Masters Class in AMA pattern.
08-16-2008, 05:06 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Masters Class in AMA pattern.
Please take this as face value. I will repeat many times in this post I have no dog in this hunt. I will not be flying AMA pattern Masters Class any time in the near future. Seems a preface must accompany these types of posts. This is not an attack in any way....this a things that make you go Hmmmmmmm type of post.
I did not voice my opinion to my contest board member as it doesn't affect my flying in any way at all. The rules I fly under have nothing to do with AMA competition regulations and therefore I feel the pilots it affects directly should have the say.
This post is a little long...but I felt some interesting ideas popped into my head. This dialog was brought on in answering a question about the max allowed voltage in AMA pattern. This discussion is merely that. I have no dog in the hunt at all and will continue to fly F3A. However I find it curious that AMA masters class struggles for identity and "even" footing with F3A as a destination class. I'll say right now I'm not in favor of any mandatory class advancement, and not in favor of the current masters class top heavy issues. When we attend a contest now...I'm usually one of 3-4 F3A pilots and in California we have to sit through 10-12 Masters pilots at a shot for each round. Consider that the F3A pilots gets tapped on the shoulder 3-4 rounds out of six...This means we are sitting the chair a fair bit of the weekend. I throw out some observations and not taking sides with any of these issues. As I stated they do not affect me....I fly F3A and will continue to do so.
here is the electric part of that discussion. It transitions at the end to some think about things that were passed this last go around.
The rule just passed by the AMA contest board limits the voltage to the 42V nominal just like F3A. This rule takes affect in January 2009. Current rule for AMA classes.... there is no rule on maximum voltage today. Until January 09' you could run a 12S system if you like. After January 09 this is no longer allowed.
Not sure on the reasoning behind that change. The no limit as it has been for some time would have allowed for lighter weight batteries. Yes there would have been more voltage and more cells in the series column but less capacity needed means far fewer cells in the parallel column. Since the Watts is Volts * Amps, Voltage goes up amps goes down from the power equation.
So with the voltage increasing by 20% the current would be reduced by 20%. Not to mention the lower the current draw the more efficient the system will be.
My opinion has always been in running a 12S system you could likely reduce the battery needed down to a 3500-4000mah pack. A couple years ago when I was looking at the electric setup I thought this would be a huge advantage to Electric. But Alas I don't fly AMA pattern and the F3A rule is 42V unloaded.
I did the math using the 5300mah prolite packs from Thunderpower back when I was running electric. This is a 10S 4P setup at 5300mah. 40 cells that are basically 1300mah each.
So if you go to 12S setup on this same pack you end up with 2 extra cells for the series yet you reduce the total number of cells in Parallel. The pack would be a 4000mah pack instead of a 5300. This is the 20% reduction in capacity to give equal power out in the equation.. The new pack would be a 12S 3P pack....So the total number of cells is 36 instead of 10S4P packs 40 cells.
To give you an idea on the weights of these savings a 2S 1320 RX pack same cells as the 5300 prolite packs.... is 60g...so a 4 cell savings would be at least 100g maybe 120g Not to mention 4 less cells costs less too....you just reduced the number of total cells, weight, and cost by 10%. ( 4 less cells out of the 40cell pack is 10% less weight)
The 12S would give more power also...Remember the motors run on RPM per Volt. The KV rating of the motor. So you would actually have more power at a lower weight. and with the gain in efficiency of reducing the current draw by 20% you would definitely improve on the system. Current draw numbers would drop from 60-70amps down to 48-56amps and you gain efficiency because of lower current draw. This means its much easier on battery life and battery capacity...So the 4000mah pack is plenty.
I don't know about the current batch of motors but I do know there are controllers that will handle 12S voltage setups.
All of this exercise is pretty mute now as the vote was taken and it passed. You guys in AMA pattern are stuck at the same level as F3A. This would have been a solution that could have really given the glow engine a run for its money in the power department and weight department. How many guys flying electric today would like to have 20% more power for the same weight? Or the bigger question is since electric guys are happy with their power output. How you they like to reduce their battery by 20% capacity and current usage? Or here is a big one How many guys flying electric now would like to reduce the weight of their model by 3-4oz. The current YS 170DZ setup is on average 8-10oz lighter than a similar FAI electric setup. Well if the electric was only 5-7oz heavier and was capable of more power with lower current draw....would this inspire more electric driven AMA pattern models.
Hmm seems like this would have been a way to increase electric reliability, power and reduce cost and weight.
I guess its all what if now, nobody took advantage of the opportunity the last 5 years provided. In pattern the pilots in F3A really determine the setups and direction the sport takes. Perhaps the argument for Masters flying F3A prelim sequences seems to be a more valid today than it has in the past. Masters class or all of AMA is tracking in step with F3A as it is. I think a good case could be made for both judging, flying and rules consistency if Masters followed that last little step.
But then again I have no dog in that hunt and don't have an opinion on it. I'm very happy at the moment flying F3A. Its just very interesting how the rules seem to be evolving and limiting the game yet in the end what is the real reasoning behind the change. I don't think it was the glow guys that proposed that change to the Voltage rule in AMA. Yet the Glow setups will benefit in the long term from this type of rule. Maybe that was the reasoning behind the proposal. Keep parity
I mention this merely because of the interesting turn of events of keeping instep and how AMA pattern struggles to keep its identity. Yet the aircraft, and all the setups seem to trickle down from the top.
I post this not as a Glow vs Electric argument but just as curiosity in the way things have washed out in the last 5 yrs. I seem to see more AMA pattern guys going electric and yet they seem to be putting limits on the very systems that are keeping many top world level pilots with the Glow engines. there is no doubt in my mind if the FAI had raised the Voltage limit on this last rules cycle that there would have been an increase in pilots flying F3A that would have gone electric. Keeping the rule the way it was, and I was in favor of that by the way, kept the electric and glow in much more even footing for F3A. The demands and needs for Masters class are much below the F3A sequence demands of being required to do the Finals patterns too. However it seems that masters adopting the Prelim schedules could keep the models more in line with the F3A rules,a nd model needs.
Just food for thought. I know there are some seriously passionate people that want to keep masters with its own identity as the top national level class. Yet the events and changes in rules seem to deviate from that.
After all look at the masters 2009 sequence. I flew it just before the NATS as a "practice for unknowns" seems to me its a P-07 sequence. Why not just use P-07. The FAI guys will have a good bead on judging it as we flew it for 2 years. If the masters flew the current P-09 then it would really be a shot in the arm for judging as the pilots judging each other would learn from one another and also the judges would be knowing where to look for mistakes too. This would also help with the current F3A judging duties when 3-4 guys have to sit through the 12 Masters pilots. Looking and judging your own sequence would be much easier on brain power than learning a new one as well. Same goes for the Masters guys judging F3A. I can only see a benefit to both groups of pilots. A question comes in what is the benefit to Pattern of keeping Masters its own identity. In light of some of these changes and the look of masters today...I'm finding less and less reason to keep the Masters from the F3A prelim sequences. In the past I was opposed to the masters flying the F3A prelims, however now with these new events by the contest board. I ask my self what are the goals and what would make pattern better for all those pilots involved.
I know there are a bunch of Masters guys that will yell bloody murder they always do when the suggestion comes up to fly F3A Prelims in Masters....yet these rule changes were submitted by Masters Pilots not F3A pilots...and these changes are going into affect and will be the letter of the law until 2011.
A little off topic but interesting related events with the rules changes now coming in place. The sound rule has also now changed for AMA pattern was not the same rule as the FAI rule. The rules change that was submitted and passed now says the rules are the same. This results in a decrease from the current allowed sound level...from 96db(A) to the 94db(A) all surfaces for Masters and all AMA classes.
Things that make you go "hmmmmmm" when considering the identity of an independent and governed Masters class.
I'm not for or against this stuff just interesting changes and I thought some discussion would be good.
The Masters guys can now all threaten to quit flying pattern if we were to fly F3A prelims in the Masters class.
This is the usual turn of events. The argument they give and the stance they take....Yet FAI pilots didn't submit these rules changes that limit the Masters pilots and put them in step with F3A.
I just wanted some dialog regarding some of these changes. I'm also looking for a solution so I can have some fun at a contest too. Sitting for 2 hours straight 3-4 times at local events is wearing thin on me and other F3A pilots that attend these largely Masters populated events. Yet you don't see the F3A guys threatening to quit coming to events...12 masters pilots takes 2 full hours to judge. I have attended 4-5 events this year and at each one I have judges a min of 3 rounds and a max of 5 rounds per contest. That is 6-10 hrs sitting in a chair judging the Masters pilots. This is not the fun part of the contest yet seems to take up most of F3A pilots time at an event.
Flying the current F3A sequence would shorten the sequences a bunch in the time category, plus it becomes a learning experience for both sides. The Masters guys see how the F3A pilots do it and the F3A guys are seeing the little details the masters guys have to offer. To me this seems to promote better flying and more common ground between the two groups of pilots. I know I personally learn more from watching pilots with better skills than myself doing the same maneuvers.
I'm not saying the pilots all compete together in one class. Just that both classes flying the same sequence can't be the end of the world. I think the benefits today far outweigh the.....
"I'm not gonna play, taking my Plane and going home" attitude that has been voiced over the year in opposition to such an idea.
again let me say I have no dog in this fight. As I continue to say I'm not attacking any opinions just looking logically at those opinions. In the past I could agree with them for various reasons. Today I don't agree with those opinions.
I'm going to still attend events and would never threaten my non participation as a way to get my ideas pushed forward. I would submit that anyone that uses the if they do it I won't play answer is not making an argument rather they are just making threats to keep it the way they like it.
I just would like to hear some reasons why Masters class is opposed to such a change given the current 2009 rules.
What in the current P-09 and P-11 sequences are beyond the level of the current or next Masters sequence.
thank you for your time...I didn't attack an thoughts just voiced some observations and opinions. I ask the same respect in turn
Troy Newman
I did not voice my opinion to my contest board member as it doesn't affect my flying in any way at all. The rules I fly under have nothing to do with AMA competition regulations and therefore I feel the pilots it affects directly should have the say.
This post is a little long...but I felt some interesting ideas popped into my head. This dialog was brought on in answering a question about the max allowed voltage in AMA pattern. This discussion is merely that. I have no dog in the hunt at all and will continue to fly F3A. However I find it curious that AMA masters class struggles for identity and "even" footing with F3A as a destination class. I'll say right now I'm not in favor of any mandatory class advancement, and not in favor of the current masters class top heavy issues. When we attend a contest now...I'm usually one of 3-4 F3A pilots and in California we have to sit through 10-12 Masters pilots at a shot for each round. Consider that the F3A pilots gets tapped on the shoulder 3-4 rounds out of six...This means we are sitting the chair a fair bit of the weekend. I throw out some observations and not taking sides with any of these issues. As I stated they do not affect me....I fly F3A and will continue to do so.
here is the electric part of that discussion. It transitions at the end to some think about things that were passed this last go around.
The rule just passed by the AMA contest board limits the voltage to the 42V nominal just like F3A. This rule takes affect in January 2009. Current rule for AMA classes.... there is no rule on maximum voltage today. Until January 09' you could run a 12S system if you like. After January 09 this is no longer allowed.
Not sure on the reasoning behind that change. The no limit as it has been for some time would have allowed for lighter weight batteries. Yes there would have been more voltage and more cells in the series column but less capacity needed means far fewer cells in the parallel column. Since the Watts is Volts * Amps, Voltage goes up amps goes down from the power equation.
So with the voltage increasing by 20% the current would be reduced by 20%. Not to mention the lower the current draw the more efficient the system will be.
My opinion has always been in running a 12S system you could likely reduce the battery needed down to a 3500-4000mah pack. A couple years ago when I was looking at the electric setup I thought this would be a huge advantage to Electric. But Alas I don't fly AMA pattern and the F3A rule is 42V unloaded.
I did the math using the 5300mah prolite packs from Thunderpower back when I was running electric. This is a 10S 4P setup at 5300mah. 40 cells that are basically 1300mah each.
So if you go to 12S setup on this same pack you end up with 2 extra cells for the series yet you reduce the total number of cells in Parallel. The pack would be a 4000mah pack instead of a 5300. This is the 20% reduction in capacity to give equal power out in the equation.. The new pack would be a 12S 3P pack....So the total number of cells is 36 instead of 10S4P packs 40 cells.
To give you an idea on the weights of these savings a 2S 1320 RX pack same cells as the 5300 prolite packs.... is 60g...so a 4 cell savings would be at least 100g maybe 120g Not to mention 4 less cells costs less too....you just reduced the number of total cells, weight, and cost by 10%. ( 4 less cells out of the 40cell pack is 10% less weight)
The 12S would give more power also...Remember the motors run on RPM per Volt. The KV rating of the motor. So you would actually have more power at a lower weight. and with the gain in efficiency of reducing the current draw by 20% you would definitely improve on the system. Current draw numbers would drop from 60-70amps down to 48-56amps and you gain efficiency because of lower current draw. This means its much easier on battery life and battery capacity...So the 4000mah pack is plenty.
I don't know about the current batch of motors but I do know there are controllers that will handle 12S voltage setups.
All of this exercise is pretty mute now as the vote was taken and it passed. You guys in AMA pattern are stuck at the same level as F3A. This would have been a solution that could have really given the glow engine a run for its money in the power department and weight department. How many guys flying electric today would like to have 20% more power for the same weight? Or the bigger question is since electric guys are happy with their power output. How you they like to reduce their battery by 20% capacity and current usage? Or here is a big one How many guys flying electric now would like to reduce the weight of their model by 3-4oz. The current YS 170DZ setup is on average 8-10oz lighter than a similar FAI electric setup. Well if the electric was only 5-7oz heavier and was capable of more power with lower current draw....would this inspire more electric driven AMA pattern models.
Hmm seems like this would have been a way to increase electric reliability, power and reduce cost and weight.
I guess its all what if now, nobody took advantage of the opportunity the last 5 years provided. In pattern the pilots in F3A really determine the setups and direction the sport takes. Perhaps the argument for Masters flying F3A prelim sequences seems to be a more valid today than it has in the past. Masters class or all of AMA is tracking in step with F3A as it is. I think a good case could be made for both judging, flying and rules consistency if Masters followed that last little step.
But then again I have no dog in that hunt and don't have an opinion on it. I'm very happy at the moment flying F3A. Its just very interesting how the rules seem to be evolving and limiting the game yet in the end what is the real reasoning behind the change. I don't think it was the glow guys that proposed that change to the Voltage rule in AMA. Yet the Glow setups will benefit in the long term from this type of rule. Maybe that was the reasoning behind the proposal. Keep parity
I mention this merely because of the interesting turn of events of keeping instep and how AMA pattern struggles to keep its identity. Yet the aircraft, and all the setups seem to trickle down from the top.
I post this not as a Glow vs Electric argument but just as curiosity in the way things have washed out in the last 5 yrs. I seem to see more AMA pattern guys going electric and yet they seem to be putting limits on the very systems that are keeping many top world level pilots with the Glow engines. there is no doubt in my mind if the FAI had raised the Voltage limit on this last rules cycle that there would have been an increase in pilots flying F3A that would have gone electric. Keeping the rule the way it was, and I was in favor of that by the way, kept the electric and glow in much more even footing for F3A. The demands and needs for Masters class are much below the F3A sequence demands of being required to do the Finals patterns too. However it seems that masters adopting the Prelim schedules could keep the models more in line with the F3A rules,a nd model needs.
Just food for thought. I know there are some seriously passionate people that want to keep masters with its own identity as the top national level class. Yet the events and changes in rules seem to deviate from that.
After all look at the masters 2009 sequence. I flew it just before the NATS as a "practice for unknowns" seems to me its a P-07 sequence. Why not just use P-07. The FAI guys will have a good bead on judging it as we flew it for 2 years. If the masters flew the current P-09 then it would really be a shot in the arm for judging as the pilots judging each other would learn from one another and also the judges would be knowing where to look for mistakes too. This would also help with the current F3A judging duties when 3-4 guys have to sit through the 12 Masters pilots. Looking and judging your own sequence would be much easier on brain power than learning a new one as well. Same goes for the Masters guys judging F3A. I can only see a benefit to both groups of pilots. A question comes in what is the benefit to Pattern of keeping Masters its own identity. In light of some of these changes and the look of masters today...I'm finding less and less reason to keep the Masters from the F3A prelim sequences. In the past I was opposed to the masters flying the F3A prelims, however now with these new events by the contest board. I ask my self what are the goals and what would make pattern better for all those pilots involved.
I know there are a bunch of Masters guys that will yell bloody murder they always do when the suggestion comes up to fly F3A Prelims in Masters....yet these rule changes were submitted by Masters Pilots not F3A pilots...and these changes are going into affect and will be the letter of the law until 2011.
A little off topic but interesting related events with the rules changes now coming in place. The sound rule has also now changed for AMA pattern was not the same rule as the FAI rule. The rules change that was submitted and passed now says the rules are the same. This results in a decrease from the current allowed sound level...from 96db(A) to the 94db(A) all surfaces for Masters and all AMA classes.
Things that make you go "hmmmmmm" when considering the identity of an independent and governed Masters class.
I'm not for or against this stuff just interesting changes and I thought some discussion would be good.
The Masters guys can now all threaten to quit flying pattern if we were to fly F3A prelims in the Masters class.
This is the usual turn of events. The argument they give and the stance they take....Yet FAI pilots didn't submit these rules changes that limit the Masters pilots and put them in step with F3A.
I just wanted some dialog regarding some of these changes. I'm also looking for a solution so I can have some fun at a contest too. Sitting for 2 hours straight 3-4 times at local events is wearing thin on me and other F3A pilots that attend these largely Masters populated events. Yet you don't see the F3A guys threatening to quit coming to events...12 masters pilots takes 2 full hours to judge. I have attended 4-5 events this year and at each one I have judges a min of 3 rounds and a max of 5 rounds per contest. That is 6-10 hrs sitting in a chair judging the Masters pilots. This is not the fun part of the contest yet seems to take up most of F3A pilots time at an event.
Flying the current F3A sequence would shorten the sequences a bunch in the time category, plus it becomes a learning experience for both sides. The Masters guys see how the F3A pilots do it and the F3A guys are seeing the little details the masters guys have to offer. To me this seems to promote better flying and more common ground between the two groups of pilots. I know I personally learn more from watching pilots with better skills than myself doing the same maneuvers.
I'm not saying the pilots all compete together in one class. Just that both classes flying the same sequence can't be the end of the world. I think the benefits today far outweigh the.....
"I'm not gonna play, taking my Plane and going home" attitude that has been voiced over the year in opposition to such an idea.
again let me say I have no dog in this fight. As I continue to say I'm not attacking any opinions just looking logically at those opinions. In the past I could agree with them for various reasons. Today I don't agree with those opinions.
I'm going to still attend events and would never threaten my non participation as a way to get my ideas pushed forward. I would submit that anyone that uses the if they do it I won't play answer is not making an argument rather they are just making threats to keep it the way they like it.
I just would like to hear some reasons why Masters class is opposed to such a change given the current 2009 rules.
What in the current P-09 and P-11 sequences are beyond the level of the current or next Masters sequence.
thank you for your time...I didn't attack an thoughts just voiced some observations and opinions. I ask the same respect in turn
Troy Newman
08-16-2008, 07:54 PM
#2
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bolivia, NC
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
Troy,
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
I've submitted rules proposals in two previous rules cycles for Masters to use current FAI "P" schedule and to eliminate mandatory class advancement. Seems to solve several issues to me. They got shouted down pretty thoroughly in the past using some of the same reason you stated. They still makes sense to me so maybe your post will stimulate some serious discussion of these ideas.
Dave Burton
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
I've submitted rules proposals in two previous rules cycles for Masters to use current FAI "P" schedule and to eliminate mandatory class advancement. Seems to solve several issues to me. They got shouted down pretty thoroughly in the past using some of the same reason you stated. They still makes sense to me so maybe your post will stimulate some serious discussion of these ideas.
Dave Burton
08-16-2008, 08:42 PM
#3
My Feedback: (92)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rosamond, CA
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
Some interesting points Troy. But I have some responses.
As someone who intends to get back to pattern flying I am interested in Masters class, as that is what I intend to fly. At my age I have zero chance of competing with the "kids" in the current F3A event. The unknowns make it too difficult. So I do have a dog in the hunt.
In regards to the number of Masters fliers to F3A pilots at a local meet, Troy, get over it and accept it. It's the price you will pay to fly F3A since it is such a huge step in difficulty over Masters when taken in total and with the current F3A rules you will never see that change.
And why do anything to shorten the schedule? It seems like you are taking an even shorter survey to come up with a result. IMO that makes the results even more questionable. I understand why they do it in F3A as those rules are designed solely for use at a Continental or World championships. The FAI is not concerned in the least how the F3A rules are used at the local level. Now having said that I feel that Masters 09 is too easy. Masters pilots should be more open to some increasing difficulty in the schedule, like climbing snaps or rolling circles. But hard to argue with success!
And BTW, why are you talking about what's broke in Masters when it is often the class with the most entrants? Seems like that makes it the most successful class at the local level. What is more important is what is broke in Sportsman and Intermediate!
I personally feel that the restrictions on models should be eased in AMA pattern. It is getting to be too expensive to get a 2-meter airplane under 5 Kg that is properly powered for less then $5 to 6K. Start adding it up. It is a huge limitation to getting new pattern pilots. Look at the huge amount of ARF IMAC model available, even in 2-meter sizes. They are extremely well priced and are very popular. But how many can be used in pattern? Practically none as they are over the weight limit. The few manufacturers who attempted weight legal ARF pattern models in the 2-meter size had failure issues and got drummed out of the pattern business. So they went back to making 12 to 14 pound 2-meter IMAC style models and the business thrives.
As to 10S electrics giving glow a run for their money, what just won F3A at the Nats? Hey!
Now let's discuss the removal of throw away flights in the finals!
As someone who intends to get back to pattern flying I am interested in Masters class, as that is what I intend to fly. At my age I have zero chance of competing with the "kids" in the current F3A event. The unknowns make it too difficult. So I do have a dog in the hunt.
In regards to the number of Masters fliers to F3A pilots at a local meet, Troy, get over it and accept it. It's the price you will pay to fly F3A since it is such a huge step in difficulty over Masters when taken in total and with the current F3A rules you will never see that change.
And why do anything to shorten the schedule? It seems like you are taking an even shorter survey to come up with a result. IMO that makes the results even more questionable. I understand why they do it in F3A as those rules are designed solely for use at a Continental or World championships. The FAI is not concerned in the least how the F3A rules are used at the local level. Now having said that I feel that Masters 09 is too easy. Masters pilots should be more open to some increasing difficulty in the schedule, like climbing snaps or rolling circles. But hard to argue with success!
And BTW, why are you talking about what's broke in Masters when it is often the class with the most entrants? Seems like that makes it the most successful class at the local level. What is more important is what is broke in Sportsman and Intermediate!
I personally feel that the restrictions on models should be eased in AMA pattern. It is getting to be too expensive to get a 2-meter airplane under 5 Kg that is properly powered for less then $5 to 6K. Start adding it up. It is a huge limitation to getting new pattern pilots. Look at the huge amount of ARF IMAC model available, even in 2-meter sizes. They are extremely well priced and are very popular. But how many can be used in pattern? Practically none as they are over the weight limit. The few manufacturers who attempted weight legal ARF pattern models in the 2-meter size had failure issues and got drummed out of the pattern business. So they went back to making 12 to 14 pound 2-meter IMAC style models and the business thrives.
As to 10S electrics giving glow a run for their money, what just won F3A at the Nats? Hey!
Now let's discuss the removal of throw away flights in the finals!
08-16-2008, 09:59 PM
#4
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
Troy,
You are way oversimplifying going to 12s....it doesn't work like how you described. Essentially torque is generated by your amps, going to 12s won't lower you amps, it will raise your power, or reduce your rpm to maintain your power...all you will end up with is a 12s 5000 pack @ 4000W that can't make it through the sequence, and can't make weight. The motors for 12s already exist, call it a fluke but a 10s lipo setup is the best option for f3a.
As to your weight comment, my Integral weighed in at 4770 with 5200 packs....what is the Euphoria dry...? ....wet?
You are way oversimplifying going to 12s....it doesn't work like how you described. Essentially torque is generated by your amps, going to 12s won't lower you amps, it will raise your power, or reduce your rpm to maintain your power...all you will end up with is a 12s 5000 pack @ 4000W that can't make it through the sequence, and can't make weight. The motors for 12s already exist, call it a fluke but a 10s lipo setup is the best option for f3a.
As to your weight comment, my Integral weighed in at 4770 with 5200 packs....what is the Euphoria dry...? ....wet?
08-16-2008, 10:11 PM
#5
My Feedback: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dalzell, SC
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
Tony,Troy Et Al,
I think it's time to do away with the weight limit. We had an engine size limit for years and now we don't. I believe eliminating the weight limit would actually lower the cost of flying pattern greatly. It would allow many small gas engines to suddenly become usable and open the door to literally hundreds of $400-$500 arf's. Wouldn't take much to build a good 2x2 if the weight limit is gone. Or we could just raise the limit to 55 pounds.
Let's be honest here. We follow FAI so we can ,EVERY OTHER YEAR, send THREE guys to ONE contest. It's time to allow Pattern to evolve beyond what we currently have.
Or......................... we can all go fly IMAC.
I like flying IMAC but the airplanes really don't fly worth a damn as compared to a well trimmed pattern plane.
Tim
I think it's time to do away with the weight limit. We had an engine size limit for years and now we don't. I believe eliminating the weight limit would actually lower the cost of flying pattern greatly. It would allow many small gas engines to suddenly become usable and open the door to literally hundreds of $400-$500 arf's. Wouldn't take much to build a good 2x2 if the weight limit is gone. Or we could just raise the limit to 55 pounds.
Let's be honest here. We follow FAI so we can ,EVERY OTHER YEAR, send THREE guys to ONE contest. It's time to allow Pattern to evolve beyond what we currently have.
Or......................... we can all go fly IMAC.
I like flying IMAC but the airplanes really don't fly worth a damn as compared to a well trimmed pattern plane.
Tim
08-16-2008, 10:32 PM
#6
My Feedback: (45)
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
Tim,
I beg to differ. Everytime they change something that is supposed to lower the cost it never does. Planes will just start getting bigger. You'd start seeing MUCH larger bipes that still fit the 2 meter limit, but doing away with the weight limit would give them some room to really play with these. Even allowing the gas stuff in, how much cheaper is it really. You'd start seeing guys running DA-50's and such, which other than the cost per flight aren't that much cheaper. I really don't think getting rid of the weight limit will do what people hope it would. Pattern is always going to be expensive. It's probably a lot more expensive than it has to be as it is. There are cheaper options, running an OS 1.60 instead of the YS or electric setups. Building your own planes from kits, and we certainly don't "need" the radio's we fly. I personally fly a 14MZ and wouldn't trade it for anything. You fly a 12X and certainly don't "need" that for pattern. But we do it anyway. The Phoenix contest in '07 was a perfect example. I showed up on Tuesday with no plane. Rusty Dose offered me his Focus II that had never flown before he arrived in Phoenix. I flew the Focus the first 4 rounds of the contest and flew his brand new Zeque for the last 2 rounds, after a battery failure cost us the Focus. Two planes on opposite ends of the spectrum, and I won 2 rounds of the contest with each. The Zeque definitely flew a little better, but it is a much newer design and I would expect it to. Both planes however were definitely competitive, and that was a Masters contest with multiple guys who had made the finals the previous year at the NATS. FAI is a different story. You need the best of the best in FAI and that is what drives the pattern community, but for the lower classes, we certainly spend more money than we really have to. Pattern guys like to stay on the front end of the curve for "toys"...I don't see that changing anytime soon. There are MUCH cheaper options available, if we choose to use them. You can totally outfit a Focus II, or some other ARF out there for a fraction of the cost of other options. Oxai's stuff is expensive, but it is excellent quality and they have a waiting list on their planes. I don't think lowering the cost of pattern is going to make numbers grow. IMAC's growth exploded a few years ago, and they were even more expensive than pattern.
Arch
I beg to differ. Everytime they change something that is supposed to lower the cost it never does. Planes will just start getting bigger. You'd start seeing MUCH larger bipes that still fit the 2 meter limit, but doing away with the weight limit would give them some room to really play with these. Even allowing the gas stuff in, how much cheaper is it really. You'd start seeing guys running DA-50's and such, which other than the cost per flight aren't that much cheaper. I really don't think getting rid of the weight limit will do what people hope it would. Pattern is always going to be expensive. It's probably a lot more expensive than it has to be as it is. There are cheaper options, running an OS 1.60 instead of the YS or electric setups. Building your own planes from kits, and we certainly don't "need" the radio's we fly. I personally fly a 14MZ and wouldn't trade it for anything. You fly a 12X and certainly don't "need" that for pattern. But we do it anyway. The Phoenix contest in '07 was a perfect example. I showed up on Tuesday with no plane. Rusty Dose offered me his Focus II that had never flown before he arrived in Phoenix. I flew the Focus the first 4 rounds of the contest and flew his brand new Zeque for the last 2 rounds, after a battery failure cost us the Focus. Two planes on opposite ends of the spectrum, and I won 2 rounds of the contest with each. The Zeque definitely flew a little better, but it is a much newer design and I would expect it to. Both planes however were definitely competitive, and that was a Masters contest with multiple guys who had made the finals the previous year at the NATS. FAI is a different story. You need the best of the best in FAI and that is what drives the pattern community, but for the lower classes, we certainly spend more money than we really have to. Pattern guys like to stay on the front end of the curve for "toys"...I don't see that changing anytime soon. There are MUCH cheaper options available, if we choose to use them. You can totally outfit a Focus II, or some other ARF out there for a fraction of the cost of other options. Oxai's stuff is expensive, but it is excellent quality and they have a waiting list on their planes. I don't think lowering the cost of pattern is going to make numbers grow. IMAC's growth exploded a few years ago, and they were even more expensive than pattern.
Arch
08-17-2008, 12:04 AM
#7
Senior Member
Thread Starter
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
Tony man,
good to see you looking at flying pattern again. Regardless of what class.I agree with you man...on everything save the shorter schedules. I'll get to that.
My question and I'm not pushing it to happen just asking why is it such a bad thing....That is Masters to fly the F3A Prelim sequence only. Not the finals patterns or unknowns....Just the P...thats all we pretty much fly at local events in F3A anyways.
As for the bunch of Masters guys at a local events. I know just a note that if masters and F3A were the same prelim sequence it would make this judging lots of Masters guys easier on the brain, easier on the eyes and simplify judge certification and so on. To me as one of the judges of Masters that is a benefit.
Shorter schedule....You make a good point about the opportunity for a pilot to excel at those extra few figures and overcome a competing pilot. Yes the more chances you have to score points the more accurate the contest result will be. This gives the judges that many more opportunities to get it right. However, I wonder just how different the placings would be if the last 5 figures were removed. Last year the F3A sequences were 23 figures long and essentially the top pilots stayed the top pilots. The "team" stayed the same except Brett was added. Besides last year he was 6th not that far off the team then to begin with. Did the guy thats going to win change? If the placing is not changing then why are we burning out the judges. Its not like the change is from 23 figures to 5 or 9 maneuvers. Another issue to consider is judge fatigue. Its pilot/judging issues...do those last 5 figures really determine the winner better or does the winner come from a standard of higher consistent flying? If the judges have a shortened concentration time perhaps the judging standard could increase too.
I did not like the idea of a shorter F3A sequence until this year. Now having flown it almost a full season. I am very happy about it.
You and I had a similar conversation back a few years ago. The just of that conversation was why aren't we still flying the 60 size models. They were cheaper, smaller, and easier to build at the weight limits. Nothing changed going to the 2 meter and no engine limit rules. Nothing changed I mean in terms of the winner of the contest. The same guys still won even after they went to their 2M electric or 2M bipes or big wide body Partners. I don't see 23 figures down to 17 as changing that result.
I have no doubt that if you flew F3A on the local level it would be very good competition between us as it was before.
Masters 09 being easy. That is one of my points. The anti F3A prelim in Masters answer is Masters is trying to not get complex like FAI yet the current schedule for Masters and the 2009 sequence pretty much bracket P-09 in the middle for skill level. If there is something like a rolling loop or some something why not just replace that figure...P-11 has a loop with 8pt at the top...Why not just replace it with an Avalanche. Or the Figure M that everybody thinks is going to be hard. Just make it an outside 1/2 loop. The elements and judging will still stay in step but a committee could make small tweaks based on a "no roller" rule or even adjust snaps on uplines to normal roll combos but the sequence would still be inline and the benefits reaped in judging and flying.
Many countries do this. They have a National level and a Championship level. Both fly P-09 then the Championship level flies the Finals schedules with unknowns and so on.
If AMA wants to be the same as F3A in terms of rules and models then why not just fly the Prelim sequences is my question?
I don't want to get into the validity of the limits rules....I agree with the F3A rules. If I didn't I would not be flying it. There are other modeling avenues to pursue. Heli's jets, scale, hell for that matter my neighbor flies CL in a local CL club. I found out last week. We have lived on the same street for 2.5yrs.
Oh I know all too well that a 10S setup won the NATS...and not just this year but the last 5 years in a row have been electric 10S setups in FAI at the top.
What my point is why would AMA pattern take the decision to limit the system to 10-S when there was no need to do it. I still contend that 12S would be lighter for the same setup, less current draw for the same power, and easier on the batts for the same power. I respect Chad's info here as I felt it would be better. having never tried it I don't know. I fly F3A and in F3A the limits are defined for me 10S is it. Chad has been doing it for a long time....As it is now...if the 12S setups don't make the thing work then again why the change in AMA..
The limit has what benefit in AMA?
This is NOT a hit on Electric vs glow....Its a question why AMA Pattern would take the position of limiting the options in E-Power for the AMA classes? Where is the benefit and what are they trying to solve?
My models were 4948g dry on the one I flew all week. The other one was 4974g but it had a broken wing that was repaired when the bozos tried to steal it from my car. Again both legal in the F3A rules...and the Euphoria is a big model compared to the Integral. The very nature of the Bipe is big Volume in the sky.
My weight comment was comparing two similar models....10.5lbs is a good weight for an electric model. What does a glow powered Integral weigh...10lbs even. So my point was on average electric adds about 8oz to a glow setup same airframe that is. Right? My electric Pinnacle was 10.5lbs and a glow version was just a little over 10lbs. Same airframe, same equipment save the power system and fuel source.
Wet weight has nothing to do with the issue...I get to weigh my plane with the fuel tank dry.
You poor E guys are at such a disadvantage that you have been kicking my butt for years.
Noted that we are only using about 12-14oz anyways with the new motor. So the wet weight difference is much less. We are caring only about 60% of the fuel we had last year.I want to stay on topic here.
I'm not endorsing the rule changes and I'm not saying they were poor changes...just asking why the double take?
I guess my question boils down to this.....IF AMA pattern wants to keep its identity by keeping its own top class (separate but equal) Realize we are already there dealing with a schedule that is in reality very close to skill level with the Prelim F3A patterns. This is the separate but equal mentality to also include separate judging criteria and concerns?. Why would they pass rule changes that bring them lock step in with F3A rules and specs for model requirements when there was no real need for it?
The sound rule was a prime example...it has nothing to do with E vs Glow.
The follow up question is if AMA pattern is going to blend with F3A as it appears to be doing this by taking on the same specs and limitations what is wrong with the current P-09 and P-11 sequences? The models are trickling from the top down anyway.
I'm not asking to fix Masters. My point is why is F3A the standard to align with- until it comes to flying the same single Prelim pattern at local events? I agree that the Finals and Unknowns are not going to be good for Masters. But the prelim sequence is already on a par....
I will be there to support pattern no matter what the decision.
Tony you and I are on the same page as to where a problem exists. This thread was not really about that problem of new blood.
Flying P-09 as a Masters sequence would help a problem (Not solve it) of inconsistent judging issues, lighten the load on judge training, lighten workload for the judges themselves, and help judge fatigue issues. The idea was not intended to be a solution for patterns lack of new blood.
Tony, Chad and others You know as well as I do we learn from watching those that are doing it better than we are.
I used the electric 12S situation as an example to illustrate my question and query...
Hey Tony you going to go to any contests this fall? I would like to fly with you again. We did have fun and I know I benefited in a huge way from our time together. I think you would like the Euphoria you have a free ride coming for sure when we meet up again. I'm serious man its a Partner with the huge knife edge and turn ability of a Bipe. Snaps, rollers. I know you will like it.
Troy
good to see you looking at flying pattern again. Regardless of what class.I agree with you man...on everything save the shorter schedules. I'll get to that.
My question and I'm not pushing it to happen just asking why is it such a bad thing....That is Masters to fly the F3A Prelim sequence only. Not the finals patterns or unknowns....Just the P...thats all we pretty much fly at local events in F3A anyways.
As for the bunch of Masters guys at a local events. I know just a note that if masters and F3A were the same prelim sequence it would make this judging lots of Masters guys easier on the brain, easier on the eyes and simplify judge certification and so on. To me as one of the judges of Masters that is a benefit.
Shorter schedule....You make a good point about the opportunity for a pilot to excel at those extra few figures and overcome a competing pilot. Yes the more chances you have to score points the more accurate the contest result will be. This gives the judges that many more opportunities to get it right. However, I wonder just how different the placings would be if the last 5 figures were removed. Last year the F3A sequences were 23 figures long and essentially the top pilots stayed the top pilots. The "team" stayed the same except Brett was added. Besides last year he was 6th not that far off the team then to begin with. Did the guy thats going to win change? If the placing is not changing then why are we burning out the judges. Its not like the change is from 23 figures to 5 or 9 maneuvers. Another issue to consider is judge fatigue. Its pilot/judging issues...do those last 5 figures really determine the winner better or does the winner come from a standard of higher consistent flying? If the judges have a shortened concentration time perhaps the judging standard could increase too.
I did not like the idea of a shorter F3A sequence until this year. Now having flown it almost a full season. I am very happy about it.
You and I had a similar conversation back a few years ago. The just of that conversation was why aren't we still flying the 60 size models. They were cheaper, smaller, and easier to build at the weight limits. Nothing changed going to the 2 meter and no engine limit rules. Nothing changed I mean in terms of the winner of the contest. The same guys still won even after they went to their 2M electric or 2M bipes or big wide body Partners. I don't see 23 figures down to 17 as changing that result.
I have no doubt that if you flew F3A on the local level it would be very good competition between us as it was before.
Masters 09 being easy. That is one of my points. The anti F3A prelim in Masters answer is Masters is trying to not get complex like FAI yet the current schedule for Masters and the 2009 sequence pretty much bracket P-09 in the middle for skill level. If there is something like a rolling loop or some something why not just replace that figure...P-11 has a loop with 8pt at the top...Why not just replace it with an Avalanche. Or the Figure M that everybody thinks is going to be hard. Just make it an outside 1/2 loop. The elements and judging will still stay in step but a committee could make small tweaks based on a "no roller" rule or even adjust snaps on uplines to normal roll combos but the sequence would still be inline and the benefits reaped in judging and flying.
Many countries do this. They have a National level and a Championship level. Both fly P-09 then the Championship level flies the Finals schedules with unknowns and so on.
If AMA wants to be the same as F3A in terms of rules and models then why not just fly the Prelim sequences is my question?
I don't want to get into the validity of the limits rules....I agree with the F3A rules. If I didn't I would not be flying it. There are other modeling avenues to pursue. Heli's jets, scale, hell for that matter my neighbor flies CL in a local CL club. I found out last week. We have lived on the same street for 2.5yrs.
Oh I know all too well that a 10S setup won the NATS...and not just this year but the last 5 years in a row have been electric 10S setups in FAI at the top.
What my point is why would AMA pattern take the decision to limit the system to 10-S when there was no need to do it. I still contend that 12S would be lighter for the same setup, less current draw for the same power, and easier on the batts for the same power. I respect Chad's info here as I felt it would be better. having never tried it I don't know. I fly F3A and in F3A the limits are defined for me 10S is it. Chad has been doing it for a long time....As it is now...if the 12S setups don't make the thing work then again why the change in AMA..
The limit has what benefit in AMA?
This is NOT a hit on Electric vs glow....Its a question why AMA Pattern would take the position of limiting the options in E-Power for the AMA classes? Where is the benefit and what are they trying to solve?
My models were 4948g dry on the one I flew all week. The other one was 4974g but it had a broken wing that was repaired when the bozos tried to steal it from my car. Again both legal in the F3A rules...and the Euphoria is a big model compared to the Integral. The very nature of the Bipe is big Volume in the sky.
My weight comment was comparing two similar models....10.5lbs is a good weight for an electric model. What does a glow powered Integral weigh...10lbs even. So my point was on average electric adds about 8oz to a glow setup same airframe that is. Right? My electric Pinnacle was 10.5lbs and a glow version was just a little over 10lbs. Same airframe, same equipment save the power system and fuel source.
Wet weight has nothing to do with the issue...I get to weigh my plane with the fuel tank dry.
You poor E guys are at such a disadvantage that you have been kicking my butt for years.Noted that we are only using about 12-14oz anyways with the new motor. So the wet weight difference is much less. We are caring only about 60% of the fuel we had last year.I want to stay on topic here.
I'm not endorsing the rule changes and I'm not saying they were poor changes...just asking why the double take?
I guess my question boils down to this.....IF AMA pattern wants to keep its identity by keeping its own top class (separate but equal) Realize we are already there dealing with a schedule that is in reality very close to skill level with the Prelim F3A patterns. This is the separate but equal mentality to also include separate judging criteria and concerns?. Why would they pass rule changes that bring them lock step in with F3A rules and specs for model requirements when there was no real need for it?
The sound rule was a prime example...it has nothing to do with E vs Glow.
The follow up question is if AMA pattern is going to blend with F3A as it appears to be doing this by taking on the same specs and limitations what is wrong with the current P-09 and P-11 sequences? The models are trickling from the top down anyway.
I'm not asking to fix Masters. My point is why is F3A the standard to align with- until it comes to flying the same single Prelim pattern at local events? I agree that the Finals and Unknowns are not going to be good for Masters. But the prelim sequence is already on a par....
I will be there to support pattern no matter what the decision.
Tony you and I are on the same page as to where a problem exists. This thread was not really about that problem of new blood.
Flying P-09 as a Masters sequence would help a problem (Not solve it) of inconsistent judging issues, lighten the load on judge training, lighten workload for the judges themselves, and help judge fatigue issues. The idea was not intended to be a solution for patterns lack of new blood.
Tony, Chad and others You know as well as I do we learn from watching those that are doing it better than we are.
I used the electric 12S situation as an example to illustrate my question and query...
Hey Tony you going to go to any contests this fall? I would like to fly with you again. We did have fun and I know I benefited in a huge way from our time together. I think you would like the Euphoria you have a free ride coming for sure when we meet up again. I'm serious man its a Partner with the huge knife edge and turn ability of a Bipe. Snaps, rollers. I know you will like it.
Troy
08-17-2008, 12:10 AM
#8
My Feedback: (20)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: GLENDALE, AZ
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
ORIGINAL: TonyF
And BTW, why are you talking about what's broke in Masters when it is often the class with the most entrants? Seems like that makes it the most successful class at the local level. What is more important is what is broke in Sportsman and Intermediate!
And BTW, why are you talking about what's broke in Masters when it is often the class with the most entrants? Seems like that makes it the most successful class at the local level. What is more important is what is broke in Sportsman and Intermediate!
I don't think anything is broken in Sportsman and/or Intermediate. Most CD's allow any AMA legal plane to fly in Sportsman. The real problem is we don't advertise and invite others to try pattern effectively. One of the things we can do to promote pattern better would be to first let the local clubs know about the contest and invite their members to come give it a try. We will never get past this mantra of being elitists if we don't.
Troy and I are holding a contest in November this year and we are going to try something different. Sportsman entrants are only $25 and we are also holding an "Introductory" pattern contest for anyone that wants to participate. This will likely consist of a few simple passes each with a different maneuver exiting the box on each end. I will be hitting the local club meetings to get the word out so we will hopefully get lots of participants.
Another thing I think may help would be to allow any AMA legal plane in Intermediate. There are lots of IMAC guys that can fly the Intermediate pattern and probably consider the Sportsman pattern too simple. They just don't have a pattern legal plane. Other details can help as well. How many CD's sanction their contest early enough to get the contest published in Model Aviation magazine? Checking all summer, I have seen about 2 contests in there. With most of these contests scheduled near the beginning of the year, there is NO reason most should not be published.
We have a lot going for us as a group. Once I got into pattern, I have found most very helpful with problems a newbie will experience so retention is pretty good. Anyone that flies pattern even a little will see benefits in all their flying.
Sorry for the off topic post. Now back to your regularly scheduled Master conversation.....
08-17-2008, 12:13 AM
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
I like the idea of no throw aways too....
You keep what you flew.....Look at the scores from this years Semi's and Finals....The results would shuffle a bit....
Troy
You keep what you flew.....Look at the scores from this years Semi's and Finals....The results would shuffle a bit....
Troy
08-17-2008, 07:59 AM
#11
My Feedback: (92)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rosamond, CA
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
Thanks for the reply Troy, I just wish you could do it in a paragraph or two!
Shorter schedules will only work well if you are going to move on to something else in the contest, just like F3A does in the Semi's and Finals. In Masters, there is no change to the schedule in the finals, so you should not have a shorter schedule. As to judge fatigue, that is another entire discussion, but my answer would be to give them a little more break in between flights. But I guess my real answer is if Masters doesn't have to limit themselves to the F3A idea of schedules, why should they? If the current 09 Masters pattern was created by Masters contestants, voted on and passed, what's the problem? As to your "big" question of Masters separate identity, I don't know or care. Just don't put unknowns in to Masters!
I don't want to see no weight limit, just an ease on it. 12 pounds would make it a lot easier for the ARF manufacturers to build reasonably competitive airframes that are more structurally sound. We have to get away from the need of high price composite airframes to be the only thing that will make weight. They are made of unobtanium for most entry level pilots.
And I'm not going to pay $4K for a bare pattern airframe, no matter how well it flew. It would have to - well you get the idea.
I still say the competition was better when we flew .60's. Main reason - 250 at the Nats, 50 to 60 at local meets. Quantity has a certain quality all of it's own. I don't believe for a second that people will give up their 2-meter models, but all they have done is raise the entry fee to get in to pattern. And this has kept the numbers low.
For years many contests allowed any AMA legal model in to Sportsman or even Intermediate. We've done it at our meets in Lancaster. It gets a few local IMAC guys to fly in your meet, but afterwards I have yet to see any of them ever spend the bucks for a pattern model. Why should they when they can compete in IMAC with the models they have and enjoy. All I have ever heard from this practice were complaints from other pattern fliers for allowing that big noisy airplane in to the contest.
Shorter schedules will only work well if you are going to move on to something else in the contest, just like F3A does in the Semi's and Finals. In Masters, there is no change to the schedule in the finals, so you should not have a shorter schedule. As to judge fatigue, that is another entire discussion, but my answer would be to give them a little more break in between flights. But I guess my real answer is if Masters doesn't have to limit themselves to the F3A idea of schedules, why should they? If the current 09 Masters pattern was created by Masters contestants, voted on and passed, what's the problem? As to your "big" question of Masters separate identity, I don't know or care. Just don't put unknowns in to Masters!
I don't want to see no weight limit, just an ease on it. 12 pounds would make it a lot easier for the ARF manufacturers to build reasonably competitive airframes that are more structurally sound. We have to get away from the need of high price composite airframes to be the only thing that will make weight. They are made of unobtanium for most entry level pilots.
And I'm not going to pay $4K for a bare pattern airframe, no matter how well it flew. It would have to - well you get the idea.
I still say the competition was better when we flew .60's. Main reason - 250 at the Nats, 50 to 60 at local meets. Quantity has a certain quality all of it's own. I don't believe for a second that people will give up their 2-meter models, but all they have done is raise the entry fee to get in to pattern. And this has kept the numbers low.
For years many contests allowed any AMA legal model in to Sportsman or even Intermediate. We've done it at our meets in Lancaster. It gets a few local IMAC guys to fly in your meet, but afterwards I have yet to see any of them ever spend the bucks for a pattern model. Why should they when they can compete in IMAC with the models they have and enjoy. All I have ever heard from this practice were complaints from other pattern fliers for allowing that big noisy airplane in to the contest.
08-17-2008, 12:59 PM
#12
My Feedback: (5)
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
I don't have the pattern pedigree of Tony or Troy, so take my comments for whatever they are worth to you. I rejoined pattern this year after a hiatus of about 6 years in IMAC. I flew Masters and FAI before I left. I could never, for the life of me, understand why Masters did not use the FAI sequence. It never made any sense to me then, and makes no sense to me now. The difficulties of the sequences are very comparable. By sticking with the FAI sequences as much as possible you will grow better FAI pilots. I would favor a total revamping of AMA classes to reduce the number of classes and make FAI the destination class.
I have always flown in competition with myself. I fly to see how well I can do. I know that if I fly as well as I possibly can and as consistently as I can then that's what matters. Funny enough, that ends up being good enough to win once in a while. So, flying against guys like Troy or Tony doesn't bother me in the least. I would be happy to do it more often because that is the real measure of your skill. How close can you get? And, in the event you clip them in a round then that would be a real victory. Sure, its great to win in masters, but after a while what do those victories mean? How are you doing in comparison to the rest of the world? How do you compare yourself to fliers in other countries who may be at a similar skill level? You would never know.
As for the shorter sequences, I think we should consider shortening the ama class schedules. In fact, the one thing that really allows IMAC to do so well is the short 10 maneuver sequence. You fly it twice in a contest flight. You practice the maneuvers twice as often as in pattern per each practice flight. You get better a hell of a lot faster that way. Just look at IMAC flyer progression times.
As for the cost of the airframes being an inhibitor to pattern flying, that argument is total BS. Just go to an IMAC contest and look at the airframes and total $ wrapped up. Guys don't choose to fly IMAC because its cheaper. That might be the case for the basic fliers, but once you start to move up that argument goes out the window.
Lastly, I like the shortened FAI schedule. In fact, that's another big reason I decided to fly FAI. Maybe this is an unintended benefit, maybe its by design but it really helps equalize things on the electric power front. I can actually run a smaller pack if I choose, I tax my packs a lot less (saving $$ in the long run), and if I choose to fly a few extra maneuvers per flight then I have the juice to do it. It ends up having some really nice benefits.
Thats all for me.
I have always flown in competition with myself. I fly to see how well I can do. I know that if I fly as well as I possibly can and as consistently as I can then that's what matters. Funny enough, that ends up being good enough to win once in a while. So, flying against guys like Troy or Tony doesn't bother me in the least. I would be happy to do it more often because that is the real measure of your skill. How close can you get? And, in the event you clip them in a round then that would be a real victory. Sure, its great to win in masters, but after a while what do those victories mean? How are you doing in comparison to the rest of the world? How do you compare yourself to fliers in other countries who may be at a similar skill level? You would never know.
As for the shorter sequences, I think we should consider shortening the ama class schedules. In fact, the one thing that really allows IMAC to do so well is the short 10 maneuver sequence. You fly it twice in a contest flight. You practice the maneuvers twice as often as in pattern per each practice flight. You get better a hell of a lot faster that way. Just look at IMAC flyer progression times.
As for the cost of the airframes being an inhibitor to pattern flying, that argument is total BS. Just go to an IMAC contest and look at the airframes and total $ wrapped up. Guys don't choose to fly IMAC because its cheaper. That might be the case for the basic fliers, but once you start to move up that argument goes out the window.
Lastly, I like the shortened FAI schedule. In fact, that's another big reason I decided to fly FAI. Maybe this is an unintended benefit, maybe its by design but it really helps equalize things on the electric power front. I can actually run a smaller pack if I choose, I tax my packs a lot less (saving $$ in the long run), and if I choose to fly a few extra maneuvers per flight then I have the juice to do it. It ends up having some really nice benefits.
Thats all for me.
08-17-2008, 07:36 PM
#13
My Feedback: (92)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rosamond, CA
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
Guys fly IMAC because it is easy to get a competitive model. Period. If it's a couple of pounds heavier then Joe's, well at least it's still legal. And it does appear that the cost is starting to be a factor as at least from what I hear the attendance at IMAC meets was way down this year. The cost of gasoline to haul those big models in those big trailers.
There will always be a certain expense to compete at a high level in any event. But you have to make it easy for the entry level pilots to get in to your event or it is going to die. I see many sportsman pilots fly the 110 size stuff like the H9 Showtime but then stall out when they look at what they have to shell out to get a 2-meter model. Maybe local meets don't check weight, but there is that peer pressure thing to be legal.
This is an interesting discussion, but I don't think anything will change as long as there is a "do what F3A does" mentality. There is of course a world wide market, but maybe the USA could take a stance that would be best for it's interests. I know of the huge relief that many intermediate and advanced pilots going to the Nats would have if the limit was 12 pounds! And BTW, the models should be weighed with batteries or full of fuel. Then a lot of battery life concerns could go away also.
There will always be a certain expense to compete at a high level in any event. But you have to make it easy for the entry level pilots to get in to your event or it is going to die. I see many sportsman pilots fly the 110 size stuff like the H9 Showtime but then stall out when they look at what they have to shell out to get a 2-meter model. Maybe local meets don't check weight, but there is that peer pressure thing to be legal.
This is an interesting discussion, but I don't think anything will change as long as there is a "do what F3A does" mentality. There is of course a world wide market, but maybe the USA could take a stance that would be best for it's interests. I know of the huge relief that many intermediate and advanced pilots going to the Nats would have if the limit was 12 pounds! And BTW, the models should be weighed with batteries or full of fuel. Then a lot of battery life concerns could go away also.
08-17-2008, 07:56 PM
#15
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bolivia, NC
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
ORIGINAL: shannah
I don't have the pattern pedigree of Tony or Troy, so take my comments for whatever they are worth to you. I rejoined pattern this year after a hiatus of about 6 years in IMAC. I flew Masters and FAI before I left. I could never, for the life of me, understand why Masters did not use the FAI sequence. It never made any sense to me then, and makes no sense to me now. The difficulties of the sequences are very comparable. By sticking with the FAI sequences as much as possible you will grow better FAI pilots. I would favor a total revamping of AMA classes to reduce the number of classes and make FAI the destination class.
I have always flown in competition with myself. I fly to see how well I can do. I know that if I fly as well as I possibly can and as consistently as I can then that's what matters. Funny enough, that ends up being good enough to win once in a while. So, flying against guys like Troy or Tony doesn't bother me in the least. I would be happy to do it more often because that is the real measure of your skill. How close can you get? And, in the event you clip them in a round then that would be a real victory. Sure, its great to win in masters, but after a while what do those victories mean? How are you doing in comparison to the rest of the world? How do you compare yourself to fliers in other countries who may be at a similar skill level? You would never know.
As for the shorter sequences, I think we should consider shortening the ama class schedules. In fact, the one thing that really allows IMAC to do so well is the short 10 maneuver sequence. You fly it twice in a contest flight. You practice the maneuvers twice as often as in pattern per each practice flight. You get better a hell of a lot faster that way. Just look at IMAC flyer progression times.
Lastly, I like the shortened FAI schedule. In fact, that's another big reason I decided to fly FAI. Maybe this is an unintended benefit, maybe its by design but it really helps equalize things on the electric power front. I can actually run a smaller pack if I choose, I tax my packs a lot less (saving $$ in the long run), and if I choose to fly a few extra maneuvers per flight then I have the juice to do it. It ends up having some really nice benefits.
I don't have the pattern pedigree of Tony or Troy, so take my comments for whatever they are worth to you. I rejoined pattern this year after a hiatus of about 6 years in IMAC. I flew Masters and FAI before I left. I could never, for the life of me, understand why Masters did not use the FAI sequence. It never made any sense to me then, and makes no sense to me now. The difficulties of the sequences are very comparable. By sticking with the FAI sequences as much as possible you will grow better FAI pilots. I would favor a total revamping of AMA classes to reduce the number of classes and make FAI the destination class.
I have always flown in competition with myself. I fly to see how well I can do. I know that if I fly as well as I possibly can and as consistently as I can then that's what matters. Funny enough, that ends up being good enough to win once in a while. So, flying against guys like Troy or Tony doesn't bother me in the least. I would be happy to do it more often because that is the real measure of your skill. How close can you get? And, in the event you clip them in a round then that would be a real victory. Sure, its great to win in masters, but after a while what do those victories mean? How are you doing in comparison to the rest of the world? How do you compare yourself to fliers in other countries who may be at a similar skill level? You would never know.
As for the shorter sequences, I think we should consider shortening the ama class schedules. In fact, the one thing that really allows IMAC to do so well is the short 10 maneuver sequence. You fly it twice in a contest flight. You practice the maneuvers twice as often as in pattern per each practice flight. You get better a hell of a lot faster that way. Just look at IMAC flyer progression times.
Lastly, I like the shortened FAI schedule. In fact, that's another big reason I decided to fly FAI. Maybe this is an unintended benefit, maybe its by design but it really helps equalize things on the electric power front. I can actually run a smaller pack if I choose, I tax my packs a lot less (saving $$ in the long run), and if I choose to fly a few extra maneuvers per flight then I have the juice to do it. It ends up having some really nice benefits.
There are always two contest for me at a pattern contest. The contest with everyone else and the one with yourself. Due to age, concentration, reflexes, desire, other interest, energy, etc. I'll seldom do well in the contest with others anymore. But I always enjoy the contest with myself and I still get the competition rush!
I think something has to be done to help the judging situation in Masters at local contest. Spending all day in the chair isn't a lot of fun for me anymore. Pehaps some different kind of judge rotation would be possible if Masters flew the FAI schedule (ie- fly your flight then judge the next flight two flights perhaps)
Dave Burton
08-17-2008, 08:34 PM
#16
My Feedback: (5)
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
ORIGINAL: TonyF
This is an interesting discussion, but I don't think anything will change as long as there is a "do what F3A does" mentality. There is of course a world wide market, but maybe the USA could take a stance that would be best for it's interests. I know of the huge relief that many intermediate and advanced pilots going to the Nats would have if the limit was 12 pounds! And BTW, the models should be weighed with batteries or full of fuel. Then a lot of battery life concerns could go away also.
This is an interesting discussion, but I don't think anything will change as long as there is a "do what F3A does" mentality. There is of course a world wide market, but maybe the USA could take a stance that would be best for it's interests. I know of the huge relief that many intermediate and advanced pilots going to the Nats would have if the limit was 12 pounds! And BTW, the models should be weighed with batteries or full of fuel. Then a lot of battery life concerns could go away also.
I agree with you Tony. The weight limit really causes an exponential cost growth. I think there should be a cap, and going to 12 would really open up the market. I also like the idea that the weight should be RTF, meaning with fuel or with batts. Right now it penalizes e-fliers in my opinion. The only downside to this is whether or not the 12 lb limit would stunt the development because no one would need to do anything exotic to beat it.
Anyway, you're probably right, nothing will change so this is just an interesting discussion.
08-17-2008, 09:33 PM
#17
Senior Member
Thread Starter
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
This is an interesting discussion, but I don't think anything will change as long as there is a "do what F3A does" mentality. There is of course a world wide market, but maybe the USA could take a stance that would be best for it's interests. I know of the huge relief that many intermediate and advanced pilots going to the Nats would have if the limit was 12 pounds! And BTW, the models should be weighed with batteries or full of fuel. Then a lot of battery life concerns could go away also.
Yes Tony this is the discussion I wanted to have.
That summed up my 16 pages of explainations...I'm not advocating one direction or another. I just see one moment stepping in line and another an emphatic, "Heck NO" stepping out of line and wonder what other peoples opinions are.
As I said I'll support pattern as I always have. Does anybody really have a good rational for the different attitude on the what parts to follow and what parts to not follow.
Troy
08-18-2008, 06:50 AM
#18
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
I would be happy to fly the "P" pattern, and I would be happy to follow FAI rules concerning aircraft requirements (noise, voltage, etc.) if that is what we choose to do. In my mind it would reduce the workload in judging, sequence design, and clarification of the rules and manuevers. This could be taken a step further in reducing our workload (judging/rules committee) by adopting FAI rules and judging criteria for all classes, simplifying teaching and interpretation during judging seminars.
However, can we relinquish control of our own judging criteria, rules, and sequence design (masters)? I doubt it.
We would also have to consider that without control of what manuevers are put into the "P" masters, the design of the Advanced would have to keep pace (as a stepping stone) with the "P" pattern.
-mark
However, can we relinquish control of our own judging criteria, rules, and sequence design (masters)? I doubt it.
We would also have to consider that without control of what manuevers are put into the "P" masters, the design of the Advanced would have to keep pace (as a stepping stone) with the "P" pattern.
-mark
08-18-2008, 10:46 AM
#19
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakland,
CA
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
ORIGINAL: shannah
I agree with you Tony. The weight limit really causes an exponential cost growth. I think there should be a cap, and going to 12 would really open up the market. I also like the idea that the weight should be RTF, meaning with fuel or with batts. Right now it penalizes e-fliers in my opinion. The only downside to this is whether or not the 12 lb limit would stunt the development because no one would need to do anything exotic to beat it.
Anyway, you're probably right, nothing will change so this is just an interesting discussion.
ORIGINAL: TonyF
This is an interesting discussion, but I don't think anything will change as long as there is a "do what F3A does" mentality. There is of course a world wide market, but maybe the USA could take a stance that would be best for it's interests. I know of the huge relief that many intermediate and advanced pilots going to the Nats would have if the limit was 12 pounds! And BTW, the models should be weighed with batteries or full of fuel. Then a lot of battery life concerns could go away also.
This is an interesting discussion, but I don't think anything will change as long as there is a "do what F3A does" mentality. There is of course a world wide market, but maybe the USA could take a stance that would be best for it's interests. I know of the huge relief that many intermediate and advanced pilots going to the Nats would have if the limit was 12 pounds! And BTW, the models should be weighed with batteries or full of fuel. Then a lot of battery life concerns could go away also.
I agree with you Tony. The weight limit really causes an exponential cost growth. I think there should be a cap, and going to 12 would really open up the market. I also like the idea that the weight should be RTF, meaning with fuel or with batts. Right now it penalizes e-fliers in my opinion. The only downside to this is whether or not the 12 lb limit would stunt the development because no one would need to do anything exotic to beat it.
Anyway, you're probably right, nothing will change so this is just an interesting discussion.
I disagree that nothing will change... change starts when people start talking about issues/concerns and pretty soon these start to bubble up all over the place. Once enough people talk about these areas of concern, ideas will start to float about how to fix things and then change starts to happen.
We are entering a rules change cycle and if someone has an interest in helping out on this then I'd welcome their input in putting together surveys that we can use to help get input from the membership. My thought is that we'd have multiple surveys on the NSRCA website that will focus in on specific areas where we'd like to improve our rules and/or sequences.
08-18-2008, 07:34 PM
#20
My Feedback: (92)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rosamond, CA
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
Unless you're a professional at making surveys, they are usually a waste of time. All the ones I've seen before looked like they were made to get a certain response.
I'm no longer an NSRCA member but I would be happy to help.
I'm no longer an NSRCA member but I would be happy to help.
08-18-2008, 09:15 PM
#22
My Feedback: (92)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rosamond, CA
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
It's a lot harder then you think to get accurate results from a survey. Better to make up several different ideas of rules and have a vote.
08-19-2008, 08:49 PM
#23
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Garland,
TX
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
We can "use" the FAI P sequences without making an official AMA rule that says we will, hence forth, always use the FAI P pattern. This will allow us to try if for a couple of cycles and if it doesn't work out we can switch back to creating our own sequences.
Personally I'm somewhat concerned about the shortened length of the P sequences since this would be Masters’ only pattern and it may make separating the top pilots more difficult. However, I'd be willing to try it because I don't think we'll recognize the full benefits, or disadvantages, until trying it for a cycle or two.
As to the rules, I see no reason we should not adopt the FAI rules regarding scoring criteria. Using the scoring criteria would not preclude special rules for specific classes or the inclusion of things that don't apply to FAI such as take-off/landing.
I’ll be happy regardless of which way we go.
Keith B
Personally I'm somewhat concerned about the shortened length of the P sequences since this would be Masters’ only pattern and it may make separating the top pilots more difficult. However, I'd be willing to try it because I don't think we'll recognize the full benefits, or disadvantages, until trying it for a cycle or two.
As to the rules, I see no reason we should not adopt the FAI rules regarding scoring criteria. Using the scoring criteria would not preclude special rules for specific classes or the inclusion of things that don't apply to FAI such as take-off/landing.
I’ll be happy regardless of which way we go.
Keith B
08-22-2008, 12:56 PM
#25
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tracy,
CA
Posts: 2,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Masters Class in AMA pattern.
My dog says as a Masters pilot now for a few years, I for one would fly FAI if I wanted to fly FAI sequences. Look at the P sequence vs the 09 Masters sequence. The 09 Masters sequence is what will keep me in Masters again next year. It's a much more difficult and fun pattern to fly. If I was to have to fly the FAI sequence, I would just move up.
Lets remember, these are AMA events right? Not FAI events..
Judging Masters would be no fun though. I do agree with that. But I will do it with a smile on my face when I fly FAI. 3-4 times a contest if need be.
Chris
Lets remember, these are AMA events right? Not FAI events..
Judging Masters would be no fun though. I do agree with that. But I will do it with a smile on my face when I fly FAI. 3-4 times a contest if need be.
Chris
