Jump to content
  • News and Information

    Latest news and information

    • Robin Sleight

      2011 AGM Committee Proposals

      By Robin Sleight, in BARCS,

      Committee Proposals for changes to BARCS Handbook Rules
      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.

    • 2011 BARCS Leagues Year End Report

      By Austin, in BARCS,

      The 2011 BARCS Soaring Season came to an end on October 9th and the final league tables can be found in the appropriate class tabs.
      One again the weather affected many competitions, either resulting in postponement, cancellation or curtailment with just enough rounds flown to make them count. Despite this 90 individual members entered competition, recording 205 class entries. Congratulations to all the winners, you will be being contacted about trophy arrangements in due course.
      On behalf of all the competitors and BARCS we would like to offer a special vote of thanks to all the organisers and CD’s for their hard work and to the clubs who gave access to their fields.
      The All Rounder Tables are too large to be displayed on the website and are available to view or download here
      Graham James.

    • The appalling weather experienced over the late spring bank holiday weekend caused the cancellation of the Radioglide events scheduled for the Sunday and Monday. Some flying was possible on Saturday but because of the increasingly strong winds through the day many people opted not to fly.
      100s started early in the morning before the wind became too strong and it was possible to complete 6 rounds and a fly off by 2pm. Terry Pelling topped a fine performance by winning all but one of the rounds and both rounds of the fly off. Outstanding!
      After lunch, with increasing wind, many more pilots opted not to fly and the event was reduced to just one slot per round. In spite of the wind some slots were being flown out for the full 10 minutes and four rounds were completed before it was finally decided to call a halt.
      The rules specify that a score is dropped after 3 rounds have been completed so Peter Allen won in spite of not being able to fly in the last round because of a damaged model.
      100s Fly Off Results
      table.tableizer-table { border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; } .tableizer-table td { padding: 4px; margin: 3px; border: 1px solid #ccc; } .tableizer-table th { background-color: #4297C9; color: #FFF; font-weight: bold; }
      Rank Name Score Pcnt Rnd1 Dur Rnd2 Dur 1 Pelling, Terry 2000 100 1000 1000 2 Dickinson, Bob 1287.4 64.37 554.8 732.6 3 Warby, Neville 1071.4 53.57 408.6 662.8 4 Chambers, Glyn 669.4 33.47 669.4 0 100s Preliminary Rounds
      table.tableizer-table { border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; } .tableizer-table td { padding: 4px; margin: 3px; border: 1px solid #ccc; } .tableizer-table th { background-color: #4297C9; color: #FFF; font-weight: bold; }
      Rank Name Score Pcnt Rnd1 Dur Rnd2 Dur Rnd3 Dur Rnd4 Dur Rnd5 Dur Rnd6 Dur 1 Pelling, Terry 5821.7 100 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 821.7 2 Chambers, Glyn 5374.4 92.32 847.2 1000 754.7 1000 1000 772.5 3 Warby, Neville 5313.4 91.27 1000 690 1000 998.1 625.3 1000 4 Dickenson, Bob 4656.4 79.98 895.7 953.3 483.5 694.4 922.3 707.2 5 Sleight, Robin 4504 77.37 842.2 830.6 636.8 481.6 712.8 1000 6 Goddard, Ken 4284.4 73.59 557.3 680.1 741.9 944.9 632.7 727.5 7 James, Graham 4070 69.91 570 766.7 363.2 974.3 494.9 900.9 8 Binnie, Gary 3870 66.48 583.3 465.1 697.3 698.3 774.8 651.2 9 Nicoll, Ken 3412.4 58.62 436.1 366.7 682.4 849.3 509.4 568.5 10 Philcox, Cengiz 1676.8 28.8 983.3 693.5 0 0 0 0 ELG Overall Results
      table.tableizer-table { border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; } .tableizer-table td { padding: 4px; margin: 3px; border: 1px solid #ccc; } .tableizer-table th { background-color: #4297C9; color: #FFF; font-weight: bold; }
      Rank Name Score Pcnt Raw Score Rnd1 Dur Rnd2 Dur Rnd3 Dur Rnd4 Dur Drop1 Dur Penlty 1 Allen, Peter 2993.6 100 2993.6 993.6 1000 1000 0 0 0 2 Sleight, Robin 2652.5 88.61 3396.3 1000 853.4 743.8 799.1 743.8 0 3 Mitchell, Peter 2571.1 85.89 3164.4 593.3 960.7 723.6 886.8 593.3 0 4 Hanham, Cliff 2546.1 85.05 3208 661.9 968.6 750.6 826.9 661.9 0 5 Wharrie, Martyn 2512 83.91 2945.8 433.8 774.9 737.1 1000 433.8 0 6 Pelling, Terry 2361.6 78.89 2843.3 909.1 481.7 730.3 722.2 481.7 0 7 1, Spare 2358.2 78.77 2978.4 878.8 725.1 620.2 754.3 620.2 0 8 Lucas, Colin 1982.9 66.24 2312 575.8 780.1 627 329.1 329.1 0 9 2, Spare 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Foss, Chris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Gadenne, Ray 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 James, Graham 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Jones, Bernie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    • CAA Revised Air Navigation Order

      By Robin Sleight, in News & Information,

      Air Navigation Order
      All types of flying in the UK including that of model aircraft is subject to regulations as created by the Civil Aviation Authority.  Fortunately the BMFA and BARCS enjoy a good relationship with the CAA and UK regulations are much more model friendly than in some counties notably the USA.
      The CAA will, come about July/August this year, re-issue CAP 658 – Model Aircraft.
       Key changes are a legal definition of what is a model – a small aircraft flown specifically for Sport and Recreation, and what is a small
       UAV- a small aircraft flown for some commercial purpose.  Additionally this revised CAP make rulings, as applicable to gliders over 7kg  in weight.  These are identical to those which have applied for some time to powered aircraft (IC and electric).  No changes whatever, simply a few clarifications, apply to models of less than 7kg in weight.  All changes, indeed the whole CAP, are very sensible and the entire CAP is worth reading for the good advice it contains as well as the regulatory definitions.
      In more detail any model over 7kg (now including pure gliders), require specific permission before being flown within controlled airspace or within an active airfield traffic zone.  The inclusion of gliders is new but only in line with existing rules for powered models.  No other limitations apply up to a weight of 20kg.
      For gliders which weigh between 20 and 150 kg a formal “Exemption Certificate” is now required.  Powered models, including electric powered soarer’s in this weight bracket have required such certificates under the existing CAP regulations but (very sensibly) pure gliders too are now included.  The advice of the LMA should be sought in regard to such certification as they operate a CAA approved model inspection scheme on behalf of all UK aeromodelling associations.  The issue of such a Certificate requires build inspection/s and flight test but the full requirements are detailed by the CAP and available from the LMA.   The CAA in conjunction with the LMA will agree to “grandfather rights” as applicable to models in this weight bracket which already successfully flying.  However any such model will loose the grandfather right to the waiving of the exemption certificate if it is either subject to non trivial structural damage or acquires a new owner.
      Finally gliders over 150kg in weight are treated in much the same way as full size aircraft and the CAA should be contacted to advise requirements.  Approval from EASA is also likely to be required

    • Tribute to Harry Coover

      By Sydney Lenssen, in News & Information,

      Harry Coover – every aeromodeller’s friend. By Sydney Lenssen.
      Last year Harry Coover received the National Medal of Technology and Innovation from President Barack Obama, 52 years after “superglue” was introduced.
      Harry Coover might not be a name known to every aeromodeller, but his invention of cyanoacrylates resulted in an adhesive which is used by all of them worldwide. If you had to name a substance vitally important to modellers today, no longer would it be balsa wood, but “Zap”, “Loctite”, “Super Glue” and many hundreds of other brand names which spell instant adhesion.
      Harry Coover died on 26 March 2011 aged 94, and his obituary dispelled one of the myths which I always held firm: cyanoacrylates were invented during the Vietnam war, and sprayed on to seal open wounds until soldiers could be flown to operating theatres. That application  is true and it’s the one of which Coover was most proud.
      But the reality is that zap was discovered by accident during the second world war when chemist Coover was experimenting for Eastman Kodak with clear plastics which could be used to make unbreakable gun sights; that got nowhere. In 1951 he came back to cyanoacrylates for jet cockpit canopies. Testing for resistance to heat, his co-worker Fred Joyner – appropriately named – found that refractometer lenses were bonded together. They recognised that this stuff could bond almost anything under most conditions.
      Superglue appeared on the market in 1958 and was called Eastman 910, and in 1963 Eastman Kodak sold the formula to American Sealants who then produced Loctite Super Glue.

      The original product
      Aeromodellers and many other buyers made zap immensely profitable, especially after Coover’s patent expired, but by that time he had filed nearly 500 patents, many of them extremely successful.
      So next time you are rescued while out flying by a drop of zap, think and thank Coover!
      Sydney Lenssen

    • Radioglide 2011 Information

      By Austin, in Radioglide,

      BARCS Radioglide 28th-30th May at Marsh Gibbon, nr Bicester. This years event will have BARCS ELG and 100s on 28th followed by F3J on the 29th. The 30th May will have multilaunch from 10am. Camping is available on the field from Friday evening. Last official day for entries 15th May!


Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.