Possibility of a smaller size pattern/AA class
 

Another notice, for budding pilots wanting a 2M model, check out the PBG Composites Matrix and Matrix Euro, which is REALLY cheap, due to the NZ dollar being low against the Euro or American dollar. You can also check the Probuild shadow. A little more expensive, but still relatively cheap, and the guy that runs the plane is one of the nicest people in the hobby. Its designed to run on old second hand engines, like the YS 120, with excellent performance, but can still take the new DZ.
www.pbgcomposites.com
www.probuild-uk.co.uk

Re: big picture
 

The same thing is probably happening at the pattern contests. People go to a contest to check it out, and see 2m ships in sportsman. This will have the same effect that they will not continue because they will believe that they need a 2m ship.

If people are staying in sportsman instead of moving up, this too will stop people from entering as they will have no hope of placing first.

Sportsman is suppose to be an beginner class to help get new pilots interested. If you are flying a 2m plane, you are no longer a beginner and should not be in sportsman.

If you have another class for the smaller planes, it will break up the competition too much. You may get two pilots in the new class, and two pilots in the existing classes. Now there are four people who don't get much competition.

Dean

Possibility of a smaller size pattern/AA class
 

Thanks for the input guys. Keep it coming.

Dean, to address a couple of items you said in your post. I agree with every point you made, minus the last one. I think having a seperate class would only enhance competition, and you might get more than 2 guys in a class at a pattern event. If newer fliers/contestants show up at a pattern contest, and see a bunch of small, cheap (relative to the 2m planes) aircraft competing, it should stimulate them to come out and give it a shot. Specially if they dont have the perception of going up against the 2m planes.

Steve

Possibility of a smaller size pattern/AA class
 

Hopefully you get a better turn out at your contests than we do around here. The numbers that we generally see are quite low in the lower classes, and having another class will only hurt compention around here. If you are already getting high numbers, than another class in your area may help things.

At a contest we will generally see some where in the neighborhood of the following numbers, although they can fluxuate quite a bit, I would guess that these would be the averages:

Sportsman: 0-3
Intermediate: 0-4
Advanced: +/- 5
Expert/Masters: +/-5
FAI: +/- 4

Possibility of a smaller size pattern/AA class
 

All of this talk of smaller pattern planes has me really getting the itch to build my Silent 90. Of course I also have a Silent 50 sitting in the closet too .........

John

Possibility of a smaller size pattern/AA class
 

For the sake of argument Dean, let me bring up a couple of items to ponder. If you can go from 0/3 to 7/10 guys in the small planes class, theorhetically you would be gaining a larger base who would want to move up the ladder. That would also give the more experienced pattern guys more people to buy their used equipment :D. It would also allow alot of people (including myself) to get over the whole perception thing. Imagine a class where you can see 20-25 pilots (best case scenario I'm sure), where most of them have a shot at 1st place any given weekend.
More pilots=more spectators=more $ for concessions, entry fees, etc. Similar to club fun fly's that generate alot of $$$ for the club.
It would be neat to try it out at a club or local level, and if enough interest is generated, at a regional level.

If this were to come about, what baseline rules recommendations would you guys suggest? Here are some of my baseline suggestions.

Plane size: .30-.60. Kit/ARF/RTF/Scratchbuilt. This would be able to include alot of sport planes as well as sport/pattern planes. Would be upward compatible to the current pattern classes, but larger planes would not be downward compatible. Seduction freestyle/dioblotin/ etc allowed. (large sufaces with big deflections do not a pattern plane make :) )

Fiberglass fuses: Allowable. There are some fiberglass sport planes that would work, but they are heavier. If it appears that there is a significant advantage to fiberglass, then institute a weight penalty (similar to SCCA club racing) to level out the field a little bit.

Carbon Fiber fuses? (I'd say no, because then it becomes more expensive)

Carbon fiber and fiberglass reinforcing can be allowed (wing joint, etc)

Motor size? (2 stroke .32-60, and 4 stroke .52-.80 or even 90)

Fixed gear/retracts? Either should be allowed. If someone wants to take the weight increases, linkage problems, and the points deductions for a retract failure, then let em. Not sure about limiting retracts to mechanical only, or if air systems could be used (dont know enough about them to offer any calid input).

Scale pilot/cockpit: Not necessary. Smoked/tinted/painted canpopies could be allowed. There could be a sub category about static presentation where points could be added for scale appearance if desired, but since this would be more of an entry level class, why spend the $15.00-20.00 for a pilot and instrument panel and have the increased weight?

Digital servos can be allowed. Again,if there seems to be a significant (and I mean a very significant) advantage to running them, then a small weight penalty could be imposed.

These rules could also include alot of older pattern planes/designs, similar to the senior pattern events. Alot of those guys could fly in both events. Same thing can hold true for flying in the current sportsman as well as the small plane sportsman class. Who's to say you couldnt double your stick time and fly both if running the same weekend with the same plane?


Sidebars to this could be TOC style events. AA and/or Freestyle. Limitations could be you can only add tailweight (for CG altering), prop changes (less speed/more thrust for 3d). Changing to a different wing could be allowed if you wanted, but then again, you have to be concerned with cost. Run whatcha brung seems like a great, stable concept.

As you can see from the above stuff, I had alot of time in the car yesterday :D. These are just jumping off points, free to be bashed, improved upon, agreed with, etc.

Steve

Possibility of a smaller size pattern/AA class
 

Again, people would make it expensive.

Some 'top class' guy will come with this.

Fiberglass fused 60 sized patten ship............roughly $200
YS 63................................................ ..............roughly $300
Digital servos, good receiver, etc....................roughly $500
Covering, glue, accersories, etc......................roughly $100


Now you can see, that even being generous with the prices, we are still already over $1000.

I hate to cast a cloud over this, but that is the truth. I would LOVE to see a class like this, just for FUN, but as I said, the costs will just spiral upwards, unless you put some sort of a price limit, which will be hard to check up on. On the plus side, you don't need such expensive equipment for this level, as it won't do much towards your flying abilities.
We have Novice class here, which means that any guy, with his trainer, funfly, sports model etc. can come down and see whether they like it or not.
My 2C
Robert.

your club and rules
 

Steve- Does your club have enough interest to test your idea? Nobody at our club (River Side Aero Modelers, RAMS) flies pure pattern but there are some at the Winston-Salem RC club. There may be enough interest for both clubs to work on this idea and try it a few times????

As far as rules.... This is the hard part, it's always a cat and mouse game with rules. I say go ahead and come up with some guidlines but also state the "Spirit of the Rules". This way people will know if they compete with a $2500 plane they are not in the right area.

My personal vote is for:
1) Balsa, ply, foam and FG only for wing joints. 2) Max engine size: 75 2-stoke or 91 4-stroke.
3) No full wave tuned pipes.
4) Max of one digital servo.

Marcus

Possibility of a smaller size pattern/AA class
 

I agree with the cloud. Someone is going to take it to the extreme. Youd never be able to manage a cost limit. But it is nice to dream, isnt it? :)

Possibility of a smaller size pattern/AA class
 

No one says it has to stop here though! My idea would be something like this.

Engine...53 2 stroke, 63 four stroke.
No tuned pipes.
Maybe one fancy servo, like Marcus said. This would be as some models have large rudders that need power.
And then the construction can be discussed later. I like this idea alot, as the gear is cheap enough, most modelers will have something around this size, there are lots of designs around, and so, it will be fun.
See if there is interest in your locality for it, then you can set up a comp, to see how it turns out. Maybe a general rule will help keep the price down. The good point is, that most people will understand where you are going, and leave the multi-million dollar top notcher at home.

Possibility of a smaller size pattern/AA class
 

I say no digital servos. I don't care how big the rudder is, if you are flying a plane with a YS .63, you do not need a digital servo because of torque requirements. We're talking about 5-6 lb planes here. There are many, many coreless servos out there that will handle any rudder, elevator, or even ailerons you attach to them. They are fast, precise and plenty strong. In fact, before the digi servos came out, we flew coreless on everything up to and including the then large 120 class pattern planes.

John

right
 

I think John is correct about coreless being good enough, a high torque BB servo on a pull-pull works for me.

The only advantage is if you move up then you have a good servo, but where does this stop? May I need CF landing gear because I'm moving up next year... So John's idea that none allowed is very clear cut and removes the shades of grey.

This is land of where good ideas die. If one can push through forming the regulations and surive then this has shot at coming true.

Marcus

Possibility of a smaller size pattern/AA class
 

Thats what I meant by fancy servo.
I think that the idea can easily work for local competitions, and maybe more.

Possibility of a smaller size pattern/AA class
 

Back to Deans post.

What he left out from those numbers is the fact that from what I can recall I have never seen anyone come out to try sportsman with anything even resembling a 2M model.

The closest was a smallish scratch built 60. So it is really not an issue. I would ask to pay close attention in your area how many sportsman guys are flying a high end pattern model.

I dont know if making more rules will solve anything. As has been stated the advantage of a 2M in sportsman is a perceived advantage not a terribly realistic one. It is the perception that needs to go and that is just simple education of the commoners :) You need to get at the sport fliers and convince them that they do not need planes like this to fly sportsman, easier said than done for sure, but I have seen it done.

At any rate, give me an Ultrasport and I will give you my brand new Evolis XXL top of the line machine worth $5000. I can practise my ass off and since my plane is worth so much you cant fly it for fear of causing damage so you dont practise that much.

Although the Evolis is hugely superior in every aspect, I will still beat you in every class because I have knowledge of my plane. That is an extreme example but it is one that everyone needs to understand.

Now once you have flown the Evolis a bit you will whoop my ass, so give me back my plane before you embarras me :)

Re: right
 

Hehe, I say let them have their CF gear. I'd like to see a 40 size gear bolted up on a 2M ship when they move UP ;)

Seriously though, you have the right idea. Limit the amount of technology allowed so that there is more mass appeal to the event. If the pilot wants to play with all of the composites and fancy electronics, they are more than free to move on to an event that allows and even encourages such items. This event should be more grass roots with limitations set in place to keep it there.


John

Possibility of a smaller size pattern/AA class
 

So...what do you say?? :D

Possibility of a smaller size pattern/AA class
 

As I stated a while back, I haven't flown pattern in a long time (91 Nats was the last event) so I'm not sure what planes are showing up in Sportsman these days. Back then, it was very common for folks to fly anything and everything (saw a Goldberg Cub once) in the Novice class. I personally had a fixed gear Super Kaos 60 with a K&B 60 up front. A great plane for the event. But, there were also people who showed up with someones used full blown glass/foam model from the year before. They just left the gear down and removed the pipe. That kind of plane, while not needed, intimidated the snot out of the rest of the pilots.

I keep seeing posts talking about creating new rules, or changing existing rules. With the amount of rules changes that happen in pattern already, is this reall a good idea? Or, is the original proposal better? An entirely new pattern class that would be run alongside the exiting classes though with smaller and simpler planes. The latter might even be setup to allow people to fly both events, though not at the same meet for obvious time issues. You can't hold up a flight line because the pilot is currently flying on another line.

John

Possibility of a smaller size pattern/AA class
 

Formulas like this need to be enforcable. Banning digital servos is not enforcable. It would be easy to put digital guts in a 9202 casing, for instance. Sound won't necessarily help either. Not all digitals squeal like stuck pigs. In any case, digitals don't cost a whole lot more than analogue servos of similar torque and speed ratings.

Similarly, construction methods are not enforcable. You can't detect a carbon fiber layup without destroying the model.

Despite the best intentioned rules, people find ways to spend around them. It happens all the time in motor sport. Formula V was intended to be really cheap, so they specified standard VW engines. The exact engine model and all the allowable part numbers are specified, and no modifications whatever are permitted. The way around this was to buy all the engines in a junkyard and go
through them, flow testing manifolds, indicating cams, etc. to find the items at the
limits of production tolerances most beneficial to power.

A simple weight and size limitation could do the job. A minimum weight would help keep out exotic materials and engines. 1.5 m x 1.5 m, 2.8 kg min,
might be a good place to start. That's 59", 6.16 lb for the metrically challenged.

There is no need for maximum weight since I would expect all competitors to be at the minumum weight. The minumum weight I chose would be easily achieveable with the common 40-size ARFs, and I would expect ballast to be added to most kit-built models. This way, the difference between planes would be design and setup, not building skills.

If you want to remove the design variable, then you need to specify a single model. I'm sure World Models or someone would put something up for a Zen 50 series, or a Venus series, or whatever. Use a control engine and costs are definately contained. Someone could still buy 10 46FXs or whatever and choose the best one, but that won't overcome lack of flying skill.

The T-34 Triangle Series races we have locally uses a one-design formula and is currently attracting reasonable numbers of entrants. (World Models T-34, OS46FX, Powermaster 15%, 5.5 lb min. weight). Substitute the pattern model of your choice and you would have something reasonable.

The main thing about one-design is that there is no agonising about what to use. It's all specified, so to win you just need to buy your model, set it up and pratice. The best flyer will win. Of course, once someone starts winning every time they would be promoted out of the series - this is needed to keep new people coming in with reasonable confidence that they can work their way to the top.

Possibility of a smaller size pattern/AA class
 

Cheap servos work for me. The digitals would jack the cost up significantly. I've got 225's on my elevator/rudder and havent had problems on my majestic .
CF gear would be fine with me, because that could be a direct replacement for stock gear. It's not as exotic (costly) as a cf tuned pipe.

Tuned pipes should be highly restricted to something on the lower end of the spectrum, like a Mac's black pipe. CF pipes should be a big no-no. you can fly one, just have to put 12 oz of weight on the plane.:D

I don't know if theres enough intrest here at County Line RC, we havent gotten into that deep of a discussion of it. It's something that I am definately going to bring up at the field. We do have some pattern competitors (including a nats winner and a former nats competitor), but most of the guys do have a sport plane that would work. I dont know what the guys at CCRC, Graham's and WSRC are doing. I know from WSRC's website that they have some high end pattern gear out there (Focus, etc), so I would assume they have some pattern peeps.

I know the spec AT6 series has caught on pretty big, with 25-30 pilots at each race. They have a whole series with year end points, etc. We have about 4-5 guys from our club that fly in that series. Hopefully there will be some positive reaction locally.


Keep the input coming.

Possibility of a smaller size pattern/AA class
 

The rules are always enforceable. All it requires is someone willing to put up the $50.00 and madate the person in question provide a means to check the model. Maybe it means someone has to remove a servo, or shine a flashlight down the tail of the plane. The only way you're going to hide a CF fuse is to paint the inside. Why would you buy a CF fuse if you're going to add weight to hide it? But, no matter the rule, there will always be someone who tries to cheat. The people running Rossi .65 piston/sleaves in 61 cases in the early 80's are a prime example of this.

I'm not sure a minimum weight limit is good. By doing this, you are mandating a specific size plane instead of allowing someone to fly a .32 size model.

Allow any model the pilot chooses. Afterall, you're looking to appeal to the masses and attract participants, not limit the event to the few who think a Zen 50, for example, is a gorgeous plane. One design doesn't work on beyond a club level as has been proven in both full scale and modeling. People want a choice. The only example I have seen this disproven is in the giant scale AT-6 races.

I say, state a max wing span and engine size. Build a list of items not allowed and let it go. If the rules need to be modified in a few years after the event is established, do it then. Don't make it so restrictive right off the bat that few people will be interested.

John

Possibility of a smaller size pattern/AA class
 

Chad, I'll take your Evolis anytime, anyplace (as long as I dont have to buy it when I break it) hehe. The point you made about practicing your *ss off makes sense, but how many people at the sportsman level have the time and patience to practice alllll the time? It takes a major commitment to learn the schedules, even more so to perfect them. Throw in varying weather conditions, wind, etc., and you can spend 24/7 at the field or the shop working on the plane. Your typical entry level competitor isnt going to make that commitment. We actually do have quite a few high end planes that are being used in the lower classes here. Those include guys who have won or placed in the top 5 in the nats over the last few years. So our used market is quite meaty.

There has been endless discussion in other threads about larger planes tracking and handling better. If a .60 sized plane could do TOC caliber flying as easily as a 40% bird, dont you think TOC guys would be flying them, just because they would be cheaper to throw together? Bigger planes of similar designs will overall fly better. I'd love to get my hands on a 2m ship, but I know everything after that would fly like a 3 channel duraplane to me after that. :D

The comment I remember the most from the Model Aviation article this month is the comment the author made about having a plane that will do the maneuvers properly, not having a model that will teach you mistakes, or bad habits. I have noticed after one good day of flying my majestic (when I wasnt jerkin around with tuning the motor, the pump, etc), I realized that it is an awesome flying airplane. I was actually doing knifeedge loops with it, and feeling comfortable on that last 90 degrees at the pullout. I havent had that comfort level before with a plane. And it can only get better as I get it trimmed. It sure increases the confidence and abilities when you arent spending the entire flight fighting the airframe.

As for the rules violators, a nice 10 lb sledgehammer works great :D. Seriously, people totally disregard the term "Sportsman" when the word "competition" is thrown in. A creative interpretation of the rules is one thing, but an outright bending/breaking of the rules is a cheap shot. How can a competitor feel good about the "victory" if they had to cheat to get it. Some people get sooo focused on winning, no matter what the cost. That's not restricted to just motorsports, thats an unfortunate fact of life. I was looking at a lower cost, fun alternative to the higher end competitions (like the advanced and unlimited levels). Less stress, less pain, more fun. Throw in the wimmens from rcbabes.net and we got a great party.

smaller size pattern
 

Well first of all the ones who think you cant win a pattern contest with a sport plane have never been beaten by a guy with a Sig Astro Hog a Saito .80 and a lot of practice,,,, i have been. That was painful but here we go i have been to numerous contests in the Mid West here where pilots in the novice contest were flying and winning with much less than the latest and greatest. :eek:
It can be a humbling experience if you are on the receiving end too guys. But just don't say it cant be done ,IT IS DONE ON A REGULAR BASIS.