Proposed Rule Changes to F1D

In Uncategorized on February 12, 2014 by nicholasandrewray

Proposed Rule Changes to F1D

Compiled by Joshua Finn

The February FFn from the UK carries the 2014 FAI rules change proposals for F1 (free flight) classes. Included in this set of proposals is a significant change to F1D. The following is a summary of the proposal and FFn’s editorial opinion. This information is provided by INAV in an attempt to keep indoor fliers aware of current rules proposals and is thus provided without the opinions of INAV authors or staff.

F1D Indoor rules

From Hungary

 In para 3.4.2.reduce the rubber weight and increase the model weight as follows

Minimum weight without rubber motor …………… 1.4 g.

Maximum weight of the lubricated rubber motor … 0.4 g.

Reason: The proposal intends to significantly reduce the flight times because of the decreasing availability of proper flying sites. Nowadays only two (!) large sites are available for world (Belgrade and Slanic) and one (Belgrade) for European championships! Both sites are facing privatization which might results the loosing of both because of the renting costs. The class has to be flown in smaller sites with shorter flights and shorter contests to survive.

The proposal keeps the surface loading in order to keep the beauty of the F1D models’ flying style. Besides the shorter times the 0,2 g addition to the model weight eliminates the effect of the only available heavier covering material, as the lightest plastic film is no longer manufactured since years. helps to make reliable variable pitch or diameter mechanisms and apply new, but heavier materials. Existing models will stay usable with 0.2 g spacers.

Hopefully these changes might encourage new flyers as it would be a bit easier to build down to weight. The top flyers might keep their chances to win but the gap could well be closed. Test flights were flown in Cat. II site (max. 15 m ceiling height) up to 23 to 24 minutes flight times which means about 30% reduction.

To help INAV better understand the thoughts of our readers, we have include a poll.

 It is also recommended that all indoor fliers who fly F1D or are interested in future participation in this class express their opinions to the CIAM Technical Expert(s) from their respective nations, since many of these representatives do not fly F1D and would appreciate input from the fliers they represent. As an aid to fliers unfamiliar with their nations’ technical experts, a full list of the CIAM F1 Technical Experts is included below. Additionally, all CIAM Technical Experts are listed at the FAI CIAM website:

FAI Technical Experts for Aeromodelling:


Daniel Hugo Iele


Graham Maynard


Wolfgang Baier


Helmut Fuss


Wilhelm Kamp


Yaroslav Vasiliev


Cenny Breeman


Valentin Savov

Czech Rep.

Ivan Horejsi


Ossi Kilpeläinen

Former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

Zdravko Todoroski


Pierre Chaussebourg


Bernhard Schwendemann


Andor Harmath


András Reé


Gianni Cesare


Masaru Koike


Allard van Wallene

New Zealand

David Ackery


Tor Bortne

email unknown


Ingolf Steffensen

email unknown


Edward Burek


Stanislaw Kubit


Jorge Gustavo


Cringu Alexandru Popa


Viorel Salistean


Sergei Makarov


Svetozar Gostojic


Jakub Drmla


Javier Hernandez Abad


Per Findahl


Christoph Bachmann


Mehmet Arslan


Tamer Ekinci


Hami Gurtunca

United Kingdom

Ian W. Kaynes


Chuck Etherington


3 Responses to “Proposed Rule Changes to F1D”

  1. While I understand the intent, modifying the models to make the flights shorter isn’t in the best interests of F1D. These are supposed to be high performance models. Making them lower performance previously didn’t make flying sites more available or double the number of fliers. F1D models are SUPPOSED to be a trade-off of decisions – where can I cut weight to do this? It will ALWAYS be difficult to make them to weight and THAT IS OK.

    There is nothing inherently broken with the current rules.
    If the lack of y2k film is the issue, raise the weight by 50mg to compensate for the difference.
    Or allow Microfilm again.

    Nothing in the proposal is going to make good flying sites in Europe (or the US for that matter) magically appear. This is entirely separate and completely unaddressable by FAI rules or changes.

    Mike Kirda

  2. I have not found this proposal yet.
    Has it already been proposed to CIAM? Or, will it be proposed to CIAM meeting in April?
    When will this proposal be voted?

    Regards, Aki

  3. Mike, F1D already allows microfilm; it’s just so seldom seen because of the strength advantage of plastic films. If I’m not mistaken, Schramm uses OS film rather than Y2K/Y2K2. I think he’s a little overweight, but that’s the tradeoff. F1D tends to impose its own minimum weight because of materials constraints on the highest performing technology.

    Aki, I believe it’s been submitted already and is up for voting in April.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: