bwick

I really agree with John here. I just don't see how it's so difficult to make weight?

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

What a bunch of baloney. John, you have just said that you don't really want any more people in pattern. I guess a restricted club is what you want.

I have never said change everything. I just feel 11 pounds is too hard and expensive to make for an entry level guy to get going in pattern. You say that and look at the uproar. What in the world would be bad about allowing 12 pound planes in Sportsman, Intermediate and Advanced? It's just an attempt to get more to do it. What could possibly be the negative here? I'm beginning to feel I'm trying to teach a pig to sing!

And I know it is easier to get in to "some" turbine jets then most pattern models. Having done turbine jets, I know. And if my turbine ends up heavier, it just lands longer.

As to weighing and measuring everything at a pattern contest, if you did, you'd be in for some surprises. That's why nobody does. There's a lot more illegal models then you think.

Brett, what did you fly at the nats? Does the airframe list for less then $3K. And BTW, congrats on making the team. I know how difficult that is!

N429EM

I flew my very first competition event, just a couple of weeks ago. Just so happens it was a Pattern contest, (2008 Omaha Pattern Championships).
I flew an old Global Freestyle I had won at a club raffle, in the Sportsman Class. Plane was donated by a club member. I had a blast, and look forward to competing in more events.
I do want to improve my flying abilities.

However, while hanging around, listening to a lot of conversations, I got the feeling that quite a few airframes seemed to have a problem with the structural integrity, trying to stay under the weight limit. Mostly the problem was supporting the landing gear.
If airframes need to be made so light that things are too brittle, it will cause more aggravation than should be endured at an event that's supposed to be fun. At least everybody kept telling me, it was supposed to be fun.
"And it was."

Just because the rules were written 30 years ago, doesn't mean they were carved in stone. Change for the sake of improvement, is a good thing. Such as, increasing the numbers of flyers. Change for the sake of change alone is not necessary.

Earlier in this thread I read something about allowing changes in Sportsman only, and keeping the rest the same. But, then when a pilot wins a Sportsman event they are forced to 'move up' to Intermediate. This could have an adverse effect. In that the same plane may not meet the weight, for Intermediate. A small increase in both Sportsman and Intermediate, could invite and maintain more flyers into the F3A flying arena.

Just my .02.

EJ

tommy s

My Feedback: (55)

What exactly is the purpose of the 11 lb weight limit, why was it adopted in
the first place ? I know we did it because the rest of the world did it but what
is its purpose ?

tommy s

David Bathe

Jez' what are you saying TonyF, for an entry level pattern plane you'll be far below that. A nice .90 sized model is more than good enough!
9.5ib easy. Fitted with standard electrics and glow engine, no fancy stuff, no big bills. What's the problem?
If you think that beginners are suposed to turn up with all the latest kit looking like CPLR... ???
Just isn't the case mate.
As stated many, many times throughout this thread. Turn up with what you've got, regardless... and join in.

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

A little history.

The 5Kg weight limit has always been in the FAI F3A rules. It has never changed. What changed 1st were the engine displacement limits as DaveL mentioned earlier and then the 2-meter length and span restriction with the unlimited engine. This is a formula that guaranteed to increase the need for expensive, specialized airframes. I fought this with Ron Chidgey back when it was being considered but got nowhere.

When the AMA adapted the F3A weight rules, I don't remember. But it was well before the unlimited engine and 2-meter size rules came in to being. When those came out the AMA rules were changed to again conform to F3A. I again don't remember when.

As for the box, it was always in the F3A rules. Even in the one maneuver per pass days, the maneuver had to stay in the same box we have now. The change was when all the maneuvers had to stay in the box starting with the 1985 WC's. After a very hot and divisive debate that AMA rules were changed to "turnaround" in all the classes. I again don't remember the exact timetable on when this all occurred. I was consumed by F3A competition at the time.

So as mentioned, the 5Kg weight ruled has been an F3A constant, the AMA just conformed to F3A. Something that I think needs to be changed in the entry level classes.

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

David, I agree with you. But that is not how most get into pattern, at least in to our intermediate class. They go with hand-me-down 2-meter models or a fresh start one. Hand me downs tend to be heavier and there are very few fresh start ARF's that will comply.

bwick

Tony, thanks for the congrats

I flew an Oxai Aries, and no, it does not list for less than $3k. However, in 2005 I flew Focus II's in intermediate ($600-700 I believe, one was actually the ARC so less than that), and in 2006 I flew a genesis kit in advanced (something like 650 or 700, don't remember). The focus was outfitted with a 140 sport and some digital servos (JR/Futaba mix I think), the genesis with a hacker, thunder power 5300 batteries, and Futaba digitals (little heavier than JR counter parts). Both made weight without a whole lot of concern. The genesis was close, but we really didn't do anything special to get it under.

I guess I'm not really opposed to the change in the weight limit (for intermediate/advanced), but I don't think it's going to attract any more people to the sport.

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

Then let's give it a try and see what happens. It may take a while for the manufacturers to return to the market, but I don't see how it can possibly be a negative.

Mastertech

My Feedback: (31)

I want to make my feelings and statements I've made in this thread clear. I believe the weight limit should be abolished in AMA classes only. What the rest of the world does I don't really care. I really don't care what FAI does as I'll never fly FAI. It sucks to spend a grand on an ARF 2x2 and find out once it's built it's illegal or to make it legal takes another $500 or make the airframe so fragile it won't last a season.

We don't enforce the rules at local contest because we don't really care. All I'm asking for is to make that a bonifide rule instead of the unwritten rule we have now. It will NOT lead to obsolete airplanes, it will NOT lead to huge bipes, it will NOT lead to 100cc 30% IMAC airplanes. It could allow some 50cc airplanes sure but I doubt very many. We all know those 50cc IMAC style airplanes fly horribly compared to a purpose designed pattern plane and everyone that's flown both knows it.

Tim

aerobear

My Feedback: (4)

What would happen if the weight limit is removed and the noise limit actually enforced? (No cheat switches)

What would happen at the top levels of pattern. At the lower levels?

vbortone

My Feedback: (2)

Tim,

One important detail, the pattern design in the US will be useful in the US only. How many Temptations, Focus, Brios, etc, etc has been used around the world because they meet the FAI rule.

Vicente "Vince" Bortone

Mastertech

My Feedback: (31)

Vince, All those designs were aimed straight at FAI. How many airplanes out there today are built differently from Fuel to Electrics within the same design? How many of the above airplanes do you see flown at the FAI level now? None. How many in Masters at the top national level? None.

Now how many do you see at the local Level below Masters? Around here if 25 Pilots show up at a contest 1/2 will be flying a Focus. I suspect 1/2 of those are over weight.

Tim

Robbidos

My Feedback: (20)

Very unlikely. I just finished my Focus II and with very little effort, mine is 9lb, 12oz. Someone would have to go a long way to make that overweight.

Mastertech

My Feedback: (31)

Robert, I'm glad for you. That's a very light Focus, Wait 2 years then weigh it again. Airplanes tend to grow heavier as they age rather than getting lighter. The Focus is the "M1A1 battle tank of Pattern Planes". I love them and have owned 4 of them and my OFB has owned 4-5 himself. All of his started life around 10-10.4. All have gotten over 11 in the years he's flown them. Not the airplanes fault mind you. He's my best friend but he is rough on airplanes and if 1/4 oz of epoxy is good 1 oz is better.

Robbidos

My Feedback: (20)

That isn't the issue. The issue we are talking about here is getting more people to try pattern and not have a dedicated pattern plane. We could get quite a few to try by laxing the rules for Sportsman (most contests do) and Intermediate. I've heard more than one IMAC flyer say they would try flying, but don't want to waste their time flying the sportsman routine thinking it is too easy (and boring). Once we get them to try it a couple of times, they would likely enjoy the challenge and get a more appropriate plane to fly.

Mastertech

My Feedback: (31)

Ryan Smith

My Feedback: (25)

Most of the Focii around here are Focus 1's that were from the first batch back in 2002. Naturally they are going to get heavy, they are really old airplanes in the scheme of things with respect to pattern competition. Not to mention the airplanes didn't have the lighter construction techniques that the newer Focii have and many of them have been repaired due to gearplate ripping out. Many people (myself included) tend to fly airplanes throughout their useful life. The only reason I'm sporting a pair of matching PL built Partners this year is because the first Partner that I flew my first contest in Sportsman with and took me all the way through three Masters contests in two years of flying pattern crashed.

I for one am opposed to any changes right now, or changing the rules for some classes and not for others. I think that will ultimately confuse people, or piss them off. I think that you will still see people that are serious going in the same direction that they are now regardless of a rule change because a lighter airplane will fly better. I have to agree with John and Brett that it is not hard to get an airplane under 11lb. If you follow the basic principles of what makes a good airframe, then there is no problem. Unless someone can come up with something terribly compelling to convince me otherwise, I would be inclined to say leave it as it is. I am all for attracting new people to pattern, however if you alienate the core people who have been around for a long time and have all of the knowledge and expertise, then you are left in the same situation - a dead sport. Maybe some of the guys that fly elsewhere in the world, ie: Europe, Asia, Australia; can give some insight as to how this situation is handled at local contests and if they have similar situations. I realize that our rules only impact us, and their rules only impact them, but we can find some commonality and see if what we have is broken, or if we just like to pretend it is to have something to do because there is that 1% that doesn't really like to get out and fly, they just like to rattle off rules.

I fly pattern because I like to escape from the menial BS that I am lambasted with in the real world. This is an escape for me, and I do this because I love the sport and love to fly. I don't see anything wrong with the simple rules that we have by which to conform, and I think it should be kept that way. I don't see where pattern is broken, and given the 3D trend in modeling currently, I fully expect to see numbers that pale in comparison to a different facet of the hobby where you can just grab a bunch of stuff off the shelf, throw it into a box and fly it until it buries itself into the ground. The vast majority really doesn't care, and I don't think that we need to dumb ourselves down to attract new people. I've seen so many new faces since I've been involved with pattern, it's crazy. I think that we have enough people with a good enough heart to take new guys under their wing and help them. It has been done for me, and I don't see anything different in patternland with the people I've met from all areas of the country.

What we do drives product development in R/C. Why cheapen it and cause the whole sport to suffer?

jrpav1

My Feedback: (17)

Tony,
Sorry if I came off sounding like I didn't want to encourage people to fly Pattern. That's not true! I CD'd the only Pattern contest in Connecticut a few years ago. I tried to get club members to fly, but only one of them did. He was flying an old Atlas. It wasn't overweight by the way. <LOL> We all had fun but I wished more club guys flew in my contest. The number one reason why most of them wouldn't try it was that they couldn't manage to keep a 40 or 60-size airplane in "the box".

In my other club I managed to get some people interested in flying Pattern and they have done pretty well in Sportsman with Venus 2's and planes like that. Again, the weight issue is just not a problem. If you're trying to encourage people to fly Pattern, it's much more complicated than just removing the weight limit. You may remember a few months ago in the K-Factor, Ron Van Putte published my "list of things that anyone can do to help grow Pattern". Everything I mentioned there has produced results. Abolishing the weight limit wasn't on my list. Sorry.

I have a lot of respect for you Tony, so please don't get me wrong. I just have a different way of looking at this whole thing I guess. Pattern is supposed to be a challenge. If you make it too "easy", the quality will suffer and Pattern WILL die. As someone once said (I think it was Tom Hanks) "the 'hard' is what makes it good!" Do whatever you guys feel is best. I'm still going to try to hit under 10 lbs with my new airplane. <VBG>

John Pavlick
Team Black Magic

Robbidos

My Feedback: (20)

That may be true, but the Focus is not the plane of choice for Advanced and higher. It is a starter plane for use in Sportsman and Intermediate for the most part. It certainly can fly the higher routines, but as someone else stated earlier, anyone at that level is more than likely demanding more from their plane than a Focus II can deliver. Anyone that stays in long enough to get to Advanced and certainly Masters probably has a more modern and more expensive plane. Why have rules that make it financially prohibitive to a lower level pilot simply because he has had a couple of mishaps with a plane?

{Edit for spelling}

AmericanSpectre505

Very well said Ryan,...

Every post should be looked at objectively,..leaving out personal preferences,.etc. Read the body of the post,..agree or disagree thats up to the individuals. We all argue are own points based on our own experiences,...the way it is.[8D] However,..consider we all have different circumstances and not everyone has financial access to the things they really want,..me included. Rules affect everyone,..I am now flying F3A/FAI by choice,..but neither of my hand-me down PL Prod's make weight. Till now,..that's all I could afford with this wonderful booming economy we have. Should I show up at the NATS with these birds,..no. Should I go out and buy a smaller less competitive plane,..no. That would be like taking a knife to a gun fight,..what ever little chance I might of had just went out the window. So,...yeah,..rules affect us all,...with out them we have kaos,...don't have to like'em, but it brings uniformity. I still remain neutral on the subject,....to each his own.

Non-International rules aside,..the CD or contest director of the event still makes the decissions for what is allowed at a local contest. I left the Hobby in 2003 for my own personal reasons,..didn't touch an airplane until 2005. All my 40%'s sitting in the garage getting old!

Short Story:
I decided one day after a short conversation at the field,..well I've been asked may times "when are you going to fly pattern" and was asked again? Well,... (me thinking to myself) lets go find something in the middle of the road here? I bought a Goldberg Obsession,..thinking,..well heck, if I just don't have the passion for competition anymore atleast I have one heck of a fun plane at a fairly low price. I approached our CD well in advance of the contest to make sure he would allow it,.................I flew it in Masters one contest that year. The plane is not legal in size and it wouldn't make weight (12.5 Lbs). However, If the contest director had said no,.....I would not be flying pattern right now,..would of gone back to IMAC again. So,..the avenues are endless and open to anyone to fly pattern.

I myself,.. have hand-me down junk that's over weight, falling apart or new pattern junk that has exploded in mid-air and that's since 2006. I have since just ordered my first "NEW" high level arf composite aircraft,..should have it in October. It has taken me this long,..soul searching at 39 years old to decide,...hey I can still do this, if I make a commitment to like years past,..get rid of the junk!

Bill Holsten

jrpav1

My Feedback: (17)

Bill,
I too flew used airplanes for a while so I understand what you're up against. In my case ALL of them met the weight requirement. I had to replace the aluminum wing tube in my Focus 1 but that was easy. That plane has over 500 flights on it and it's still not overweight. Compared to the Obsession, I would think you could hold your own in Masters with it just as well. There's one option.

Next - do you like to build? Try a Black Magic or a Pentathlon. These planes come out light even if you're heavy handed. If you don't count your time, they're relatively inexpensive.

Another option: the Northeast Aerodynamics Aquila: http://ne-aero.com/2maquilaf3aarfarc.aspx . This plane is very light. So light that it really only needs a 120 2C. It's not quite 2-meters BUT you don't notice that when it's in the air. It flies like a 2-meter.

If the REAL goal of this whole weight thing is to get more people into Pattern then why don't we put together a list of proven combinations and post it on the NSRCA site? We really have nothing to help beginners get started. Think about it. If you were trying to get started what would you do? Who would you ask?

In this whole debate I see two things:
1. Some people feel that removing the weight rule will encourage more people to fly Pattern. Personally I don't see it that way. I know there are lots of reasons why people have a hard time getting into Pattern. They need help from someone with experience. That's our job. It's not easy but if you REALLY want to help grow the sport, you'll find ways of helping potential Pattern junkies. I see it all the time here in D1: People loaning airplanes, radios, engines. Guys coaching Sportsman and Intermediate pilots. THAT works!

2. I think the other aspect of this is that some people flying in the higher classes are frustrated because their super-expensive tricked-out-to-the-max composite airplane either comes out overweight or falls apart. Well then I guess we need to encorage the manufacturers to build airplanes that meet the weight requirement AND don't disintegrate. How do we do that? By removing the weight requirement? NO. By having the sponsored pilots test these things and give honest reports. That's part of their job. They're not supposed to be *just* salesmen. I know some of these guys are REALLY good and I'm sure there's a lot going on behind the scenes that a lot of us don't see so forgive me if I sound presumptuous. And guys, don't just go out and buy the latest $3000.00 Plane-of-the-week because so and so just won the NATs with it. Do your homework. It's your money. Make sure what you're buying will be the right plane for you (including size, weight and power system requirements).

See, it's not going to be easy. That's why it's a competitive event. Not EVERYONE will enjoy it. So be it. That's all I was trying to say in my rant about letting "EVERYONE" fly Pattern. All we need to do is expose the RIGHT people and help them get started. As far as I'm concerned we can do A LOT more to make that happen. And you guys in Masters and FAI with the porky airplanes need to think about more than just flying. It REALLY isn't that hard to build a 5Kg airplane.

John Pavlick
Team Black Magic

AmericanSpectre505

Hello JRpav1,

I agree with item #1 on the list,...makes no difference.

I agree with the second item,..I love the Black Magic,...flew Mikes when he was here in Dist2 contest,...simply have no time to build and just have enough time to practice right now. The price of a product doesn't mean it's going to win for anyone. I spend a tremendous amount of time researching products before I make a decission. The new Fliton Element 170 wood version is another good choice fo $600 dollars,..the list is long. I had a BRIO kit,..let it go for a fairly decent built PL Partner, which is currently 2 oz under weight currently. I've been flying since 1992 and at a high level throughout the late 1990's thru 2003 and working on it now currently.

The F3A/FAI schedule's from year to year is what drives these new designs to the market,..for the most part anyway,...not all of them. We have seen them really wide,..wide and tall, narrow and tall, wide and narrow and all of those with the T-thingy and even split rudder control, etc. The BIG boy's are always searching for an advantage over the next BIG guy,...for the next set of P & F programs, which is now challenging dated designs,..they are still great designs.

Like I've already said,...the rules don't bother me either way,...just throwing things out there,..no intent to sway minds or push opinions,...simply food for thought.
I have enjoyed reading the post and the replies and it's interesting to see where certian things stand.[8D]

Bill Holsten

Dean Pappas

Hi All,
Here's an idea to stir up the pot. It would need a phase-in, say grandfathering existing designs for three or four years, but forget the implementational issues for just one minute. I want to ask what you think the effect on the event would be if "the formula" was changed to:
Displacement limit: none
weight limit: 5 kg
size limit: 1.6 m long X 1.6 m wide (63")

Would it get cheaper or not?
Would the car you need to fly and compete be cheaper?
Would entry be less intimidating?
Would flying site / noise footprint be more or less of a problem?
Would it make it easier to separate the competitors on a judging level?
Feel free to include questions I did not think of ...

have fun,
Dean Pappas

burtona

My Feedback: (50)

1. Cheaper
2. Yes
3. No
4. Less
5. No

Smaller planes will put a premium on flying skill and IMO you would see a larger range in scores (not necessarily a bad thing)
also, let's mandate FAI fuel as that will also save a bunch.

(Planes will be easier to carry on a bicycle which we may all be using to get to the flying field in the future)
Dave Burton