USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
07-20-2009, 01:10 PM
#101
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
If I follow this logic correctly, the weight limit controls the size of a plane (up to a point since as you noted planes got bigger even with a weight limit) which controls the cost which keeps people flying competitively.
If the weight limit is modified at all, planes will get larger, more costly and fewer people will compete, correct?
The weight controls the size which controls the cost. Except as you noted planes are larger and more costly than ever despite no changes in the weight rules.
If I follow this logic correctly, the weight limit controls the size of a plane (up to a point since as you noted planes got bigger even with a weight limit) which controls the cost which keeps people flying competitively.
If the weight limit is modified at all, planes will get larger, more costly and fewer people will compete, correct?
The weight controls the size which controls the cost. Except as you noted planes are larger and more costly than ever despite no changes in the weight rules.
Yes, as you can see just look what has changed within our current rules. This started as I understand it, as an attempt to foster development of cheaper engines. The displacement rules were removed, and weight/size added to contain the model size. With the displacement rule gone you should be able to make a bigger motor that is not as finely tuned and produce it cheap. Two strokes came out, ST 2300, OS 140, etc. etc. and they were cheap motors that ran well, for a while YS lost market share in pattern to these motors which at the time could match the performance from the 140L.
Planes got a little bigger since there was more power available, but the building techniques were not there to get them light enough to be much larger.
YS decided to kill the two stroke, and came out with the DZ's. First used at the 2001 WC's in Ireland. QQ ran an OS 140 EFI, the most expensive F3A motor ever produced at that point. A Smaragd was a big plane back then. YS made a significant gain in performance with that motor, and guys were figuring out how to build very light fuses. I recall having a ZN Evolis at 9.25 lbs with a 140L.
As the planes got bigger, they needed more power, the two-strokes just couldn't keep up and with pattern being such a small market I don't think there is enough money to justify it. YS again became virtually the only glow motor being used. In 2003 electric showed up with Jason flying one in Poland.
Continued refinement on construction, planes were able to get bigger, and motors followed suit.
I don't know how much bigger these planes can get, but they can still get bigger.
My 2008 Integral I flew at the Nats weighed in at 4720 grams (comp-arf), and my new Xigris which is a fair bit larger fuse than the Integral is 4865g (this will go up a bit as I add some decals and such). I certainly do not use the lightest equipment available, and I did not try to build the Xigris lightly. Both planes could be lighter if I wanted, or made larger.
I am not against change, I just think it needs to be very well planned and thought out before it happens. I really passionately believe that an arbitrary weight change in FAI to "level the playing field" between glow and electric is a really really really bad idea. I fly electric and have no feelings of disadvantage because I have to weigh RTF and a glow pilot can takeoff at 6kg if he chooses. Thats perfectly OK in my world....a glow guy has plenty of other difficulties to deal with that I don't have to think about
I should point out, that in Canada, we modified our rules from the FAI to state that airplanes flying in MAAC classes (which are essentially the same as AMA) do NOT weigh with batteries. This was done to not penalize someone who wanted to use A123's etc with the weight rules. This does give a big advantage to electric fliers, but since the airplanes are virtually all designed to be legal for FAI we felt it would not significantly cause much disparity between glow/electric. To my knowledge it has worked ok so far.
07-20-2009, 01:37 PM
#102
My Feedback: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dalzell, SC
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
ORIGINAL: can773
I should point out that essentially most all planes are designed for FAI, so I am referring to the FAI weight rule. I don't feel changing the AMA rules will have much impact.
Yes, as you can see just look what has changed within our current rules. This started as I understand it, as an attempt to foster development of cheaper engines. The displacement rules were removed, and weight/size added to contain the model size. With the displacement rule gone you should be able to make a bigger motor that is not as finely tuned and produce it cheap. Two strokes came out, ST 2300, OS 140, etc. etc. and they were cheap motors that ran well, for a while YS lost market share in pattern to these motors which at the time could match the performance from the 140L.
Planes got a little bigger since there was more power available, but the building techniques were not there to get them light enough to be much larger.
YS decided to kill the two stroke, and came out with the DZ's. First used at the 2001 WC's in Ireland. QQ ran an OS 140 EFI, the most expensive F3A motor ever produced at that point. A Smaragd was a big plane back then. YS made a significant gain in performance with that motor, and guys were figuring out how to build very light fuses. I recall having a ZN Evolis at 9.25 lbs with a 140L.
As the planes got bigger, they needed more power, the two-strokes just couldn't keep up and with pattern being such a small market I don't think there is enough money to justify it. YS again became virtually the only glow motor being used. In 2003 electric showed up with Jason flying one in Poland.
Continued refinement on construction, planes were able to get bigger, and motors followed suit.
I don't know how much bigger these planes can get, but they can still get bigger.
My 2008 Integral I flew at the Nats weighed in at 4720 grams (comp-arf), and my new Xigris which is a fair bit larger fuse than the Integral is 4865g (this will go up a bit as I add some decals and such). I certainly do not use the lightest equipment available, and I did not try to build the Xigris lightly. Both planes could be lighter if I wanted, or made larger.
I am not against change, I just think it needs to be very well planned and thought out before it happens. I really passionately believe that an arbitrary weight change in FAI to ''level the playing field'' between glow and electric is a really really really bad idea. I fly electric and have no feelings of disadvantage because I have to weigh RTF and a glow pilot can takeoff at 6kg if he chooses. Thats perfectly OK in my world....a glow guy has plenty of other difficulties to deal with that I don't have to think about
I should point out, that in Canada, we modified our rules from the FAI to state that airplanes flying in MAAC classes (which are essentially the same as AMA) do NOT weigh with batteries. This was done to not penalize someone who wanted to use A123's etc with the weight rules. This does give a big advantage to electric fliers, but since the airplanes are virtually all designed to be legal for FAI we felt it would not significantly cause much disparity between glow/electric. To my knowledge it has worked ok so far.
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
If I follow this logic correctly, the weight limit controls the size of a plane (up to a point since as you noted planes got bigger even with a weight limit) which controls the cost which keeps people flying competitively.
If the weight limit is modified at all, planes will get larger, more costly and fewer people will compete, correct?
The weight controls the size which controls the cost. Except as you noted planes are larger and more costly than ever despite no changes in the weight rules.
If I follow this logic correctly, the weight limit controls the size of a plane (up to a point since as you noted planes got bigger even with a weight limit) which controls the cost which keeps people flying competitively.
If the weight limit is modified at all, planes will get larger, more costly and fewer people will compete, correct?
The weight controls the size which controls the cost. Except as you noted planes are larger and more costly than ever despite no changes in the weight rules.
Yes, as you can see just look what has changed within our current rules. This started as I understand it, as an attempt to foster development of cheaper engines. The displacement rules were removed, and weight/size added to contain the model size. With the displacement rule gone you should be able to make a bigger motor that is not as finely tuned and produce it cheap. Two strokes came out, ST 2300, OS 140, etc. etc. and they were cheap motors that ran well, for a while YS lost market share in pattern to these motors which at the time could match the performance from the 140L.
Planes got a little bigger since there was more power available, but the building techniques were not there to get them light enough to be much larger.
YS decided to kill the two stroke, and came out with the DZ's. First used at the 2001 WC's in Ireland. QQ ran an OS 140 EFI, the most expensive F3A motor ever produced at that point. A Smaragd was a big plane back then. YS made a significant gain in performance with that motor, and guys were figuring out how to build very light fuses. I recall having a ZN Evolis at 9.25 lbs with a 140L.
As the planes got bigger, they needed more power, the two-strokes just couldn't keep up and with pattern being such a small market I don't think there is enough money to justify it. YS again became virtually the only glow motor being used. In 2003 electric showed up with Jason flying one in Poland.
Continued refinement on construction, planes were able to get bigger, and motors followed suit.
I don't know how much bigger these planes can get, but they can still get bigger.
My 2008 Integral I flew at the Nats weighed in at 4720 grams (comp-arf), and my new Xigris which is a fair bit larger fuse than the Integral is 4865g (this will go up a bit as I add some decals and such). I certainly do not use the lightest equipment available, and I did not try to build the Xigris lightly. Both planes could be lighter if I wanted, or made larger.
I am not against change, I just think it needs to be very well planned and thought out before it happens. I really passionately believe that an arbitrary weight change in FAI to ''level the playing field'' between glow and electric is a really really really bad idea. I fly electric and have no feelings of disadvantage because I have to weigh RTF and a glow pilot can takeoff at 6kg if he chooses. Thats perfectly OK in my world....a glow guy has plenty of other difficulties to deal with that I don't have to think about
I should point out, that in Canada, we modified our rules from the FAI to state that airplanes flying in MAAC classes (which are essentially the same as AMA) do NOT weigh with batteries. This was done to not penalize someone who wanted to use A123's etc with the weight rules. This does give a big advantage to electric fliers, but since the airplanes are virtually all designed to be legal for FAI we felt it would not significantly cause much disparity between glow/electric. To my knowledge it has worked ok so far.
To be clear here, I'm talking AMA rules.
And we agree that 99% of the airplanes out there are designed with FAI in mind. The sequences also dictated the design changes far more than the power plants have in the last decade I believe.
There is a limit on Electrics now, would a limit on IC engines be more towards "Leveling" the playing field?
Wouldn't this preclude a 50cc airplane? I'd say so. I believe it would also lower the costs involved in the lower classes for the guys that didn't want or couldn't afford those $3000 airframes so popular today.
Or are we just so used to "Keeping up with the Jones'" that it doesn't matter that a $750 airframe like the Focus is still 100% competitive up to and maybe even masters?
Give a great Pilot a Focus with an OS 1.40 and he'll beat the socks off a so-so flier with QQ's airplane.
07-20-2009, 03:26 PM
#106
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
If cost is the issue come up with a cost based class and see who shows up. And of those that do, how long they stay there.
07-20-2009, 05:54 PM
#107
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
My opinion,
I see people complaining about FAI or comparing it to AMA, so FAI is very restrictive, and AMA is a little more flexible, FAI does not look for new pilots, they come by themselves, AMA encourages people to get in the hobby, so FAI will always have a higher rank if you consider those facts, and AMA only rules in North America whether FAI rules the rest of the planet. It will be nice to delete the weight rule, but up to advance in my opinion, Masters have already enough skill for building or flying to fit all the FAI rules, if this hard rules are eliminated, that will only cause the class to be more diminished against FAI.
Is like somebody in F1 will say, turbos not being allowed is against the sport, they can do it without turbo, and that's why F1 is what it is and the rest is what it is. With FAI you can do it with aircraft under 5Kg/11Lbs.
On the worlds, aircraft are measured and weighed on the model processing before the contest starts, and then randomly, but, electrics always gets weighed, someone posted how many hours was needed to do that, but the people that weights the aircraft only do that, nothing else, so they have plenty of time between flights to accomplish that.
Please don't get the wrong idea from me, I'm talking facts, and AMA is national where FAI is international.
Making things easier in AMA will be a great idea, but it has to be done very carefully or people in Masters might lose the interest over FAI.
Regards
I see people complaining about FAI or comparing it to AMA, so FAI is very restrictive, and AMA is a little more flexible, FAI does not look for new pilots, they come by themselves, AMA encourages people to get in the hobby, so FAI will always have a higher rank if you consider those facts, and AMA only rules in North America whether FAI rules the rest of the planet. It will be nice to delete the weight rule, but up to advance in my opinion, Masters have already enough skill for building or flying to fit all the FAI rules, if this hard rules are eliminated, that will only cause the class to be more diminished against FAI.
Is like somebody in F1 will say, turbos not being allowed is against the sport, they can do it without turbo, and that's why F1 is what it is and the rest is what it is. With FAI you can do it with aircraft under 5Kg/11Lbs.
On the worlds, aircraft are measured and weighed on the model processing before the contest starts, and then randomly, but, electrics always gets weighed, someone posted how many hours was needed to do that, but the people that weights the aircraft only do that, nothing else, so they have plenty of time between flights to accomplish that.
Please don't get the wrong idea from me, I'm talking facts, and AMA is national where FAI is international.
Making things easier in AMA will be a great idea, but it has to be done very carefully or people in Masters might lose the interest over FAI.
Regards
07-20-2009, 06:10 PM
#108
My Feedback: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dalzell, SC
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
A few questions I'd like to throw out if I may.
What would happen if the weight rule were deleted in AMA?
Not one thing would change, it's ignored anyway.
What do other countries do rule wise for classes lower than FAI?
USA follows FAI 100% (except the starting class.)
07-21-2009, 09:34 AM
#109
My Feedback: (19)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rayne,
LA
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
It's like nascar, you play by the rules and specs that you are given. It makes it an even playing field.
2meter X 2meter X 2meter and 5000 grams, what ever you can fit in the box and under weight
is what you can fly. If you can do a better job at that than the next guy than more power to you.
To me, that is all part of the competition. Let us all remember that pattern is our hobby/sport.
Let's make it FUN and have a good time
2meter X 2meter X 2meter and 5000 grams, what ever you can fit in the box and under weight
is what you can fly. If you can do a better job at that than the next guy than more power to you.
To me, that is all part of the competition. Let us all remember that pattern is our hobby/sport.
Let's make it FUN and have a good time
07-21-2009, 10:12 AM
#110
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tracy,
CA
Posts: 2,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
Lets face it, we are pushing the 11lbs by building bigger planes. The fuses are getting quite large. We like them this way though! Electrics make it even more difficult to make weight. Electrics are the new technology, but the planes are much bigger than they were a few years back. Do we change the rule because we build bigger planes now? I don't think so. Do we change the rule because of the new technology? Possibly yes. We discussed it a lot at the nats. Talked about 12 lbs takeoff weight for all. Although I did support this at first, I'm not so sure now. I think possibly a weight rule for electrics should be made of maybe 11.25 lbs or something like that. Seems like people are just a little heavy with electrics, not a lot. Think about it this way, maybe take your scale to the field next time you fly if you fly glow and weigh your plane after a sequence. How is it fair that you can much heavier than 11 lbs? Doesn't seem right IMO. But that's they rules.
Don't get me wrong, leave it as it is for me. I don't have any problems making weight. But with new technology change will come. I would be interested to see the figures, but I'm guessing more than half were electric this year at the nats. Wish we would have done a equipment survey.
Chris
Don't get me wrong, leave it as it is for me. I don't have any problems making weight. But with new technology change will come. I would be interested to see the figures, but I'm guessing more than half were electric this year at the nats. Wish we would have done a equipment survey.
Chris
07-21-2009, 11:08 AM
#111
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
Whatever weight is chosen I think it should be takeoff weight, that is the only way to have true parity between electric and nitro.
Make it 11 pounds, make it 12 pounds, make it 11.2758463906 pounds, but make it the same for ALL planes. Ready to fly.
I can see no clear logic for weighing nitro without fuel and electric with packs.
Make it 11 pounds, make it 12 pounds, make it 11.2758463906 pounds, but make it the same for ALL planes. Ready to fly.
I can see no clear logic for weighing nitro without fuel and electric with packs.
07-21-2009, 11:09 AM
#112
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denham Springs,
LA
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The rules should drive the technology. Technology should NEVER influence the rules. In changing the rules for electrics you'd basically be throwing your hands up in the air and saying, "That's the best we can do!" Hogwash. Technology for electrics will only continue to get better and lighter. If you change the rules, you leave no motivation to make it better and lighter. By the way, my glow-powered airplanes are usually about a half pound over the limit with 16 oz of fuel in them... do you think I'm not under weight when I land? If you choose to fly electric it is with the understanding of the rules already in place. If you can't make weight, don't blame the rules because you're the one who chose to fly electric (that's not directed at you Chris, but electric flyers in general). The choice to fly electric has always been with the understanding that you would have fuel that weighed nothing and fuel tanks that took up a good chunk of the weight you're allowed to carry.
Parity? My plane gets lighter as I fly... does yours? I've learned to deal with that by setting up my airplanes to where they fly the same no matter how much they weigh...
Whatever weight is chosen I think it should be takeoff weight, that is the only way to have true parity between electric and nitro.
07-21-2009, 11:20 AM
#113
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: , ON, CANADA
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
I don't fly electrics so I'm not biased in that direction, however, we have been refering to the "rules" like the be all and end all...they can and should be changed to keep the hobby/sport fair, foster competition and drive costs down. We have refered to other sports here including F1 and that is the case with them as well.
When the 5Kg rule was made electrics didnt exists.
FAIRNESS
To be fair, both planes should be able to meet any rule under ALL conditions. If 5kg is and empty weight then the electric should not have the battery, if it's a ready to take off weight the Glow plane should be fueled.
The rule should be ammended to be fair.
COSTS
If the rule were changed, let's say to a 5KG Take-off weight, the glow guys would have to get lighter and airframe costs would probably rise or glow power would become uncompetitive - not a good option.
If the rule was changed to a 5KG empty weight, electrics could use MUCH cheaper batteries and still be competive. That would probably drive the costs of the Glow motors down to stay competitive with the cheaper electric option(maybe if they have the margins) - not a bad idea
If the rule was changed to 5.5KG (or something a little more than 5.0) take-off weight, glow might have to get a little lighter AND electrics can use less expensive batteries. That may foster more CDI type development so that glow airplanes carry less fuel reducing the cost per flight. Both diciplines might enjoy a cost savings - not a bad idea.
COMPETITION
The point is that the rules need to change periodically to foster competition, keep costs down and mix things up from time to time so that designers are challenged to be creative and not just iterate an existing design.
The rules committee needs to work on this...it comes up over and over and it's obviously a rule than needs revision.
Just my 2C.
Colin
When the 5Kg rule was made electrics didnt exists.
FAIRNESS
To be fair, both planes should be able to meet any rule under ALL conditions. If 5kg is and empty weight then the electric should not have the battery, if it's a ready to take off weight the Glow plane should be fueled.
The rule should be ammended to be fair.
COSTS
If the rule were changed, let's say to a 5KG Take-off weight, the glow guys would have to get lighter and airframe costs would probably rise or glow power would become uncompetitive - not a good option.
If the rule was changed to a 5KG empty weight, electrics could use MUCH cheaper batteries and still be competive. That would probably drive the costs of the Glow motors down to stay competitive with the cheaper electric option(maybe if they have the margins) - not a bad idea
If the rule was changed to 5.5KG (or something a little more than 5.0) take-off weight, glow might have to get a little lighter AND electrics can use less expensive batteries. That may foster more CDI type development so that glow airplanes carry less fuel reducing the cost per flight. Both diciplines might enjoy a cost savings - not a bad idea.
COMPETITION
The point is that the rules need to change periodically to foster competition, keep costs down and mix things up from time to time so that designers are challenged to be creative and not just iterate an existing design.
The rules committee needs to work on this...it comes up over and over and it's obviously a rule than needs revision.
Just my 2C.
Colin
07-21-2009, 11:21 AM
#114
Senior Member
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New Milford,
CT
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
The fact that we keep having this discussion OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again should tell you something. When you figure out what THAT is, you might be ready to resolve the issue and move on. Until then - "talk amongst yourselves"...
John Pavlick
Team Black Magic, Tech-Aero Designs
John Pavlick
Team Black Magic, Tech-Aero Designs
07-21-2009, 11:30 AM
#115
My Feedback: (8)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 1,366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
I thought this was a NATS thread?
The weight rule is not an issue. Electrics have been hampered by trying to retrofit electric power systems in planes that were designed and manufactured for glow and as such are over built and heavy for the needs of an electric set up. Manufacturers are catching up now and producing kits designed specifically for electrics and make weight EASILY with off the shelf components. The challenge in the past has been to utilize overbuilt planes for electrics as that was our only choice. Again, the rule is fine, manufacturers just needed to catch up and were not going to put the time and effort into doing so until there were enough people flying electrics. That time is now.
The weight rule is not an issue. Electrics have been hampered by trying to retrofit electric power systems in planes that were designed and manufactured for glow and as such are over built and heavy for the needs of an electric set up. Manufacturers are catching up now and producing kits designed specifically for electrics and make weight EASILY with off the shelf components. The challenge in the past has been to utilize overbuilt planes for electrics as that was our only choice. Again, the rule is fine, manufacturers just needed to catch up and were not going to put the time and effort into doing so until there were enough people flying electrics. That time is now.
07-21-2009, 11:31 AM
#116
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tracy,
CA
Posts: 2,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
Remember, we would all be flying 60's sized planes if it weren't for technology. I think people forget that. Don't you guys enjoy those YS 160-170's? If I could afford to fly glow, I might set up a plane for it, but I can't, lol. And honestly and unfortunately, glow is dying out IMO. It's still a great power source, and can win any contest at any time, by any pilot. Don't get me wrong here, not bashing. Electric isn't better, just different. Glow folk seem to think Electric would have an advantage if the rule changes, so they push for no change. I can understand that somewhat as they like to fly most of their flight a little heavy. Why give that up? The right pilot can win with a 7 lb, or a 15 lb plane. Back to basic's, it's mostly pilot anyway. Although I have found lighter isn't better in the Muncie wind. I would rather be 11.25 or so. And I could be if I wanted according to the way the nats is run. I just have to change my packs after I get weighed to a lighter pack. Changes are allowed to make weight after all. Nothing says I have to use those packs after I pass weight right? I mean, we are only weighed once right?
Leave the weight rule where it is, and I'm fine with that. Change it, and I'm fine with that. But make it equal to all. Is change going to happen? I doubt it, not till FAI does something. If the FAI pilots want it changed, it will be changed, if not, let's spend those dollars and fly em at 11 lbs.
Chris
Leave the weight rule where it is, and I'm fine with that. Change it, and I'm fine with that. But make it equal to all. Is change going to happen? I doubt it, not till FAI does something. If the FAI pilots want it changed, it will be changed, if not, let's spend those dollars and fly em at 11 lbs.
Chris
07-21-2009, 11:35 AM
#117
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego,
CA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
My plane gets lighter as I fly... does yours? I've learned to deal with that by setting up my airplanes to where they fly the same no matter how much they weigh...
It's obvious the rules need change from time to time. It's done all the time.
Why not do an average...... Say a glow is 11lbs empty and 12lbs full. Average is 11.5lbs. So.... the rule should be something like "Maximum takeoff weight for glow 12lbs. and Maximum takeoff weight for electrics 11.5lbs.
Electrics will still have to deal with power differences from fully charged to near empty, and glow will have still have to deal with weight change.
Pedro.
07-21-2009, 11:40 AM
#118
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denham Springs,
LA
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
You completely missed my point... I could understand only one rule change in regards to electric is the limitation on, what is it, voltage? Amperage? Whichever it is, I could equate that to the lack of engine displacement limitations. Otherwise, leave the rules alone, the technology will come...
07-21-2009, 01:06 PM
#120
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
Everybody talks about the weight on electrics, as electric fliers ( I have a Neu F3A powered F3A plane) think they are in disadvantage, but electrics have already too much power than most glows, at altitude say 5000Ft or more electrics tend to show more power, only YS comes close, with the CDI my YS engines are an average of 140gr heavier than before.
Electrics have bigger props, can set a brake and many other advantages like smoke, and the list goes on.
And electrics want MORE?????????? Airplanes are weighed empty (no fuel), so it does not matter if it is before or after the flight.
So with the Nats over, this thread transformed from an existing problem on the NATS, and for the future NATS, this is a pattern forum , I don't think this thread is misplaced.
Electrics have bigger props, can set a brake and many other advantages like smoke, and the list goes on.
And electrics want MORE?????????? Airplanes are weighed empty (no fuel), so it does not matter if it is before or after the flight.
So with the Nats over, this thread transformed from an existing problem on the NATS, and for the future NATS, this is a pattern forum , I don't think this thread is misplaced.
07-21-2009, 01:47 PM
#121
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: caracas, VENEZUELA
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
Electrics disadvantaged???? really??? last I saw electrics are winning the US nats for a few years now.
In the WC more than half of the planes are electrics.... and all are ok with the rules.
In the WC more than half of the planes are electrics.... and all are ok with the rules.
07-21-2009, 01:54 PM
#122
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lakeland,
FL
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
ORIGINAL: patternflyer1
It also keeps the motors smaller. Do we really want to be flying a DA 100 on a 2 Meter pattern plane?
It also keeps the motors smaller. Do we really want to be flying a DA 100 on a 2 Meter pattern plane?
07-21-2009, 05:49 PM
#123
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
Several years ago, I failed the noise test with an electric before and after the flight (and no one checked my throttle stick before or after the flight). I flew my backup plane (which I knew was quieter), and I went home and played with props and mounts on the primary, and dropped the noise level to be under the limit. I now own a nice noise meter.
My Neu mounted on a Hyde softmount in a Wistmodel Bravo measured 92 db on Monday while practicing at Site 3 before the contest started. That same day, a Neu hardmounted in a Leviosa measured 96 db (perfectly legal for AMA Masters). On the finals day, my Neu was measuring 91 db. I suspect the 1 db drop was primarily due to the cooler temps (lower battery voltage, lower prop RPM) that day.
On that same Monday, I loaned out a couple props to guys who were trying to reduce noise. Specifically, young intermediate pilot David Lampron borrowed a 17x13 to drop his OS 140 RX to <96 db.....and he stated he would not fly if his plane was not legal.
For myself, I'd never be happy competing (let alone placing) with an illegal plane....and I bet David and Mike feel the same.
For the guys that build a plane at 10 lbs 15.5 oz, and end up at 11+ lbs after a landing gear repair, I think we can all agree they have not gained a competitive advantage with the weight added for the repair. HOWEVER, if weight in excess of 11 lbs is used to build a larger more powerful plane, a competive advantage would be realized, and that is why the 11 lb limit (and size and noise rules) needs to be enforced.
Regards,
Dave Lockhart
Team JR, Castle, Neu
[/quote]
Bingo!!!!!!!!! Well stated Jim.
Personally I spent well over an extra $1000 to get my 2 planes under the rules limit. I felt it was important as I would of hated getting DQ'd for an overweight plane.
Now the noise check issue. In my opinion you can not do it unless you have given the competitors ample exposure to the testing system before they can be checked during a competition. Almost none of us have access to the equipment so how do we know what db we are putting out? How would one know they were over on the db level? Also seemed to me that the loudest setup was a Neu motor. No proof just a guess based on my ears. The Neu motors are powerhouses!!!!!!! I suspect they will be selling a lot of them.
I have heard the the worlds has done away with sound checks. The cheating that can occur in a sound check is too easily too to make it viable. All one has to do is set a curve on a switch. I'm sure that guys on the Masters line at the Nats were not going to full throttle in their checks. Most of the time nobody was even checking the stick position during the checks so the whole process was a farce and a waste of energy.
One other thing I'd like to point out is it is a competition to determine the best flyers but all rules must be adhered to. PERIOD!!!!! Mike
[/quote]
My Neu mounted on a Hyde softmount in a Wistmodel Bravo measured 92 db on Monday while practicing at Site 3 before the contest started. That same day, a Neu hardmounted in a Leviosa measured 96 db (perfectly legal for AMA Masters). On the finals day, my Neu was measuring 91 db. I suspect the 1 db drop was primarily due to the cooler temps (lower battery voltage, lower prop RPM) that day.
On that same Monday, I loaned out a couple props to guys who were trying to reduce noise. Specifically, young intermediate pilot David Lampron borrowed a 17x13 to drop his OS 140 RX to <96 db.....and he stated he would not fly if his plane was not legal.
For myself, I'd never be happy competing (let alone placing) with an illegal plane....and I bet David and Mike feel the same.
For the guys that build a plane at 10 lbs 15.5 oz, and end up at 11+ lbs after a landing gear repair, I think we can all agree they have not gained a competitive advantage with the weight added for the repair. HOWEVER, if weight in excess of 11 lbs is used to build a larger more powerful plane, a competive advantage would be realized, and that is why the 11 lb limit (and size and noise rules) needs to be enforced.
Regards,
Dave Lockhart
Team JR, Castle, Neu
[/quote]
Bingo!!!!!!!!! Well stated Jim.
Personally I spent well over an extra $1000 to get my 2 planes under the rules limit. I felt it was important as I would of hated getting DQ'd for an overweight plane.
Now the noise check issue. In my opinion you can not do it unless you have given the competitors ample exposure to the testing system before they can be checked during a competition. Almost none of us have access to the equipment so how do we know what db we are putting out? How would one know they were over on the db level? Also seemed to me that the loudest setup was a Neu motor. No proof just a guess based on my ears. The Neu motors are powerhouses!!!!!!! I suspect they will be selling a lot of them.
I have heard the the worlds has done away with sound checks. The cheating that can occur in a sound check is too easily too to make it viable. All one has to do is set a curve on a switch. I'm sure that guys on the Masters line at the Nats were not going to full throttle in their checks. Most of the time nobody was even checking the stick position during the checks so the whole process was a farce and a waste of energy.
One other thing I'd like to point out is it is a competition to determine the best flyers but all rules must be adhered to. PERIOD!!!!! Mike
[/quote]
07-21-2009, 06:29 PM
#124
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tracy,
CA
Posts: 2,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
Dave,
You are a very intelligent guy. I enjoyed our conversations at the banquet.
The person we are talking about as you probably know, borrowed the plane and put the wrong pack in (it's understandable, he fly's glow). He's a stand up guy, a great pilot, and a friend and I look forward to flying against him next year (if I don't move up to FAI). He agrees also that rules are rules and should be enforced, which I think we all do.
I agree with what I think I am reading from your post, if electrics are allowed more weight (in excess of 11lbs) we will probably build bigger planes. Which would in turn, end up pushing the new weight limit. Where would that get us?
Another thought, we are wanting new blood right? If we raise the weight, 2 meter wood arfs can make weight. But if we raise weight, planes, and the arfs will become bigger, and they may not make weight anymore. There seems to be a lot of cons to it IMO. I am starting to see this.
Thanks for posting your thoughts. After our dinner and our dealings with the Kfactor, I realized that you are a true ambassador of the sport, and JR should be (and I'm sure they are) very happy to have you!
Chris
You are a very intelligent guy. I enjoyed our conversations at the banquet.
The person we are talking about as you probably know, borrowed the plane and put the wrong pack in (it's understandable, he fly's glow). He's a stand up guy, a great pilot, and a friend and I look forward to flying against him next year (if I don't move up to FAI). He agrees also that rules are rules and should be enforced, which I think we all do.
I agree with what I think I am reading from your post, if electrics are allowed more weight (in excess of 11lbs) we will probably build bigger planes. Which would in turn, end up pushing the new weight limit. Where would that get us?
Another thought, we are wanting new blood right? If we raise the weight, 2 meter wood arfs can make weight. But if we raise weight, planes, and the arfs will become bigger, and they may not make weight anymore. There seems to be a lot of cons to it IMO. I am starting to see this.
Thanks for posting your thoughts. After our dinner and our dealings with the Kfactor, I realized that you are a true ambassador of the sport, and JR should be (and I'm sure they are) very happy to have you!
Chris
07-21-2009, 08:36 PM
#125
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: USA AMA NSRCA Pattern Nats Muncie Indiana
On the finals day, my Neu was measuring 91 db. I suspect the 1 db drop was primarily due to the cooler temps (lower battery voltage, lower prop RPM) that day.
This is one of the major issues with noise measurements, the typical Radio Shack decibel meter is not very accurate. Radio Shack lists the accuracy as +/- 2 dB. Then add in the vagaries of how sound is measured and a 1 dB change is absolutely meaningless.
This means that for your measurement of 92 dB it could in reality be anywhere from 90 to 94. The meter can not measure any better than that.