NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

John, as Ihave explained several times, either your scale is busted, or gravity just sucks more in CT. Which do you think it really is?

jrpav1

My Feedback: (17)

Ed,
You've been here (Connecticut) so you know the answer to THAT question! LOL

John Pavlick

nonstoprc

My Feedback: (90)

Pick up a plane with top of the design (such as the Passport) and you can forget about the adverse affect of strong/cross wind.

You definitely should make sure the plane does not exceed the weight limit to attend Nats, especially the 2012 one, as the rule is to be enforced.

Doug Cronkhite

My Feedback: (34)

Just because the rules aren't generally enforced at the local level doesn't mean people shouldn't care about the rule. I would still try to build all of my airplanes to the rules regardless of enforcement. That way.. if you show up at a contest that DOES enforce them, you have nothing to worry about.

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

Very easy words to say, Doug. Sometimes a little difficult when the rubber actually meets the road.

burtona

My Feedback: (50)

And also easier to say when you don't have to spend another $300-$400 to buy lighter stuff than what's supplied with the plane.

Ryan Smith

My Feedback: (25)

Caveat emptor...

If one doesn't want to spend a bunch of extra money to lighten their airplane up, perhaps they made the wrong choice in airframes/equipment selection. Those who are worried about weight, or don't think that they can build an airplane to make weight should consider other options before blowing a bunch of money on something that will require judicious monitoring of component selection and building methods.

Perhaps the better question should be, how many people have had trouble with the weight limit and how many have not? If 5% of the pattern population has had issues with weight, then I think the issues with weight are largely self-induced.

bjr_93tz

It's can be disappointing though, when a top F3A pilot designs a wonderful ship and the licensed manufacture lets some heavier airframes go out through the door to no-name flyers.

It really got my goat to read here on rcuniverse the weights that others claimed their airframe components weighed in at while my weights weren't in the ballpark. I agree it's buyer/builder beware but when your ARF is coming from somewhere else, you really are at the mercy of the manufacturers quality control.

Aus is fairly relaxed on the rules as long as you don't turn up with a custom 2.5mx2.5m 70cc bipe weighing in at 15+lbs and expect people to turn a blind eye, unless it's sportsmen class then everyone's welcome..

Ryan Smith

My Feedback: (25)

I don't think it's just no-name flyers that will get a heavy airframe. I remember Tony Frackowiack having issues with his Pass-Port a few years ago, and he is certainly not some no-name flyer. A little research goes a long way. Think of the size of the model, what powerplant and equipment you're going to put in it, and how the model is built. The most expensive, or even the most popular airplane may not be the best. There are lemmings everywhere, and I'm sure that many airplanes are 'B' list celebrities- ones that are popular for being popular. They're not particularly good airplanes. How many questions do you ask before you buy a TV? Do you look at every TV on the wall at Best Buy? What about a computer? What about a car? Now think of your modeling purchases. How many people buy an airplane simply because that's what was appealing to them in a picture? Or was hyped up online? Have you seen those models fly? Have you flown one? Same thing for motors, or batteries, or transmitters. I flew a friend's model that was very popular, and very hyped online, and I honestly felt that it sucked. It was setup very well, just the force arrangement, moments, and overall airframe just were not what (I felt at least) they should have been. My friend did well with the model, but he felt the same way. But, it was probably one of the most popular airplanes in recent history.

bzr, I won't comment on your specific instance with your Aires (or Astral?), as I don't remember your circumstances, however from what I do remember, your MAWs for the airframe parts were quite high. If you get a lemon, you get a lemon. I feel that the overwhelming majority of cases of airplanes being overweight are self-induced, however.

apereira

AMA Pattern is a category exclusive to the USA only, so in my opinion, only the international class should be weighed(F3A), if Master is not up to the level of FAI and Master pilots don't want to go to F3A, why should everyone need to pass weight?, to demonstrate what to whom? in the case of F3A, whoever compete in F3A has a chance to be on the team, to compete outside the USA, being a World Championship, Open, or any other where the category ask for it, there, you need weight check, as you want to be shure whoever goes will pass model processing.

The advantage is to the ones with the lighter airplanes, that meaning, those who has more money to pay and get the best stuff or those who are more skilled in building light airframes, so trying to weight everyone means trying to take out competition. What are so many guys with the best airframes needs to be afraid of?? let AMA with no weight and let the best pilot win, not just the one with more money or building resources to have better chances.

Just to get judges for the finals was ridiculous to the point where the idea of FAI pilots judging F3A pilots was mentioned in the last Nationals.

The same way I saw hard, and I mean hard working pilots like Chip, Andrew and Brett (those guys were so burned out by the Sun due to practice they were like dark red) not be allowed to participate at the Nats?, so, it was short of pilots for judging, and why is it that Chip or Brett could not have a chance to be Nat Champions this time? If they could fly better than the guys competing this year of course, but noooooo, so, I am a AMA member and I was allowed to sign up late(of course we informed in the WC form we wanted to compete), just because I did not know if I could stay, but them???

Guys be reasonable, AMA needs more and more participation in the Nats, and I don't see that intention around with the weight. And talk about beating a dead horse(weight) this has been on and on for years now.

Of course this is my point of view and opinion, and I see my comment as a contribution and respect and do not criticize any comment from anyone with a different opinion.

Happy New Year to all..

Alejandro Pereira
AMA 769178 (not the one I was given at the WC, were they did not even care looking for mu number in the form so gave me a new number, and I have been AMA registered for 8 years now)

burtona

My Feedback: (50)

In AMA classes, It's a un necessary rule to require a max 5kg that serves no purpose except to make airplanes more expensive . Why would anyone think an over weight plane was cheating when it penalizes the flyer. A more meaningful rule that would more level the playing field would be to have a 5kg MINIMUM so that no one would have a weight advantage by being too light.
I'm done worrying about weight the rest of my pattern career. I'll build the planes I like and the way I like and if they are more than 5kg, so be it. If any contest director is going to weigh planes and disqualify me from competing if I don't make weight, I just won't go. Let me know beforehand so I can avoid un necessary travel expenses.

cmoulder

Dave, it's something of a "Catch 22" because lighter does perform better, so even if you could fly a heavier model (with equal power systems) you would still be at a disadvantage.

Of course, every time this discussion comes up (I've been flying for a little over 6 years and have seen it at least a dozen times already) it is always mentioned that no weight limit would invite huge bipes with mondo motors.

AMA already has a 115g overweight allowance for Sportsman thru Advanced, and I would imagine that'd be about as heavy as you'd want to fly anyway with a 2-meter monoplane!

My Sickle set-up weighs about 4720g with the lightest stuff I have (which isn't all that light compared to some!), and my Spark is really close to 5000g. I have the same power system in each - Himax 6330-210, CC 85HV, Falcon 20.5x14.5 and the various Zippy, Rhino, Nano and PU batteries used in both - and there is a definite performance advantage with the lighter set-up. There is a very noticeable "tipping point" in performance when weight exceeds about 10lb 8oz to 10lb 10oz, again, all else being equal. If I really went all-out and spent some more bucks I might be able to get the Sickle down to 10lb flat - with a Pletty $, a Schulze or YGE ESC more$ and top-quality TP batterie$.

But if I could afford all those bits I'd install them in a Bravo and really put a dent in the 401(k).[>:]

burtona

My Feedback: (50)

Yeah, we always see this argument from a few. It's just total BS IMO. Anyone really think a 14-17 lb. gasser 2M bipe (if it can be made quiet enough) is really going to fly better than an 11 lb. monoplane? I don't think so. Anyone think there is any advantage to a 2M bipe compared to a 2M monoplane? If so, why aren't the top guys all flying them now?

Ryan Smith

My Feedback: (25)

Bob, what does your Spark weigh and what does it have in it for power?

bjr_93tz

I agree Ryan,

it's my choice to run the cdi on the 170, eliminating that would give me a fighting chance at the 5kg but it's not the whole battle. Depending what else I could replace I would then run into CG issues requiring significant equipment relocation, it's a double edged sword.

The revised weight limit in the lower classes is definitely a good thing in having sensible enforcible rules that promote inclusiveness, as most models tend to gain weight as they age and get passed down.

I'd also agree about lighter flying better. I've yet to fly a ship that feels better with a full tank compared to an empty one so even if I was at 5049g I'd still try to get it lighter

rix

I have a Vanquish with stock hardware installed and a Himax-210, APC 20.5x14. With 5000mAh, 25c zippys, I come in at 5107 and this setup performs very nice. With F3a Unlimited I am at 4998 and the plane performs nice at this weight as well. Even with the 115g overweight allowance for Sportsman thru Advanced, one would be really pushing the weight limit using the less expensive zippys. To fly Masters with this setup and get in the comfort zone, one would need to go with a lighter prop 6 times more expensive then the APC, with questionable performance benefit. Another $130.00 for a light Marquet Spinner (the plane already comes with one that works just fine). Another option would be to go with a lighter wing tube. Again, the wing tube that comes with the plane works just as well functionally than having a lighter one. Is the Vanquish not a wise choice in airframes/equipment selection? The weight rule is just antiquated and serves no purpose other than being an aggravation and a conversation piece. The arguments for it are lacking sense or reason : foolish.

patternflyer1

My Feedback: (11)

I don't feel a need to change the weight limit. There's no good reason for it anymore. Plenty of manufacturers and builders have shown that the weight limit is easily achievable. Not sure that's what this thread was supposed to be about though. Yeah, the weight rule comes up yearly, so what.. Lot's of reasons for it. If we didn't converse over things, we wouldn't need a forum..

Chris

Ryan Smith

My Feedback: (25)

The Vanquish is a fine airplane. I flew Chris Hinson's at SEFF this year and it flew fantastic. It has quite a large wing on it, so it can support extra weight better. His was right at 11lb, but ithad much beefier equipment/hardware in it than it needed. He also had cheap batteries, and the setup had a bunch of extra "stuff" that didn't need to be there.

I fail to understand why people think the weight rule is stupid. Why? Is it stupid because the people saying it is have heavy airplanes? It is what pattern is governed by. Next thing people are going to have trouble keeping their airplanes under 2m, so that rule will be stupid as well. Everybody cheats the sound test, so that rule is dumb as well.

I don't mean to be an ass, but really? If you don't want a weight limit, give IMAC a try. Local contests don't really matter in terms of weight. You're only hurting yourself flying heavy stuff.

As I said earlier, I'm surprised people don't buy hand me downs. All of the pattern planes 8mve owned were hand me downs. None of the airplanes I've built for people have had weight problems. The one that was the closest to weight was a Ventura that I built for Joey Hayes. It was under, but close. All of the hardware for that airplane was purchased at K/C Hobby in Archdale, so no real unobtanium in the airplane.

My last though for the night here. Why do people fly pattern? Is it to challenge yourself? To be with friends? To get a trophy? To look cool? Pattern isn't easy. It's not impossible by any stretch of the imagination, but it's meant to be a challenge. If you want a plug and play hobby, this is not the proper outlet. By the time you start flying Intermediate where these rules count, you've had enough time to analyze whether you enjoy pattern or not and want to play by its rules.

I hope you don't get discouraged. There are plenty of really good guys in your area that can help you, I'm sure you know. I hope to be able to schedule a trip home around a contest in Mocksville to be able to fly with everyone down there again.

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

BTW, the PassPort Ryan made mention of that I had problems with weight was a hand me down from Chip Hyde. He flew it at the previous Nats in F3A and supposedly made weight easily. I didn't worry about it until three days before the Nats started. The model was not damaged and repaired from when Chip owned it. But it was 7.5 ounces over weight when I checked it that day before the Nats.

Ryan, my attempt at increasing the weight limit was solely to reduce the cost of flying pattern. You're now an E-Flite product developer. What would the budget on a model's development go to if say you had to lose 20% of the models weight?

cmoulder

Ryan, it has the same power set as the Sickle: Himax210/CC80HV/Falcon. I don't know the exact weight because I haven't weighed it since shortly after purchasing it from Riley K (speaking of buying second-hand) but it was close with the equipment he had, Hacker C50-14xl and Jeti Spin 99. However, the model did have the Nats weight stickers, so it made it with Riley's set-up. It was his back-up plane for the Nats.

It is the first-gen Spark Dynamic. Big difference weight-wise is the composite wings, vs the Sickle built-up wings, and the canopy could be lots lighter. But it is a very nice flying model, IMHO, and lives up to its reputation for being a great snapper. Useful for me, being new to Advanced, with the addition of snaps and a spin to the sequence.

pmerritt

My Feedback: (118)

Weight is definitely a disadvantage.  Now that I'm 50 pounds overweight, it's hell to have to haul all that blubber across the flight line and go fetch that damned dead sticking cheap engine I stuck on that plane to make it ligher.

cmoulder

LOL!

Well, it's hard to deadstick an electric but it can be done.

burtona

My Feedback: (50)

Ryan,
You are making your own argument for eliminating the 5Kg weight rule.
1. You said Local contest don't really matter.
2. You put together a Ventura for Joey and had to buy replacement hardware from a local store to make weight

nonstoprc

My Feedback: (90)

Just weigh my Passport purchased from Stephen Byrd. The total RTF weight is 180.4 oz, just meet the AMA rule of 5000g + 115g allowance for Intermediate/Advanced (180.426315 ounces).

Weight distribution:

fuze (with Neu F3A): 6 lb 7oz
wings: 2 lb 11 oz
battery pack (hobbypartz.com Blue, and F3A unlimited): 2 lb 11oz


The prop is APC 21.5x13 (4oz) and the spinner is GP nylon with aluminum backplate. So there is still room to trim it down to 5000g if want to.

rix

I am looking at it strictly from an economic point of view. The new crop of cost effective competitive kits becoming available, it is silly and foolish to have to budget 50% or more into the initial cost a Vanquish (the Osiris is next, and I suspect others are on the drawing board) with no discernible performance benefit after you have spent the money, only so you can fly at the NATS once a year. That's why it is stupid. It serves no purpose other than raising costs. The 2 meter rule makes sense and has purpose. The noise rule helps move technology forward and eventually filters down to the masses and helps saves flying fields. Eliminate the weight rule for 2 years, keep the 2meter and noise rules in place and then evaluate. If after two years the argument holds true and $10,000 20 pound bi-planes become vogue and cannot be beat then its evaluation time again. So in summary you spend $650 on a Vanquish or an Osiris ($100 shipping) and then have to dole out another $400 or more to make weight defeats the purpose of the new market direction that manufactures are trying to create for us and is good for pattern. The new market opens up possibilities of new recruitment and keeps aging pattern flyers in the mix (critical for pattern). If guys want to spend $5000 on a pattern plane, then God bless ya, but a rule should not dictate a market movement and hold back new possibilities.