apereira

Please do not use this forum for posting as there is one open already and it does not make any sense on duplicating threads.

Regards

Doug Cronkhite

My Feedback: (34)

I believe those should be 2 separate questions. I believe it should stay at 2m but raise the weight limit to 6kg.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I agree with Doug

apereira

I agree.

bwick

no

Mvelez

No change, i just think they should weight glow planes full of fuel

mithrandir

My Feedback: (2)

2m x 2m x 6 kg

Rendegade

Oh crikey, not this again.

aircraft are find as the are size wise and weight wise, however an increase the weight limit MAY make things easier.

vbortone

My Feedback: (2)

I wonder what would be the future if the weight is increased to 6 kg = 13.23 lb? I will assume that large bi-planes will become very popular but not sure. Probably some aeronautical engineers could guess better. For sure my Extreme Flight Extra 300 will be legal and the EMAC guys could be flying this plane in both events. Interesting....

Vicente "Vince" Bortone

Mike Wiz

My Feedback: (2)

I voted yes but I didn't read the question very well. I'd like to see the size left alone but the weight rule changed.

Mastertech

My Feedback: (31)

Rules for FAI are fine as they are. Masters should follow FAI, remove the weight limit on lower classes.

The fact the recent AMA rule change allowing the lower classes a few extra ounces makes that a moot point.

Tim

can773

My Feedback: (1)

Just to put some perspective on the weight rule....not that long ago (2001-2002), it was quite common to see pattern models of similar size and length as what we have today come it in at 9.25 lbs (glow without fuel). Almost two pounds under the rules. Motors were 140L/140FZ/140DZ, a 140DZ on that weight of model was like flying a missile! Most everything was less expensive than today.

So within the same size framework we have added almost two pounds of weight to the models in just volume and HP, by using more advanced construction techniques.

Imagine what we can come up with if we have another 2 lbs to work with

Right now, weight is the only hold back (from what I see) on the size/cost of the planes. We can design bigger planes within the size rules, which will need more performance, so bigger motors, props etc. etc. etc. and an entire new era of development will begin as we target in on the optimum setups.

Doug Cronkhite

My Feedback: (34)

That is by definition, a change sir.

Doug Cronkhite

My Feedback: (34)

Come on Chad.. the sequences being flown today have dictated the airframe changes. Were it not for rolling loops, circles, etc. the same pencil thin missiles would work just fine. As power has increased, designers have been able to design drag into the airframes to keep speed constant resulting in the increase in volume. The power hasn't followed design IMO, but has actually fostered the change in design.

can773

My Feedback: (1)

The current more challenging sequences were flown starting in 2000, which included rolling circles. My Evolis XXL was 9.25 lbs with a 140L, and would probably still fly the current schedules reasonably well.

Regarding which came first sequence, design or power, this is a chicken or the egg argument, and is not important. My point is that only going back a short 10 years you can easily see under a constant set of rules the evolution in F3A, not only in equipment but in expense. Changing these fundamental rules is not something to be taken lightly using numbers picked from the sky, or the result could be entirely unexpected.

Do as you will for local classes, as virtually everything designed in F3A is driven from the FAI rule set, these are the ones that will shape the future.

joenella

Just keep the rules as today, but the weigth limit of 5 kg should be ready to fly for both glow anf electric and not as today, where the rule is only for electric. No voltage limit or at least allow 12S, as the Amp usage will drop and make things easier and cheaper.

tuny

Why complain about the weight limit? and think its easier with glow engines? I have personaly build both and with glow or electric its not hard to make weight with any of them, in fact the ligthest F3A plane that I have build was electric.

the problem with take of weight is logistics at contest, it will be necesary to weight every airplane before every flight

Mastertech

My Feedback: (31)

As fast as glow is dying, that argument will be a moot point very soon.

Tim

Mike Wiz

My Feedback: (2)

Why? Just show up to weigh-in with a full tank and be able to demonstrate that it is truly full..... or drop the weight thing all together and just let the 2mx2m size dictate.

People have said that the current airplane designs at the top end are only good for 2-3 years. If that's so, announce the a weight elimination change will happen in 3 years. That way when everybody buys all new they's know what to get. In the meantime their existing plane still works.

Last but not least...... I'm not advocating a rule change for international competition. I would never do that unless I competed at that level. My concern is rather for the local level and lower classes here in the U.S.

can773

My Feedback: (1)

Mike I dont think you will see any impact to F3A by changing regional rules. Virtually everything designed specific for F3A is done so around the FAI rules.

apereira

So far, mayority wants things the way it is, and that's a pretty good amount of opinnions, given the fact pattern pilots are not that many.

I think the poll speak for itself so far, as well as I think we all have a pretty good idea of how pilots think or feel about it, of course, it will be impossible to have everybody agree on the same things with so many variables in hand, and that, is human nature.

Alejandro P.

rctestpilot1

Personally I have to say no to this one as it defines pattern from getting close to our IMAC friends. After just completing my (2) Zn Line Xigris I can only imagine what the cost would be to invest in new technology for larger or heavier airframes. How many times have you heard that pattern is more costly than other aerobatic discipline aircraft? I donno, I like the pattern (F3A) targets as they are right now as it makes me (the builder) really work to keep the airframes legal (mostly weight).

This is just my opinion but as in anything in life, if it were to change then I can either adapt or take my toys and go home.

Mark

Thinn

Just a suggestion;
5,5kg Take-off weight (i.e. with fuel / batteries).
A full tank of fuel weighs approx.5-600g(ish..), so I think this would be one way of evening out thr IC - el. differences.

bjr_93tz

A point to consider is that suitable power plant technology for bigger and heavier (or just heavier) F3A ships already exists for the electric flyers, but doesn't exist for the glow pilots. A large petrol 2-stroke is an immediate option, but would quickly fall out of favour as has every other two-stroke, when a suitable four-stroke option has become available.

Another point to consider is that when I road raced motorcycles the cost wasn't too great, the travel times not too long and the required effort was small. Now I've lost interest (but still have the bike), a track day is too expensive along with the price of engine parts, the distance is too far and it's just too much effort. Hang on a minute..... A track day is actually cheaper with less risk to my machinery, the track is now only 1 hour drive away instead of 2.5 and the effort to load up the bike and do the maintenance hasn't changed...

So what has changed?? I'm looking for excuses not to do it. If somebody really wants to fly Pattern, then they will. The best thing I can do for Pattern is to keep heading out to the field during weekends when the field is full and maybe one day someone will watch me fly a shedule and want to learn to fly like that. I'd much rather someone not participate in a comp, than to give it a go and decide that pattern is too hard or boring (and tell that to everyone else).

It is supposed to be a competition, not a social fly-in where everyone can win with their Sunday ARF

MTK

Rolling loops and circles could be done better with a pencil thin fused design like VooDoo Xpress than just about any fat fused pachy. Nat Penton proved that 30 years ago, juuuuust slightly ahead of his time. It is a full 2 meter model powered with a 90 no less, although he went electric a couple years ago.

One doesn't NEED a pachy to fly complex figures. One only needs to know what he's doing