
Designer: Willy Messerschmitt
First flight: 1 August 1938
Number built: 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
The first Messerschmitt Me 209 was a single-engine racing aircraft which was designed for and succeeded at breaking speed records. This Me 209 was a completely new aircraft whose designation was used by Messerschmitt as a propaganda tool. Although the aircraft was designed only to break speed records, it was hoped that its name would associate it with the Bf 109 already in combat service. The designation Me 209 was given for propaganda purposes to cause confusion with the Messerschmitt Bf 109, the Luftwaffe's primary fighter throughout World War II. It was later reused for the actual proposed successor to the Bf 109. Read the full article.
The plan is to build a foamboard version with 1.000 mm (39.37 in) wingspan. This is my template.
Build Thread Here
It is a Messerschmitt Me 209/Bf 109R (V-1).
Designer: Willy Messerschmitt
First flight: 1 August 1938
Number built: 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
The first Messerschmitt Me 209 was a single-engine racing aircraft which was designed for and succeeded at breaking speed records. This Me 209 was a completely new aircraft whose designation was used by Messerschmitt as a propaganda tool. Although the aircraft was designed only to break speed records, it was hoped that its name would associate it with the Bf 109 already in combat service. The designation Me 209 was given for propaganda purposes to cause confusion with the Messerschmitt Bf 109, the Luftwaffe's primary fighter throughout World War II. It was later reused for the actual proposed successor to the Bf 109. Read the full article.
The plan is to build a foamboard version with 1.000 mm (39.37 in) wingspan. This is my template.
Build Thread Here
Last edited:
That looks awesome! Who cares about rules - I want to see that fly, and have a chance to add the plans to my build list
Starting on the Caudron C.460
http://forum.flitetest.com/showthread.php?29316-FF2017-Int-Racers-Caudron-C-460
http://forum.flitetest.com/showthread.php?29316-FF2017-Int-Racers-Caudron-C-460
BridgeInspector
Flite Test Groupie
BridgeInspector
Flite Test Groupie
AircPirateNinsei
Foam Board and Filament Shugenja
That looks like a lot of awesome planes with a lot of build planes in 2017. I have to order a new box of foamboard.
Last edited:
I understand it as being between WW1 (1918) and 1939 and using a power pod.
I also thought the idea was to have people post their plans too, but on re-reading I'm not sure where that came from. Maybe it's just that plans will need to be developed if anyone is to ask Rasterize (or try themselves) to create a decal set.
To clarify, THERE ARE NO OFFICIAL RULES YET. You guys are posting more about what planes you want to build rather than resolve the issues at-hand so setting the rules and bounds is becoming more arduous than thought. I'll have to finalize them soon and just start the design-off as everyone seems to be jumping straight in.
Nic, the golden era was from the end of WWI to the start of WWII. THat is the era of aircraft we have been focused on. Debating on including others as they follow the spirit of the theme.
rockboy, All plans should be made public for people to use them as they wish but only Steven will select which ones he is willing to do skins for. I really have no say in that and I don't think he should have to really define his criteria for it but I think that he can contribute what is helpful for him when you make your plans.
Nic, the golden era was from the end of WWI to the start of WWII. THat is the era of aircraft we have been focused on. Debating on including others as they follow the spirit of the theme.
rockboy, All plans should be made public for people to use them as they wish but only Steven will select which ones he is willing to do skins for. I really have no say in that and I don't think he should have to really define his criteria for it but I think that he can contribute what is helpful for him when you make your plans.
RCBuildIdeas
Active member
Sounds like the rules are not yet finalized, but that one of the basic rules of the contest is to build around the swappable series power pod? I have no problem with this constraint. In fact, it might be interesting if only one model per participant could be entered in The Furey cup and The Bixler Trophy, with the exception that the power pod could be swapped for each of the different events. That way, one of the constraints of the The Bixler Trophy might be that everyone has to have the same motor, ESC, and battery, where The Furey cup would not have that constraint, but may be divided by power classes. Just some thoughts...
That looks awesome! Who cares about rules - I want to see that fly, and have a chance to add the plans to my build list
My Google Fu helped me find the name of the Plane: "The Scarlet Stormer" - how apropriately pulp-y
I scraped up a few more pictures as well, including a 3view of the plane.
It's a seaplane with retractable floats. (how cool is that?)
The design turns out to be a lot stubbier than I thought.
I might end up ignoring the 3 view and stretching the wings from gee bee to spitfire proportions or maybe do "The Silver Lancer" instead, which was on the same sheet and seems to be a successor of sorts. doesn't have that ridiculously sexy shoulder height gull wing thing going on, though. decisions, decisions...
Yes, I know I may be running into problems wit tail heaviness and that the floats will shift the cog into a different zip code when extended. I'll deal with these things in due time (or make the thing a belly lander)
First things first, though. Make my own thread lest I derail this one.
Last edited:
OK, Fine.
Rule Number 1, entrants named "Josh" must make 2 models.
That should cover Wilsonman and you . . . and now Bixler will have to do something in addition to the Comet/Cruiser
Catching up on the discussion . . .
AULD is interesting . . . Quite a few competitions run this way, so it's easy to wrap your head around it. The entrants-in-running are clear to the announcer and the winner is clear at the finish. They can run long, but generally it's a tolerable duration, particularly if we bound wingloading and energy. If everyone is limited in onboard energy, it's a fair measure of duration endurance. Setting the LVC is an interesting approach, but not without problems . . . more on that in a moment, though. It has quite a bit going for it.
It has it's issues too. It's a measure of time endurance, but not range endurance. The tortoise is virtually guaranteed to beat the hare, which makes it not a "race" at all. We could have a pace-plane that you must stay ahead of or you're out . . . but setting the pace is tricky, and pilots might miss their "out" and not land . . . and the pace plane must out-endurance them all (although it's not under the energy constraint).
I'm not fully onboard with AULD, but it's one of the better ideas I've seen so far.
As for matching power-system (everyone has a pre-selected motor/prop/ESC/battery) . . . This is difficult to do and I see issues with both fairness and practical implementation.
For fairness, if it's a free-form scratchbuild contest around a single power system, then it's up to the designer to design around it, but this isn't -- it's a scale-ish race. No one power system will fit all of these planes well, and pre-defining that will favor some scale models over others. Sure, the designer can more carefully choose their subject to match the selected power system, but I'd rather see the variety from people picking their favorite subject and building up around that.
For practical implementation . . . From experience, this doesn't flow well. The NASBWACC competition was originally founded around the "same plane, same motor, same battery" concept, and a cry rose from the masses saying "I have a bloody wonder, but not that motor -- I want to fly too!" The motor selected was dirt cheap and readily available, but didn't matter. I opened an "outlaw" class, and found most everyone flew in that. We will likely loose several contestants if we demand they buy a specific motor to compete. In the same vein, forcing the selection an ESC with a high Low Voltage Cutoff setting may be optimistic.
So a question has been brought to the forefront by the young Mr. kevparang (ok, could be Ms., but odds lean in favor of Mr.) . . . The "Design" portion of this activity clearly is ground-up scale scratch building, but when it comes to the actual race, what degree of effort is required to enter a plane? Can only the designer's "team" fly their plane? (one entrant per design) These should all have released designs, so anyone who's built one of the competing designs? Any sort of scratch/plan built racer from the era or spirit? Any plane from the era, up to and including RTF, so long as it stays over wing loading min and under energy max?
How much needs to be done to fly in this race?
Another question . . . "spirit of the era" . . . Does it include anachronisms? (real racer with the style, but outside the era) Does it include fantasies? Both or only one? Perhaps allowed to race but not to place? I know how wilsonman is leaning, I know how I'm leaning, but I'd like to hear if anyone has a case for where that line should be drawn.
Rule Number 1, entrants named "Josh" must make 2 models.
That should cover Wilsonman and you . . . and now Bixler will have to do something in addition to the Comet/Cruiser
Catching up on the discussion . . .
AULD is interesting . . . Quite a few competitions run this way, so it's easy to wrap your head around it. The entrants-in-running are clear to the announcer and the winner is clear at the finish. They can run long, but generally it's a tolerable duration, particularly if we bound wingloading and energy. If everyone is limited in onboard energy, it's a fair measure of duration endurance. Setting the LVC is an interesting approach, but not without problems . . . more on that in a moment, though. It has quite a bit going for it.
It has it's issues too. It's a measure of time endurance, but not range endurance. The tortoise is virtually guaranteed to beat the hare, which makes it not a "race" at all. We could have a pace-plane that you must stay ahead of or you're out . . . but setting the pace is tricky, and pilots might miss their "out" and not land . . . and the pace plane must out-endurance them all (although it's not under the energy constraint).
I'm not fully onboard with AULD, but it's one of the better ideas I've seen so far.
As for matching power-system (everyone has a pre-selected motor/prop/ESC/battery) . . . This is difficult to do and I see issues with both fairness and practical implementation.
For fairness, if it's a free-form scratchbuild contest around a single power system, then it's up to the designer to design around it, but this isn't -- it's a scale-ish race. No one power system will fit all of these planes well, and pre-defining that will favor some scale models over others. Sure, the designer can more carefully choose their subject to match the selected power system, but I'd rather see the variety from people picking their favorite subject and building up around that.
For practical implementation . . . From experience, this doesn't flow well. The NASBWACC competition was originally founded around the "same plane, same motor, same battery" concept, and a cry rose from the masses saying "I have a bloody wonder, but not that motor -- I want to fly too!" The motor selected was dirt cheap and readily available, but didn't matter. I opened an "outlaw" class, and found most everyone flew in that. We will likely loose several contestants if we demand they buy a specific motor to compete. In the same vein, forcing the selection an ESC with a high Low Voltage Cutoff setting may be optimistic.
So a question has been brought to the forefront by the young Mr. kevparang (ok, could be Ms., but odds lean in favor of Mr.) . . . The "Design" portion of this activity clearly is ground-up scale scratch building, but when it comes to the actual race, what degree of effort is required to enter a plane? Can only the designer's "team" fly their plane? (one entrant per design) These should all have released designs, so anyone who's built one of the competing designs? Any sort of scratch/plan built racer from the era or spirit? Any plane from the era, up to and including RTF, so long as it stays over wing loading min and under energy max?
How much needs to be done to fly in this race?
Another question . . . "spirit of the era" . . . Does it include anachronisms? (real racer with the style, but outside the era) Does it include fantasies? Both or only one? Perhaps allowed to race but not to place? I know how wilsonman is leaning, I know how I'm leaning, but I'd like to hear if anyone has a case for where that line should be drawn.
I think any DTFB plan built racer w/ plans publicly released before the race - scratch builds without a plans release are very cool, but IMHO we are trying to encourage designing new planes here.
If someone else wants to build and race another designer's plan I think that's great - but in those cases the trophy should be shared w/ the designer as a team win. At the heart it's a community contest - so encouraging community participation is a plus. (And I already see a few plans being worked on that I really want to build - the extra incentive of being on a race team with the designer sounds fun!)
I think anyone should be able to enter any civil airplane from the golden age (not military for this contest) - regardless of whether it saw production or not. So a fictional plane that was illustrated in the era or simply a design from the time period that never got off the ground should be fair game.
New planes designed in the spirit of the era are very cool and all (seriously, I love them), but they shouldn't be in the running for the trophy. Perhaps an honorable mention though.
Last edited:
Similar threads
