How does not checking weight at a contest make the rule less applicable? I'm sure there have been airplanes flown at local contests that have been over 2m in one or both directions, because I've heard of more than one instance of people having to cut the back off of their rudder during a courtesy length check after they got to the NATS. We also don't check sound at local contests, so that rule, by your logic here, should be dismissed as well.

Regarding the Ventura, I didn't buy replacement hardware, I bought hardware. From Du-Bro (mostly black oxide hardware, no titanium, no aluminum, not even for axles- those were a 6-32 bolt). To build the airplane that didn't have all of the hardware included because it was a kit bought second-hand from Quique. The only place where I perhaps saved weight was replacing the coarse-braided pull-pull cable with 80lb test fishing line leader from Gander Mountain, because I was too cheap to buy the stuff Du-Bro sells at K/C. I'm not sure if you have been to K/C in your ventures to fly up with Steve, but they don't have anything in the way of exotic materials. At all. I did nothing to go out of my way to get a large, 2m fully painted electric biplane built. Perhaps I have more attention to detail than most, and I am wired to be more careful about stuff that's not necessary; but to me I didn't spend any obscene amounts if time grinding stuff away. This airplane was heavier in that it had Herex as the substrate, rather than the balsa that was on one of the airplanes, which was about a 100g penalty. The most exotic thing in that airplane was the package of 2oz carbon cloth that was packaged and bought at my LHS to use to laminate on the aircraft ply I used for the firewall, since firewalls are not provided in Oxai airplanes. I did it as much for looks as I did for strength.

Sorry, I don't see how you're getting that I'm arguing to remove the weight rule.

Probably the single biggest factor in cost are batteries for an electric airplane. To me, getting something that is not heavier than your car battery is a risk you take when you decide to fly electric. You receive little to no benefit flying electric in lower classes, IMO. This comes from my experience flying an OS 1.40 RX until I got to Masters, where I was a little too lazy to try and fly ahead of the pipe in some of the maneuvers, chiefly the Figure M.

Even if you spend more money to get lighter components to offset using lower quality batteries, or a heavier motor, you're still cheaper than buying a ZN Line kit, or even a PL Prod kit from 10 years ago.

Again, you know what you're getting into beforehand. You can pick up a cheap, good glow airplane (with a YS) and with a little bit of practice, go smoke everyone. It's all in how you choose to get there.

So who is going to submit another rules proposal on weight? LOL.

I believe it is rules proposal time again starting next week.

It won't be me again this time.

And it definitely won't be me.

.

I generally try to avoid this discussion whenever I can but I agree with Ryan. We only have three real limits and they are pretty clear.

In practice, there aren't any real limits as all three are never checked except for one contest, and even there only for a few finalist in Masters class.

It a HONNOR to meet rulebook. If pilot knows that plane does not meet AMA or FAI requirements he should fix the plane before participating in local contest. If pilot participate knowing that his equipment does not meet the rulebook he is cheating.

I understand that noise level is more difficult to measure. However, no excuse for cheking is plane is below 5 kg and 2 meter. Noise becomes evident so is not an issue.

I am not one to beat a dead horse so just so I am in the know...If their is a 2meter rule in place, what is the purpose of the weight rule? Maybe I am just not understanding. There has to be a good reason, right? Is it a safety issue?

Sometimes the only answer is "because that's the way we do it".

In every other nook and cranny of the world where pattern is flown - from Norway to Nigeria to Malaysia to South Africa to Bora Bora - these rules are simply understood and followed because that is what we, as a collective community of like-minded hobbyists, have agreed that we will do.

Seems to work everywhere but with a small minority here.

The 2012 Nats ED has indicated that weight check will be a priority this year, so any of us thinking about going to the Nats should mind our grams, centimeters and decibels, just like every other pattern flier in the world.

This reminds me of the many conversations I've had as an element of my professsional life.Any justification for a rule/activity that is enforced/performedwhichamounts to "because that's the way we do it" or "everyone does it" immediately raises red flags.

The interactions/conversations typically go something like this ...<span style="font-size: 9pt">

Q: Your process, means and methods were analyzedand we found you do "X" but we are unable to determine thevalue in doing "X".Maybewe missed something. Please explain why you do "X"?
A: We have always done "X".

Q. But what purpose does "X" serve? How does doing "X" improve the quality of your mission/business?
A. Well, when I came herewe were doing "X". Now that I'm in chargewe continue to do "X" because I see no reason to stop doing it. In fact, I have instituted improvements to do "X" better.

Q. Interesting. So how does doing "X" better impact your bottom line?
A. Well, we instituted changes and are doing a much better job of accomplishing "X".Wecut costs by 1/4 and aremore efficient at doing &ldquo;X&rdquo;.

Q. So you cliam you have improved how you do "X", but you can&rsquo;t correlate those improvements in terms of bottom-line benefit to yourmission/business.
A. Well, if you put it that way, no we have not.

Q. OK. You broughtus in to review your process and suggest improvements.We find no mission/business justification for the investment you make to do "X".We recommend you stop doing "X". Will you give it a try?
A. No, we can't possibly do that. We have always done "X", everyone else does X,and I'm not about to change it. Besides, I can find many people around here that can explain why we do "X". Perhaps not to your satisfaction. But we do HAVE OUR REASONS.


As a relatively newparticipant in the pattern communityI'mmonitoring this discourse from a cost/benefit "value-added"perspective. RIX is asking the right questions. But he is getting no meaningful answers. Responses - yes. Answers - no. Each ruleshould directly achieve or contribute to achievement of anobjective and should have rationale for how it is intended to acheive that objective.Doing so provides themeans to "test" the rule periodically to determine if it is serving its intended purpose - and provides a platform for subsequent improvement of the "overall process".

Anyone subjectedto adherence to the rule should be able to obtain aclear statement of objective and rationalefor that rule.
</span>

Google FAI, F3A, CIAM, RULES and read up.

There is a long history and a rationale behind every rule - ranging from safety, to transportability of models, noise, etc etc etc, that have been debated extensively in the world pattern community.

Going through that history and the debates is a pointless exercise. Surely there was strenuous objection to every one of them when they were being discussed, and their impact on participation was considered. However, at the end of the discussions a consensus was reached and here we are.

And where we are is pretty good. What other competitive activity has only THREE rules regarding the equipment used, for crying out loud?

There is a FAI rules proposal process through the NSRCA/AMA. If you don't like the rules, that is the proper channel to work through.

SO well stated! I spent 30+ years going through the same processes. Fortunastely most of my career was spent with a company that not only encouraged this thought process but demanded it.

My understanding of the weight rule of FAI is to indirectly restrict the use of fancy power system, as by the FAI rules, there is no limitation for F3A engine type ore size. The AMA weight rule likely is derived from the FAI counterpart and allows the US pattern community and industry to be in sync with the rest of the world.

By the way, the 115g extra allowance over 5000g from the AMA rule does permit one to use slightly heavy parts/components at non-master level competitions. So AMA does relax the weight limit a little bit.

This is the what the debate is all about. When enough of the "we've always done X that way" people become convinced by the weight of the arguments that the rules are counter productive then the various organization's leaders will correct them.

Actually there are at least six compliance items:

1. weight
2. size
3. sound
4. identification (4.7)
5. spinner (6.5)
6. knife-edge wings (6.6)

...and anything deemed unsafe (6.1)

It will be a huge discontinuity between AMA and FAI if the same weight limit is removed. If somebody ever wanted to move to F3A, he has to assure his planes are under 5000grams. Worse, he has to regain/retrain the skill set for flying a lighter plane.

Not really, eventually FAI will eliminate the weight rule too if it's counter productive and there is a demand to change.
And a prosapective FAI flyer always has the option of flying a less than 5Kg plane. As a matter of fact top AMA flyers in all classes will want to fly the lightest planes possible weighing the cost/benfits of doing so. But removing the 5Kg requirement at least allows others to compete for less cost if they choose.

The 5 Kg rule is probably the most universal FAI rule (could be considered a limit to define RC model airplane for international competition ). There is only one exception for scale planes that allow a little more for obvious reasons. Looks like is going to be very difficult to increase this limit in FAI. We already did in AMA so I don't see what is the problem for the AMA Master class.

One post earlier on the weight of a Vanquish 2M indicates that the total weight is pretty much within the 5115g limit. So the plane is AMA Nats-legal up to Advanced. To shave the extra 115g, one can use lighter CF prop, spinner, and small-capacity receiver battery etc. The extra cost to do so would not be that high.

The FAI weight rule is to restrict people from using powerful and fancy engines, which could increase the cost of entering the game for everybody. I doubt the removal of it will be considered.

Well said.

As an outsider (one who hasn't ever competed in a pattern contest) but one who sometimes likes to fly sleek planes in "pattern like" fashion, I'm watching this thread with interest.

My profession also benefits from a proclivity to question rules and processes. As a software engineer, I'm developing and testing to specs and continually changing things. We're "programmed" to find a better way. "That's just the way WE are."

So when someone says there is MAXIMUM weight rule for which few have any knowledge about it does beg for a better answer than simply tradition.

For those who care, here is my 2 cents:

I'm mostly a sport pilot. I'm toying with the idea of "maybe someday" competing in pattern. At this point in life I'm torn 10 different ways and between work, sports and various other aspects of my RC hobby and I can't devote time to practice to the extent I deem necessary to give formal pattern an honest effort. So the fleeting idea of attending the NATS or any pattern contest in the near future made me avoid taking this or the current NSRCA survey. I'm simply looking to you guys for inspiration and soaking up whatever I can to appreciate the culture of pattern.

I also really like to understand how features of the planes we fly play to various maneuvers (and rules) in pattern. I'm intrigued by the idea of biplanes in pattern. Would they really be that much heavier and expensive? Is the thought of encouraging(?) bipes that despicable? (would you NEED one to be competitive because bipes present better in the air?) Would that make things too complex and deter event participation because the perception of needing a 2M bipe to compete would scare away would be particpants?

At the risk of sidetracking this thread, I would like to propose a question based on a real world subject:

I see that Donatas Pauzuolis won the 2009 FAI World Air Games in Turin, Italy Flying the Extreme Flight 78" Extra 300.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5b6r...layer_embedded

I also see that Donatas chose a 78" (2M) plane but needed to take extreme measures to abide by the 5KG weight rule (compared to what most other flyers of this plane are achieving, as most EF Extras weigh about 13 lbs).

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showp...&postcount=694

I believe the FAI weight limit applies to this competition, as it does for FAI pattern (and thus is why folks are saying "that's the way it is" == it is simply trickled down as a known established "safe" and "stable" rule for which the world has come to expect and rely.)

It seems probable Donatas would rather have more power for his routine, but that would have dictated a larger setup than 6S. The current trend is for folks to outfit that Extra with a 10S system (same 5 AH config as most 2M pattern birds), bringing it to ~13 lbs. I'd wager even at 13 lbs, a practiced flyer could do very well in pattern with this plane, but I understand at the highest levels, a "pattern style" bird would most likely win due to the specialized design features favoring "pattern" aerobatics vs 3D or freestyle capability.

I've heard the argument : "you're only hurting yourself" if you choose to fly a heavier plane. IF that extra weight is applied within the 2M cube to add power, extra wings (drag), or whatever else is desired, how is that unfair? If not unfair, how is it undesirable?

Without a true understanding for what rules are meant to enforce, I don't think anyone can really answer this question. So traditionalists will simply avoid this entire argument.

I applaud Michael and Bob's comments above. But I think at the very least, it is fun to speculate. And I enjoy the opportunity to do so with you all. I'm not saying we SHOULD change the rules, but of course it does seem attractive to eliminate whatever seems unproductive. Yet I also see and appreciate an argument for stability.

When I Google "FAI 5 KG weight limit" I get a few sites in RCU, but not too much beyond this:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10...m.htm#10162438
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_26...tm.htm#2690495

"Googling" the history of FAI rules outside a forum such as this does not give one the "cultural appreciation" of why and how the rules came into being. And to Michael's point, if we don't know why, shouldn't we find out?

Joe Chovan
Syracuse, NY
NSRCA 4433

It was my Vanquish you are referring too and one would need to use $100 per pack (or more) lipos to get in a comfortable weight (4998) to fly advanced at the Nats and only gives you a 2gram cushion to fly Masters. I doubt anyone would take a plane weighing 4998 to the Nats hoping to fly Masters. If I used the less expensive $50 zippy lipos it gets you in at 5107 or so and again is just to close for comfort flying advanced and puts you over for flying Masters and this is my whole point in the discussion. I am fine for flying advanced if I want too as I have the $100 and the $50 packs already. The weight rule is forcing more expense on everyone for no apparent reason. I am not speaking to the guys that have already made the sacrifice and have spent the money to make weight, including myself. I am looking from a point of view of new guys coming in, the guys that have been priced out and have left and everyone else in-between.

I do realize that this new market that the Vanquish, Osiris and even the Monologue is opening up to us as viable competitive alternatives is in its infancy and it will take time for the benefits to be apparent. So my only argument is why should a new guy or anyone else for that matter be forced to throw out quality hardware that comes with these kits, purchase expensive lipos, props, spinners....etc to compete at the Nats? There is a perception that the expense to meet weight is not that great, but if you start adding it all up you are getting into significant cost. Batteries alone are twice as much. $600 or more versus $300 for three sets. A $15 high performance prop versus a $90 lighter prop and so forth. If one wanted to buy two of these kits, one for backup, then the numbers get worse. And for what reason? If anyone can give me a reasonable answer, I would gladly run to one of my favorite pattern outlets and start shopping so I could make weight to fly Masters at a National level with one of these kits. The market is changing and the rules should change with it for the benefit of the pattern community as a whole.

Here's some of the problems in Masters Class.
1. Pilot X wins the 2012 Nationals in Advanced with a 5,100 gr plane. Next year he is required to or wants to move to Masters Class. It's going to cost him $$$$ to fix his weight problem. For what benefit?
2. Pilot X shows up at a contest with 5.100 gr. plane and he's the only pilot entered in Advanced. Rather than fly by himself, he decides to compete in Masters. OOOOPS! Not legal!
3. Pilot X with a 5,100 gr. plane wants to give Masters a try at a local contest to see if he's ready to move up. OOOOPS! Not legal!
4. Masters pilot Y mid airs at a contest. Want's to fly his buddy Pilot X plane the rest of the contest which he has flown in practice and is familier with. OOOOPS! Not legal!

Lots of bad unintended consequences to the rule change for the lower classes perhaps? I think it was a bad change. All AMA classes should fly by the same rules IMO