Pattern weight rule - why?
08-26-2011, 10:00 AM
#26
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
Tim,
That discussion is a slightly different one. I've never understood why we've deviated from the F3A rule book at all. If I had it my way, the AMA rule book would be exactly the same as F3A's with a few exceptions for the lower classes (like weight). Our goal as a pattern community should be to nurture the growth of talent. Why are we, in one breath, up in arms about not sending a junior member to the world championship and in another complaining about some similarities with the F3A rule book? Guess what, if we had chosen a junior member for the world championship and there was no weight limit in AMA, that pilot probably wouldn't have had something to fly! Know what seems silly to me? Not following the all same rules the pilots that design our airplanes do!
Respectfully,
That discussion is a slightly different one. I've never understood why we've deviated from the F3A rule book at all. If I had it my way, the AMA rule book would be exactly the same as F3A's with a few exceptions for the lower classes (like weight). Our goal as a pattern community should be to nurture the growth of talent. Why are we, in one breath, up in arms about not sending a junior member to the world championship and in another complaining about some similarities with the F3A rule book? Guess what, if we had chosen a junior member for the world championship and there was no weight limit in AMA, that pilot probably wouldn't have had something to fly! Know what seems silly to me? Not following the all same rules the pilots that design our airplanes do!
Respectfully,
08-26-2011, 11:00 AM
#27
My Feedback: (34)
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
Considering Chris at Extreme Flight has shown that a cheap (by F3A standards) 2M airplane can be built without exotic materials AND make weight with common, inexpensive electric components, the weight rule SHOULD be a moot point now.
Nobody ever said you HAD to buy the $5k Oxai airframe anyway..
Nobody ever said you HAD to buy the $5k Oxai airframe anyway..
08-26-2011, 11:33 AM
#28
My Feedback: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dalzell, SC
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
Brett,
I understand that argument of using the FAI sporting code as our guide lines.
I disagree completely.
I have one huge problem with that, it would result in the AMA having pretty much zero input to the sport even in our own country. If we're going to then allow the lower classes to have different rules then we're right back where are now. AMA rules and FAI rules. The way it should be.
I do not wish to allow the FAI to dictate through rules what we do in the US in classes other than FAI.
FAI is not an AMA class and there fore not subject to our Rules.
The Vanquish 2 is a step in the right direction but I doubt you'll ever see one flown in FAI except perhaps at a local contest. In the other classes it's going to be a huge hit if the weight and longevity proves out. I'm waiting on them to come in so I can get two of them for next year.
BTW
Thank you very much for manning the weigh in tent for the Nats.
Tim
I understand that argument of using the FAI sporting code as our guide lines.
I disagree completely.
I have one huge problem with that, it would result in the AMA having pretty much zero input to the sport even in our own country. If we're going to then allow the lower classes to have different rules then we're right back where are now. AMA rules and FAI rules. The way it should be.
I do not wish to allow the FAI to dictate through rules what we do in the US in classes other than FAI.
FAI is not an AMA class and there fore not subject to our Rules.
The Vanquish 2 is a step in the right direction but I doubt you'll ever see one flown in FAI except perhaps at a local contest. In the other classes it's going to be a huge hit if the weight and longevity proves out. I'm waiting on them to come in so I can get two of them for next year.
BTW
Thank you very much for manning the weigh in tent for the Nats.
Tim
08-26-2011, 11:39 AM
#29
My Feedback: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dalzell, SC
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
ORIGINAL: Doug Cronkhite
Considering Chris at Extreme Flight has shown that a cheap (by F3A standards) 2M airplane can be built without exotic materials AND make weight with common, inexpensive electric components, the weight rule SHOULD be a moot point now.
Nobody ever said you HAD to buy the $5k Oxai airframe anyway..
Considering Chris at Extreme Flight has shown that a cheap (by F3A standards) 2M airplane can be built without exotic materials AND make weight with common, inexpensive electric components, the weight rule SHOULD be a moot point now.
Nobody ever said you HAD to buy the $5k Oxai airframe anyway..
Win on Sunday, sell on Monday.
Tim
08-26-2011, 12:09 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denham Springs,
LA
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
ORIGINAL: jackalope54
Okay - thanks Dave and MattK - your responses are in line with the little I have learned so far - the lighter the wing loading the better. Thought there might be something different with pattern planes given Alejandro's response. And I agree Dave - electrics (and ultimately consumers) pay a HUGE price requiring them to make weight with batteries (their fuel) while IC gets to weigh without fuel.
By the way, I play a lot of golf so I'm fully aware of the foot-dragging a ruling body can show in updating rules but this rule (and its prejudicial application) seems one of those that requires immediate reconsideration.
DLE 55 in a pattern plane??? Sounds like fun!
Jack
Okay - thanks Dave and MattK - your responses are in line with the little I have learned so far - the lighter the wing loading the better. Thought there might be something different with pattern planes given Alejandro's response. And I agree Dave - electrics (and ultimately consumers) pay a HUGE price requiring them to make weight with batteries (their fuel) while IC gets to weigh without fuel.
By the way, I play a lot of golf so I'm fully aware of the foot-dragging a ruling body can show in updating rules but this rule (and its prejudicial application) seems one of those that requires immediate reconsideration.
DLE 55 in a pattern plane??? Sounds like fun!
Jack
08-26-2011, 12:23 PM
#31
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
Tim
Actually FAI - F3A is AMA class 406. Granted, subject to F3A rules as defined by the CIAM F3A Subcommittee.
We have representation on that committee. In fact, many of the "new" things in pattern were conceived by our rep who was chairman of the committee for years. I don't believe that we (AMA classes) have been dictated to by FAI other than by our failure to participate. That's our fault. We've active representation now (Derek Koopowitz) and I assure you that any input to him will receive consideration. The NSRCA has taken an active role (rightly so) in ensuring we have active representation, communication, and participation in both AMA & F3A. Pattern as a whole is much better served by being a part of the global community.
That being said, the AMA classes serve well to provide skill development with reasonable opportunities for advancement and competition for the casual competitor. Not everyone has the skill or desire to compete at the top level. For sure, F3A takes more work and costs more than many wish to dedicate to the sport and that's fine, hence AMA Masters being our "destination class". But F3A is the globally recognized epitome of pattern, so it really doesn't serve the sport, or individuals, well for AMA to adopt contrary rules. Certainly there's room in the AMA rules to allow variations in weight, noise, etc. so as to minimize cost and make competition available to as many as possible. We have a Pattern Contest Board that works hard to achieve this. OTOH, it's reasonable that the basis of the AMA rules and practices coincide (and they really do for the most part) with those of F3A.
Actually FAI - F3A is AMA class 406. Granted, subject to F3A rules as defined by the CIAM F3A Subcommittee.
We have representation on that committee. In fact, many of the "new" things in pattern were conceived by our rep who was chairman of the committee for years. I don't believe that we (AMA classes) have been dictated to by FAI other than by our failure to participate. That's our fault. We've active representation now (Derek Koopowitz) and I assure you that any input to him will receive consideration. The NSRCA has taken an active role (rightly so) in ensuring we have active representation, communication, and participation in both AMA & F3A. Pattern as a whole is much better served by being a part of the global community.
That being said, the AMA classes serve well to provide skill development with reasonable opportunities for advancement and competition for the casual competitor. Not everyone has the skill or desire to compete at the top level. For sure, F3A takes more work and costs more than many wish to dedicate to the sport and that's fine, hence AMA Masters being our "destination class". But F3A is the globally recognized epitome of pattern, so it really doesn't serve the sport, or individuals, well for AMA to adopt contrary rules. Certainly there's room in the AMA rules to allow variations in weight, noise, etc. so as to minimize cost and make competition available to as many as possible. We have a Pattern Contest Board that works hard to achieve this. OTOH, it's reasonable that the basis of the AMA rules and practices coincide (and they really do for the most part) with those of F3A.
08-26-2011, 12:29 PM
#32
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Willingboro, NJ
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
Okay back to the weight rule. I was flying Pattern back when the first unlimited engine rule went into affect. At that time the TOC was flying larger airplanes with big engines. Dean Pappas has a TOC biplane with a OPS 60 CC Twin that weighted almost 20 lbs. With the short spinner it fit in the 2 meter box. The rules makers in pattern went to the 11 lb rule to keep those airplanes out. At the time they felt it would hurt the sport. As per now I agree the rule needs to be changed.
08-26-2011, 12:56 PM
#33
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
I do not think I'm mistaken in everything I said, the size and weight limit, is that,a limit, if some of you do not "agree" with FAI, fine. F3A should be that, F3A, do a separate nationals and do not mix in ANY way AMA with FAI, otherwise nothing will change, F3A drives pattern equipment in the world and manufacturers, but AMA can keep it the way most people in the US want, everybody will be happy then.
I really do not expect any AMA class pilot to agree with me at all.
BTW I was Colombo's caller on the semi finals and I never saw a weight check done, so why is everybody still winning about that? AMA pleased pilots by not doing that, I don't know if it was done at the finals..
Regards
Alejandro P.
I really do not expect any AMA class pilot to agree with me at all.
BTW I was Colombo's caller on the semi finals and I never saw a weight check done, so why is everybody still winning about that? AMA pleased pilots by not doing that, I don't know if it was done at the finals..
Regards
Alejandro P.
08-26-2011, 01:39 PM
#34
Senior Member
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
ORIGINAL: Mastertech
Didn't see the need for a counter rotating prop set up in Int either but there it was. Win on Sunday, sell on Monday.
Tim
Didn't see the need for a counter rotating prop set up in Int either but there it was. Win on Sunday, sell on Monday.
Tim
You have got to be kidding me. A contra rotater in Intermediate...wow!! I guess he won by utter annihilation of the competition, huh?
08-26-2011, 02:11 PM
#35
Senior Member
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
ORIGINAL: bafflerback
Okay back to the weight rule. I was flying Pattern back when the first unlimited engine rule went into affect. At that time the TOC was flying larger airplanes with big engines. Dean Pappas has a TOC biplane with a OPS 60 CC Twin that weighted almost 20 lbs. With the short spinner it fit in the 2 meter box. The rules makers in pattern went to the 11 lb rule to keep those airplanes out. At the time they felt it would hurt the sport. As per now I agree the rule needs to be changed.
Okay back to the weight rule. I was flying Pattern back when the first unlimited engine rule went into affect. At that time the TOC was flying larger airplanes with big engines. Dean Pappas has a TOC biplane with a OPS 60 CC Twin that weighted almost 20 lbs. With the short spinner it fit in the 2 meter box. The rules makers in pattern went to the 11 lb rule to keep those airplanes out. At the time they felt it would hurt the sport. As per now I agree the rule needs to be changed.
I think it's curious that Pattern and IMAC have noise laws but Sport and Scale flying doesn't. Consider the sheer numbers game here. Sport outnumbers IMAC/Pattern by what? 100:1? I don't care for loud stuff but spectators eat it up. On the other hand, do we really need to have set-ups so quiet that ANYTHING running in the background drowns you out? Joe L told me that the extreme was at the Worlds....Akiba, I think, with his belt drive at 82 dB. Nice, but why? Because he can I guess
08-26-2011, 02:25 PM
#36
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
ORIGINAL: EHFAI
Tim
Actually FAI - F3A is AMA class 406. Granted, subject to F3A rules as defined by the CIAM F3A Subcommittee.
We have representation on that committee. In fact, many of the ''new'' things in pattern were conceived by our rep who was chairman of the committee for years. I don't believe that we (AMA classes) have been dictated to by FAI other than by our failure to participate. That's our fault. We've active representation now (Derek Koopowitz) and I assure you that any input to him will receive consideration. The NSRCA has taken an active role (rightly so) in ensuring we have active representation, communication, and participation in both AMA & F3A. Pattern as a whole is much better served by being a part of the global community.
That being said, the AMA classes serve well to provide skill development with reasonable opportunities for advancement and competition for the casual competitor. Not everyone has the skill or desire to compete at the top level. For sure, F3A takes more work and costs more than many wish to dedicate to the sport and that's fine, hence AMA Masters being our ''destination class''. But F3A is the globally recognized epitome of pattern, so it really doesn't serve the sport, or individuals, well for AMA to adopt contrary rules. Certainly there's room in the AMA rules to allow variations in weight, noise, etc. so as to minimize cost and make competition available to as many as possible. We have a Pattern Contest Board that works hard to achieve this. OTOH, it's reasonable that the basis of the AMA rules and practices coincide (and they really do for the most part) with those of F3A.
Tim
Actually FAI - F3A is AMA class 406. Granted, subject to F3A rules as defined by the CIAM F3A Subcommittee.
We have representation on that committee. In fact, many of the ''new'' things in pattern were conceived by our rep who was chairman of the committee for years. I don't believe that we (AMA classes) have been dictated to by FAI other than by our failure to participate. That's our fault. We've active representation now (Derek Koopowitz) and I assure you that any input to him will receive consideration. The NSRCA has taken an active role (rightly so) in ensuring we have active representation, communication, and participation in both AMA & F3A. Pattern as a whole is much better served by being a part of the global community.
That being said, the AMA classes serve well to provide skill development with reasonable opportunities for advancement and competition for the casual competitor. Not everyone has the skill or desire to compete at the top level. For sure, F3A takes more work and costs more than many wish to dedicate to the sport and that's fine, hence AMA Masters being our ''destination class''. But F3A is the globally recognized epitome of pattern, so it really doesn't serve the sport, or individuals, well for AMA to adopt contrary rules. Certainly there's room in the AMA rules to allow variations in weight, noise, etc. so as to minimize cost and make competition available to as many as possible. We have a Pattern Contest Board that works hard to achieve this. OTOH, it's reasonable that the basis of the AMA rules and practices coincide (and they really do for the most part) with those of F3A.
Change the rules in the lower classes to reduce cost and enhance accessibility, but judge the maneuvers the same. Tim, you didn't present anything to support your argument but just simply stated that the FAI shouldn't dictate what we do. As Earl explained, we have representation on the F3A subcommittee. Why does the US have to be so stubborn? What makes the F3A rules so detestable that we can't adopt them and prepare our up-and-comers for the challenges of F3A? This would also help bolster our footprint in the global community. Lately several of the South American countries have come together to form the biennial Pan American Championships, a contest similar to the European Championship. Imagine having the opportunity to hold that contest in the United States. Don't we want that global participation? Don't we want to attract more young people to the sport? Matt mentioned that we need to make pattern less dull. Participation in global events and the opportunity to travel to South America, Europe, Africa, etc. sounds pretty exciting to me! In fact, it was exciting! I've done it! Wouldn't young talent be more inclined to get their feet wet in pattern if they knew it may come with the opportunity to travel to another country for a week?
Someone please explain to me why F3A is dull, and why we just HAVE to adapt our own set of rules that are so much "better".
08-26-2011, 04:18 PM
#37
My Feedback: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dalzell, SC
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
Earl, Brett
I agree AMA and FAI will tend to mirror each other in so much as Pattern exist as a sport we do not however have to be in "lock step" with them.
I don't think theres a flier in this country that would welcome the AMA giving total control over our rule book to the FAI. Granted the AMA gave FAI a class number but lets be honest, it's not an AMA class by any means. The AMA cannot make a single change to the schedule or the down grades. Heck we only get one vote on any thing they do. To call it an AMA class is somewhat ludicrous. It's FAI, sport of the kings. As it should be.
Now back to the weight issue, I applaud the NSRCA board that approved the weight limit increase this past winter. Did it change our sport? No it did not. Did it keep some guys from having to spend big bucks to "make weight" Surely.
I know I'm jousting at windmills, maybe one day I'll actually knock one over.
PS, If FAI doesn't score take off and landing why do we?
Tim
I agree AMA and FAI will tend to mirror each other in so much as Pattern exist as a sport we do not however have to be in "lock step" with them.
I don't think theres a flier in this country that would welcome the AMA giving total control over our rule book to the FAI. Granted the AMA gave FAI a class number but lets be honest, it's not an AMA class by any means. The AMA cannot make a single change to the schedule or the down grades. Heck we only get one vote on any thing they do. To call it an AMA class is somewhat ludicrous. It's FAI, sport of the kings. As it should be.
Now back to the weight issue, I applaud the NSRCA board that approved the weight limit increase this past winter. Did it change our sport? No it did not. Did it keep some guys from having to spend big bucks to "make weight" Surely.
I know I'm jousting at windmills, maybe one day I'll actually knock one over.
PS, If FAI doesn't score take off and landing why do we?
Tim
08-26-2011, 05:04 PM
#38
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bolivia, NC
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
ORIGINAL: mjfrederick
The rule is not prejudicial. By definition a battery is a container, not the fuel (look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me). The fuel is electricity contained within the battery. Luckily for e-flyers that fuel weighs nothing.
The rule is not prejudicial. By definition a battery is a container, not the fuel (look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me). The fuel is electricity contained within the battery. Luckily for e-flyers that fuel weighs nothing.
08-26-2011, 06:20 PM
#40
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
>
Brett
Your premis for the above was that "the general size will grow." I don't think eliminating the weight rule can do any of that as the aircraft must fit in a 2M box! That requirement alone is why I feel the weight rule is "usless!" To build an aircraft heavier based on our current Max 2M size would result in a performance penalty not an advantage? Maybe I am missing something here?
Dick
Brett
Your premis for the above was that "the general size will grow." I don't think eliminating the weight rule can do any of that as the aircraft must fit in a 2M box! That requirement alone is why I feel the weight rule is "usless!" To build an aircraft heavier based on our current Max 2M size would result in a performance penalty not an advantage? Maybe I am missing something here?
Dick
08-27-2011, 04:43 AM
#41
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ossining,
NY
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
I think Brett is referring to biplanes. A 2-meter biplane could potentially be huge and still fit within the 2-meter box, although the tail moment might render it unsuitable for pattern.
Here are the specs for an Aeroworks ultimate 50cc:
Wingspan: 68" (173cm)
Wing Area: 1666 sq in (107.63 sq dm)
Fuse Length: 74" (188cm) rudder to front of cowl
78.5" (199cm) rudder to front of spinner
Weight: 17.5-18.5 lbs
With no weight (and noise) requirements this could be your next pattern plane!
Here are the specs for an Aeroworks ultimate 50cc:
Wingspan: 68" (173cm)
Wing Area: 1666 sq in (107.63 sq dm)
Fuse Length: 74" (188cm) rudder to front of cowl
78.5" (199cm) rudder to front of spinner
Weight: 17.5-18.5 lbs
With no weight (and noise) requirements this could be your next pattern plane!
08-27-2011, 07:44 AM
#42
My Feedback: (46)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Bridgewater,
NJ
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
ORIGINAL: MTK
Bipes are handicapped by a weight rule, agreed. Wing loading would be a small improvement on this legislation. But beware.....you want to see costs go through the roof, try that. That needs careful thought
I think it's curious that Pattern and IMAC have noise laws but Sport and Scale flying doesn't. Consider the sheer numbers game here. Sport outnumbers IMAC/Pattern by what? 100:1? I don't care for loud stuff but spectators eat it up. On the other hand, do we really need to have set-ups so quiet that ANYTHING running in the background drowns you out? Joe L told me that the extreme was at the Worlds....Akiba, I think, with his belt drive at 82 dB. Nice, but why? Because he can I guess
ORIGINAL: bafflerback
Okay back to the weight rule. I was flying Pattern back when the first unlimited engine rule went into affect. At that time the TOC was flying larger airplanes with big engines. Dean Pappas has a TOC biplane with a OPS 60 CC Twin that weighted almost 20 lbs. With the short spinner it fit in the 2 meter box. The rules makers in pattern went to the 11 lb rule to keep those airplanes out. At the time they felt it would hurt the sport. As per now I agree the rule needs to be changed.
Okay back to the weight rule. I was flying Pattern back when the first unlimited engine rule went into affect. At that time the TOC was flying larger airplanes with big engines. Dean Pappas has a TOC biplane with a OPS 60 CC Twin that weighted almost 20 lbs. With the short spinner it fit in the 2 meter box. The rules makers in pattern went to the 11 lb rule to keep those airplanes out. At the time they felt it would hurt the sport. As per now I agree the rule needs to be changed.
I think it's curious that Pattern and IMAC have noise laws but Sport and Scale flying doesn't. Consider the sheer numbers game here. Sport outnumbers IMAC/Pattern by what? 100:1? I don't care for loud stuff but spectators eat it up. On the other hand, do we really need to have set-ups so quiet that ANYTHING running in the background drowns you out? Joe L told me that the extreme was at the Worlds....Akiba, I think, with his belt drive at 82 dB. Nice, but why? Because he can I guess
Correction, Bernd Beschonner, 3 bladed prop.
08-27-2011, 08:45 AM
#43
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bolivia, NC
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
What is the objection if someone has the resources to spend on a 17 lb. 2M gasser bipe. If it meets 2M and noise rules it should be allowed. Anyone really think it would be a competitive advantage? Does not mean everyone else is going to go get one. If there were no weight rule a guy could even fly an electric Focus II with aluminum wing tube and gear, 8611 standard servos (or similar) legally without spending an additional $600-$800 to maybe possibly make it legal weight. Should have zero impact on the top guys flying a 10 1/2 lb plane because they would have a competitive advantage. At least it would make it easier for those with less resources and /or talent to participate.
08-27-2011, 09:34 AM
#44
My Feedback: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dalzell, SC
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
Not to mention that Aeroworks Bipe would be far less money than your average Pattern Arf today. Bipe =$739 DA50 = $549
Sickle $1600 on the low end of composite air frames.
Yet you don't see many IMAC guys flying Bipes, wonder why?
Tim
To Quote a guy from these forums, "Ya still gotta fly it"
Sickle $1600 on the low end of composite air frames.
Yet you don't see many IMAC guys flying Bipes, wonder why?
Tim
To Quote a guy from these forums, "Ya still gotta fly it"
08-27-2011, 02:14 PM
#45
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ossining,
NY
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
Unless you fly at the Nats, weight won't keep you out of a contest.
By the time you feel ready to fly at the Nats, you willl probably have progressed to the point that you appreciate and demand a light airframe, so it won't be a factor.
BTW, what was young Joseph Szczur flying this year when he won in Advanced at the Nats? Wasn't it a Wind S 110 (or something similar) he has flown the past couple of seasons? No weight or cost problems there, eh??
By the time you feel ready to fly at the Nats, you willl probably have progressed to the point that you appreciate and demand a light airframe, so it won't be a factor.
BTW, what was young Joseph Szczur flying this year when he won in Advanced at the Nats? Wasn't it a Wind S 110 (or something similar) he has flown the past couple of seasons? No weight or cost problems there, eh??
08-27-2011, 02:28 PM
#46
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lakeland,
FL
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
Bob,
Joesph Flew a CA models Passport. He has flown a Angel shadow 50 in the past but for the past couple years he has flown the Passport.
Chris
Joesph Flew a CA models Passport. He has flown a Angel shadow 50 in the past but for the past couple years he has flown the Passport.
Chris
08-27-2011, 03:58 PM
#47
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bolivia, NC
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
ORIGINAL: cmoulder
Unless you fly at the Nats, weight won't keep you out of a contest.
By the time you feel ready to fly at the Nats, you willl probably have progressed to the point that you appreciate and demand a light airframe, so it won't be a factor.
BTW, what was young Joseph Szczur flying this year when he won in Advanced at the Nats? Wasn't it a Wind S 110 (or something similar) he has flown the past couple of seasons? No weight or cost problems there, eh??
Unless you fly at the Nats, weight won't keep you out of a contest.
By the time you feel ready to fly at the Nats, you willl probably have progressed to the point that you appreciate and demand a light airframe, so it won't be a factor.
BTW, what was young Joseph Szczur flying this year when he won in Advanced at the Nats? Wasn't it a Wind S 110 (or something similar) he has flown the past couple of seasons? No weight or cost problems there, eh??
I can't understand the attitude that we need a weight limit but only at the Nats!
Dave
08-27-2011, 05:35 PM
#48
Senior Member
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
ORIGINAL: cmoulder
I think Brett is referring to biplanes. A 2-meter biplane could potentially be huge and still fit within the 2-meter box, although the tail moment might render it unsuitable for pattern.
Here are the specs for an Aeroworks ultimate 50cc:
Wingspan: 68'' (173cm)
Wing Area: 1666 sq in (107.63 sq dm)
Fuse Length: 74'' (188cm) rudder to front of cowl
78.5'' (199cm) rudder to front of spinner
Weight: 17.5-18.5 lbs
With no weight (and noise) requirements this could be your next pattern plane!
I think Brett is referring to biplanes. A 2-meter biplane could potentially be huge and still fit within the 2-meter box, although the tail moment might render it unsuitable for pattern.
Here are the specs for an Aeroworks ultimate 50cc:
Wingspan: 68'' (173cm)
Wing Area: 1666 sq in (107.63 sq dm)
Fuse Length: 74'' (188cm) rudder to front of cowl
78.5'' (199cm) rudder to front of spinner
Weight: 17.5-18.5 lbs
With no weight (and noise) requirements this could be your next pattern plane!
A BME 58 cc on pipe puts out 6 1/2 horses and would power the thing at about the right power loading as the better E or 175 set-ups. The BME is lighter than the DLE and delivers more punch but has carb location that makes it impractical for skinny Pattern fuses.
This particular bipe will also need enough fuse volume to compare favorably. The tail moment is not an issue
08-27-2011, 06:16 PM
#49
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
I agree that if the weight limit is lifted, then it should apply to all AMA classes. However, the 2m rule will seriously restrict what you can do with open-ended weight rule. The wing loading will not be lighter enough unless it is a biplane. Then the question is whether it can fly as good as a regular pattern plane. People could start to optimize the big biplanes similar to the regular pattern planes, FG fuse etc. And the cost could go up.
If the 2m limit is further lifted, thena pattern becomes a different IMAC competition?
It seems to me a cost-effective, very competitive 2m and 5kg plane is all needed to draw more folks to pattern.
If the 2m limit is further lifted, thena pattern becomes a different IMAC competition?
It seems to me a cost-effective, very competitive 2m and 5kg plane is all needed to draw more folks to pattern.
08-27-2011, 08:54 PM
#50
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: ToowoombaQLD, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
15 Posts
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
ORIGINAL: mjfrederick
The rule is not prejudicial. By definition a battery is a container, not the fuel (look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me). The fuel is electricity contained within the battery. Luckily for e-flyers that fuel weighs nothing.
The rule is not prejudicial. By definition a battery is a container, not the fuel (look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me). The fuel is electricity contained within the battery. Luckily for e-flyers that fuel weighs nothing.
BOTH electric and IC flyers energy for turning the prop comes from stored chemical energy, period. IC flyers oxidise the fuel to generate heat and electric flyers allow the chemical reactions in the cell to take place by controlling electron flow. There are subtle differences but in both cases the energy is stored chemically (unlike how a capacitor stores electric charge). IC flyers also blow the reaction by-products out the exhaust, electric pilots store it on-board.
The battery, more specifically the cells withing the battery are a storage device for chemicals that are consumed/converted while releasing energy, no different from a sealed tank of IC fuel.