The Vanquish 2x2 may be a game changer for pattern. Ihope it remains cost effective in this class.
However that does not change the view that the maximum weight rule is poorly thought out.
In all the threads I've read on the subject no one has been able to state what its real purpose is

Every other sport uses a minimum weight limit and all equipment in that sport migrates toward that limit.
We would still be paying a premium for airframes hat come in well under the weight limit i.e the OXAI and CA-Models Patterm planes.

Either way the rule is spun the more expensive airframe will always be the lighter ones. At least with a minimum weight limit built up aircraft would be able to achieve the weight limit comfortably.

Scared of large scale bipes becoming the normal then limit the wing area.

Limiting the wing area is no less arbitrary than having a weight rule.........

Minimum weights in motorsport are a safety issue and not just cost based.

The rules for pertaining to an F3A ship are as simple as you can get in any form of motorsport and simpler than in most other areas of competitive aeromodelling.

There are already thousands of airframe/motor/radio combinations that fit the rules, it's just that they don't have F3A stamped all over them or are being used by the worlds best. I'm really upset my Oxai ship won't make 5kg (with cdi) even though for comps in Australia it's not an issue, however I try my best to comply with the rules for the spirit of things.

The 5k rule wasn't aimed at F3a when it was brought about as there wasn't an F3A class when the 5k rule came about. It was the FAI deciding that 5k and under was a model, over that was something else.

Having said that if FAI does away with the weight rule then Pandora's box will likely be opened unless another limiting factor is instituted.

How about limiting the Size of engines? We already have a voltage limit on Electrics why not a 2.0 CI on IC? There are not any Pattern engines above that size now. If there were then we'd have to think about making a manufactures product obsolete over night. YS has the 175 and OS a 2.00 that would still allow both to refine the IC engine and the Electrics will still be improving but limited by the voltage limit.

Face it, the propulsion explosion is what allowed the air frames to grow in size to meet the ever increasing difficulty in the sequences in FAI. The weight limit has caused the major cost factor in air frames.

Personally I couldn't care less what FAI does, I only care about AMA. I detest spending $2000-$3000 for an airframe then having to spend another $500 on really light weight "stuff" to make weight. There is only one place weight is even an issue and that is if you happen to place in "The Iron" at the Nats.

If we ignore a rule is it really a rule?

Tim

limiting wing area at least does not drive costs up. If airframe struggle to make 5kg with exotic materials then that means there is little weight saving over a decent built up structure. The Vanquish shows what's possible. as someone else has said, if the rule is largely ignored then it is obsolete and a more relevant limitation should be imposed. No one will argue that no limitation is good. the 2x2 rule is fine. Makes a decent size plane that can be easily seen and judged.

Yes, for the three bi-annual annointed fliers, it better be exciting or we chose the wrong team. That wasn't the point. I'm talking about the flying itself, not the peripheral activity. Its sheer appeal to the masses. It was a response do Mike's casket nailing comment on which I think he is right. I believe we all long time pattern folks understand this shortcoming and are frustrated that we can't do much about it and still preserve all its elements. Do we love it? Yup! Do spectators? We don't want the sport to just survive by attracting one Andrew and one Brett every 10 years.

Back to the weight rule, relaxing it a bit will allow new developments, like larger bipes. That would be neat. However, Cost range will increase. Sure we'd be able to use mid sized gassers but will we? And possibly use existing airframe (cheaper) or create new Pattern specific ones (much more $$$). Next step up in electric would need to be considered (not inexpensive).

I have not been around long enough to form an intelligent experience and fact-based conclusion; however, this discussion is certainly intriguing. As previously hinted at, what if pattern reverted back to a displacement limit as it was beforeturnaround - say 2.00 cubic inches? Heavier airframes would be allowed at the cost of reduced performance.

Voltage limits for F3A is a safety issue. Any higher than the current limit and an dry-air short can stop your heart. I'm not sure how F3C got the limit raised to 12S but they did.

IMO, I don't think eliminating the weight limit or raising it to 6kg or whatever would have a HUGE impact on F3A, but I've been wrong before.

I am sure ANY change to the rules will lead to significant changes to the design of airplanes. Even now within the rules in the past 5 years there have been a lot of changes with the coming of electric and very powerful YS engines.

Any change will only mean that current airframes will become obsolete. Talking about cost.

I think the most common sense approach is not to change the rules but allow, except for Worlds or like European championships, a somewhat higher weight except if that excess weight leads to a competitive advantage. Since we are all knowledgable enough we will recognize that when it happens.

Of course for those that want everything in black and white and no exceptions that might be difficult to manage, but hey, get used to it I would say!!

Volkert

I agree- any changes to the weight rules in F3A will lead to design changes and an increase in cost.  Probably by making biplanes more practical than they are currently. And they would probably cost something north of $5000 a copy.
However, weight change in the AMA classes probably would not change much of anything. Right now designers are sticking  to the F3A rulebook and AMA pilots are buying those airplanes. Just check the aircraft at the top of the Advanced class. Passport, Deja-vu, Vanquish, Wind S Pro. I would be willing to bet that all four made it under 5 kg even though they were allowed 5115 grams.
If the AMA in its infinite wisdom, were to increase or do away with the weight limitation, do you honestly believe that pattern designers would optimize for AMA rules? Don't forget, the makers of pattern aircraft are aiming at a worldwide market, not just the USA. If you check pattern sites around the world you will find designs predominantly from Europe plus a fair number from the USA and Japan. Here, perhaps, we lean more towards US designs but they are not built here unless you are building from a kit and are still focused on worldwide sales..
I don't believe there is a lot of support to increase F3A weight in Europe and FAI rules are not changed without support in Europe. I would not support an increase either. I do like the idea of an allowance for the first three classes(Sportsman thru Advanced) and think the allowance should be increased to 500 gm from 115 gm,. This allows the older, second-hand, many times repaired aircraft to compete legally.
As far as changing the weight rules because they are not enforced; well, there are many rules that are not enforced. When was the last time you had your leading edges checked for sharpness. Do you really want to abolish the sound rules and have some show up with an open exhaust? Did you put a non-FAI spinner on your plane and break the 2 meter rule?
It seems to me as a CD  that the aircraft has to meet a reasonableness rule when at a local contest. If someone shows up with an Oxai pattern ship, I'm not going to whip out my scales and ruler and check it. If someone shows up with an IMAC 50 cc or even more and wants to fly Masters, we are going to have to discuss the matter but I still don't need my scales.
In summary, increase the allowances for the lower classes and let the rest go. If there continues to be a clamoring for getting rid of the weight rule in AMA only, I would make a counter-suggestion that all participants at a pattern contest sign a statement that their airplane complies with the rules.

John Gayer

I too favor the keeping of the weight rule and allowing slight weight increase for the use of heavy battery packs.

The other point is that the current f3a planes are well optimized for AMA classes. Other planes such IMAC ones probably will not fly as well the sequences. So there may be a disadvantage to use non-pattern planes in a pattern contest.

Sequences have largely driven airframe design over the last 10 years and will continue to do so. Power plants already far exceed the power required.

F3a will not change the weight rule, I'm talking AMA only.

Interesting question however, what would AMA do if F3A did away with the weight limit..................................

The 115 gram rule was a positive step but not without those who voted against it.

I've raised this question before, what is the penalty for being over weight at an AMA contest? There's nothing in the rule book. Over voltage, yup, over noise, yup, over weight nope.

I'm seriously considering a rule proposal to make the penalty for being over weight a round loss of the previous flight. Weighing would be random and at the CD's discretion. No longer would a CD be able to throw a contestant out of a contest over weight. Masters finals already have their rules spelled out, this would take care of the rest of us.

Simpler to remove the weight limit in AMA classes however. We'll still be flying the same airplanes as FAI does. Know why there are pattern planes out there that cost 10k ? Because someone will pay that price. Doesn't mean the buyer can out fly the guy with the $650 Vanquish.

Tim

A couple corrections Tim:

NSRCA board does not approve AMA rules, the AMA contest board does.
Proposal RCA11-10CP-1 passed 11-0…no one voted against it.

Thanks for the correction Scott.

You will find some IMAC airplanes that would do a very credible job with the lower sequences. The 78" EF Extra is one such model with its Patternesque tail moment. And given adequate practice with any given aerobatic airframe, the more skilled flier will win ever time.

One of the guys at my club flies IMAC Sportsman. When he was flying Basic, he competed against guys that flew top of the line Pattern stuff. Guess what....the pattern planes did not win. This has been said before, ad nauseum: practice, practice, practice.

Just because a plane might be deficient in some area doesn't mean the pilot has the same deficiency........

I think you missed my point. The differences between a state of the art pattern ship and an IMAC scale plane are the key. In a capable hand of a skilled pilot, the pattern plane will fly better and hit higher scores.

I have been flying several 50 to 80cc Extras practicing IMAC. By no mean Extra will roll as slick as a Passport. In my opinion, thr YAKs probably can be flown more like pattern planes.

Class, Compare and Contrast the following statement . . .
.
.
. . . Elimination of the weight rule will IMPROVE or HINDER SNAP ROLLS and their JUDGING?
.
.
Please submit your response in a 250 word written essay, Word format, due Friday by the end of 5th period . .
.

I would be very anxious to see how the "scale" IMAC planes do at a scale event. Take the new Carden Pro and sit in next to any Extra 300 on the planet. I bet you would be hard pressed to find many people who didn't know what it was supposed to be to tell you that it is scale. I understand that it is "theoretically" inside 10%, but come on, that plane looks NOTHING like an Extra 300.

Arch

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keith I love your sense of humor.

Tim

Very helpful comment. But I certainly would hope to see insightful and educated posts.

Arch,
The cardens are optimized for IMAC without the restriction of the 2m rule. None of them are under 5kg. The context of the discussion is pattern. I was not mentioning it in my previous posts.

QC, I understand your point. Mine was simply stating that IMAC is starting to modify their designs to more closely match pattern planes. Granted, they aren't there yet, and they aren't governed by the 2m rule, but their argument of scale aerobatics is starting to go away. They are becoming big aerobatic planes, rather than scale.

Personally I still don't see a reason to change the weight rule. The 4oz limit was helpful to several people this year, although due to logistical issues (no one to help after the worlds), intermediate and advanced weren't even weighed. And in reference to Tim's comment that there is no penalty. There CLEARLY is, when it says the CD has the authority to disqualify anyone over weight. I think this also is what allows the discretion of not weighing at every contest. I really don't think anyone in contention at the NATS was close to the weight limit as more and more planes are comfortably under weight.

Arch

Just throwing out a % penalty to your total score before normalization for being over-weight.

Over the max weight in your class, pay for it but a 10% reduction in raw score, or 15 or whatever.

Chuck

Disqualification of a model entered in one thing. Disqualification of the competitor, as can happen in Finals, is quite another.

Minimum or maximum word count?

Median word count.

Arch and I have had this conversation a few times.

He and I talk a lot and sometimes he brings out points I didn't think of and those points have seen me change my mind.

We disagree on this one.

There is NO rule in the rule book stating what the penalty for breaking weight is.

Having read the book a few times I'm sure it's not there.

Over voltage - yes (Loss of round)

Over noise - Yes (Loss of a % of score depending on violation.)

Over weight - Nope (Except for the Masters Finals)


This Nats had the CD decide the penalty for this Nats was to DQ the pilot. I think that's a bit harsh and a bit over reaching by a CD.

I for one think the penalty should be stated in the rule book in black and white.
No argument then.

I think loss of the just flown round would be fine. I also think weighing should be random chance rather than weighing everybody, that would eliminate the need for a lot of help to process airplanes. Masters has a "In the rule book" rule on breaking weight in Masters finals.
I'm just asking for the same for the other classes.

Tim