Ryan - thanks for pointing out the true cost of a top level IMAC style plane vs a pattern plane. Truly achieving the same high level of thrust, speed, low noise, and servo power of a pattern plane costs a lot of money, and the cost increases as the size increases.

Nathan - I agree with you that the current combination of 5kg max weight and 2x2 max dimensions and unlimited engine displacement is a bad combination. Quite a few people opposed the unlimited engine displacement, predicting the current scenario, and for the most part, those same people are opposed to an increased weight limit (as those people predict additional expense will be the end result long term).


How to reduce the cost of pattern (assuming that is really an obstacle) or make it easier to source a competitive pattern plane has been a hot topic for many years. When I look at the relative costs of pattern compared to other events where I see former pattern pilots and pilots relatively new to the hobby, I don't think cost is a big factor. Pattern is a specialized event that appeals to a specific personality type, and so long as pattern is about flying pattern, changing various rules will not change the type of personality attracted to the event.

Rules that are not enforced are bad rules? While my initial reaction is to agree with this, I don't believe it is without exception. Take a look at the noise rule, pattern planes are quiet because the noise rule exists, even though it is only enforced to any degree at the NATs. Because the weight/dimension/sound rules are enforced at the NATs and rarely at local contests (and in fact waived for Sportsman at many local contests), "testing" of the pattern waters is not so difficult, but the size, weight, and noise are limited (which controls cost at the top levels, which trickles down to the lower levels), and I think anyone looking to compete at the National level should be prepared to meet the requirements of the event to the letter.

A current YS CDI setup is expensive, as is a top level electric setup. Pattern is expensive because the best performance comes from the planes and equipment with the best power to weight ratio, which will always be expensive, and increasingly so with increased limits. It would seem at this time that both IC and electric are competitive at the highest levels, and the cost is arguably the same. Neither are required to compete in pattern, far cheaper options are available. Most agree that electric will increasingly become dominant under the current rules. Clearly electric will become cheaper in the future. For the first time in my 20+ years flying pattern, I see the cost of pattern getting cheaper if the rules are not changed. If the rules are changed in a manner which would allow increased weight, power, size, etc, there is no doubt in my mind that 2 things would happen -
1. The obselescence of IC would be accelerated. Why would this be a good thing?
2. Long term, cost of electric would be higher than if the current rules were retained. I don't buy the argument that the only innovation and escalation in pattern comes from the FAI ranks.....just look at the competitiveness of this discussion. And as I've pointed out, if the weight limit were increased, higher power motors, ESCs, and lipos are already available (with a higher price tag) and don't need to be developed by the FAI ranks.

For the current crop of planes that were designed to meet the criteria of 2x2M, 11 lbs, and <94 db (FAI) or 96 db (AMA) and end up on the high side of 11 lbs (for whatever reasons), that is a consequence of a plane being designed to take full advantage of the rules for maximum competitive advantage with little or no margin to the 11 lb limit. I think providing an allowance to the lower classes is a reasonable approach to preserving/extending the life of the airframes, and providing a degree of tolerance for builders/assemblers with less experience. If the weight limit for Masters were increased, it would at best be a short term solution. Inevitably, planes would be built, or would accumulate weight with age to the point that the new weight limit would be exceeded, and we would be right back at square 1 all over again (except we would be using more expensive bigger motors, lipos, and ESCs than we are now).

Regards,

Dave Lockhart