MikeEast

My Feedback: (3)

I have been reading up on all the structural failures of the various airframes Impact, Angel Shadow, etc... why does the pattern world not want to take a step back and make some rules adjustments to correct the problem? The problem seems pretty obvious.

Weight.

Eliminate the weight limit, stick with the 2M limit and allow glow engines only and the problem goes away.

That way you can improve the structural integrity of the airframes up AND reduce building costs. Im not saying you want to stop using lightweight composites but at least it will give you a choice. Whats the risk?


With no weight limit, glow engines only, and a 2M size limit you could continue to build a wider body to improve slower flight and better knife edge qualities without skimping on structural integrity and keep the cost under control AND get a handle on these thin, failing, dent prone airframes.
No one is going to INTENTIONALLY build a 12 or 13 pound plane, that would be follish at 2M, but it would allow you to buy less expensive parts that would allow you to run slightly heavier (maybe 1/2 pound) and still fly just was well since all you can use is a glow engine and deal with the noise limit. The cost of getting a modern designed plane under 11# and be competitive is getting ridiculous. You should not have to spend an extra $1000 on composite airframes, wingtubes, mufflers, supports, titanium and aluminum gear and other extremely light, extremely high dollar materials just to keep it under weight.

Why not?? Im curious why it hasnt been done or discussed seriously..

Erik Johansson

I think allowing glow engines only would be dreadful. I´ve been wanting to compete in pattern for many years but due to the fact that I´ve only been flying electrics for the last 7 years it has been impossible until now. The progress on the electric side over the last few years have finally made it possible for me to be able to make a dream come true. I know several friends who are in the same situation. I also think it´s great to be able to go to a competition and see different types of motors all competing against eachother. I somewhat agree that the limit may need to be raised a bit though. But please allow me (and others) to run our electric power systems (not that I´m really worried at all that FAI would ban the electrics).

/Erik

8178

My Feedback: (17)

I totally agree! I would vote to eliminate the size, weight and sound limit and set the limit on the CI of the power plant. Say 61 2S and 91 FS and electric of equal power. No limit on the use of pipes, retract gear or any other aerodynamic aids. Then change the pattern to eliminate the box flying and change all the maneuvers to high speed stuff and you would have nirvana. It’s always good to make changes every decade or so to advance the state of the hobby. Pattern hasn’t been very popular for the last ten years so a change could really rev it up!

Sprink

Raise the weight limit - yes. Eliminate it - no. Glow only - definately no.

I would suggest raising the weight limit, but making it a "Wet" ie take off weight. That way Glow, Petrol and Electric will be far more equal. With Electric, there is no difference between dry and wet weight, Petrol has heavier engines and the extra ignition, but needs a lot less fuel on board.

Then it is up to the flyer to decide how to use the weight.

Incidentally I entered my first comp a few weeks back. I was very surprised that virtually everyone had the 2m glass planes, I was expecting more of a mixture. Having said that, there was no measuring undertaken. Apparently in the UK this is only done at the centralised comps for the team selection, at the normal comps it is more relaxed.

byoung466

My Feedback: (16)

My opinion is if you eliminate the governing factor of the equipment you will change the equipment. Right now the limiting factor is the weight. Currently you have electric that is finally competitive so raising the limit will probably be hard on electrics, but would let gas come in and hurt the glow power plants available now.

You also have a broad range of planes available at all price ranges if you are willing to fly a smaller plane especially. If you want to compete on the edge you can do that as well.

Changing the limit will obsolete all the current range of airframes, fragile or not.

My feeling is stay with the same constraints long enough and let the equipment meet the rules with adequate development. A few gas engines are on the cusp of meeting the weight requirements now.

I cant say Im for one way or the other, but a change will have an effect, larger things cost more in my experience. So the composites will just get bigger and be the most competitive and some of them will break because the manufacturers arent large enough to do propper R&D.

cygnet

My Feedback: (33)

I'm all for getting rid of the weight limit, that way we could use gas engines and are operating costs would come way down. A 2 meter pattern plane is costly enough but if you practice a lot look at the costs of glow fuel. I think that pattern is in trouble if we don't make some changes look at the cost of a 2 meter electric plane, I think we have to get costs down or the young guys won't be able or willing to anti up. Just my .02

patternrules

My Feedback: (6)

There been many explain why it won't bring cost down it would bring it up, I'm against any of the changes mentioned, the past has proven that any change is expensive and we loose more flyers. Not near as simple as people think, sounds like it would be good but beleive me it's not.
Steve Maxwell

rodney tanner

Ditto Steve. . . .
The cost of Pattern is actually coming down every year. The other day I did a quick survey of ARF and ARC Pattern planes available (90 and 2M sizes) and there are at least 15 alternatives, priced at under $1000 and of those about 8 retail for under $500. These are all under the current weight limit and rated by RCU members as competitive.
The OS160FX with header and pipe (Perry pump or Klien regulator) is a proven and economical engine package.
Lighter planes fly better anyway. . . . .

cygnet

My Feedback: (33)

You guys are missing the point. It's the cost of operation when I was competing in FAI I used to burn 3/4 of a gallon of 35% fuel a day. Due the math the equipment is the same cost the fuel is the killer. Just my .02

sweetpea01

My Feedback: (10)

The weight limit should be opposite.........I.E. your plane must weigh at least say 10lbs. That would keep models more structural and if you want to weigh more you can.

flyintexan

My Feedback: (1)

IMHO, we are at a point where alot of models (in many sizes) are available for pattern. I think the reason for this is that the rules are established and well known, even among some non-pattern flyers. I think it would take a good while for manufacturers to catch up with new designs to utilize ANY rules changes. This means less demand for all the kits/arfs currently on the shelf and more $$$ (higher prices) for new products that take advantage of the new rules.

Gas and Electric may be difficult to get under the weight limit, but it looks as though it is possible.

bla bla

These rules are there for a purpose aren't they? It makes the produces, engine and airframe push the envelope? Leave it alone. There is absolutely no problem getting under the limit unless you are going gas power and if thats your type of thing, this is the only way you'll get a petrol engine that puts out some serious power without weighing a ton, an engine that uses a decent soft mount and a nose ring, an engine that is basically usable of our needs...
And by the time the manufacturers have worked that one out... we'll all be flying electric!

sean sweeney

My Feedback: (8)

If you change the rules then manufacturers will have to design new planes, make new molds and throw out the old ones. This will certainly raise the cost, and some manufactures will be less willing to design new planes for fear that the rules might change again.
As for the cost of the current pattern planes I see many affordable planes from scratch built to ARF, and even composite. If you need the most current, up to date aircraft then you are going to pay more. Next year these same planes will be cheaper as they are replaced by the newest and greatest. (buy their old stuff!)How many pilots can really utilize the small differences in the latest and greatest? As for the cost of the powerplants electric is moving fast. The cost of lithiums is coming down as their capabilities goes up. The next generation of electrics will use fewer cells (less $), more amps and make the same power (and be lighter as well)
IMHO
Sean

onewasp

Big Ned, 8178----I agree.

There isn't much to be said for openwheel racing rules------BUT a MINIMUM weight requirement sure did away with the super light stuff breaking. Levels the playing field too.

While I would like to see 'Glow only' too much (worldwide) is resting on noise control so we should allow the electrics and over time find out how to level the playing field.

I was a member of the Pattern community when the 'Turnaround' system was adopted. Now referred to as Aresti it did just the opposite of the reasons advanced at that time which included in no small measure a smaller foot print. Talk about missing the mark!

We certainly do need to return to our roots in pattern but with the FAI as the 'Catbird' ----fat chance. ------and people say ---"what happened to pattern". The answer is an unfortunate number of bad things.

Pattern has ALWAYS been inbred so I don't expect much in the way of interesting change. The current crop of "whales with wings" certainly turn me off but------

rodney tanner

Just picked this up from the NSRCA discussion list, from Tom Koenig in Australia. Illuminating, I thought.
Over to Tom. . .

Hi all in the US and other countries,

I know a little about this subject. I would be very surprised IF anything regarding the 2x2 limit would be changed. I would be even more surprised if the 5 Kg limit was changed or removed. Yes there will probably be some clarification regarding the electrics, but I think that they will remain to be weighed WITH the batts in place.

Many countries have a member on the FAI aerobatics sub-committee. This sub-committee will then make a recommendation to the FAI. Providing it is a unanimous proposal, the FAI will more than likely accept that proposal.
Like Australia, I would assume that you guys in the US have a US aerobatics sub-committee to assist Chris Lakin's submission to the FAI aerobatics sub-committee, of which he is a member. Australia's rep is Tom Bloodworth, and as a member of our local committee, I have made a submission to him to assist him with his official Australian response to the FAI sub-committee. He will be but one vote, just like the US and other countries.

From what I have seen guys, don't panic...and there is quite a lot more up for discussion than just weight and size limits alone, they were the easy ones!!!!

Tom

byoung466

My Feedback: (16)

I keep hearing about the Senior pattern events here and there but have never really paid attention to the rules, arent they using the older style planes and flying the pre turn around pattern?

Jim Oliver

My Feedback: (1)

Hi Brian, and others:

Senior pattern--<www.seniorpattern.com>

There is a list of planes and rules.

ELI Kats

My Feedback: (2)

We have to keep the price reasonable and find a solution for Electric power (no fuel).
It is known from the world of aviation that the cost of an aircraft is proportional to its weight.

Now, most of the competitive models weight around 4.5 kg (and less..) - they are limited by the 2*2 rule.
7 kg is increase of 50% in weight. I would speculate that the cost of a model will jump by 50-100%. The reasons are: increased weight requires stronger servos, more batteries and bigger engines (180 or 210 instead of 140-160).

If there will be a limit of 7 kg and no size limit, the models will be 2.4 m long, 2.1 m span and much more expensive. Think of transportation cost to an international event…

I would suggest:
Keep the size 2*2. Remove the weight limit. This way the competitive modellers will stay with the low weight with no change from today.
The beginner F3A pilots won't need very expensive models to enter the competitions (no titanium parts...).
This will give solution for the electric as well.

onewasp

Brian,

If you are in the south----GA, AL,TN,MS------there are a few contests. If you are a Yankee forget it. Sad but true. They also have what I consider 'Southern Rules' in place---I should say IMO.

There is a 'Meet' at the Nats but it is mostly BS'ing with the old group and demo flying. They too have rules that prohibit a lot of stuff we held 'dear'. BUT ---- that is the way it is when you become 'Old and Wormy'. Keep breathing and you will find that to be true.

Thanks for the thoughts.

can773

My Feedback: (1)

Bang on!!

If you cant meet or beat weight (glow or electric) with planes today you are doing something wrong!!! I have had to add weight to some of my planes!!!

My buddy Dez V. (my Canadian teammate) has a Focus 2 running E-power with a Plettenberg 25-13, all up weight with TP 6000 Prolite packs is 10.5 lbs....thats 1/2 pound under the limit RTF. He also has an Impact with the same setup, at 10.8 lbs.....my Electric ZN Enigma with the same setup (Apogee packs 5s2p 4960) is 10 lbs 2 oz....completely stock kit nothing modded, everything off the shelf.

As for structural failures...I dont know I have a glow powered ZN Enigma, again completely stock nothing fancy....running Nicads, Aluminum pipe, flex header etc etc.....2000+ flights on it with hardly any maintenance. 10 lbs empty. My ZN Evolis models were down to 9.4 lbs, again all stock.

I have been through about 12 two meter models in the past 6 or 7 years, many of them were "old" tech glass fuses etc....NONE of them were even close to 11 lbs, I think the worst was 10 lbs 10 oz.....I built all of them stock, never spent stupid money to save 0.1 oz.

The failures of some of the models are not weight issues (in fact making them heavier will most likely increase the chance of failure) its simply a poor structural/composite design.

The AS wing failures is a seam issue, F3D pylon uses the same contruction in the wings (I asked Harold Sattler builder of Richard Verano's models about this) and they have resolved this issue and have not had any failures in some time....and they go a hell of a lot faster than our planes do!!

Make it unlimited weight.....next thing you know everyone will be complaining because their planes are too heavy for the wing area....so make it larger span/length.....pretty soon we will by flying IMAC sized pattern planes that cost $15K each.

esamart

Without weight limit electrics will have a huge advantage. Because they do not have exhaust sound they can deliver more power. But I am certain the future is in electrics anyhow.

My quess: "Less than 15% of finalists in 2005 F3A WC will use glow engines"

You can not make 6kg petrol model competitive because it won't pass sound test. If it will it does not have enough power.

During World Championships there will be the most important Sub Committee meeting where remowing weight limit is in agenda. I hope a member of every country will be invited.

MikeEast

My Feedback: (3)

Sorry, my original point was to cost down without compromising the flight qualities of the plane. . Electric and Glow are both fine in my opinion, so is gas if you can keep it quiet and sized to power a 2M design.

As far as the person who blasted me for having an opinion and suggested we just throw away all limits... lol whatever.


Seriously, Id like to know where you guys are getting the materials to build 9.5# 2M pattern planes. The only person I have actually seen build a plane close to that light in person is flyintexan. Most planes I see are LOADED with carbon fiber gear and just barely get under the limit by a few ounces at best. My only point is that I dont like the concept of he who has the most money to spend to get a plane underweight and "present" the best wins. The only thing that urks me worse is the term "halo factor".

My only real thought here is to see the weight increased so that you dont have to buy high priced ultralight materials to just barely be able to squeeze under 11#. The average guy should be able to build a modern design(widebody), structurally sound plane and get under weight without having to buy CF landing gear, Titanium Axles and a $175 CF pipe to do it. Thats it.

Angus Balfour

That suggestion about the model must be 10lbs minimum is a good idea. Would definitly make it a more even playing field.

Part of the reason though that they are thinking of scrapping the weight limit has got more to do with speeding up model processing at international events than anything else.

Im actually all for a change to the rules. I don't think it would make it anymore expensive, quite the opposite + if it allows petrol engines to be used and lower tech airframes then thats great.

Angus

can773

My Feedback: (1)

Serious BigNed, with the Zn stuff there is nothing you can do to them? The fuse is molded, the wings/stab/rudder sheeted, they come with gear/pants, all the wood to complete the firewall, nose ring, capping....aluminum stab tube/gator adjusters. Building wise there is almost nothing you can do to get them any lighter than they come. Basically you just throw in your gear....

I have 3 Enigma's (2 electric, 1 glow) all right around 10 lbs (glow empty, electric with batteries), and I had (but sold) 2 Evolis, both were 9.4-9.5 lbs.

My setup was for glow was

YS 140DZ/160DZ
Johnson header
Greve 4 stroke pipe
1100 mah 4 cell Nicad
Futaba R149 receiver
9150/9154 (ailerons), x1 9252 with MK bellcrank (or the new planes are x2 3150's in stabs), 9151 on rudder, 9602 on throttle (no electric obviously!).
Tetra tank 20 oz
Hyde copy mount (4 oz) and aluminum nose ring
ZN Aluminum horns, MK BB fittings, MK tailwheel.....painted with clearcoat, covered with Ultracote.
Tru-Turn 3.25/3" LBP FAI Spinner
APC prop.

The electric setup is the same but I use

Plettenberg Xtra 25-13
Schulze 32.55K controller
Apogee 10s2p 4960 battery


Thats it, like I said nothing fancy....and I am WAY under the limit. I added 5 oz to my Enigma last year for windy days.

dentdoc

My Feedback: (3)

Bang on!!

If you cant meet or beat weight (glow or electric) with planes today you are doing something wrong!!! I have had to add weight to some of my planes!!!

My buddy Dez V. (my Canadian teammate) has a Focus 2 running E-power with a Plettenberg 25-13, all up weight with TP 6000 Prolite packs is 10.5 lbs....thats 1/2 pound under the limit RTF. He also has an Impact with the same setup, at 10.8 lbs.....my Electric ZN Enigma with the same setup (Apogee packs 5s2p 4960) is 10 lbs 2 oz....completely stock kit nothing modded, everything off the shelf.

As for structural failures...I dont know I have a glow powered ZN Enigma, again completely stock nothing fancy....running Nicads, Aluminum pipe, flex header etc etc.....2000+ flights on it with hardly any maintenance. 10 lbs empty. My ZN Evolis models were down to 9.4 lbs, again all stock.

I have been through about 12 two meter models in the past 6 or 7 years, many of them were "old" tech glass fuses etc....NONE of them were even close to 11 lbs, I think the worst was 10 lbs 10 oz.....I built all of them stock, never spent stupid money to save 0.1 oz.

The failures of some of the models are not weight issues (in fact making them heavier will most likely increase the chance of failure) its simply a poor structural/composite design.

The AS wing failures is a seam issue, F3D pylon uses the same contruction in the wings (I asked Harold Sattler builder of Richard Verano's models about this) and they have resolved this issue and have not had any failures in some time....and they go a hell of a lot faster than our planes do!!

Make it unlimited weight.....next thing you know everyone will be complaining because their planes are too heavy for the wing area....so make it larger span/length.....pretty soon we will by flying IMAC sized pattern planes that cost $15K each.


Second That!