MTK

Agreed, less expensive should be better, easier for new pliots to enter.

Don't agree that gasoline power is heavier in all cases. Consider the fact that my Gassified Vanquish came in at less than 4700 grams; include the gas which is 6 ounces, weight RTF if about 4850. Electric versions are coming in at just about 5000 grams, flight ready.

The contra is agood tool for pattern. But maybe too costly for the average pilot.
HOWEVER, I am not convinced that it is necessary to win!! It will not make a baillarina out of a hippo

Agreed, Pattern Flying in general is boring to the casual on-looker. As judges we are stuck in the chair with a front row seat watching boredom unlimited...gag me with a spoon!! BUT I love it!
I doubt ANYTHING is more boring to watch than Golf, and I love watching and playing that stupid game. Bring in great TV coverage with terrific action shots and Golf popularity is surging and has been for 40 years or more. It doesn't hurt that at least halfabillion people worldwide play Golf

If we could even get some creative TV coverage, I'd bet Pattern (or IMAC) could be made exciting. Would love that too but ain't gonna happen; not in my lifetime...

flyncajun

FAI Does not give a Hoot about what AMA does.
It is governed by World Class Interest. I for one Hope they Change the rule to 5500 Or no limit. this will drive new development.
I`m itching to build a Bipe that would take advantage of that rule. One could be built with a 50CC Gas version to sell to sport fliers
and a Pro version with a Tricked out gas motor (just like what Happend when the TOC took off) the TOC drove the development
of all these IMAC planes out now, No one complains about the cost of the big planes. and it has thrived for 20years now.
The coverage of the TOC type contest created a new market for the Wana Be`s.
and Maf. built airplanes for the market.

I can see a Gas YS 250 twin ! in the Future

But I don`t think it will pass

Bryan

flyva

Question: "Just what hardware does the novice pattern pilot need (today) to develop their skills towards the F3A of the future?"

Answer: That special wrench you need to remove the "bung cap" from a few 55 gallon drums of fuel.

MTK

All we old timers have said thatfor years and years. But how many times have we sat in the chair to grade the lower classes and clearly see lack of preparation and practice? And more than just occasionally we see top models being used.

Poor flying with a top model is....worse somehow....

You can steer that horse to water but......
ASALWAYS YMMV!

Goodie_2_Shoes

Hi everyone,

PeterP

I see you fly in Aus and I can tell you that the schedules do change every 2 years from Advanced class upwards to F3A. The only schedule which hasn'tchanged is sportsman which is intended as an entry level class. This should not be an issue unless you intend to spend flying Sportsman for more than 2 years. Go to the Australian Pattern Association website for more details.

http://www.australianpatternassociation.com.au

Goodie_2_Shoes

Well there you go! Thanks Peter. UnfortunatelyI'm back to sportsman so that's why I haven't seen any changes and maybe Advanced is similar to what I remember.... I'll be trying to get my pormotion point asap so I can move on up, hopefully I'll get the chance meet you at a comp one day.

Cheers
Ben

drac1

My Feedback: (4)

I thought i reckonised the model. Pattern comp May 11 at PFL Ben.

cmoulder

Isn't it going to be difficult to accomplish any of this without the sound restriction also being eased?

I have no idea how much noise a 50cc (and its much larger prop) makes, but even with the best muffling on Earth I would imagine it is still more than 94dB. I remember that at the Nats some of the electrics were on the ragged edge of the rule.[]

Maybe MTK got some numbers from testing his piped DLE 55.....

MTK

Isn't it going to be difficult to accomplish any of this without the sound restriction also being eased?

I have no idea how much noise a 50cc (and its much larger prop) makes, but even with the best muffling on Earth I would imagine it is still more than 94dB. I remember that at the Nats some of the electrics were on the ragged edge of the rule.[]

Maybe MTK got some numbers from testing his piped DLE 55.....


[/quote]

As I said a few times now, the piped and soft mounted 55 turning the 20x12 Mezjlik 3 Blader is whisper quiet. Probably less that 94 at 10 feet. My best experiment to date

Same exact set-up excepting the prop, is much louder. A 22x12 2 blader is noisier by wide margin.

I think that the bigger blocks will generally be noisier. That's simply an opportunity for innovation/invention in my opinion. Maybe ease the noise restriction for 5 years to allow people a chance to create solutions, then bring it back down

But I'd love the idea of lifting the weight limit. All sorts of opportunities would exist then, and Bryan's suggestion is but one. Repercussions would be or could be substantial, both from a cost point of view and from Judging/scoring

No matter what, Pattern people have always had a love affair with BLING. Much as we have strived to avoid it, Judging has tended to reward that. It also has tended to reward the latest thing in vogue, (much to my chagrin). Companies that make the highest priced stuff would be given cart blanche to charge whatever the market would bear. Yeah, you'd have a nice looker but at what cost? Was it BEM who said score a small penalty for such BLING? I am for that....

OR simply give the guys that create their own solutions a 5-10% reward on score....

Goodie_2_Shoes

I thought i reckonised the model. Pattern comp May 11 at PFL Ben.
[/quote]

Yeah I'll be there with bells on. I missed the first one because I was over on Melbourne. Guess I'll see you May 11th.

mithrandir

My Feedback: (2)

I think they should allow turbines!!

bjr_93tz

They don't exclude the kero ones at least, the LPG ones would be excluded, but getting them to pass the noise test would be a challenge.

Rubber power would be legal, but would you have to weigh the plane with or without the rubber? On that note, just to push the costs up a bit more maybe they could restrict the maximum battery pack weight to x% of the airframe like they do with rubber motors in some classes.

Just imagine a multi thousand dollar F3A ship exploding when a rubber motor of that size lets go. Titanium winding stooges would be mandatory...

drac1

My Feedback: (4)

One point to consider.
Any type of turbine would not be allowed to fly if a total fire ban was in place.

TimBle

i think i proved a point at my local comp yesterday. winning the Sportsman class with a GW Edge 540 with Mintor 33cc engine. It was about as noisy as a glow engine on pipe, flew better than a few dedicated pattern planes and had more than enough power to have the judges asking "why aren't more people bringing their 25% IMAC planes and doing the same?"

drac1

My Feedback: (4)

That's the what sportsman class is there for. To allow pilots to fly there every day sports model or what they have to start flying pattern. But you will find as you progress to the higher classes, a pattern ship will be easier to fly smoother and more accurate with.

MTK

Gasoline powerplants today are no longer the heavy, clunky, anemic powerplants of yesterday. They are not just for Sportsman flying IMAC models although as a start, that would work great in Pattern.The reliability, simple operation and frugalfeeding and maintenance cost are great things to have when you are just starting out. Will give the budding Pattern competitor who appreciates the modeling aspect of Pattern as much as the flying, confidence in his equipment working when he wants it working.

Today's gasoline power is at home with full blown FULL SIZED2x2 thoroughbreds; it's a naturalthat will more than keep up with anything flown today.....I am doing that and have no plan to change

TimBle

My quest to use petrol for pattern is bust the dogma you are perpetuating. Sure an IMAC model may be less suitable the tougher the schedule becomes but a thoroughbred pattern plane is not needed to compete and thats the idea that pattern event organisers need to get into their heads.
I see it all the time. Try to attract new people to pattern and the enthusiastic arrive all bright eyed and bushy tailed only to be told now you're flying pattern you need to spend USD2000 on a proper plane.

Pattern people should get over themselves and realise that in order to grow pattern you shold not be steering people toward equipment but rather toward flying competence and skill. That can be earned on any airframe. Once the newbie reaches the skill level where the IMAC plane or the Ugly Stik is too limiting they may then decide to get a dedicated plane.
Instead, pattern people need others to conform to their 2x2 electric dogma and thus chase pilots away at the very beginning.

Developing more affordable alternatives to 2x2 electric is what will keep pattern alive

drac1

My Feedback: (4)

Excuse me, that is exactly what I said!

cmoulder

There are certain niches of RC that are never going to attract a wide audience. Watching a great top-notch FAI Pattern flight is boring for the average Sport flier, so imagine what it is like for the general public with practically NO understanding at all about what is going on. Not to pick on any other disciplines in particular, but can you envision yourself getting all hot and excited about thermal duration soaring or rubber powered peanut scale? Only a very small slice of the RC community will have the appreciation for Pattern and the time, the patience and the self-satisfaction to stick with it for the long haul. The associated start-up and ongoing expenses are minor considerations over time.

If you need a 40% Yak with smoke and strobes to get your jollies, Pattern ain't for you.

I don't know what the protocol is in SA, but here anybody can fly pretty much any airframe in Sportsman as long as it isn't too noisy. I've only seen one airframe declined and it was a very loud Ultimate 50cc.

rm

My Feedback: (27)

Most IMAC planes around here $2000 grand will get u the motor and a prop.

Silent-AV8R

At least in the US there are precious few 25% IMAC planes. Go to almost any IMAC contest and even in Basic you will see mostly 35% and up size planes. The average IMAC plane in the US easily costs $3,500 and up, well up!!!

MTK

No, no...you got it all wrong my friend. We are not proposing use of 40% IMAC models in Pattern. Yes these are expensive toys, even more so than the typical average 2 meter thoroughbred Pattern model.

But I think that the rules for Pattern allow 2 meter sized IMAC planes (good points Timble and Drac1) powered with say a 33-50cc properly muffled engine (good point Bob) that meets weight requirements....And in our Sprtsman class, heavier is allowed for the most part.

In the lower classes, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that approach. Timble's point is why not? and I agree...... In the upper classes there is also nothing wrong with it except a thoroughbred pattern model flies Pattern schedules better, easier.....

TimBle

+1 

drac1

My Feedback: (4)

I'm sure that most pattern flyers would be more than happy to fly the model of a new flyer to help them when starting out.
I myself will fly any model a new comer has and offer advice on trimming and assist them to trim/set up their model.

As for experienced pattern flyers flying a sport aircraft in pattern contests, this defeats the purpose of flying in contests. When i compete in a contest, i want to do the best i can so i will fly my patternship. When i go to the field, 95% of the time i fly my patternship as i practise as much as i can.

In regards to cost, well this is no different to any other sport. Good pilots can do well with a average model but the rest of us need all the help we can get and as in other sports, those that can afford the more expensive equipment will go that way in the hope that there will be a benefit. And to a certain extent that is true.

And the ones that can't afford or are not willing to spend the money will continue to winge about the high cost.

As i said. No different to any other sport.