I’m joining this conversation late as I just got back from 3 days of fun at JR Indoor. One of the things that I confirmed this weekend is that the $60 14.5 gram Neutrino makes more power than the ~$40 14-15 gram Eflite Park 250 and Hacker A10-15S (both of which I see as good values and good performing motors, just not equal to the Neutrino). Surely this observation has nothing to do with this topic (TIC).

I agree it is not “fair” to weigh some planes ready for takeoff, and weigh others incapable of takeoff. Nonetheless, the current performance level of glow and electric is comparable as evidenced by actual performance levels at local, regional, national, and international contests. If this inequity is to be remedied, it should be done in a manner which does not allow escalation in the cost of the average airframe on the flightline. This means weighing all planes RTF (with fuel and batteries) at 11 lbs, and this would immediately obsolete glow (which will happen in time anyway, given no changes in the rules). Several points –

1. Every rule made in recent years regarding increased limits (engine size, weight, or size), no matter how well intentioned (all intended to increase diversity and reduce costs, and all failed in those respects) generated unintended consequences that resulted in increased performance levels and increased cost of the average plane on the flightline.

2. What has fair got to do with competition? The rules are the same for everyone, that is fair. Since when should a cheaper setup be competitive with a more expensive setup? Rules are rules, use whatever design, construction method, powerplant, radio, etc you choose to have the most competitive plane possible that FITS within the rules and your BUDGET. Electric is the latest and greatest, as is the YS CDI. Both are more expensive than the established glow options. If the latest and greatest doesn’t have a performance benefit, don’t pay the premium for it. I see no rules being offered with the intent of making a YS160 competitive with a YS 170 CDI, so why are rules being offered with the intent of making cheap electrics competitive with expensive electrics (which will not work anyway, keep reading if you dare).

3. Designing future rules to address the current state of the art which includes a rapidly evolving technology is extremely difficult, if not futile. Glow is well refined and while improvements will continue, the relative change in performance will be small. Changes in electric performance in recent years has been dramatic, and will certainly outpace glow in future years. With the current rules structure, and consideration for the typical lifecycles of airframes and equipment in pattern, electric will dominant glow in the very near future (with no changes in the rules). This is progress, this is technology at work, this is competition driven advancements, and in this event it means a shift from glow to electric.

4. No disagreement that pattern designs worldwide are driven by F3A. AND, in the US, AMA pattern classes have always mirrored F3A in terms of aircraft limits. There is no history on what might happen if AMA classes did not mirror F3A limits. AMA Masters IS a destination class for many very skilled, very competitive pilots who choose not to fly F3A for any number of reasons. This is a reason to not increase the weight limit (or any other limit) for the AMA classes. For the pilots in the US using Masters as a developmental class or stepping stone to F3A, it makes sense to keep AMA limits the same as F3A.

5. Very few would argue that adding weight to a given plane will make it more competitive, if no other changes occurred. Take a 10.5 lb glow plane, add 16 oz of fuel, and takeoff at 11.5 lbs, land with 2 oz of fuel. Now, add 32 oz of fuel and land with 18 oz of fuel. Power loading has decreased and wing loading has increased, both bad things (assuming the plane was well designed in terms of wingloading to begin with). Allow an electric to takeoff at a higher weight, and what happens…….lipos used go from 35-42 oz 4300 – 5300 mah running 2000-3000 watts to 43-50 oz lipos running at 3500+ watts. The higher power (and more costly) lipos are available right now, as are the ESCs and motors which would be needed to handle the higher power (also more expensive). Hmmm….big time power increase…new performance standard, obsolescence of all current (expensive and cheap) electric and glow systems. Not that glow systems could not escalate as well - it is entirely possible to have a full 2M glow plane at 9.5 lbs without fuel……and completing a Masters schedule with 16 oz of fuel is not a problem….so there would be a full pound available to increase the size/cost/performance of the glow plane as well (and it would still fall short of a 3500+ watt electric).

The performance bar is set by the systems with the best power to weight ratio (glow or electric). Raising the weight limit would initially allow the heavier cheaper systems (glow and electric) to be used side by side with the current expensive state of the art systems (albeit still at a still at a disadvantage because of the added weight). However, higher power electric systems would immediately follow, raising the performance bar, and increasing costs exponentially. Heavier cheaper options would still have the same disadvantage at 11.5 lbs as 11 lbs.

Raising the weight limit does nothing to reduce the cost of entry to electric pattern. Sub 2M electric planes, motors, ESCs, and lipos are available now for far less expense than a 2M electric setup. The smaller or cheaper setups will never equal the performance level of the higher expense setups – that is simply the nature of competition.

6. Safety. Where is the data / track record of safety problems attributable to the absence of arming switches or radio switches? If this is a problem, then all planes should be required to have “kill switches” (ignition kills, fuel shutoffs, shorting plugs, etc) and radio switches (perhaps redundant or failsafe variety). Absent of these requirements in the rules, it is the choice of the competitor to use these items, or not. If an electric competitor prefers to utilize the weight “budget” (at 11 lbs or 11.5 lbs) to run a higher power electric system instead of a system that is lower power with extra safety features, it is their choice to do so. It is also their option to fly a slightly smaller plane (with added safety items) which would easily come in under the current weight limit. This is no different than a glow competitor choosing to use a Moki 1.8 without a radio switch and changing a 500 mah RX pack every 2 flights, when he could use an OS 140RX and a switched 1400 mah RX pack.

7. Size vs weight. History very plainly shows that a size limit alone does not limit the true size, performance level, and cost of a pattern aircraft. Even in the early 90s, some planes were being flown at near 2M lengths and spans (some of which were <9 lbs and powered by piped 60 2Cs), and none would be competitive today because they were very skinny and high aspect ratio. The late 90s saw many 2M fuse lengths with ~1.85M wingspans and weights of ~10 lbs without fuel….not unlike current designs (linear dimensions). The designs from the late 90s are not competitive at the higher levels because they lack the fuse volume (which also adds weight) needed for the current maneuver schedules. I would also point out that there are many popular IMAC style and sport pattern style ARC, ARFs, RTF, etc planes that are <11 lbs, and are not commonly used in pattern. They are not used because they are not 2M in size, and do not represent airframes with the best power loadings and wingloadings for the pattern event. Raise the weight limit to any number, and the larger IMAC style and sport pattern style ARC, ARF, RTF, etc planes will still not be used, because they still will not represent the best power loading and wingloadings for pattern (but they will cost more, just as the bigger pattern models). Anyone who wants to simply participate at a less intense level can do so with a smaller plane which would easily come in under the current weight limit – but it won’t be as competitive, and admit it or not, most in pattern go for the most competitive setup they can afford.

Any rules which target a specific type of technology are just plain wrong. The average plane on the flightline is going to reflect the designs of the top flyers, whom will always design to the limits of the event. Any change which allows the top flyers to design to a higher level will result in planes on the flightline with a higher average cost.

I would point out that planes designed and built to fly Masters at <11 lbs do in many ways have an “age” allowance as they are passed down to Advanced, Intermediate, and Sportsman pilots. Adv, Int, and Sport schedules are shorter in duration and less demanding of power, so smaller, lighter, cheaper lipos can be used to offset any weight gains as the plane ages and needs repairs.

I am not oblivious or insensitive to the Adv, Int, or Sport competitor who buys a reasonable 2M kit and due to lack of building skills and experience ends up at 11 lbs 1 oz, nor am I insensitive to the owner of a 6 yr old 2M plane that has gained 4 oz in repairs and is now illegal. I am sensitive to changes in rules which would allow escalation in the cost of the average pattern plane on the flightline. Providing a limited allowance for 11+ lbs planes in Adv, Int, and Sport is something I can live with, but such a rule change must not allow escalation of the cost and performance. Therefore, I think it is critical to NOT increase the 11 lb AMA takeoff limit in any form for Masters (or F3A). How big an allowance should be allowed for Adv, Int, and Sport? Certainly open to debate, but I’d think 4 oz should be more than sufficient (especially considering the ability to use smaller lipos in these classes).

F3P is indoor pattern......my opinion is that the Neutrino is the best motor for the event (based on what I've run and flown, which is not everything available)....and is is the most expensive. F3A is outdoor pattern....my opinion is that several powerplant options (YS, Neu, Hacker, Evo) are available for the "best" performance, and it is debatable which is the best current day, and debatable which costs the most current day, but clearly none are cheap. And it is also my opinion (with substantial history behind it) that no rule change can make it cheaper, and any change that allows escalation for the top levels will INCREASE COST (as it has in every historical instance for pattern).

Regards,

Dave Lockhart
Team Horizon/JR/ThunderPower/Castle