I'd love to hear your input on making a suggestion to the AMA regarding a new category of pattern/AA. This new category would limit the size up to .60 sized planes or smaller. With the influx of f3a capable small .30-.60 sized airframes(Venus, Majestic, Tracer, Aresti, etc), I think it would be a very neat and affordable concept. In this months Model Avation magazine RC Aerobatics column, they put a Kyosho Majestic through F3a schedules. It does have the ability to go up into the advanced level with the right pilot. If this class could catch on, you could put a pair of matched, competitive .40 sized models in the air (primary and backup planes) for less than the cost of one pattern airframe/motor. More importantly, everyone would be on a relatively level playing field. I'd love to give pattern a competitive go, but I know I'd be seriously outclassed by far superior hardware. I understand the argument that a good pilot with an average plane will do better than a poor pilot with a great plane, but when you have guys showing up with Focus, Hydeaways, Sequels, etc for Sportsman, its a more than a little intimidating.
I also can't convince the chief financial officer of the household that this $2000.00 plane/ engine/servo combo is going to fly soooo much better than the plane I currently have. She keeps muttering something about a college education for our daughter being more important than a new plane (the kid's smart enough to get a scholarship, whats that woman thinking???? ). LOOLOL

This concept would be a great way to get alot more sport fliers to make the jump into pattern/competiton, without a major expense, all by using equipment they already have and fly regularly.


Feel free to offer any positive or negative feedback on this suggestion, I'm open to anything.

Steve

NO!

It would be something new. We cant have that!

LOL Wayne, you better be quiet or I'm going to do high speed lowlevel flybies down the center of the runway under your hovering plane.

Steve,

There is no room UNDER my hovering plane......

I like the idea of a class for smaller planes, but using cost as the basis for such an idea is not sound. When I was flying .60 size planes back in the late 80's, it was very easy to hit $1500.00 or more per complete plane. Add up what a kit cost ($350.00), radio ($500.00), extra servos ($250.00), engine and pipe ($500.00), plus retracts, hardware, finishing materials, etc.

The other situation you have to look at is demand. Who is going to fly this class? Those who are already flying the larger planes? Not likely as most love the larger planes, or have already invested themselves up to the eyeballs in the larger equiptment. Will it attract new pattern flyers? Most likely, but only temporarily as people move up to the larger planes because they fly better. The largest group of people, I can see, who would be interested in this class would be people like myself who got out of pattern for several years and now cannot afford a full blown 2 meter plane to become competitive again.

John - wishing for a class to fly my Silent 90 in and not look like a kid with a 1/2 plane.

Steve,

I too have posted about accessible, affordable, available pattern or aerobatic programs/planes and I always get lack luster responses. People site examples such IMAC One Design, minIMAC, SPA as examples that have been tried (though the SPA looks to be doing OK). It seems to some people that limitting one's self has no broad appeal (I happen to disagree). I do see their point about people wanting to reach the top no matter the cost. But I hold out hope they are wrong.

Personally, I have come to the following conclusion about accessible, affordable, available pattern or aerobatic programs/planes:

Present this idea to your club(s) and get their support. If you are willing to push the idea through to its end then you have a chance.

This would have to start local and if you demonstrated to the AMA that you have created something that has an appeal (read increase membership) they might listen and you will have created a nice new outlet for the average Joe.

I applaud your idea! I think a lot of us are just waiting for someone to do this for us???

Marcus

I think having size limits is great, but I would rather see plane limits on the current lower classes rather than create a new category.

The Sportsman should not be allowed to fly anything bigger than a .60.

Dean

I disagree about limiting Sportsman to smaller planes. There are guys who will never progress past this point and to tell them they can't buy and fly the biggest and baddest of the planes will only drive them out of the arena. I know we all know carear Sportsman pilots who are having a blast where they are. On top of that, where are you going to get a decent 60 size engine these days? Neither YS nor OS make pumped 60's anymore. Would you allow 90 4 strokes?

Plus, anyone who's interested in pattern would have to buy their Sportsman equitment, then they would have to buy and build a whole new plane just to move up.

John

Dean,

Good idea! In some ways it would be a lot easier to modify a program rather than make a whole new one from the ground up. I suppose getting a rule change would prove to be most difficult without showing some hard evidence for its potential success.

Marcus

When did pattern planes go from .60 two strokes or 1.20 four strokes to unlimited engine and 2m x 2m x 5kg airframe? Was this precipitated by F3A rules?

When I took an R/C leave of absence in 1989, pattern looked a lot different. I'm amazed that the planes have become so large in such a short time. I remember when a pump .60 with an 11x11 prop and a low rpm pipe was cutting edged. A set-up like that now is straight from the history books.

I think SPA is cool. I just wish they would offer a more modern class that includes planes like the original Hyde Jekyll. I remember drooling over that plane as a teenager. I think a lot of people would be interested in a class up to 1990 or whenever the rules changed to favor the full blown F3A style.

IMHO

John,

You do make some valid points, but as you stated, you would be a returning pattern competitor. So you already have experience playing the game (ie, spending alot of money to be competitive).
A running theme I keep reading about in MA is the fact that they do not have alot of new blood in pattern. There was even an article that listed the reasons behind the lack of new competitors. I am just looking for a viable solution for that problem.
I am not looking to replace or restrict sportsman hardware. I am merely suggesting either a concurrent series (sportsman, intermediate, and even advanced) using small airframes. I see no reason to limit engine size. I have an enya 80 four stroke in my .40 sized majestic. If you want retracts, go for it. Again, I am just trying to generate intrest in a form of competition that would maximize the use of the latest planes. The 40 sized sport/pattern planes are becoming a large part of the market (look at the threads on the aresti, majestic, venus and the like).

And (with tongue firmly planted in my cheek), if you read Model Aviation, you should be able to compete at least to the intermediate or advanced level with a 40-60 sized plane. If taken at face value, then you should have no reason to sell your small plane to move up the ladder. You hit the nail right on the head about the main problem with pattern when you said that you would have to buy and build a whole new plane just to move up. The same holds true just to get into the door with sportsman currently. The main difference between your concept and mine is that mine would cost about 1/4-1/3 RTF than yours. When youre talking about an entry level pattern plane costing $1200.00, thats alot of cabbage for the average sport pilot to digest. Specially if he goes in and finds out he either isnt cut out to comptete, or loses the plane. Most sport fliers arent showing up at the field on Sat morning with a hydeout or a focus, but youre seeing more n more sport/pattern planes coming out. They are sleek, sexy (dare I say that word), affordable, can fly with minis or standard servos, and a good motor in its size will cost you under $125.00 brand new. So what if you cant do loops the size of Texas with an OS 46 in a 5 1/2 lb plane, it will still pull you up fast enough to power over the top.


Marcus,

I recall the IMAC onedesign thread you had a while back. It's been a while since I've seen you online. I went to the IMAC event out in Winston the first weekend in June, and I think I was one of 5 non-competiting spectators (meaning competitors, family or friends). Was a great contest, but in a way it really proves my point above. The smallest plane out there on Sunday (finals day) was a 29% bird. There were two of them in IMAC basic. Everything else was 33% or larger,with emphasis on larger. I had visions of building a small (1.20 size) IMAC plane until that contest.

There's been an AT-6 spec racing series here in the Central NC area that got around the high costs to go pylon racing. They set a standard of either the House of Balsa, or Global .25 sized AT6. Built stock, and using either an OS or TT .25 (not sure which motor is standard this year, I'm sure someone could tell me). The excitement level is not any less than the larger more expensive planes. Then speeds are slower, but when the playing field is a little more than level, the great pilots excel beyond the good ones. Even though I have no desire to go AT6 or pylon racing, thats where I got the idea for this series. Not the same idea, but a good basis for modification.


Keep the input coming guys.
Steve

It never ceases to amaze me that people think you need a 2M to be competitive. Why? Give me some good solid reasons.

Sure if you are planning on winning in Masters or FAI at the Nats you should probably have the best their is so as to not limit yourself.

If you are in the lower classes (Advanced and down) why would you need a 2M? Most in those classes can not fly well enough to take advantage of the latest designs, any of the older designs will work just as well.

Save your money on that big plane and buy some fuel. Any of the current sport/pattern 60 size models are quite capable models. The trick is practise, fly a lot that is all it takes.

Quit worrying about what your competitors are flying, imagine the look on their faces when you beat their 2M with a 60, I have seen it done a lot it is pretty amusing

As a point of interest, I flew a Conquest 7 at 8.75 lbs with a YS 61AR until after my first contest in FAI, and I won my fair share of events with that plane, but I flew it a lot and knew how to fly it well and that was the key.

I flew a 60 size of my own design in the late 80's and I would be happy to fly in that type of pattern again. I think a seduction might be a good plane for the category you are proposing. I think some people should have to move up after so many wins or after so many years. I know some guys who are still flying in the class
they where back then. I would start there but I just started flying again last year.

Well put Chad...
I think that is what sportsman is all about.. To allow newbies in Pattern to get their feet wet and see if they want to continue this addictive part of the hobby... If you have one of these new Sport/Pattern ARFs you should not be intimidated to enter a pattern contest in the Sportsman level. Hell, I practiced my first pattern contest (Sportsman level) with a P51 Mustang (.20 - .40 size). Now I’m into the IMAC stuff (although I got a much bigger airplane), but the point is to have fun. And you can definitely be competitive with the newer .60 size ARFs…

-Chris

Like Chad said, save your money and buy more fuel (much more important than the equipment).

Steve,
Yes, you are right, I do have the experience in spending a ton of cash in pattern, but I don't have the ability anymore. When I was flying previously, I was still living at home and single. Now, married and with a mortgage, my hobby funds are much more limited I totally support your push to find a solution, but claiming cost as the basis I feel is incorrect. Complexity of the model, transportation, storage and upkeep costs, to me, are more on target with what keeps people out of pattern. One look at the engine maintenance of a YS is enough to make most people choke. Hmm, reading over that makes me think maybe I am agreeing more with $ than the points I just mentioned since they all, except storage, involve $. I'll have to think about that more.

OK, here's where I believe a smaller class would need to be. No fiberglass fused models. That will cut the cost down BIG time and prevent a money race in the new class. This would mean that the current wood ARF's, kits and plan builts would be right at home with each other and eliminate a lot of building complexity. Use any engine you want. Retracts, or fixed gear, whatever you want, just no dollies. In fact, anything you want, just no glass or carbon airframes.

John

Chad,
I know we went talked about this a month ago, and I do agree with you on quite a lot of what youre saying.
I never said that you had to have a 2m plane to be competitive. Look at the article they did on the Majestic in MA this month. The pilot made it up thru the advanced schedule with the majestic and an os32. It can be done, I do not doubt that. But it can be done alot easier with a larger airframe. The larger planes do fly better.

I'd love to go out there and spank some 2m guys with a 40 sized plane, but you have to admit it can be very intimidating to go to your first contest and see what youre up against. I think the psychologial factor does play a part in competition. They (utoh, theres that dreaded "they" person) say that your first year in pattern is going to be the hardest, not because of the schedules, but because of the newness of competing(judging, flying in front of people, pressure, etc) . I can understand that. In most cases, it's going to be the year that youre going to be beaten the most (by more experienced pilots) and have the least amount of confidence in your abilities and your hardware. I think thats why alot of guys either never bother competing, or they dont come back after a year or two. I also understand and agree with your comments about burning fuel, and becoming zenlike with your airframe. There is no substitute for that.

Steve

(I may have to go to the bank downstairs to get another roll of pennies, I'm runnin low on $.02)

Why do people feel they NEED a 2M plane to be competitive? Because that's what the winners fly Also, because it's cool, and the latest and greatest. Who wants last years model when this years is better? It doesn't matter that the plane will be ragged out within 6 months and never flown to it's potential because the pilot isn't up to the task. The mentality in nearly all hobbies is that you must have the best equipment before you can be a winner. Practice comes second. Look at newbie's in the hobby, everyone wants a P-51 instead of a Kadet.

John

I dont think that creating a new catagory and limiting it to small planes under x amount of dollars will help anything. Right now anyone can buy a 40 size sport/pattern plane and be competative. What I say is get rid of the size and weight restriction. Why have it? Is a 13 or 15 lb. plane more dangerous? Will having an 80 inch wingspan plane cause problems? I know it is because of FAI but really how many of us are going to be competing at that level. What is wrong with a person showing up at a pattern contest with a 80 inch Edge 540 that weighs 14 lbs? Will the people with the $3500 composite planes have an advantage? They might and then agian they might not. It all depends on if you have been practicing. I have only been flying for a year and a half. I entered my first contest in June both IMAC and Pattern. I fly an Lanier Edge 540. I took first place in both contest. After the contest the better piolts were telling me I should move up a class in both IMAC and Pattern. That is all well and good but my plane weighs 11.8 lbs. If our club followed the rules to a T I would not be able to compete in pattern at all.
Some of the things that I see as a beginner is that alot of people that would like to get into competing have a misconception that pattern flying is way to difficult. What I think will help is to do like our club did this year and hold an IMAC/Pattern clinics through out the year. The clinics concentrated on the first few levels. They explained each manuver then assited each flier. It was alot of help. Things like the clinc are what I think will get more fliers into pattern

Michael

... when you are flying in front of judges. Let's be totally honest here. Judges are not supposed to look at the contestant, or the planes and make any kind of assumption on their abilities. But, if someone shows up with a 2X2 plane done up to the 9's with a lot of color and flash, they will get better scores than someone with a Kaos even if they fly identical flights. I'm not trying to put blame on judges here, only on human nature. It's very difficult for someone to give comparable scores to these two planes. The guy with the smaller plane is going to have to really fly great, to compete against the larger, prettier plane swinging a huge prop. I watched Chip Hyde flop a stall turn flying a borrowed plane from Dino Perra at a contest in Lancaster, California about 15 years ago and receive a 9.5 and a 10! Brownie points matter whether you get them from who you are, or the equipment you fly.

But, I digress, a larger plane presents itself better than a smaller one and is much easier to see. The larger plane also handles wind better, and flies smoother. Anyone who says a 40 size plane can compete against a 2X2 is forgetting wind and rough air. And what kind of weather typically occurs at meets? Windy.

John

Hey guys,

I have to get into this one. I think that a person should be able to fly whatever they want. I don't think that Sportsman should have a size restriction, because then I wouldn't be able to fly my Hydeout in Sportsman. I just went out and spent nearly $2000.00 on a new airplane, and now you are telling I can't fly it? That alone is enough to drive me out. I would have to fly in Intermediate, and that would be unfair to me because say (I'm just saying this too!) that I am the best person in the world that can fly the Sportsman sequence, but I have to fly Intermediate and I end up placing 3rd. Even though I still flew in the top three, that number one plaque still looks good, even if it is in a lower class.

I agree that there should be a seperate class that has different specifications, like the ones that are currently in place for the FAI. These should have something like " the aircraft should fit within an imaginary 65 in. square box, and not weigh more than 6 pounds." That would put everyone on equal footing that flys in that class, and there shouldn't be any glamour points because everyone will be flying esentially the same airplane. You know, Bob Fortino won the Intermediate Nats with a 60 sized Boxer, and an 8 channel radio. Everyone else that that made it to the finals all flew a 2m pattern plane and a 9 or 10 channel transmitter.

Money is no substitute for practice. The equipment war is somewhat like the cold war. It is a testosterone party, and the party with the biggest and best toys win.

But I do agree with a seperate class that imposes their own size restrictions, but flys the same sequence as regular pattern (maybe Sportsman and Intermediate) that way if you realize that you don't care for pattern, you don't have too big of a financial commitment, and you still have a good plane to take to the field.

Just my .02

Steve,

If you want to fly your 40 sized plane in sportsman, go for it. There is no need to be intimidated. I entered my first pattern contest with an Intruder 90. I had the most crappy plane at the contest, and this being my first contest, I was a little nervous. All the guys in the sportsman class had the latest and greatest 2M ships. I ended up in fourth place and I even won a round.

The point is, and it has been said before, practice wins contests, not the plane (At least in sportsman). I learned alot at the contest, and had a whole lot of fun. I have been flying 3 times a week since the contest, and can't wait until I can go to the next one.

If you want a large airplane at a reasonable price, check around you can get a good used plane cheap if you are patient. People have things for sale at the contests too.

Good Luck
Greg

Hey guys, I think Steve is looking at the big picture here. He wants to make the entry point for pattern or IMAC have a broader appeal. Are we constructing a platform where more or less people try to participate??? I tend to think less people are participating (than possible)in the present environment. What needs to be addressed are the mental/finicial hurdles to starting.

Steve- Yea it's been awhile since I posted, I read mostly and try to absorb the knowledge. I too went to the Winston-Salem IMAC meet and watched BASIC and left knowing that my 60 sized EXTRA had NO chance. I left with the impression until I have a 30% EXTRA it's a no go, unless I want to play around. It is really hard going into something knowing there's no possibility of doing that well... This is a pretty good thread and I like reading other's opinion on this subject!

Marcus

Ryan,

It was not my intent to restrict sportsman to small planes. I was talking about a concurrent class/event, with smaller planes. Guys would be able to overlap into either category (large/small) with a small plane.

I guess my comparison would be to short track racing. You could put a guy in a 4 cyl pinto (mini stock) up against a winston cup car, and yes the pinto driver might win based upon his driving abilities once in a blue moon, but he's gonna get spanked a large percentage of the time. If ya have guys running pintos (or similar sized/powered things) and a seperate class for the larger ones, the contest in general is going to be more exciting.

I like the idea of having a seperate, "smaller" classes. If you want to fly a 2m bird in sportsman, you can enter the class/event we have now. If you can't afford it but still want to compete w/your Zen 50 or Aresti, enter the "smaller" class/event and go up against similar planes. Sounds like a win/win situation to me - everyone gets what they want.

A point that I found in most aspects of R/C. You can try to make as many classes as you want, but people WILL make it expensive for you. There will be a special plane, special engine, special radio gear, etc. etc. Sad, but happens.
For this class, I think that the maximum engine size would have to be something around 46-50. This means that the planes would be smaller, and expensive gear won't make as big a difference. Also, it'll be cheaper, as I noticed that 60 is around the size where things start to get expensive.
Just my 4Cents!
Robert.