Jetdesign

My Feedback: (8)

Wondering how the weight limits affect your participation at NATS, if at all.

cmoulder

I am seriously considering attending for the first time this year.

I don't anticipate any registration deadline issues or weight issues. At least not the model's weight.[&o]

Jetdesign

My Feedback: (8)

Same here

Ryan Smith

My Feedback: (25)

You're putting yourself at a disadvantage flying a heavy airplane to begin with. It's not hard to make weight with a pattern model. It doesn't take much money either, just a little attention to detail. I would venture to say that some of the more inexpensive offerings are among the lightest. Sorry, but this should be the least of anyone's concern.

MTK

My weight problem is legendary... But as far as I know, I have no weight limit imposed on me so the few times I participated I was considered overweight by my standard.

Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing anyone underweight there.....(VBG)

cmoulder

I have heard - no personal knowledge here - that some competitors believe there is an advantage when the wind is blowing hard, and may use a heavier battery or, in the case of glow power, a much larger fuel tank.

All urban legend, I'm sure.

pattratt

My Feedback: (1)

Should be a item for "An over weight aircraft gives a contestant NO ADVANTAGE over other contestants and we should remove weight rule.

Ryan Smith

My Feedback: (25)

A lighter airplane will fly better in the wind. A light airplane and a heavy airplane will both respond to disturbances in the air, but the light airplane will stabilize quicker than the heavier one. Having weight centrally located is much better than having extra weight distributed over the entire airframe, but it is still not advantageous.

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

While there is such a thing as too light, I've never understood the claim that a heavy airplane is an advantage in the wind. The concept seems to be that a heavy model doesn't get upset by the wind as easily as a light one. In a gust, perhaps that is true. However, in a relatively steady state wind, the heavy model is getting blown around just like the lighter one.

Icontend that a heavier model is a net disadvantage in the wind. Typically, we tend to fly faster in a heavy wind, and Ithink most understand why that is. And since we're flying faster, we tend to fly bigger so that we can manage the box and placement of maneuvers more easily. So the electric guys are using more battery energy per flight. We also want to keep the speeds as consistent as possible throughout the sequence. In a heavy wind, it obviously takes more power to maintain the pace in the uplines and various power hungry, tall figures. And it takes more braking effectiveness in the downlines, especially it it's a 45 degree downwind line that needs a large correction attitude. Add to this a heavier model, and the problems are compounded. If you lack vertical penetration "punch", then the correction angles will be more extreme (or your drift will be more extreme). Even though it's not supposed to matter, a figure drawn with a less extreme correction attitude is likely to get scored better. This all adds up in my mind to significantly offset any help that a heaver wing loading may provide by absorbing a little bit of movement in a gust.

jrpav1

My Feedback: (17)

Ed,
Very good analysis but according to my buddy Brett who flies warbirds - you're completely wrong. EVERYONE knows a heavier plane is stronger AND flies better! That's why you need to "beef" up your planes. Not only does it make them harder to fly (more like a full-scale warbird) but just in case you accidentally wind up in a tree when you're trying to land at a small field, going 100Mph on a windy day, you have a better chance of survival. A light (flimsy) airplane will crumble or worse yet, stay hung up in the tree. An aiplane that's built like a Mack truck will usually fall to the ground, pruning the tree on the way down. It normally just needs a good cleaning (pick all of the tree pieces out of the wing leading edge) and sometimes a new prop to get you flying again. LOL

Seriously, we all know why the weight rule is in place. The people who have issues with it should have their problems solved by the time they're ready for a National Competititon. I got your old Focus to make weight before I went to my first NAT's. It wasn't very hard to do nor was it expensive. The trip to Muncie cost far more - especially the beer tab. LOL

John Pavlick

glowplugboy

My Feedback: (17)

I weigh 250. Can I attend?

Mike

burtona

My Feedback: (50)

John,
Other than "It's always been that way", why is the weight rule in place?
"We" don't all know, at least I don't.
Dave

Columbus Ron

This poll is meaningless. We should get rid of the weight limit and keep the 2 m limit for all AMA classes. I don't buy the argument that the price of competition will go up but even if it did over a short period of time it would come back down to earth. If you want to fly a 2m boat anchor then go for it. If you want to fly a 2m feather that won't stand up to number of flights and stresses a pattern flyer puts on it then go for it. Don't make me buy a stick plane that will eventually fall apart because that is the cheapest and lightest construction technique.

bjr_93tz

I think the poll is fair enough.

Honest votes from the people that it's actually relevent to, can provide the organising body with some idea of how much the weight rule affects participation in such an important event.

The bickering and conjecture in the thread posts themselves probably isn't too helpful but makes for good reading. I have an opinion on how weight affects the flying performance of my ship but it's not really relevent to the thread.

I'd also suggest though that "dead" weight is of little advantage to a planes performance, but if it's not "dead" weight ie, bigger batteries, more powerful motor, better (but heavier) servos, heavier servo wires, more solid construction (added rigidity) then I'd say a bit of extra weight could yield an advantage over an underpowered, flimsy thing with micro servo's throughout because sombody went overboard with the epoxy, filler and paint during the build, or just couldn't get competition balsa.

I can say this, my ship feels just feels crisper to fly and has better speed regulation when the tank is nearly empty then it does when it's full (20oz tank). Design dry weight is 4.65-4.75kg, mine turned out about 5.2kg (It wasn't one of the cheap ARF's either)

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

Ron:
Light doesn't equal flimsy, provided that the structural design is sound, as well as the application of the right materials, in the right amounts, in the right places is done during fabrication. I can think of no better example of that than the Wistmodel Prestige and Bravo. I've flown my Prestiges with 2C, and more recently 4C recips for many hundreds of flights since 2006 and they are in fine shape. I'm almost embarrased to tell you what they weigh. It's justtoo easy to make weight, as long as the airframe manufacturer knows what they are doing. This entire controversy is simply a byproduct of a marketplace that isn't demanding enough from their suppliers.

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

The old Focus you got from me was my 2004 NATS backup, and was already making weight. It got weighed & measured, and I flew it on the final day in Advanced, since the Webra 160 in the primary was acting up. What did you do to reduce weight after that, remove beer bottles from the fuselage?

cmoulder

Ed, those Wistmodel products are amazing. You guys don't baby those things and they seem to beg for more.

Even my "cheap" (relatively speaking) e-powered Sickle with a Himax motor and Zippy batteries came in at 10lb 6oz with little effort or extra expense. It would make weight easily even with the much heavier Rhino batts. After about 350 flights it's doing just fine.

Just remembered, I have the photo "Wist-Kluster" from the Oasis opener last spring...

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

Hi Bob. Yeah, that was a regular Wistfest. Talk about not babying them, remember when Joe Z. tried toincinerate his during flight? Must have been a short with the inflight entertainment system. Barely even brazed the interior!

The Sickle is another good example of how to do it right. Still thinking about getting one at some point.

vbortone

My Feedback: (2)

The Abbra is another good example. My old Abbra flew in the Nats in 2005. I had a mid-air and the plane survived. I still flying this plane. Probably 2-3 K flights.

jrpav1

My Feedback: (17)

Ed,
You probably don't remember because you emptied all those beer bottles before you stuffed 'em in the fuselage! I took those bottles out and then I installed an OS160 with an aluminum pipe and the stock landing gear along with a Hyde ARIA mount. It was still underweight but it was close (on my scale) so just for good measure I bought a carbon wing tube. Big deal. I weighed it at the NATs and it was under the limit by a few ounces. My Black Magic V2 was my first attempt at building a 2 meter Pattern plane. You remember that ship - painted fuselage, OS160 and it still came in at around 10.5 lbs.

The Wistmodel stuff is amazing. Some day when I grow up I'm gonna get one. Ed - you have to convince Joe L. that he needs one so that he can get tired of it in a year and sell it to me. I've bought a few of his sloppy seconds before and although they're great airplanes I still can't make them fly as good as he does.

John Pavlick

jrpav1

My Feedback: (17)

Dave,
Sorry I guess you're kinda new at this. We've been through the weight rule discussion time again and I've realized that we all should just agree to disagree. That's why I just try to lighten things up by adding some humor. Toy airplanes are supposed to be fun and relaxing. If you enjoy argueing and getting into fist fights - I'll see you at the race track! LOL
If you really want to find out why the weight rule is important - get rid of it and see what happens. I hope you know how to tune a gas engine and trim a biplane...

John Pavlick

burtona

My Feedback: (50)

John,
I'm not real new at this stuff. Flew my first pattern contest in 1971. Seen it all during the following years.
I'd really like to see some comments on what people think the purpose of the weight rule given the 2M and sound rules in place. I've seen a few loud opinions that we'd see an explosion in size and cost but I don't buy it. 2M limits size, so an increase in weight can only lead to a decrease in performance if we believe a lighter airpane performs better.
So, what's the purpose? If there is no good purpose served, then why do we need a weight rule.
Dave

cmoulder

A biplane with a 78 inch wingspan would have a pretty light wing loading. Add a very nice, purpose built 60cc (or 80cc, whatever, since there's no weight limit) and a super-duper custom composite can to control exhaust noise and a special 4-blade prop, and you'd have a very expensive 2-meter pattern ship.

Change the rules and it WILL get more expensive, at a time when there have never been more affordable options in 2-meter set-ups.

I really don't get it, but maybe I'm missing something.

MTK

I'll tell you what I don't get....we constantly bick.. ahem, discuss the weight ruile in Pattern. It comes up every year. And every year we hear the same tired arguments for and against.

Yet, come rule time, I have yet to see a good, well crafted rationale to changing the rule, in the form of petition to the rules CB. That is, crafted well enough to pass the vote.

The same folks that constantly argue their points in these pages and on the discussion list should put their collective head together and craft the blasted rule once and for all.

I've had enough of monitoring this thread. Time to fish

cmoulder

Well, the world standard is FAI and that isn't changing any time soon!