Committee Proposal One
To create a “Restricted Model” class for Electric Soaring events
3.3 Model Characteristics
That a new section 3.3.7 be created with the following text:
“A restricted electric model must either have a wing span not exceeding 2 metres (with no limitations on the control surfaces or functions) OR alternatively have a wing span not exceeding 100 inches but with control functions (other than the motor control) limited to rudder, elevator and spoiler only. The control functions for the flying surfaces are thus the same as for a 100s model”.
Renumber the existing 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 (dealing with nose radius definition and ballast to become 3.3.8 and 3.3.9 respectively.
Also change section 4.2.2 (dealing with multi launch rules) to read:
Electric models shall also lie within the area, weight, wing loading restrictions as defined in the Standard Rules but in addition they may not exceed 4000mm in wingspan for Open Class models, or 2000mm/100 inches as relevant for the restricted model class.
Also change section 4.2.1 (dealing with the ELG rules) to read:
The electric models can, if the flyer so elects, be of the restricted model class rather than Open electric. If a restricted electric model is used throughout the event that will count towards a restricted model electric league score as and when such a league is established.
This change formalises the class which includes 2 metre models but avoids creating yet another sub class. There are numerous redundant 100s models suitable for electric conversion and the performance of an RES model of 100 inch span (including the greater difficulty of achieving a precision landing should be comparable to a multifunction 2 metre model. This change is to encourage greater participation by giving a new lease of life to such 100S models.
Committee Proposal Two
To better equalise the launch height gained in Multi-launch events
That the text of the final two sentences of section 4.2.2 b of the Multi launch Rules be changed to read:
The height limiter device should be set for cut-off at a height of 150 metres above the launch height or for 30 seconds from “power on”, whichever comes first. The height limiter switch must be installed in such a way that adequate venting to it occurs such that outside air.
Experience of Multi launch competitions during 2011 has shown that electric models with the height limiter set at 200 metres are at a significant launch advantage relative to winch launched gliders. This is especially so in light winds. Additionally the electric models can use the “power on” phase to penetrate to the most promising section of the sky whereas the winch launched gliders are, by necessity, restricted in where they are positioned when free of the winch line. This again gives the electric models an especially valuable advantage in windy conditions. The change will even out the playing field in both light and stronger wind conditions.
Committee Proposal Three
Use of Models in Multi launch competitions
That the text of section 4.3.2 a be changed to read:
Double entries where, for example, the second entry is of a different model class, will be permitted with the specific agreement of the CD. The CD will determine whether or not to accept double entries dependant on the total number of entries received. This is to ensure as much flying, with as many rounds as possible, for all competitors in the time available.
The current text of this section prohibits double entries for “large” events and generally does not encourage them. Provided the double entries received do not result in a significant loss of the number of rounds which may be flown in any event, such double entries can be valuable in making up the numbers, indeed they may be necessary in order to ensure a viable competition.
Committee Proposal Four
To allow an alternative height limiter for electric models
This is intended as a provisional change to allow the impact of it to be monitored through 2012 and also in recognition that further height limiting devices are confidently expected to be available during the course of 2012.
That Multi launch section 4.2.12 be amended to add to the list of allowed height limiters is the (USA manufactured) CAMlimiter. This would be achieved by changing the words January 2010 to January 2012 and inserting after the web address for RC-Electronics the words:
The “CAM” limiter is also approved for BARCS ELG events”
ELG Rules section 4.4.1.d. Incorporate the same changed wording as for 4.2.12 above
The CAM limiter (which does not have downloading capability) is cheaper and has been widely used in the “Bartletts” series of events without any problems. The nominal lack of “anti zoom” feature of this limiter has not proved to be an issue in practice relative to the RC-Electronics limiters. However this will be monitored during the 2012 season to ensure that flyers are not unfairly exploiting this feature by flying techniques not thought to be in the spirit of the rules.
A check on the setting of the limiter (as may be required under Rule 4.3) is still possible (by counting the set up bleeps) without downloading and this limiter can be set to 100, 150 or 200 metres thus making it suitable for both multi launch and ELG events.
Committee Proposal Five
Dropped scores in ELG events
That the dropped score in ELG rules 4.4.7a applies only after six or more rounds are flown – not four as at present The text would now read:
Where more than 5 rounds are flown the lowest score will be discarded.
Due to the nature of the event, ELG contests proceed quickly and, given reasonable weather, it is not difficult to get five or more rounds completed. Thus dropping a score after (just) four rounds is not best suited to this type of event.
Download the Proposals here.