ORIGINAL: TonyF
joenella,
I almost wish overseas comments would be excluded. Remember, we are discussing proposed rules changes to the AMA rules, not F3A.
First I'd like to apologize to joenella as one fellow pattern enthusiast to another. Limiting discussion is against all that I believe is right and good in this world, and I like to think open discussion is at the heart of what makes America great.
ORIGINAL: gaRCfield
I just heard about some of the concerns people are having about the weight requirements in pattern, mainly 3 different proposals to alter the weight requirement in one way or another, to seemingly compensate for the weight 'penalty' of flying electric planes. Some of the comments can be found [link=http://modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals/rcaerobatics.aspx]here[/link] on the right, another was in an email. I think what sparked this (this time) is that apparently a plane was found to weigh in over the limit at Nats and was not penalized.
I have some thoughts but feel like I don't have the experience to chime in. I really like being involved in the whole pattern scene though and am interested in what's on people's minds. I also want to be prepared in case I'm ever asked to vote on something.
Second the opening question presented by Joe was sufficiently broad so as not to be focused on AMA alone and as it is true F3A drives the lower classes any discussion of weights must keep them in mind.
ORIGINAL: TonyF
I know for a fact that in my case at the Nats that the weight limit increased my cost to participate. I had to buy a new ESC and two battery packs that I wouldn't have needed except for the weight limit. And the battery packs aren't going to last flying Masters. I'd be willing to bet that there were a lot of others out there that had to do something similar. I know of several, even one in Intermediate.
Third, seems like Tony got onto this quest because he wanted to use cheaper batteries that weighed more. I am experiencing that same problem myself with an Integral built by Ryan Smith. Using Rhino packs I'm over 11lbs. Using 4350 Pro lites I'm under. The cost difference is a factor of 3 for said batteries. Isn't this the real issue driving the original rule change, and aren't there ways to resolve this without increasing the weight?!
ORIGINAL: dolanosa
. . . I really believe that the main reason for less competitors is definitely the price of the current equipment just to be competitive. Really! That's it. . . . , I am f*^%ing scrounging to make myself more competitive. . . .
I built a Fliton Inspire for a few hundred dollars. A plane that would be easily competitive all the way through Advanced. I plead guilty to being one of the newcomers able to spend as I want, but from what I see in the used market today I don't know why anyone should be "scrounging" for a plane. My experience so far has been that individuals and clubs involved in pattern are incredibly generous to those wanting to compete, but limited in personal resources. The secondary market for planes is VERY cost effective today.
Finally, I admit to being biased as I have had an opportunity to listen to DaveL in person and have found his thoughts to be well balanced and built upon decades of personal experience.
The "bottom line" is e-planes are more than competitive as they are today. It's true that at the peak of performance one must buy the expensive batteries, but is that really a cause for creating the uncertainty involved with a rule change?
JP