Proposal for fuel regulation

[GM1]

I saw a post elsewhere from Wayne Mann related to an upcoming issue in F3c that sounds interesting.

Here is Wayne's note:

Hi Guys,

Since a lot of past World Championship competitors visit this site (RR, Gordie) I thought I would post an e-mail that I received from a fellow pilot. It seems that the judges are tired of breathing all of the toxic fumes that are emitted from our exaust. I have a lot of problems with someone supplying our fuel at the contest. There is too many variables and I doubt that they are going to provide all the world championship competitors and European Championship competitors with free fuel to practice and fly with for month prior to these events. I'm all for reducing smoke and emissions, but someone has to come up with a formula with which everybodys fuel manufacture will have to comply with for the fuel to be eligeable for use in these events. We ie Morgan Inc. has address the smoke issue with the introduction of the 30% Low Smoke Heli fuel. I'm not sure how toxic any of the glow fuels are that we use from the standpoint of getting it on you skin to the massive amounts of smoke that we breathe in during a flight.

Wayne Mann


Here is the letter:

Dear Horace and other member,

At the last EC F3C in England the judges and others, including myself got a lot of smoke, polluted air to inhale and even a lot of oil drops on the (sun)glasses.
On behalf of the judges/jury members present at the EC: That must be stopped. It's poisoning and not good for the health for judges to sit on the judges line and have to breath in all that dirty polluted air for 5 or 6 days.
So let's start a discussion again how to reduce smoke and polluted emission from RC Helicopters.
I agreed with the judges/jury members present at the EC that:
The Netherlands will make a proposal to the CIAM to try to solve this problem as a safety issue (health of judges, pilots, helpers and others) before the WC F3C in Poland next year.
I hope that CIAM will accept this proposal - if we accept the final proposal in the TC unanimously - effective at 01-01-2007 as a safety issue.
and..... it will be a great challenge to the manufacturers of fuel to produce fuel from wich smoke and polluted aerosols, is reduced to a acceptable minimum level.

Proposal in concept:
-----------------------------
1. The organizer will provide fuel that has to be used at the contest site. Using other fuel than provided by the organizer at the contest site is prohibited. If other or mixed fuel than provided by the organizer is used at the contest site, the contestant will be disqualified for the contest by the organizer.
2. Helicopters will be placed in the start box with complete empty fuel tanks. Tanking of helicopters in the start box at the contest site must be surveilled by the organizer to control the use of the provided fuel.
3. The organizer has to provide fuel from which smoke and polluted aerosols in the emission from exhaust of a contest helicopter, is reduced to a acceptable minimum.
Fuel supplier's has to prove to the organizer before the start of the contest that the supplied fuel will produce a accepted minimum of smoke and pollution.
4. If a helicopter is still producing a lot of smoke etc. during a round, a penalty of two points per judge will be given to the pilot of that helicopter for each hover maneuver. The penalty will only be given by unanimous judges decision.
-----------------------------
Please keep in mind, it's just a start. Feel free to add, delete or change text, do suggestions etc., but.... The target must be the reducing of smoke and polluting aerosols from the exhaust of a model helicopter to a minimum level.
Before November 1st 2006 we have to have a written final proposal hopefully unanimously supported by the TC members.

Hope to get a lot of support, comments, suggestions etc. for the final proposal.

[Gary O]

Gordie,

One thing that could be looked at is the oil being used. I use HV oil in my fuel and have no where near the smoke as a fuel with an LV oil. Another is the amount of oil content in the fuel. I have experimented with oil ratios and went as low as 13% and saw no negative affects from it. I did that with an HV oil as I'm not sure you would want to with an LV. When you look at most helis after flying, some of the oil is not even being burned, but just exhausted out.

I'm sure I'll get hammered for even mentioning running less oil, but I've done it on OS and YS engines. I took a C-Spec new in box and put the OMI set up on it and put well over 300 flights on it and didn't even change the rear bearing at all. After 335 flights I quit keeping track. When I did take the engine down, which was still running perfect, it looked very clean and the bearings were still good. Just something to think about.

[DavidH]

Gary,
A few of us have ran as little as 12% LV oil in 30% nitro fuel. We did this couple of years ago when the deal about smoke at F3C events first was mentioned. 12% oil is fine, but there is only a small margin of error on adjusting the needles.

David

[fitenfyr]

Just go all electric.

Man that whole concept sounds like a death blow to the F3C sport.

Lot's of hassle to fly.

I think getting the manufactures to produce more "low emmissions" fuel is the better way to go and then require that only those types of fuels are used at the event.

[slow]

Electric isn't really an option today because of the F3C regulations, which limits the voltage to something I can really recall right now, but it's not enough to get 90-like performance.

/James

[Gary O]

Electric may be an alternative at some point, but I don't see it right now. I for one just have a really hard time justifying the kind of money it takes to buy batteries. I know there will be the arguement that batteries and engines are not as far apart as they were but you can't repair or re-build batteries. At least an engine can be fixed when needed. A $300 pak is pretty much a paper weight when it decideds to die.

As for fuel, F3C is not quite as power hungry as the snappy quick flying 3D stuff and an HV oil that barely smokes should not hurt performance. I have both HV and LV fuels mixed and honestly, at my level of flying, I can't tell the difference. anyway.

[fitenfyr]

The electric comment was meant with a bit of levity.
Not to be taken seriously.

I would really like to see the manufactures step up and drop the amount of smoke and oil in our fuels anyhow.

Maybe this is a good "nudge" in that direction, but a bit drastic I think.

I liked the Wildcat 30% I flew until the LHS stopped carrying it.
It seemed to smoke and spew a bit less than the Coolpower I am using now.

I just would hate to see the competition turn into NASCAR with too many restrictions and not enough enjoyment.

[DavidH]

From the FAI Sporting Code Section 4C for F3C

Electric motors are limited to a maximum no load voltage of 42 volts for the propulsion circuit.

There was an electric heli that flew in the 2005 WC's in Spain. The heli had almost the same performance as the nitro helis.

David

[ShawnK]

I know I'll get the Hairy Eyeball for saying this, but what the heck... I've never been known for my diplomatic skills anyway. :mrgreen:

I think all this hullabaloo about pollution/safety/aerosols/carcinogens is just part of the neverending march of Liberalism. Consider the source... the Netherlands!

Until someone can show me quantifiable data to substantiate all the claims of Doom and Gloom over model fuel exhaust, I just dismiss it as overreaction.

If someone wants to make a low-smoke fuel for the sake of low-smoke fuel, then so be it. But trying to mandate it because of some supposed fear of poisoning or cancer or some other claptrap is just another example of fear-mongering liberals trying to force their desires on other people because that's the only way they can get it done.

Well... I'd better go grab my asbestos undies...

[flyinfool]

What are the rules as far as running a gasser?
Would a G26 or G231 be legal in F3C?

Although running on naphtha (camper fuel), the judges will get a serious case of the hungries smelling a BBQ all day.

[DavidH]

Here is the engine requirements for F3C. Also notice the max weight of 6kgs. That is 13.2 lbs. I have not seen any gasser that can do the F3C schedules with the grace and beauty of a nitro model. I am pretty sure the Europeans would all use Petrol helis if that was the case.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
AREA: The swept area of the lifting rotor cannot exceed 250dm2. For helicopters with multiple rotors
whose rotor shafts are more than one rotor diameter apart the total swept area of both rotors cannot
exceed 250dm2. For helicopters with multiple rotors whose rotor shafts are less than one rotor diameter
apart the swept area of both rotors (counting the area of superposition only once) cannot exceed 250dm2.
a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (without fuel with batteries) must not exceed 6 kg.
b) MOTOR: Maximum piston engine displacement : 15 cm3 two cycle,
20 cm3 four cycle,
25 cm3 gasoline only.
Electric motors are limited to a maximum no load voltage of 42 volts for the propulsion circuit.

I have been judging a few years in AMA and F3C events. Yes at times the smoke is a hinderance to the judges. But it is not the case all the time. If the wind is blowing inward towards the judges. Then it is aggravating. But I have not seen many contests where the wind blew the same direction thru out the contest. In fact most of the time it is constantly changing directions.
I personally see nothing wrong with the current fuel most of the F3C competitors are using. I know most of them want to get rid of the smoke as much as possible also.

David

David

[bighands3d]

I know of one fuel that is low smoke and I have been using it for a couple of years now. Don't see much of it around the south but more so in the northern states. might be one to consider adding to the list.

www.cooperfuels.com

[DavidH]

Chris,
There is fuel manufactuers that make Low smoke fuel. But the problem is if the FAI regulates a certain fuel. It will have to be a fuel that is available world wide. I can tell you from experience, getting fuel into some other countries is a logistic nightmare. At the 99 WC's in Poland. Couple of the teams were trying to buy Cool Power fuel from the USA team. Because the Polish Government had barred Powermaster from entering the country. Luckly the Cool Power importer from Germany had arranged for Cool Power to be accepted into Poland before we arrived. It did cost him some money to get CP allowed into the country.

David

[Fuelman]

I do not see any minimums or maximums that FUEL MANUFACTURERS need to comply with. "Acceptable minimum" is nothing a manufacturer can go by since "acceptable" can not be quantified. You can not dictate what lubricants we use and how much of them to use since we all use different compounds with vastly different properties in proportions we determine, (at least you can try to dictate it, but nobody will comply unless you model it after a currently manufactured fuel, then you're back to a contest supplied spec fuel, which will not work either).

Is there an offending brand that everybody (manufacturers) can use as a bad example and an acceptable brand that can be used as a good example?

Is there anything other than the moving target of a personal opinion on what is acceptable?

The below quote also mentions toxic fumes, I can't speak for other manufacturers oil types but you have a lot more to worry about than oil droplets if you think the oil is toxic, nitro and methanol are not very good for you to inhale either, and you get an awful lot of that in the vapor trail as well.

If a common fuel was to be used, you would not have anybody show up at the competition unless they were already using the supplied spec fuel, so that would not work. This would be just as popular as everybody flying identical, exactly the same heli, engine, radio, servos and setup.

I personally do not care since my fuel smokes less than any other on the market and always has. We also use non toxic and biodegradable lubes, and always have.

Originally Posted by GM1

I saw a post elsewhere from Wayne Mann related to an upcoming issue in F3c that sounds interesting.

Here is Wayne's note:

Hi Guys,

Since a lot of past World Championship competitors visit this site (RR, Gordie) I thought I would post an e-mail that I received from a fellow pilot. It seems that the judges are tired of breathing all of the toxic fumes that are emitted from our exaust. I have a lot of problems with someone supplying our fuel at the contest. There is too many variables and I doubt that they are going to provide all the world championship competitors and European Championship competitors with free fuel to practice and fly with for month prior to these events. I'm all for reducing smoke and emissions, but someone has to come up with a formula with which everybodys fuel manufacture will have to comply with for the fuel to be eligeable for use in these events. We ie Morgan Inc. has address the smoke issue with the introduction of the 30% Low Smoke Heli fuel. I'm not sure how toxic any of the glow fuels are that we use from the standpoint of getting it on you skin to the massive amounts of smoke that we breathe in during a flight.

Wayne Mann


Here is the letter:

Dear Horace and other member,

At the last EC F3C in England the judges and others, including myself got a lot of smoke, polluted air to inhale and even a lot of oil drops on the (sun)glasses.
On behalf of the judges/jury members present at the EC: That must be stopped. It's poisoning and not good for the health for judges to sit on the judges line and have to breath in all that dirty polluted air for 5 or 6 days.
So let's start a discussion again how to reduce smoke and polluted emission from RC Helicopters.
I agreed with the judges/jury members present at the EC that:
The Netherlands will make a proposal to the CIAM to try to solve this problem as a safety issue (health of judges, pilots, helpers and others) before the WC F3C in Poland next year.
I hope that CIAM will accept this proposal - if we accept the final proposal in the TC unanimously - effective at 01-01-2007 as a safety issue.
and..... it will be a great challenge to the manufacturers of fuel to produce fuel from wich smoke and polluted aerosols, is reduced to a acceptable minimum level.

Proposal in concept:
-----------------------------
1. The organizer will provide fuel that has to be used at the contest site. Using other fuel than provided by the organizer at the contest site is prohibited. If other or mixed fuel than provided by the organizer is used at the contest site, the contestant will be disqualified for the contest by the organizer.
2. Helicopters will be placed in the start box with complete empty fuel tanks. Tanking of helicopters in the start box at the contest site must be surveilled by the organizer to control the use of the provided fuel.
3. The organizer has to provide fuel from which smoke and polluted aerosols in the emission from exhaust of a contest helicopter, is reduced to a acceptable minimum.
Fuel supplier's has to prove to the organizer before the start of the contest that the supplied fuel will produce a accepted minimum of smoke and pollution.
4. If a helicopter is still producing a lot of smoke etc. during a round, a penalty of two points per judge will be given to the pilot of that helicopter for each hover maneuver. The penalty will only be given by unanimous judges decision.
-----------------------------
Please keep in mind, it's just a start. Feel free to add, delete or change text, do suggestions etc., but.... The target must be the reducing of smoke and polluting aerosols from the exhaust of a model helicopter to a minimum level.
Before November 1st 2006 we have to have a written final proposal hopefully unanimously supported by the TC members.

Hope to get a lot of support, comments, suggestions etc. for the final proposal.

[ShawnK]

Hey Brian,

Why did you leave Michigan?

[Fuelman]

Originally Posted by Buddykitchen

Hey Brian,

Why did you leave Michigan?

I decided to leave MI last year after I retired from the military. I am from the area I now live.

[ErichF]

This was my reply from the other board:

And yet they complain about poor pilot turn outs. Let's throw more stupid crap at the budding competitor to deal with.

Imagine the quality of fuel you'd get from some "organizers" looking to pinch every penny and make back twice as much.

Will they accept liability for distributing a bad case of fuel, causing a failed round for one or more competitors, or worse yet, a toasted engine?

Re-fueling in the start box; does that mean you get more time? So much for three round days. Oh, and coming back to the box with empty tanks? Where in the world do you put the unused fuel from between rounds. I guess just dump it on the ground, as long as it's downwind of the judges. It shouldn't hurt anything, since this proposed fuel apparently won't have any oil in it.


BTW, I guess I will have painter's masks available at my contest in March. I will also have chemistry goggles for rent.

This "organization" needs to figure out ways to get more flyers in the sport, not sit around making committees and rules because their noses are sensitive. Maybe if they didn't stick them up so high, it wouldn't hurt so much.

Erich

[ShawnK]

Erich, I couldn't agree with you more.

It's hard enough for me to commit the time and resources to practicing Class 1 stuff as it is, but I do it because I love the sport. Start making all sorts of stupid arbitrary rules about the fuel I can use, and I'll find something else to do.

[Gary O]

Not trying to get off topic here, but aren't judges usually pilots themselves? Maybe not at that particular event but also fly helis too? I guess I don't get it. That's one of the reasons I love nitro helis, the smell, the smoke(at least some), and the sounds that go with it. It's beginning to sound like they want it to become some kind of nature issue. Sound limitations, now a proposed smoke limitation, I wonder what could be next, soft blades that won't hurt when there's an accident?

[ShawnK]

I'm tellin' ya... Liberalism.

I know it's generally not good form to turn helicopter flying into a political issue, but I think that at the heart of it, that's exactly what's happening. This whole issue (as proposed by the Netherlands) is long on hyperbole, short on factual data. Since that's the case, it's easier for a liberal to try to enforce their will via "legislation" (rules-making, in this case), than by scientific argument and empirical proof.

They want what they want, so they'll try to make it a rule, rather than an agreement.