Pattern weight rule - why?
08-25-2011 | 05:31 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Member
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Live Oak,
CA
Pattern weight rule - why?
Hi folks
I'm new to pattern - flying a Venus with YS 110S. I'm curious as to why there is a max weight limit rule in Pattern? It would seem that given the 2x2m rule that excess weight would just degrade performance anyway...
Any thoughts?
Jack
I'm new to pattern - flying a Venus with YS 110S. I'm curious as to why there is a max weight limit rule in Pattern? It would seem that given the 2x2m rule that excess weight would just degrade performance anyway...
Any thoughts?
Jack
08-25-2011 | 05:38 PM
#3
Senior Member
My Feedback: (25)
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
It was established by an elite, secretive group of fun police to limit people's enjoyment of pattern. 
I think it goes hand in hand with the size rules. Remember, F3A is much bigger in the rest of the world than it is over in the US. There are size and noise constrictions in the rest of the world that we don't have over here. Some of the old(er) timers can tell when all of this transpired.
I think it goes hand in hand with the size rules. Remember, F3A is much bigger in the rest of the world than it is over in the US. There are size and noise constrictions in the rest of the world that we don't have over here. Some of the old(er) timers can tell when all of this transpired.
08-25-2011 | 05:38 PM
#4
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: USA
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
ORIGINAL: jetmech43
same reason nascar has rules, or other sports rules are rules
same reason nascar has rules, or other sports rules are rules
I agree with your response 100% !
Perhaps "jackalope54" is unaware of the FAI .
Certainly sounds that way.
08-25-2011 | 06:15 PM
#5
Thread Starter
Member
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Live Oak,
CA
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
Onewasp and jetmech43 -
I'm aware that the FAI is the governing body for pattern and I know that all sports have rules. For the most part these rules serve to level the playing field. Motorsports have MINIMUM weight rules for this purpose (and to help control costs). But if I wanted to build a 6,000 lb NASCAR I would be allowed but I'm sure it would be too slow to qualify given the engine restrictions. I could also build a 20 lb 2X2m plane but it wouldn't fly worth beans. I can understand the size and noise restrictions - just don't know what a MAX weight rule accomplishes.
Jack
I'm aware that the FAI is the governing body for pattern and I know that all sports have rules. For the most part these rules serve to level the playing field. Motorsports have MINIMUM weight rules for this purpose (and to help control costs). But if I wanted to build a 6,000 lb NASCAR I would be allowed but I'm sure it would be too slow to qualify given the engine restrictions. I could also build a 20 lb 2X2m plane but it wouldn't fly worth beans. I can understand the size and noise restrictions - just don't know what a MAX weight rule accomplishes.
Jack
08-25-2011 | 06:20 PM
#6
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
The weight rule limits the powerplant of the airplane, and it keeps everybody on the same kind of advantage/disadvantage in very strong wind or no wind, at the same time all pattern planes tend to be similar, thus bringing some equity to competitors.
Regards
Alejandro P.
Regards
Alejandro P.
08-25-2011 | 06:45 PM
#7
Thread Starter
Member
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Live Oak,
CA
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
Thanks Alejandro - that makes some sense. I can see how a 6kg plane versus a 5kg plane could have an advantage in the wind.
Thanks for the reply!
Thanks for the reply!
08-25-2011 | 07:30 PM
#8
My Feedback: (50)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bolivia, NC
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
ORIGINAL: apereira
The weight rule limits the powerplant of the airplane, and it keeps everybody on the same kind of advantage/disadvantage in very strong wind or no wind, at the same time all pattern planes tend to be similar, thus bringing some equity to competitors.
Regards
Alejandro P.
The weight rule limits the powerplant of the airplane, and it keeps everybody on the same kind of advantage/disadvantage in very strong wind or no wind, at the same time all pattern planes tend to be similar, thus bringing some equity to competitors.
Regards
Alejandro P.
The way the rule is applied to electrics and glow is grossly unfair to electric power. Most Glow planes take off at well above the 5kg limit with a full tank of fuel.
The other thing it does is drive up the cost of our planes trying to meet the 5kg max. Expensive carbon fiber parts, expensive construction techniques, expensive lightweight radio equipment, props, landing gear, etc. And a heavy airplane never flys as well as a light one even in the wind IMO.
The USA should show some leadership in this issue by eliminating the 5kg rule in AMA classes and perhaps FAI would see fit to change also.
Give me a minute to get my flame suit on!
Dave
08-25-2011 | 07:47 PM
#9
Senior Member
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
ORIGINAL: jackalope54
Thanks Alejandro - that makes some sense. I can see how a 6kg plane versus a 5kg plane could have an advantage in the wind.
Thanks for the reply!
Thanks Alejandro - that makes some sense. I can see how a 6kg plane versus a 5kg plane could have an advantage in the wind.
Thanks for the reply!
As far as power goes, electric is pushing 3.5KW in the better set-ups. It won't be long with battery advances that are coming to be pushing 4 KW...that's well over 5 HP. These will make weight too. Won't be cheap but top guys will "buy" them and lower tier guys will follow. Are these necessary? No. But that's progress.
Hell, I'm in process of stuffing DLE 55 on pipe in 2 m pattern plane. Weight is comparable to some electrics. Juuuust a couple ounces over 11#. That's 6 HP and overkill but why not. The 2 m is larger than the rest areawise. No tinsy weensy little winglets on this bird.
08-25-2011 | 08:56 PM
#10
Thread Starter
Member
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Live Oak,
CA
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
Okay - thanks Dave and MattK - your responses are in line with the little I have learned so far - the lighter the wing loading the better. Thought there might be something different with pattern planes given Alejandro's response. And I agree Dave - electrics (and ultimately consumers) pay a HUGE price requiring them to make weight with batteries (their fuel) while IC gets to weigh without fuel.
By the way, I play a lot of golf so I'm fully aware of the foot-dragging a ruling body can show in updating rules but this rule (and its prejudicial application) seems one of those that requires immediate reconsideration.
DLE 55 in a pattern plane??? Sounds like fun!
Jack
By the way, I play a lot of golf so I'm fully aware of the foot-dragging a ruling body can show in updating rules but this rule (and its prejudicial application) seems one of those that requires immediate reconsideration.
DLE 55 in a pattern plane??? Sounds like fun!
Jack
08-26-2011 | 02:05 AM
#11
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Agawam,
MA
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
Hi Jack,
It is a common misconception that the 2x2 rule limits size. Place a Summit from the 90’s next to an Axiome of today and you get the point. Your 20lb 2x2 biplane may do just fine!
The weight rules are debated every rule cycle (every 2 years); I promise you no one is dragging their feet. The governing body is you (as an AMA member.) Sorry, no secretive group Ryan (I know you were joking!) The last cycle (for 2011/2012), an update was passed to allow for an increase in all AMA classes except Masters.
To the community…does anyone know if any Intermediate or Advance fliers at the Nat’s took advantage of (or needed) the increase? Can anyone comment as to this rule change directly affecting them?
It is a common misconception that the 2x2 rule limits size. Place a Summit from the 90’s next to an Axiome of today and you get the point. Your 20lb 2x2 biplane may do just fine!
The weight rules are debated every rule cycle (every 2 years); I promise you no one is dragging their feet. The governing body is you (as an AMA member.) Sorry, no secretive group Ryan (I know you were joking!) The last cycle (for 2011/2012), an update was passed to allow for an increase in all AMA classes except Masters.
To the community…does anyone know if any Intermediate or Advance fliers at the Nat’s took advantage of (or needed) the increase? Can anyone comment as to this rule change directly affecting them?
08-26-2011 | 03:41 AM
#12
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: hot springs, AR
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
i agree there is no compelling reason for the weight rule. i was at the world championships and i talked to representatives of the fai committee from different countries about that very issue and all were opposed to it, but more for personal bias rather than scientific reason. the electric issue is particularly disturbing and reflects an attitude of negativity toward electrics. i agree that AMA needs to forge ahead and make its own weight changes to improve the sport. we continue to do things to drive more nails in the casket.
mike
mike
08-26-2011 | 04:03 AM
#13
My Feedback: (31)
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
If weight were an advantage we'd all be flying Glow. We could easily add 2-3 pounds of fuel as needed to fly in the wind.
I submit glow is actually flying at a disadvantage because they take off at a much higher weight and that weight changes through out the flight.
FAI and AMA have nothing to do with each other outside we fly the same airplanes. They don't share sequences nor do they share the same rule book for downgrades. I assure you the FAI could care less what AMA does in it's classes.
As far as the Nats, no one weighed a single airplane in Int or Advance during the contest. Most likely due to the fact they didn't have enough workers on that site to do them. Didn't check noise either.
Thats another rule that needs to go away. Who checks noise? Anyone?
The rule book needs to be gone over yet again and bring it in line with reality. If we're going to have rules in the rule book that are not followed even at the Nats why have them in the rule book in the first place?
Tim
I submit glow is actually flying at a disadvantage because they take off at a much higher weight and that weight changes through out the flight.
FAI and AMA have nothing to do with each other outside we fly the same airplanes. They don't share sequences nor do they share the same rule book for downgrades. I assure you the FAI could care less what AMA does in it's classes.
As far as the Nats, no one weighed a single airplane in Int or Advance during the contest. Most likely due to the fact they didn't have enough workers on that site to do them. Didn't check noise either.
Thats another rule that needs to go away. Who checks noise? Anyone?
The rule book needs to be gone over yet again and bring it in line with reality. If we're going to have rules in the rule book that are not followed even at the Nats why have them in the rule book in the first place?
Tim
08-26-2011 | 05:27 AM
#15
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ossining,
NY
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
One (at least) good thing that has come from the weight limit is that it has fostered innovation in materials, design and performance of airframes, engines and electrical systems.
Would anyone have dreamed 15 years ago that there would be e-powered models that would be able to compete on an equal footing with IC-powered models while flying sequences such as the P and F?
Would anyone have dreamed 15 years ago that there would be e-powered models that would be able to compete on an equal footing with IC-powered models while flying sequences such as the P and F?
08-26-2011 | 06:15 AM
#16
My Feedback: (29)
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
Back in the late 80's I was told that the 5KG weight limit was based on what the airlines at that time would allow you check in as baggage. From what I was told, it allowed a typical pattern airplane ( Less fuel of course ) to be crated up and checked in at the counter thus traveling with the owner rather then being shipped and arriving days or weeks in advance. This would have eliminated the need to arrange someone to pick them up and store them until the pilot arrived.
08-26-2011 | 06:23 AM
#17
My Feedback: (31)
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
Those innovations would have come along in any case. They've also increased the cost of pattern exponentially.
FAI Drives the design of what we fly and always will. Those designs will trickle down to the lower classes in every case. Too bad we buy $2,000-$5,000 air frames then spend another $500-$700 making weight with the thing. If you want to show up and fly a 12 pound airplane by all means have at it. Why should anyone care?
We could easily make airplanes under weight by simply limiting all classes, below Masters, to a 110 size but we can't do that because it would obsolete over 1/2 of the pattern guys airplanes over night.
The entire reason we're at the junction we find ourselves now is due to FAI, it's that simple.
To keep those who have flown FAI for decades interested they've had to make the sequence harder and and more difficult every few years. If one looks back at FAI when turn around first started Advance of today isn't any harder. Mission creep has been the single biggest drag on our sport. It's a never ending cycle.
Why should we (AMA) even bother to follow the ruling body that has control over only 3 guys we send to one contest every other year? Sort of silly if you ask me.
Everything must evolve or die, sometimes what comes next isn't what we expected nor wanted.
Tim
FAI Drives the design of what we fly and always will. Those designs will trickle down to the lower classes in every case. Too bad we buy $2,000-$5,000 air frames then spend another $500-$700 making weight with the thing. If you want to show up and fly a 12 pound airplane by all means have at it. Why should anyone care?
We could easily make airplanes under weight by simply limiting all classes, below Masters, to a 110 size but we can't do that because it would obsolete over 1/2 of the pattern guys airplanes over night.
The entire reason we're at the junction we find ourselves now is due to FAI, it's that simple.
To keep those who have flown FAI for decades interested they've had to make the sequence harder and and more difficult every few years. If one looks back at FAI when turn around first started Advance of today isn't any harder. Mission creep has been the single biggest drag on our sport. It's a never ending cycle.
Why should we (AMA) even bother to follow the ruling body that has control over only 3 guys we send to one contest every other year? Sort of silly if you ask me.
Everything must evolve or die, sometimes what comes next isn't what we expected nor wanted.
Tim
08-26-2011 | 06:29 AM
#18
My Feedback: (31)
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
In "Way back time" FAI decided 5k was the limit for a models weight anything above that wasn't considered a model. It was nothing more than an arbitrary number they picked out at the time.
That's the answer given years ago in some magazine the AMA puts out.
Tim
That's the answer given years ago in some magazine the AMA puts out.
Tim
08-26-2011 | 06:53 AM
#19
My Feedback: (10)
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Collierville,
TN
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
.
Actually, it was back in the days before printing presses, when scribes would sit in dark halls of the church and copy the FAI Sporting Code and AMA Competition Guides word for word with quill ink pens by dim candle light.
.
Apparently a typo (write-o, copy-o??) was made when one of the new scribes was copying the word "minimus" , and wrote "maximus" instead.
.
Yes, in those days the rules for pattern were written in Latin . .
.
So get over it Ye Plebes of the Proletariat and Eat your Gruel . . . .
.
Actually, it was back in the days before printing presses, when scribes would sit in dark halls of the church and copy the FAI Sporting Code and AMA Competition Guides word for word with quill ink pens by dim candle light.
.
Apparently a typo (write-o, copy-o??) was made when one of the new scribes was copying the word "minimus" , and wrote "maximus" instead.
.
Yes, in those days the rules for pattern were written in Latin . .
.
So get over it Ye Plebes of the Proletariat and Eat your Gruel . . . .
.
08-26-2011 | 06:59 AM
#21
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
I manned the courtesy scales the day before the nats started and can say with certainty that there were several people in intermediate and advanced that took advantage of the 115g allowance. I think that rule is great for the lower classes. It promotes lower entry costs to the sport because a lot of those guys get their airplanes from masters and FAI pilots that have some worn out airframes. They can also use some of the cheaper/heavier alternatives for airframes and power plants.
That being said, eliminating the weight rule would be unwise in my opinion. The best and the brightest will always figure out how to take advantage of any relaxation of restrictions. Whatever they come up with will soon become "must have" for everybody and it won't be cheap, I promise. General size of the airplanes will grow. Right now were flying models at 4.7-5.05 kilos and with 74-76" wingspans. Get rid of the weight rule and we can increase the wing span, slap on a YS 200 CDI or use 50c 6000mAh batteries, and increase wing span/area to achieve the same wing loading with a bigger airframe (I'm sure we've all heard the term "bigger flies better"). Oh, and since the airplane is a bit heavier we better increase that side area on the fuse, or slap another wing on and really go to town. Before you know it, everyone at the top is flying 6kg biplanes with bigger, more powerful, more expensive power plants and we've all figured out that a moveable canard on the front and back of the fuse helps land our snaps better and gives us better control in crosswind conditions. Do you want to guess what that airplane would cost from Oxai? Christophe doesn't care, he got his for free! (nothing against that of course, just making a point) You think $5,000 is a lot of money for an airframe? Chump change.
Im not against taking a second look at the rule and maybe implementing it in a slightly different way to take electric power plants into consideration, but those of you who just want to throw it out the window because you can't make weight are barking up the wrong tree. It seems like this gets discussed once a week on this forum. Somebody needs to sticky one of these threads.
That being said, eliminating the weight rule would be unwise in my opinion. The best and the brightest will always figure out how to take advantage of any relaxation of restrictions. Whatever they come up with will soon become "must have" for everybody and it won't be cheap, I promise. General size of the airplanes will grow. Right now were flying models at 4.7-5.05 kilos and with 74-76" wingspans. Get rid of the weight rule and we can increase the wing span, slap on a YS 200 CDI or use 50c 6000mAh batteries, and increase wing span/area to achieve the same wing loading with a bigger airframe (I'm sure we've all heard the term "bigger flies better"). Oh, and since the airplane is a bit heavier we better increase that side area on the fuse, or slap another wing on and really go to town. Before you know it, everyone at the top is flying 6kg biplanes with bigger, more powerful, more expensive power plants and we've all figured out that a moveable canard on the front and back of the fuse helps land our snaps better and gives us better control in crosswind conditions. Do you want to guess what that airplane would cost from Oxai? Christophe doesn't care, he got his for free! (nothing against that of course, just making a point) You think $5,000 is a lot of money for an airframe? Chump change.
Im not against taking a second look at the rule and maybe implementing it in a slightly different way to take electric power plants into consideration, but those of you who just want to throw it out the window because you can't make weight are barking up the wrong tree. It seems like this gets discussed once a week on this forum. Somebody needs to sticky one of these threads.
08-26-2011 | 07:14 AM
#22
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
ORIGINAL: bwick
I manned the courtesy scales the day before the nats started and can say with certainty that there were several people in intermediate and advanced that took advantage of the 115g allowance. I think that rule is great for the lower classes. It promotes lower entry costs to the sport because a lot of those guys get their airplanes from masters and FAI pilots that have some worn out airframes. They can also use some of the cheaper/heavier alternatives for airframes and power plants.
That being said, eliminating the weight rule would be unwise in my opinion. The best and the brightest will always figure out how to take advantage of any relaxation of restrictions. Whatever they come up with will soon become ''must have'' for everybody and it won't be cheap, I promise. General size of the airplanes will grow. Right now were flying models at 4.7-5.05 kilos and with 74-76'' wingspans. Get rid of the weight rule and we can increase the wing span, slap on a YS 200 CDI or use 50c 6000mAh batteries, and increase wing span/area to achieve the same wing loading with a bigger airframe (I'm sure we've all heard the term ''bigger flies better''). Oh, and since the airplane is a bit heavier we better increase that side area on the fuse, or slap another wing on and really go to town. Before you know it, everyone at the top is flying 6kg biplanes with bigger, more powerful, more expensive power plants and we've all figured out that a moveable canard on the front and back of the fuse helps land our snaps better and gives us better control in crosswind conditions. Do you want to guess what that airplane would cost from Oxai? Christophe doesn't care, he got his for free! (nothing against that of course, just making a point) You think $5,000 is a lot of money for an airframe? Chump change.
Im not against taking a second look at the rule and maybe implementing it in a slightly different way to take electric power plants into consideration, but those of you who just want to throw it out the window because you can't make weight are barking up the wrong tree. It seems like this gets discussed once a week on this forum. Somebody needs to sticky one of these threads.
I manned the courtesy scales the day before the nats started and can say with certainty that there were several people in intermediate and advanced that took advantage of the 115g allowance. I think that rule is great for the lower classes. It promotes lower entry costs to the sport because a lot of those guys get their airplanes from masters and FAI pilots that have some worn out airframes. They can also use some of the cheaper/heavier alternatives for airframes and power plants.
That being said, eliminating the weight rule would be unwise in my opinion. The best and the brightest will always figure out how to take advantage of any relaxation of restrictions. Whatever they come up with will soon become ''must have'' for everybody and it won't be cheap, I promise. General size of the airplanes will grow. Right now were flying models at 4.7-5.05 kilos and with 74-76'' wingspans. Get rid of the weight rule and we can increase the wing span, slap on a YS 200 CDI or use 50c 6000mAh batteries, and increase wing span/area to achieve the same wing loading with a bigger airframe (I'm sure we've all heard the term ''bigger flies better''). Oh, and since the airplane is a bit heavier we better increase that side area on the fuse, or slap another wing on and really go to town. Before you know it, everyone at the top is flying 6kg biplanes with bigger, more powerful, more expensive power plants and we've all figured out that a moveable canard on the front and back of the fuse helps land our snaps better and gives us better control in crosswind conditions. Do you want to guess what that airplane would cost from Oxai? Christophe doesn't care, he got his for free! (nothing against that of course, just making a point) You think $5,000 is a lot of money for an airframe? Chump change.
Im not against taking a second look at the rule and maybe implementing it in a slightly different way to take electric power plants into consideration, but those of you who just want to throw it out the window because you can't make weight are barking up the wrong tree. It seems like this gets discussed once a week on this forum. Somebody needs to sticky one of these threads.
08-26-2011 | 07:29 AM
#23
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: hot springs, AR
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
i agree with Brett. i am not advocating elimination of the rule, i just want it updated to fit the current models and batteries. give a little breathing room.
mike
mike
08-26-2011 | 07:38 AM
#24
My Feedback: (31)
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
To be clear Brett,
I'm talking AMA rules, not FAI. Aircraft design is almost exclusively done by FAI Pilots to compete in FAI.
Every other class is just an after thought. There will always be creep in cost and design in FAI it goes with the territory.
Tim
I'm talking AMA rules, not FAI. Aircraft design is almost exclusively done by FAI Pilots to compete in FAI.
Every other class is just an after thought. There will always be creep in cost and design in FAI it goes with the territory.
Tim
08-26-2011 | 09:22 AM
#25
Senior Member
RE: Pattern weight rule - why?
ORIGINAL: drmike
i agree that AMA needs to forge ahead and make its own weight changes to improve the sport. we continue to do things to drive more nails in the casket.
mike
i agree that AMA needs to forge ahead and make its own weight changes to improve the sport. we continue to do things to drive more nails in the casket.
mike
I think we die hard pattern folk who have been at it for decades, wish there is some magic pill, some magic formula that will help. I don't think that exists. E-power has been the most recent attempt. Did it improve overall participation? I don't believe so. Has it really improved overall flying quality or skill? Nope!
I agree with the part that we are driving nails in the casket. I am not convinced that the weight rule is the part of the legislation that is doing that. To the casual observer, the sport is simply too dull; I suspect that's the biggest issue. Getting rid of the dull factor is not trivial.
