MTK

Thanks Scott, and yes Ithought Koopowitz was the rep but the "Mans"threw me.

I haven't followed the NSRCA list discussions for a couple years now. Ithink Koopshould take the NSRCA membership's general desires to the meeting and vote accordingly. Yeah,I know F3A and NSRCA don't have to be connected, but whether we like it or not, they are!

smcharg

My Feedback: (1)

You're welcome. I have full trust in Derek but I do believe he needs to hear from those that care (whichever way that is). He told us that he was probably voting to keep things the same. Although I do not agree with him (and he knows it), everyone concerned needs to have their voice heard. Derek is the US Representative to the CIAM and he should be representing the majority. I would strongly suggest contacting him or your NSRCA DVP so that they can get the word to Derek. I do understand both sides of the fence but I am in full favor of equality between glow and electric. The only way to do that is to allow higher weight as the glow airframe must be more rigid to support the glow/gas motor. All planes should be weighed RTF in my opinion. Maybe 5500g isn't the answer but some weight is and that weight must be increased to allow the current planes. Otherwise, some of the glow planes would not make it.

apereira

IC airplanes varies their total weight in flight, electrics do not.

IC airplanes might have the CG changed during flight, electrics do not.

Electric airplanes do not have the same power curve through the elapsed time, IC airplanes do .

But battery weight is reducing and power is increasing where the IC engines are being limited by weight and size in order to increase power. Advantage to electric for the future to come.

This is the points I see when read about all this discussions, and think, most people do think about the variables to make a fair rule, maybe , this is what the rule makers looks at.

On the next WC I'll ask Bob Skinner and see what he says, then comment here, he is a very nice person who really enjoy talking about this as much as we all do.

Regards

Alejandro P.

grantb

A number of us are lobbying our local representative to change his mind.

It seems inconceivable that local organisations feel that they do not have to poll their membership on changes like this.

The excuse given in South Africa is that we voted against increasing the weight limit last year for F3A (deviating from the international F3A class) so apparently this gives our representative a mandate to not change the international class.

I wonder if other countries with votes at CIAM also do not poll their members on these matters???

tuny

The F3A comunity is very small compared with other classes, and thats the comunity who cares about the weight. Anybody not flying this category why cares its rules?

Also from my experience in many countries, model processing only happens on FAI events, not at local contests. So if the the rules are not enforced whats the problem with a heavy airplane in a non FAI class?

My point is the mayority oppinion may not come from F3A pilots, from my point of view the FAI pilots oppinion is to leave it like it is.

serious power

Hi Tuny,
Are you saying that 'your' opinion is ; to leave it as it is.
Or ;
That the FAI pilots opinion is ; to leave it as it is.

What I am reading and hearing is that most people want a rule that is fair and or the same for both IC and electric.
I will admit that more electric guys are pro a change.
What we have at present if effectively a different specification for model weight for an IC model and an electric model.
Would anybody justify a different size specification for the two types, eg 1.8M Versus 2.0M.
That's a 10% difference which is the same as an electric with a flying weight of 5000g versus an IC at 5500g flying weight.

This brings up the little matter of ' Possible competitive advantage ' .
If it is at all and or in any way potentially possible for a specification variance to cause a 'possible competitive advantage' there SHOULD BE NO specification variance.

Brian

bjr_93tz

Maybe this thread needs to be locked away for another 10 years, by which time we'll all be flying sub 4.5kg, contra drive, electric, composite tri-planes and we can all look back and have a good laugh at the 5Kg rules that USED to be so important but just isn't an issue anymore

Hopefully by then I'll have the new Futaba Faasssteestesst 4.8Ghz system with 42V servo's (or will we be arguing over 10S vs 12S by then?) running some Ice-cream Sandwich OS (or whatever dopey name they can think of) instead of Windows CE...

Brett

MTK

Brian,

A YS poweredmodel weighing 5 kg empty, with a 20 oz tank, will weigh very close to 5.5kg with a full tank at take off (only). Using the max potential average weight of thisYSmodel as the upper limit for both E and IC makes some sense. That will limit the upper limit to 5 kilos plus 260 grams for gas.

That's 11 lbs 9 ozs for my American friends, for everything flying today, a weight that should not obsolete anything current....

To me there is no advantage to the 1.8m model. Smaller models can fly faster and are more difficult to see at distance. Ability to see the model is as important to the pilot as to the judge. In fact, if the judge can't tell what the model is doing he is at liberty to give zero and move on.....

As pilot and judge i prefer the largest model possible. As pilot I prefer the lightest model possible but as judge, it makes no difference to me.

As pilot and judge I also prefer the simpler and far easier to discern color schemes of yesterday. Today's schemes have gotten so busy they make viewing at distance difficult. I admit that some look nice in the pits tho.....so what?Needless to sayI want NO legislation regarding colorschemes

serious power

Hi Matt,
I'm not ,for even a moment, suggesting a smaller model.
I was asking the ridiculous - just by way of example.
Just imagine the outcry if there were different size specifications for the types !!??
Then to highlight what 10% actually meant I went with the 1.8M.

However all the arguments ,or most anyway, that are being used to justify the current rules could be used to justify a different size rule - ridiculous I know.

Brian

EDIT; The key point that I'm making is that of potential performance advantage or perhaps better if stated as potential performance difference due to weight difference.
There should be no potential for a difference deriving from our rules.

Malcolm H

MattK,

I don't understand your term "max potential average weight" do you mean maximum or average?

Are you suggesting IC models should only carry half a tank of fuel?

Malcolm

MTK

It's simple....The thristiest powerplant around is the YS170-175. These modelsnormally carry 20fluid ouncesfuel (of SG of around 0.87, or about 18 ounces fuel, weight basis) (Remember that 1 fluid ounce = 1.04 ounces water weight)

Adding this much weight tothe 5 kilo max empty weight equals 5515 grams at TAKEOFF ONLY....Itquickly drops as the fuel is used.

I am saying todivide the 18 ounces of fuel weightin half to come up with the "maximum potential average", or about 9 ozs. Add 9 ozs (about 257 g) to the current max of 11 lbs (5000 g). In other words, allow the excursion for wet power to 5515 g at TAKE-OFFwith the knowledge that it will be consumed, but understand that the average max is the operative max of 5257g (or 5260 g). Make 5260 the Max for E, case closed.

This will obsolete nothing currently flying and allows all the leeway we need.....Try not to get so hung up on TAKE OFF weight....

Rather, why not use the Average Operative Weight as the Max allowed in the middle of a flight. Average Max for E power is simple. Average Max for wet happens in the middle of a flight.

It's a compromise solution that accommodates the fuel difference of two different types of powerplants, that's it

apereira

An IC plane weighed empty at 5Kg or full of fuel at 5.5Kg, isn't that the same? what about competition? when or how to weight the models? most contest do not comply with the FAI regulations as they have their own entity writing the rules, unless it is fully committed to FAI rules.

Also, FAI said there were only three countries who voted for the change when all the others did not supported that, so that is a case close, and, don't you guys think your representatives will know all the variables and what the top pilots or competing pilots in F3A(I mean active pilots on each countries F3A team trials) before making a proposal or either elect to defend it or not? I can not believe a representative say whatever he wants, as he is the voice of his country.

This forum is more for information, knowledge share and friendship, please don't think whoever writes here has a voice in FAI matters or rules, that is the reason and the job of the countries delegates, it will be better to probably write to them directly or use this forum to created some kind of commitment from each countries pilots to make their own meetings to discuss things like this and then be able to get to FAI, or whichever your country governing body is.

This is my point of view only as I do respect all others opinions, but do not agree with most of them in this regard.

Regards to all

serious power

Hi,
Correct ,5.5Kg with fuel - 'ready to fly' is effectively the same.
But this would also be the MAX,, 'ready to fly' weight for electrics.

When to weigh ? ; At processing (in a ready to fly condition) and spot checks perhaps on route to the ready box.

How to weigh ? ; With a weighing scales. - Just kidding

The meeting is not until Friday 19th.
EDIT; The votes are going to M Ramell prior to the meeting.
Apparently it is looking like ; No to all proposals.

Brian

bjr_93tz

I'll be blunt. ANYONE carrying a full 20oz tank of fuel into a competition flight needs their head read.

If sombody needs more than 250g (10 fluid oz) of glow fuel to get through F3A then they should take the parachute off the back of their plane. NO electric flyer runs a flight with enough battery capacity for back to back rounds, there's no excuse whatsoever for IC guys to.

Looking at some of the weights for the top of the line Japanese YS powered planes they'd make 5kg WITH fuel. 5.5kg with fuel and that'd open up the door for a YS dz200cdi twin...

drac1

My Feedback: (4)

I doubt very much if there are any IC planes running a glow 170/175 that would make 5kg with fuel. My cdi's use about 210 ml's per fight, about half of the glow version.

bjr_93tz

Maybe I exagerated a bit on the bipes, but unless my Japanese is screwy, then most of Naruke's monoplanes are supposed to be about 4.75Kg with cdi and 4.65 without. However, I'll concede the "interpretation" of Naruke's Aries 07 that I received has proven challenging to get somewhere near 5050 grams so I understand peoples pain, While it doesn't affect my ability to compete locally, it sticks me as a matter of principle and I'd need to lose the bellypan (or cdi) if I wanted to fly it at a WC...

apereira

My Axiome+ has two Emcotec regulators, one Rx and one for IGN, with the YS 175CDI and three batteries of 900 mAh TP G8, two for the dual Rx reg, one for the IGN reg, a Truturn spinner, all futaba gear and weighs 4930gr with all that no fuel.

It is doable, but probably 30% of the plane will get that lucky.

MTK

You fellas continue to discuss TAKE-OFF weight. To me, TO weight isnotthe correct measurefor wet powered planes because gas is consumed. Although it is so in the current regs, empty weight is probably incorrect too. Compromise on the average weight between take off weight and empty weight. Make that the new standard max for both E and W

serious power

Hi Matt,
Your solution is good but would be seen as less practical.
Maybe a max take off weight + a pre-set allowance for IC is a simple solution.
There is a reason why a lot of people are referring to take off weight.
At present a IC model is weighed dry and for flight fuel is added.
But any amount of fuel can be added.
So it's thought that take off weights should be controlled to ensure fairness and equity.
Surely it is what flies that should be specified.At present we have a RTF specification for Electric but IC models can be adjusted up weight wise to whatever somebody wishes.
So I think the only thing that matters is can extra weight ever be an advantage.

Colours to the mast ; I think it can be.

Brian

MTK

Of course I know that Brian.

My point is really simple, so simple guys fail to see it.Exactly what I'm saying too,current 5 kilos plus fuel allowance. Make the fuel allowance an average weight based on the thirtiest powerplant the YS170-175 running glow. I think the YS drivers need a reasonable weight here to make it practical (Of course the final allowed weight appliesequally to all power types)

Forget about how much gas a competition flight needs, it is irrelevant for setting a maximum allowance / model weight in the regs; rather, base the allowance on the typical tank size people use on their YS powered planes, which is 20 fluid ounces. Do some use 12 oz tanks? perhaps... do some use 22 or 24 or maybe even 30 ozs? probably... The 20 fluid ounce tank leaves no one outside looking in and obsoletes nothing.

Next, the weight of 20 ozs of appropriate glow fuel is18 ounces. Take half that weight and that's the allowance. True, under this schema the wet powered model's TAKE OFF weight may be higher than the average allowed weight, but make that concession up front andget folks to understand the consumable part of the equation. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

Or forget about allowing the TAKE OFF weight to be higher. Just concede on adding 9 ozs (about 260 grams) to the current 5 kilos. That's the new max, gassed up and RTF

flyncajun

Brian

Don`t you think that if the airplanes are the same size, one taking off at a heavier weight would be a dissadvantage? I think there should be a rule saying the lighter planes get a deduction for the % of weight advantage

I see no problems making weight with either version, electric or Glow Right now. And I don`t understand the complaining!
Dave Lochart , Andrew, Jason, are using regular available models that anybody can buy and are lighter than the glow guys.
Heck, I think Dave told me he was near 10 pounds. that would have been impossible just a few short years ago.

The big problem is that most of us are Lazy, we want to buy stuff off the shelf, stuff it in a plane and have no issues.
Then we blame the manf. that we could not make weight. Or we blame the rules.

FAI is a "Pro" Class. The rules define the competition, not the other way around.
I`m not sure if you have ever flown competitively in a world class event, But you don`t hear any pro`s complaining about the rules.
They study them, know them, compete within the rules as they are defined. They realize any change makes a big difference in the approach of competition. Jason did not complain about the rules when he flew his first electric Worlds in your country. He worked with what was available and placed very well as I recall. This was with very primitive equipment!

The rules are fair as they are, Electrics are relitively new comers, if it were that much better, there would not be a drive by the lower players for fairness. or to equalize the two systems. Electric airplanes are still overbuilt, we are just learning to build them lighter now.
The problem is the Manf. are cautious! and they know Joe Blow is going to buy the plane for the most part, and are built 10% heavier than they need to be for durability.

What happend to us, we used to all be builders ,the next thing you know there will be a rule stating the modeler cannot build his own model.(to keep it fair).

If you choose to fly Electric there are drawbacks.
The draw backs to flying glow is ,you have to know how to tune a IC Motor. and carry a bottle of windex. That is the main reason Guys fly Electric it`s easy ( well all except for making weight
Competition is not easy, nor should the rules make it easy. the rules drive development.
Every rule change creates a large delta of direction,and in equipment. Be carefull what you wish for.

IC will always have the power advantage which means we will always have the ability to have bigger airplanes,or bigger motors.
Bipes are just taking off, and I bet you if they ever increase the weight rule I will be able to build a Much bigger bi-plane
And if Oxai produces it ,it will sell for $10.000.

Bryan

serious power

Hi Bryan,
You are making a lot of random points there.
I am not 'complaining'.
This debate is NOT about 'making weight'.
My dog in this row is simple ; One specification for anything that is specified like size,weight etc.

Yes normally extra weight is not good or an advantage.
However do people fly faster in wind - if so why ?

Re the 'pros complaining' comment for example I have it on good authority that a certain W Matt voted for the change proposal.

Re the rules ; We the F3A community make them - well at least some of us try to contribute in this regard.
And yes I have represented my Country many times - though I wish I could do better for it at tines.
And you ??

Re the lower players comment ; What might they be ??

I like development and welcome change - Fear of change is futile.

As for some of the other points;
I,as do many others, build as light as anybody inc,, yourself .
I,as do many others, tune engines as good as anybody also inc,, yourself .

It's easy to make claims like IC will always have more power - the funny thing is that it is mostly,though not all, the guys making these sort of claims that oppose this weight proposal.

At $10,000.00 I'm sure it will sell well , probably nearly as good as the last one of yours that they offered.

Brian

flyncajun

WOW ! seems like you took personal offense sorry,
I was addressing you , in your above comments, and, the overall arching arguments that seems to be brought up every few years.
Not that you have made every one of those aurguments.

I have no doubt W Matt voted for the increase ,I don`t have any authority telling me but ,it it would Pass ,I`m sure WG would switch back to glow

However,If you think my Shark was such a failed model , Why do you keep asking me to help you trim yours you seem to think I`m an authority at designing and trimming Bipes And For the record, I pulled the Shark from production. for the same reason why your model does not fly well. It flys as good as any on the market . I just chose not to sell a model for 6000.00 that flew like all the rest because I`m a perfectionist and could not sell it for the price asked knowing it was flawed.

Also, I`m not against a weight increase , I could abide with it easy ,and look forward to the day it may pass But, the aurgument for it is just weak and wrong. "Johnny come lately " wants to play ,but thinks the rules are not fair. I welcome the opportunity to make bigger models, being a Designer, Builder ,not an assembler look forward to the opportunity to tread new ground. But it will not keep things" fair." as you like to put it. This is your aurgument not mine.

I have represented my country in the World Champs many times by designing and building the models "according to the rules" that gave the opportunity for the pilot to do as well as he could. I know you have done the same, and I hope you can make it on the team again soon, to do it again.

If I came accross abrasive, it`s my nature Blunt, Honest, truthfull. I have no agenda.

Bryan

grantb

Hi Bryan I still owe you 100 bucks (although that is R100 South African Rand unfortunately for you ) Pitch up for the 2013 WC and I'll pay up

What is wrong with a standard measurement of weight? We are not talking about a weight "increase" we are talking about a standard weight regardless of the propulsion method.

If someone produces an "infinity drive" that is weightless and provides more power than anything we know about now then what will we do? Make them put in ballast?

F3A can not progress further (in my small uncounted opinion) if we don't have a standard. You can not continue to measure IC by one standard and electric by another and the next great invention by a third.

Weigh the plane "ready to fly". If it loses weight, gains weight, whatever, so be it.

PS: Of course there is an alternative. Weigh the plane without fuel

serious power

Hi Bryan,
No offence taken whatsoever. I'm getting used to your reply's .
I have already repeated the description of 'my dog in this row' and you have addressed a lot of things in your last two posts but not in any way my core point.
I won't repeat it now.
I have no idea how the Shark was, success or failure wise, just that I don't see many - any actually .

Again I'm not taking any offence but just to put in the picture so to speak ;
'Johnny come lately' - I designed,laid up and built my first all composite F3A model in 1990.
Carbon, kevlar , glass/polystyrene/Kevlar sandwich and glass/rohacell/glass sandwich.
I was popping these out of the molds at 15oz for the Fuz c/w belly-pan and removable canopy.
I really hate the blowing of trumpets btw.

You did not come across as abrasive more like you were rambling all over the place.

Brian