2011-2012 Rules

[chia]

Would a bonus for smaller rotor width ever be considered, like the wing width bonus in Wright Stuff two years ago? It would probably be taken advantage of pretty often, though, because it's probably pretty easy to make up for lift lost by using different pitches/larger motor size.

[smoogrish]

Adding extra time for no touch flights is ridiculous. Just because teams decide to use a tether doesn't mean that they are too lazy to learn about torque. That whole notion is based off of being pretentious. Laziness is not defined as putting your efforts in one part of a competition instead of another. What if a team spends days and hours testing different designs, but not hours trying different rubber? Does that make them lazy? Certainly not. It just means that you are focusing your efforts in a different area, and if that area is what you believe could cause you to win, there is nothing wrong with that. I believe tethers should be allowed nationally, because it doesn't constitute laziness, it just preserves your work and allows it to work the same as if you were in a flat-ceiling building. It could possibly be preserved by managing the torque and not allowing the helicopter too ascend too quickly, but how would you stop the other teams from going full-force. A score deduction would be unfair if it weren't against the rules, and asking a helicopter not to touch a ceiling in a building that you have never visited it just plain ridiculous.

[illusionist]

That's why it is a bonus. Just like saying that by using a 5 cm wing chord, you will get a bonus (wright stuff). It isn't mandatory, but offers a challenge for those teams who are advanced and have worked very hard. There aren't that many designs worth testing in helicopters... Just pitches, which once you decide on a rubber size, the pitch should stay constant. To control height, you adjust torque. It's very easy to measure how high the helicopter flies, by using a balloon and some string. Plus most states, and even some regions, announce the height of the location prior to the day of the competition. I personally think it isn't that bad of an idea.

[eta150]

I don't know if this was already discussed, but there was 1 section of the rules that was very poorly written this year. It stated that a helicopter's flight is considered finished when it is no longer supporting its own weight.

At states, this became an issue. The supervisor said that a helicopter flight will count if it goes into a gap in the ceiling tiles (some of which were wider than the probes) and comes down with the rotors still turning. Otherwise, the flight is disqualified. We flew ours right into a gap, and it stayed there, with the rotors still turning (but obviously getting assistance from the gap) for almost 12 minutes. For the duration of this time, the rotors were generating enough thrust to keep the helicopter wedged in the crack. At about 12 minutes, the thrust was finally low enough (but with the rotors still turning) for the helicopter's mass to pull it from the gap. Now, I know that we didn't deserve this flight of 12+ minutes (which I assume was a national record while it counted), but was the appeal that took it away correct, or should we have just been incredibly lucky benefactors of a poorly written rule?

[chalker7]

I don't know if this was already discussed, but there was 1 section of the rules that was very poorly written this year. It stated that a helicopter's flight is considered finished when it is no longer supporting its own weight.

At states, this became an issue. The supervisor said that a helicopter flight will count if it goes into a gap in the ceiling tiles (some of which were wider than the probes) and comes down with the rotors still turning. Otherwise, the flight is disqualified. We flew ours right into a gap, and it stayed there, with the rotors still turning (but obviously getting assistance from the gap) for almost 12 minutes. For the duration of this time, the rotors were generating enough thrust to keep the helicopter wedged in the crack. At about 12 minutes, the thrust was finally low enough (but with the rotors still turning) for the helicopter's mass to pull it from the gap. Now, I know that we didn't deserve this flight of 12+ minutes (which I assume was a national record while it counted), but was the appeal that took it away correct, or should we have just been incredibly lucky benefactors of a poorly written rule?

Not being there and not seeing the flights, I can't comment directly on what happened. However, saying a flight is disqualified sounds highly suspicious. As one of the writers of that exact rule, I would say the flight time would stop whenever the judges determine the rotors are no longer supporting the weight of the helicopter.....not disqualify the entire flight.

Now, onto your 12 minute flight. The rule states that "Time Aloft for each flight starts when the helicopter leaves the competitor’s hand and stops when any part of the helicopter touches the floor or the rotors no longer support the weight of the helicopter (such as the helicopter landing on a girder or basketball hoop)." If you are stuck in a wedge, the ceiling is exerting some amount of upwards force on the helicopter. That is, your rotors are no longer supporting the full weight of your helicopter and timing should stop.

We are aware the rule is unclear HOWEVER we have put incredible amounts of thought into this and have been unable to come up with a better wording. So, while you may judge it to be poorly written, I personally believe it is the least terrible of all the alternatives we've come up with thus far and is a wording that accurately describes what "flying" means for these helicopters (albeit one that is difficult to judge). Does anyone have any suggestions for a more clear and robust definition of the end of a flight (with particular emphasis on when timing should stop if a helicopter gets stuck on the ceiling)?

[eta150]

I don't know if this was already discussed, but there was 1 section of the rules that was very poorly written this year. It stated that a helicopter's flight is considered finished when it is no longer supporting its own weight.

At states, this became an issue. The supervisor said that a helicopter flight will count if it goes into a gap in the ceiling tiles (some of which were wider than the probes) and comes down with the rotors still turning. Otherwise, the flight is disqualified. We flew ours right into a gap, and it stayed there, with the rotors still turning (but obviously getting assistance from the gap) for almost 12 minutes. For the duration of this time, the rotors were generating enough thrust to keep the helicopter wedged in the crack. At about 12 minutes, the thrust was finally low enough (but with the rotors still turning) for the helicopter's mass to pull it from the gap. Now, I know that we didn't deserve this flight of 12+ minutes (which I assume was a national record while it counted), but was the appeal that took it away correct, or should we have just been incredibly lucky benefactors of a poorly written rule?

Not being there and not seeing the flights, I can't comment directly on what happened. However, saying a flight is disqualified sounds highly suspicious. As one of the writers of that exact rule, I would say the flight time would stop whenever the judges determine the rotors are no longer supporting the weight of the helicopter.....not disqualify the entire flight.

Now, onto your 12 minute flight. The rule states that "Time Aloft for each flight starts when the helicopter leaves the competitor’s hand and stops when any part of the helicopter touches the floor or the rotors no longer support the weight of the helicopter (such as the helicopter landing on a girder or basketball hoop)." If you are stuck in a wedge, the ceiling is exerting some amount of upwards force on the helicopter. That is, your rotors are no longer supporting the full weight of your helicopter and timing should stop.

We are aware the rule is unclear HOWEVER we have put incredible amounts of thought into this and have been unable to come up with a better wording. So, while you may judge it to be poorly written, I personally believe it is the least terrible of all the alternatives we've come up with thus far and is a wording that accurately describes what "flying" means for these helicopters (albeit one that is difficult to judge). Does anyone have any suggestions for a more clear and robust definition of the end of a flight (with particular emphasis on when timing should stop if a helicopter gets stuck on the ceiling)?

Unfortunately, as the wedges in the ceiling are different sizes, it was often unclear whether some helicopters were stuck of if the probe had simply disappeared inside of a gap. The question, though, lies in whether the helicopter, with its probe inside a gap in the ceiling, was keeping itself in by the rotors turning and creating thrust, or the gap holding it up. Ours did come out with the rotors still turning, which, according to the rules that the supervisor laid out, meant it counted.

This also happened to the winning team, but because their time in the gap didn't last as long, their typically 3 minute helicopter went for 3:48. They acknowledged that the ~45 second boost was because of the gap, but didn't have to repeat their flight, most likely because it wasn't as obviously long.

After all of it was done, we were given another flight, but because of damage that the helicopter had sustained earlier in the day during practice flights, due to a rubber band snapping and shredding the top rotor, we weren't particularly competitive.

[eta150]

I don't know if this was already discussed, but there was 1 section of the rules that was very poorly written this year. It stated that a helicopter's flight is considered finished when it is no longer supporting its own weight.

At states, this became an issue. The supervisor said that a helicopter flight will count if it goes into a gap in the ceiling tiles (some of which were wider than the probes) and comes down with the rotors still turning. Otherwise, the flight is disqualified. We flew ours right into a gap, and it stayed there, with the rotors still turning (but obviously getting assistance from the gap) for almost 12 minutes. For the duration of this time, the rotors were generating enough thrust to keep the helicopter wedged in the crack. At about 12 minutes, the thrust was finally low enough (but with the rotors still turning) for the helicopter's mass to pull it from the gap. Now, I know that we didn't deserve this flight of 12+ minutes (which I assume was a national record while it counted), but was the appeal that took it away correct, or should we have just been incredibly lucky benefactors of a poorly written rule?

Not being there and not seeing the flights, I can't comment directly on what happened. However, saying a flight is disqualified sounds highly suspicious. As one of the writers of that exact rule, I would say the flight time would stop whenever the judges determine the rotors are no longer supporting the weight of the helicopter.....not disqualify the entire flight.

Now, onto your 12 minute flight. The rule states that "Time Aloft for each flight starts when the helicopter leaves the competitor’s hand and stops when any part of the helicopter touches the floor or the rotors no longer support the weight of the helicopter (such as the helicopter landing on a girder or basketball hoop)." If you are stuck in a wedge, the ceiling is exerting some amount of upwards force on the helicopter. That is, your rotors are no longer supporting the full weight of your helicopter and timing should stop.

We are aware the rule is unclear HOWEVER we have put incredible amounts of thought into this and have been unable to come up with a better wording. So, while you may judge it to be poorly written, I personally believe it is the least terrible of all the alternatives we've come up with thus far and is a wording that accurately describes what "flying" means for these helicopters (albeit one that is difficult to judge). Does anyone have any suggestions for a more clear and robust definition of the end of a flight (with particular emphasis on when timing should stop if a helicopter gets stuck on the ceiling)?

[/quote]
Unfortunately, as the wedges in the ceiling are different sizes, it was often unclear whether some helicopters were stuck of if the probe had simply disappeared inside of a gap. The question, though, lies in whether the helicopter, with its probe inside a gap in the ceiling, was keeping itself in by the rotors turning and creating thrust, or the gap holding it up. The rotors were keeping it in (supporting the weight), but the gap was assisting (so not quite all of the weight) As you said, this makes it especially difficult to know when to stop the flight. Ours did come out with the rotors still turning, which, according to the rules that the supervisor laid out, meant it counted. This was later appealed and annulled.

This also happened to the winning team, but because their time in the gap didn't last as long, their typically 3 minute helicopter went for 3:48. They acknowledged that the ~45 second boost was because of the gap, but didn't have to repeat their flight, most likely because it wasn't as obviously long.

After all of it was done, we were given another flight, but because of damage that the helicopter had sustained earlier in the day during practice flights, due to a rubber band snapping and shredding the top rotor, we weren't particularly competitive.

Although I know I didn't deserve this flight time, I do think that with rules this vague, the rules the judge lays out should be used to judge all of the helicopters, instead of exceptions being made for the teams that benefit most from them.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post, I don't really know what happened.

[wlsguy]

My thoughts on timing:

Start when the helicopter leaves the hand and stop it when it comes to rest on the ground (or table, spectator, bleachers or object in contact with the ground. i.e. not the building, basketball hoop, etc) or when the students want to give up waiting and stop the flight.

If the helicopter doesn't come down, the time is zero. If you are lucky enough to bounce around the rafters, hand up for a short bit, and then come down, it's your lucky day. Remember, you only have 8 minutes. If you have a 12 minute flight, you better hope it comes down or you will end up with no time for a 2nd flight and no score. Timing should also stop when both rotors stop spinning.

It's already too hard to determine when the helicopters are self supporting and then they are not without adding the judgement call by the timers.

[chalker7]

My thoughts on timing:

Start when the helicopter leaves the hand and stop it when it comes to rest on the ground (or table, spectator, bleachers or object in contact with the ground. i.e. not the building, basketball hoop, etc) or when the students want to give up waiting and stop the flight.

If the helicopter doesn't come down, the time is zero. If you are lucky enough to bounce around the rafters, hand up for a short bit, and then come down, it's your lucky day. Remember, you only have 8 minutes. If you have a 12 minute flight, you better hope it comes down or you will end up with no time for a 2nd flight and no score. Timing should also stop when both rotors stop spinning.

It's already too hard to determine when the helicopters are self supporting and then they are not without adding the judgement call by the timers.

That's definitely interesting, but I see a few different problems with it. First, the event would become much more dependent on luck. I prefer teams having control over their results (which I realize the current wording makes somewhat problematic). Second, wouldn't this just encourage teams to find little nooks and crannies in the ceiling to get wedged into? If that's the case, it's less a flying event and more a sighting/prospecting event. Finally, what about the (extremely rare) case of a stuck helicopter falling down on its own later in the day, an hour or two after the flight. Would we allow that to be legal? If not, would we put a maximum limit on flight times? And what would the max time be based on?

We've thought of quite a few wordings similar to this, but all of them raise different questions and problems....which is leading me to believe there might not be an ideal solution. If that is indeed the case, we should aim for a solution that causes the least secondary problems and works for the most scenarios.

[wlsguy]

Since timing would stop when both rotors stopped rotating, a helicopter wrapped in a basketball net would fail immediately. Others would stop after no more than 10 minutes.

Teams would have 2 options:
1) try to fly where they can avoid obstructions
2) try to get lucky

Each option has it's own risks. Currently the teams are "sighting/prospecting" to find the safest area. Some teams may try to "get lucky" but this is no different than over winding a WS plane and hoping for a few lucky ceiling touches. Most wouldn't try it.

Helicopters (like most building events) has it's element of luck. The difference is teams could choose which path to take rather than hope the event supervisors make a judgement call (if the rotor is stopped or not) in their favor.

[jander14indoor]

Just to throw a wrench into the discussion. The MI state contest was flown in a site with a relatively smooth acoustical tile ceiling.

Most of the top six teams I reported times for in the duration string (all above 2 minutes) had helicopters with a wood pin on top. They flew to the ceiling, top rotor spun nicely and copter sat on ceiling for a time, then descended normally.

The fifth place team didn't have a spike, its rotor stopped for a while and then the copter descended normally. No unusually long flight.

This is only one example, but I still don't think a purely aerodynamically supported flight will get a significantly different time, both rotors turning, or one rotor stopped.

I'm sorry, but I think the event supervisor in the case related by eta150 just plain got it wrong. Clearly wrong interpretation of the rules as written to avoid making a hard decision and nothing more. Just my opinion, but there it is.

Now, can the wording be improved, still not sure of that.

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

[eta150]

I agree the the rules probably can't be improved...I want my wright stuff back
Also, jander, when you say the judge got it wrong, do you mean it should have counted? Or was the appeal correct?

[chalker7]

I agree the the rules probably can't be improved...I want my wright stuff back
Also, when you say the judge got it wrong, do you mean it should have counted? Or was the appeal correct?

Don't interpret this as an official ruling, since this is just an unofficial forum, I didn't see the flight in persion, etc. However, if I were the judge and was timing this flight, I would have probably stopped time whenever I determined the helicopter got stuck (ie the rotors stopped supporting the weight of the helicopter). You haven't provided details of the flight, but the score for this flight would have been some time between 12 minutes and 0 (but definitely neither of those extremes). Based upon normal helicopter performance I would guess something between 15 and 90 seconds, but really those are numbers without much basis.

[jander14indoor]

I agree the the rules probably can't be improved...I want my wright stuff back
Also, when you say the judge got it wrong, do you mean it should have counted? Or was the appeal correct?

Wright Stuff will be back someday, hope its in time for you to compete again.

As to the judge, again, JUST OPINION, they should have made individual decisions on when the flight ended, not some arbitrary addition to the rules to 'prevent controversy'. Clearly to me not what the rules intend (of course that's why the wording is being criticized!). So my point was they should never have recorded a 12 minute flight time in the first place!

Now, as to the appeal cancelling that time, for that I'm going to take the easy way out and not say it was wrong or right. Appeals can turn on a lot of factors. Having been on the appeal committee side, I'm not going to second guess them as I don't have the facts they reviewed (and I doubt you do either).

SIDE DIGRESSION on how the appeals process works. Example, at one event I judged the appeal for, the track was laid out slightly wrong, but it was noticed by the second team. The first was still available, had time to rerun. So the correction was made, those teams reran and the competition continued. Easy right. Now, lets find this out say halfway through the day with 48 teams. Frankly, if the event supervisor corrected the issue at that point it is likely the event would be thrown out as it would be practically impossible to get 24 teams back to rerun and the result would not be equally unfair to all. If the event supervisor didn't correct the track, but ran the rest of the day with it wrong, we'd probably let the results stand as everyone had the same challenge at least, even if it was a little unexpected. Just one case where for the same fundamental error, different details might result in different rulings.

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

[wlsguy]

... Does anyone have any suggestions for a more clear and robust definition of the end of a flight (with particular emphasis on when timing should stop if a helicopter gets stuck on the ceiling)?

So, does anyone have any better idea to determine a more clear and less judgmental "end of flight" than the one I proposed earlier:

i.e. timing would start when the helicopter is launched and end when
1) it comes to rest on the ground (or table, spectator, bleachers or object in contact with the ground. i.e. not the building, basketball hoop, etc)
2) when the students want to give up waiting and stop the flight.
3) when both rotors stop turning

If the helicopter does not reach the ground (or table, spectator, bleachers or object in contact with the ground. i.e. not the building, basketball hoop, etc)
then the time of the flight is zero. Teams who do not have a successful flight would receive particpation points only

Obviously each team would need to determine the amount of risk they would be willing to take. Some would fly in the safe area of the ceiling, some would hope to find a crack and hope it comes out, others would choose to fly no touch (or even using an optional tether). In all cases, the students would have control of their own destiny.