Pattern Rules Proposals
02-02-2012 | 10:22 AM
#251
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (50)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bolivia, NC
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
I'm not going to knowingly fly any repaired props. Even CF props are too cheap to risk injury to myself or others, not to mention what happens to the airframe when you lose all or part of a blade.
02-02-2012 | 11:01 AM
#252
Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: pattratt
I do agree with doing away with the weight rule but I don't think it will happen for FAI.[
]
Dick
I do agree with doing away with the weight rule but I don't think it will happen for FAI.[
]Dick
I think that everyone is (should be) more worried about the development of pattern and smoothing the way for the competitors on their way up. Someone mentioned that most pilots flying F3A (Masters in USA, I believe) are still predominantly developmental pilots. If one considers that the bulk of pilots flying P13/F13 are developing their skills then there is no debate that the weight limit should be increased.
The argument then changes to how the team selection process should change. I believe that changing the weight limit for Team selection events will be counter productive. Pattern is finely balanced with LSA and by destroying the balance we could end up with a mishmash (not good american, I know) which would be bad.
On the other hand I believe that an increase in weight limit right up to the top class is good. In South Africa we have now adopted the FAI sequence of 4 x P's and a 2 xF's for the flyoffs for team selection events. Top three "P" flights are normalised and divided by three to get a score out of 1000. The top 6 pilots then compete in a F schedule fly off. The best two of the F normalised score is added to the final P score to get a total score out of 2000 and determine the winner for team selection events.
I feel that pilots qualifying for the fly-offs must comply with FAI rules but that an increased weight restriction for F3A (Masters) pilots not competing for team selection can only improve participation. Pilots moving up to the top class are given the opportunity to compete with their existing equipment and grow while the 'top dogs'can compete for team placings without disadvantage.
02-02-2012 | 11:42 AM
#253
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: klhoard
.
If any of y'all been following the discussion on the NSRCA list, it wasn't the weight limit that killed pattern participation, it was going to turnaround. So . . . . whatcha want to bet that changing the weight limit will have ZERO effect on participation?
.
I've always been an advocate of getting rid of the turnaround maneuvers in Sportsman. It's only a barrier to entry for the club flyer or someone who has to learn on their own with only the rule book to go by. For the guys moving up (once we get them hooked), they can jump straight to Intermediate and get all of the turnaround they want. As it is now, a sport flier that wants to dip his toe in the pattern pond and can't figure out or have a plane that can do a turnaround maneuver just goes elsewhere.
.
<br type=''_moz''/>
.
If any of y'all been following the discussion on the NSRCA list, it wasn't the weight limit that killed pattern participation, it was going to turnaround. So . . . . whatcha want to bet that changing the weight limit will have ZERO effect on participation?
.
I've always been an advocate of getting rid of the turnaround maneuvers in Sportsman. It's only a barrier to entry for the club flyer or someone who has to learn on their own with only the rule book to go by. For the guys moving up (once we get them hooked), they can jump straight to Intermediate and get all of the turnaround they want. As it is now, a sport flier that wants to dip his toe in the pattern pond and can't figure out or have a plane that can do a turnaround maneuver just goes elsewhere.
.
<br type=''_moz''/>
Jim O
02-02-2012 | 12:50 PM
#254
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: South Florida
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: burtona
What AMA rules proposals would you like to see passed this cycle?
My list would include:
1. Something to eliminate the weight disparaty between EP and GP
2. Eliminate the mandatory class points and advancement system
3. Eliminate judging take off and landing in all AMA classes.
What AMA rules proposals would you like to see passed this cycle?
My list would include:
1. Something to eliminate the weight disparaty between EP and GP
2. Eliminate the mandatory class points and advancement system
3. Eliminate judging take off and landing in all AMA classes.
1)Eliminate overweight people.
2) Eliminate anyone who has noclass.
3)Eliminate the judges.
02-02-2012 | 12:59 PM
#255
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Charlotte,
NC
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: grantb
Sorry to butt in on the USA discussion again but is it necessary to change the rules for FAI?
I think that everyone is (should be) more worried about the development of pattern and smoothing the way for the competitors on their way up. Someone mentioned that most pilots flying F3A (Masters in USA, I believe) are still predominantly developmental pilots. If one considers that the bulk of pilots flying P13/F13 are developing their skills then there is no debate that the weight limit should be increased.
The argument then changes to how the team selection process should change. I believe that changing the weight limit for Team selection events will be counter productive. Pattern is finely balanced with LSA and by destroying the balance we could end up with a mishmash (not good american, I know) which would be bad.
On the other hand I believe that an increase in weight limit right up to the top class is good. In South Africa we have now adopted the FAI sequence of 4 x P's and a 2 xF's for the flyoffs for team selection events. Top three ''P'' flights are normalised and divided by three to get a score out of 1000. The top 6 pilots then compete in a F schedule fly off. The best two of the F normalised score is added to the final P score to get a total score out of 2000 and determine the winner for team selection events.
I feel that pilots qualifying for the fly-offs must comply with FAI rules but that an increased weight restriction for F3A (Masters) pilots not competing for team selection can only improve participation. Pilots moving up to the top class are given the opportunity to compete with their existing equipment and grow while the 'top dogs'can compete for team placings without disadvantage.
ORIGINAL: pattratt
I do agree with doing away with the weight rule but I don't think it will happen for FAI.[]
Dick
I do agree with doing away with the weight rule but I don't think it will happen for FAI.[
]Dick
I think that everyone is (should be) more worried about the development of pattern and smoothing the way for the competitors on their way up. Someone mentioned that most pilots flying F3A (Masters in USA, I believe) are still predominantly developmental pilots. If one considers that the bulk of pilots flying P13/F13 are developing their skills then there is no debate that the weight limit should be increased.
The argument then changes to how the team selection process should change. I believe that changing the weight limit for Team selection events will be counter productive. Pattern is finely balanced with LSA and by destroying the balance we could end up with a mishmash (not good american, I know) which would be bad.
On the other hand I believe that an increase in weight limit right up to the top class is good. In South Africa we have now adopted the FAI sequence of 4 x P's and a 2 xF's for the flyoffs for team selection events. Top three ''P'' flights are normalised and divided by three to get a score out of 1000. The top 6 pilots then compete in a F schedule fly off. The best two of the F normalised score is added to the final P score to get a total score out of 2000 and determine the winner for team selection events.
I feel that pilots qualifying for the fly-offs must comply with FAI rules but that an increased weight restriction for F3A (Masters) pilots not competing for team selection can only improve participation. Pilots moving up to the top class are given the opportunity to compete with their existing equipment and grow while the 'top dogs'can compete for team placings without disadvantage.
02-02-2012 | 01:13 PM
#256
Senior Member
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: BobbyMcGee
My proposed changes are similar, but shorter in description:
1) Eliminate overweight people.
2) Eliminate anyone who has no class.
3) Eliminate the judges.
My proposed changes are similar, but shorter in description:
1) Eliminate overweight people.
2) Eliminate anyone who has no class.
3) Eliminate the judges.
02-02-2012 | 03:46 PM
#259
My Feedback: (46)
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bridgewater,
NJ
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: pattratt
Cost savings with carbon props. It just takes one strike of the ground and that blows that out of the water.
Joe
The above statement for me is totally wrong. The Carbon fiber props are much more repairable than any other type of props other than wood. It takes an experienced, learned technique that costs almost nothing in exspense, just a little time.
I do agree with doing away with the weight rule but I don't think it will happen for FAI.[]
Dick
Cost savings with carbon props. It just takes one strike of the ground and that blows that out of the water.
Joe
The above statement for me is totally wrong. The Carbon fiber props are much more repairable than any other type of props other than wood. It takes an experienced, learned technique that costs almost nothing in exspense, just a little time.
I do agree with doing away with the weight rule but I don't think it will happen for FAI.[
]Dick
02-02-2012 | 03:58 PM
#260
My Feedback: (90)
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: J Lachowski
Unfortunately, there are people on this thread who think, otherwise. I don't, but there seems to be enough out there that do. Don't forget the size limits and noise limits are still there. We will still continue to fly the same size airframes. Just because some people can afford the more expensive stuff to make weight, dosen't mean everyone else can.
In my book, 20C packs are marginal for our use and are only really good for about 75 flights tops before they degrade. I'll bet you in time there will not be any 20C packs out there. It is obvious that most manufacturers are not as much concerned as they have been in the past to make lighter packs. Thre are maybe a couple 20C packs out there that I consider light enough to meet the current rules with ease. All the rest are heavier.
Yep, techniques and tricks are there but many do not have the time or resources to make use of them.
Cost savings with carbon props. It just takes one strike of the ground and that blows that out of the water.
Let people have the flexibility to do what they want. If they want to fly a heavy plane let them. There is no significant advantage to the extra weight in my book. My justification may not be as strong as it could be, but so be it.
Everyone has an opinion. Mine is let more people play and lower the resistance to getting there. I have nothing to gain from the proposal I put up. I will still continue to fly a plane under 5kg and do whatever it takes to get there.
ORIGINAL: nonstoprc
From Lachowski's weight change petition posted on AMA Site:
''here is currently a very limited number of choices of internal combustion motors available for pattern use. Increasing the weight limit by 200 grams will allow for the inclusion of various gasoline motors with the added impact of reduced operational costs that gasoline affords over methanol based fuels. In addition, the increased weight allowance will give electric flyers increased choices in available battery technology and motors. The trend in battery technology is a higher “C†rating with heavier weight. There is a very limited number of choices available in lighter battery technology that meets current needs. Increasing the weight limit will allow for the use of the heavier higher “C†rated batteries. This too will have the added impact of reduced operational costs. The weight restriction for Sportsman should be removed since it is a provisional class where most Contest Directors opt to eliminate or modify the weight requirement to encourage participation. These changes will allow flyers the ability to have a broader choice of airframes if they choose. With these changes, airframe choices will no longer be limited to pattern specific designs at all levels except F3A. In addition, the need for expensive carbon fiber spinners and props will be at the pilots option instead of being an expensive requirement with airframes that are marginal in making weight under the current rules. Gasoline engines have been proven to be a viable option by some people already ,but it requires some creativity(machining, etc,) to get the weight under the current rules.''
My understanding is that
1. 20c 5s 5000mah packs have been on market at least for 5 years and the pricing trend is steady and even downward. The choice and availabilitybof of such batteries are plenty;
2. Carbon fiber spinners at knock-off price are available on the market;
3. Expensive F3A spinners, whether carbon fiber or aluminum, are built with extra features, such as cutouts for forced ventilations, or short in height thus help meet the 2m rule;
4. Other than being lighter, carbon fiber props are much more rigid and durable than those made with traditional material. There is actually a cost saving using a carbon fiber prop over long run for extra benefits;
5. Techniques/tricks exist to trim off extra weight to meet the current weight rule, from existing planes WITHOUT $$$, as documented in this and other threads.
Seems that the reasons to have a weight increase, at least from E-power perspective, are not adequate?
From Lachowski's weight change petition posted on AMA Site:
''here is currently a very limited number of choices of internal combustion motors available for pattern use. Increasing the weight limit by 200 grams will allow for the inclusion of various gasoline motors with the added impact of reduced operational costs that gasoline affords over methanol based fuels. In addition, the increased weight allowance will give electric flyers increased choices in available battery technology and motors. The trend in battery technology is a higher “C†rating with heavier weight. There is a very limited number of choices available in lighter battery technology that meets current needs. Increasing the weight limit will allow for the use of the heavier higher “C†rated batteries. This too will have the added impact of reduced operational costs. The weight restriction for Sportsman should be removed since it is a provisional class where most Contest Directors opt to eliminate or modify the weight requirement to encourage participation. These changes will allow flyers the ability to have a broader choice of airframes if they choose. With these changes, airframe choices will no longer be limited to pattern specific designs at all levels except F3A. In addition, the need for expensive carbon fiber spinners and props will be at the pilots option instead of being an expensive requirement with airframes that are marginal in making weight under the current rules. Gasoline engines have been proven to be a viable option by some people already ,but it requires some creativity(machining, etc,) to get the weight under the current rules.''
My understanding is that
1. 20c 5s 5000mah packs have been on market at least for 5 years and the pricing trend is steady and even downward. The choice and availabilitybof of such batteries are plenty;
2. Carbon fiber spinners at knock-off price are available on the market;
3. Expensive F3A spinners, whether carbon fiber or aluminum, are built with extra features, such as cutouts for forced ventilations, or short in height thus help meet the 2m rule;
4. Other than being lighter, carbon fiber props are much more rigid and durable than those made with traditional material. There is actually a cost saving using a carbon fiber prop over long run for extra benefits;
5. Techniques/tricks exist to trim off extra weight to meet the current weight rule, from existing planes WITHOUT $$$, as documented in this and other threads.
Seems that the reasons to have a weight increase, at least from E-power perspective, are not adequate?
In my book, 20C packs are marginal for our use and are only really good for about 75 flights tops before they degrade. I'll bet you in time there will not be any 20C packs out there. It is obvious that most manufacturers are not as much concerned as they have been in the past to make lighter packs. Thre are maybe a couple 20C packs out there that I consider light enough to meet the current rules with ease. All the rest are heavier.
Yep, techniques and tricks are there but many do not have the time or resources to make use of them.
Cost savings with carbon props. It just takes one strike of the ground and that blows that out of the water.
Let people have the flexibility to do what they want. If they want to fly a heavy plane let them. There is no significant advantage to the extra weight in my book. My justification may not be as strong as it could be, but so be it.
Everyone has an opinion. Mine is let more people play and lower the resistance to getting there. I have nothing to gain from the proposal I put up. I will still continue to fly a plane under 5kg and do whatever it takes to get there.
I do not know about you or others but one of the top FAI pilots in my club uses 3300mah per P11 or F11 with his 20C packs. I have been using the same 20c packs as his for my class, with Neu F3a + CC 80 ICE HV. The max current drawn is around 80A, 20% less than the max current a 20C pack can deliver. To me, 20C is plenty and any extra discharge capability => extra weight.
For the two cases of over-weighted planes we studied in this thread, one is 2oz over and the other is at the mark of the 5kg + AMA allowance. Cost-effecitive tricks definitely exist to trim a couple oz off and both pilots do not object suggestions. In my opinion, there is no need to spend $40 dollars to get it done.
I just worried that there may not have prevalent number of way over-weighted planes to begin with. So if most of these planes are 1-2 oz over, why not recommend some easy solutions, and instead ask for a rule change?
If the same argument comes up next year, will we recommend another round of weight limit increase again?
02-02-2012 | 04:52 PM
#261
My Feedback: (92)
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Rosamond, CA
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
Why in the world do you think someone would post in this forum about their overweight pattern model that they have been competing with? It's sort of like the comment that was made that if weight was checked on everyone at the Nats that no one would be over, so it's not a problem. Well, duh! Of course if you know your model is overweight you're not going to be at a Nats that checks all the models!
02-02-2012 | 06:02 PM
#263
My Feedback: (90)
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: TonyF
Why in the world do you think someone would post in this forum about their overweight pattern model that they have been competing with? It's sort of like the comment that was made that if weight was checked on everyone at the Nats that no one would be over, so it's not a problem. Well, duh! Of course if you know your model is overweight you're not going to be at a Nats that checks all the models!
Why in the world do you think someone would post in this forum about their overweight pattern model that they have been competing with? It's sort of like the comment that was made that if weight was checked on everyone at the Nats that no one would be over, so it's not a problem. Well, duh! Of course if you know your model is overweight you're not going to be at a Nats that checks all the models!
If I were the member of the committee processing your proposal, I would ask how much of the new allowance would be proper? How do I know that data?
02-02-2012 | 08:37 PM
#264
My Feedback: (46)
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bridgewater,
NJ
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: nonstoprc
Joe,
I do not know about you or others but one of the top FAI pilots in my club uses 3300mah per P11 or F11 with his 20C packs. I have been using the same 20c packs as his for my class, with Neu F3a + CC 80 ICE HV. The max current drawn is around 80A, 20% less than the max current a 20C pack can deliver. To me, 20C is plenty and any extra discharge capability => extra weight.
For the two cases of over-weighted planes we studied in this thread, one is 2oz over and the other is at the mark of the 5kg + AMA allowance. Cost-effecitive tricks definitely exist to trim a couple oz off and both pilots do not object suggestions. In my opinion, there is no need to spend $40 dollars to get it done.
I just worried that there may not have prevalent number of way over-weighted planes to begin with. So if most of these planes are 1-2 oz over, why not recommend some easy solutions, and instead ask for a rule change?
If the same argument comes up next year, will we recommend another round of weight limit increase again?
ORIGINAL: J Lachowski
Unfortunately, there are people on this thread who think, otherwise. I don't, but there seems to be enough out there that do. Don't forget the size limits and noise limits are still there. We will still continue to fly the same size airframes. Just because some people can afford the more expensive stuff to make weight, dosen't mean everyone else can.
In my book, 20C packs are marginal for our use and are only really good for about 75 flights tops before they degrade. I'll bet you in time there will not be any 20C packs out there. It is obvious that most manufacturers are not as much concerned as they have been in the past to make lighter packs. Thre are maybe a couple 20C packs out there that I consider light enough to meet the current rules with ease. All the rest are heavier.
Yep, techniques and tricks are there but many do not have the time or resources to make use of them.
Cost savings with carbon props. It just takes one strike of the ground and that blows that out of the water.
Let people have the flexibility to do what they want. If they want to fly a heavy plane let them. There is no significant advantage to the extra weight in my book. My justification may not be as strong as it could be, but so be it.
Everyone has an opinion. Mine is let more people play and lower the resistance to getting there. I have nothing to gain from the proposal I put up. I will still continue to fly a plane under 5kg and do whatever it takes to get there.
ORIGINAL: nonstoprc
From Lachowski's weight change petition posted on AMA Site:
''here is currently a very limited number of choices of internal combustion motors available for pattern use. Increasing the weight limit by 200 grams will allow for the inclusion of various gasoline motors with the added impact of reduced operational costs that gasoline affords over methanol based fuels. In addition, the increased weight allowance will give electric flyers increased choices in available battery technology and motors. The trend in battery technology is a higher “C†rating with heavier weight. There is a very limited number of choices available in lighter battery technology that meets current needs. Increasing the weight limit will allow for the use of the heavier higher “C†rated batteries. This too will have the added impact of reduced operational costs. The weight restriction for Sportsman should be removed since it is a provisional class where most Contest Directors opt to eliminate or modify the weight requirement to encourage participation. These changes will allow flyers the ability to have a broader choice of airframes if they choose. With these changes, airframe choices will no longer be limited to pattern specific designs at all levels except F3A. In addition, the need for expensive carbon fiber spinners and props will be at the pilots option instead of being an expensive requirement with airframes that are marginal in making weight under the current rules. Gasoline engines have been proven to be a viable option by some people already ,but it requires some creativity(machining, etc,) to get the weight under the current rules.''
My understanding is that
1. 20c 5s 5000mah packs have been on market at least for 5 years and the pricing trend is steady and even downward. The choice and availabilitybof of such batteries are plenty;
2. Carbon fiber spinners at knock-off price are available on the market;
3. Expensive F3A spinners, whether carbon fiber or aluminum, are built with extra features, such as cutouts for forced ventilations, or short in height thus help meet the 2m rule;
4. Other than being lighter, carbon fiber props are much more rigid and durable than those made with traditional material. There is actually a cost saving using a carbon fiber prop over long run for extra benefits;
5. Techniques/tricks exist to trim off extra weight to meet the current weight rule, from existing planes WITHOUT $$$, as documented in this and other threads.
Seems that the reasons to have a weight increase, at least from E-power perspective, are not adequate?
From Lachowski's weight change petition posted on AMA Site:
''here is currently a very limited number of choices of internal combustion motors available for pattern use. Increasing the weight limit by 200 grams will allow for the inclusion of various gasoline motors with the added impact of reduced operational costs that gasoline affords over methanol based fuels. In addition, the increased weight allowance will give electric flyers increased choices in available battery technology and motors. The trend in battery technology is a higher “C†rating with heavier weight. There is a very limited number of choices available in lighter battery technology that meets current needs. Increasing the weight limit will allow for the use of the heavier higher “C†rated batteries. This too will have the added impact of reduced operational costs. The weight restriction for Sportsman should be removed since it is a provisional class where most Contest Directors opt to eliminate or modify the weight requirement to encourage participation. These changes will allow flyers the ability to have a broader choice of airframes if they choose. With these changes, airframe choices will no longer be limited to pattern specific designs at all levels except F3A. In addition, the need for expensive carbon fiber spinners and props will be at the pilots option instead of being an expensive requirement with airframes that are marginal in making weight under the current rules. Gasoline engines have been proven to be a viable option by some people already ,but it requires some creativity(machining, etc,) to get the weight under the current rules.''
My understanding is that
1. 20c 5s 5000mah packs have been on market at least for 5 years and the pricing trend is steady and even downward. The choice and availabilitybof of such batteries are plenty;
2. Carbon fiber spinners at knock-off price are available on the market;
3. Expensive F3A spinners, whether carbon fiber or aluminum, are built with extra features, such as cutouts for forced ventilations, or short in height thus help meet the 2m rule;
4. Other than being lighter, carbon fiber props are much more rigid and durable than those made with traditional material. There is actually a cost saving using a carbon fiber prop over long run for extra benefits;
5. Techniques/tricks exist to trim off extra weight to meet the current weight rule, from existing planes WITHOUT $$$, as documented in this and other threads.
Seems that the reasons to have a weight increase, at least from E-power perspective, are not adequate?
In my book, 20C packs are marginal for our use and are only really good for about 75 flights tops before they degrade. I'll bet you in time there will not be any 20C packs out there. It is obvious that most manufacturers are not as much concerned as they have been in the past to make lighter packs. Thre are maybe a couple 20C packs out there that I consider light enough to meet the current rules with ease. All the rest are heavier.
Yep, techniques and tricks are there but many do not have the time or resources to make use of them.
Cost savings with carbon props. It just takes one strike of the ground and that blows that out of the water.
Let people have the flexibility to do what they want. If they want to fly a heavy plane let them. There is no significant advantage to the extra weight in my book. My justification may not be as strong as it could be, but so be it.
Everyone has an opinion. Mine is let more people play and lower the resistance to getting there. I have nothing to gain from the proposal I put up. I will still continue to fly a plane under 5kg and do whatever it takes to get there.
I do not know about you or others but one of the top FAI pilots in my club uses 3300mah per P11 or F11 with his 20C packs. I have been using the same 20c packs as his for my class, with Neu F3a + CC 80 ICE HV. The max current drawn is around 80A, 20% less than the max current a 20C pack can deliver. To me, 20C is plenty and any extra discharge capability => extra weight.
For the two cases of over-weighted planes we studied in this thread, one is 2oz over and the other is at the mark of the 5kg + AMA allowance. Cost-effecitive tricks definitely exist to trim a couple oz off and both pilots do not object suggestions. In my opinion, there is no need to spend $40 dollars to get it done.
I just worried that there may not have prevalent number of way over-weighted planes to begin with. So if most of these planes are 1-2 oz over, why not recommend some easy solutions, and instead ask for a rule change?
If the same argument comes up next year, will we recommend another round of weight limit increase again?
02-02-2012 | 09:53 PM
#265
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Denham Springs, LA
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
Like I said, Matt, wasn't picking on you, just chose this spot to enter. Since we get along so well, I knew you wouldn't mind!
B
B
ORIGINAL: MTK
A 13 lb Pattern plane? From moi? Not on your life. I think you underestimate the slow flight capability of a large wing. I'll tell you this, put a 1200 square inch wing on a pattern plane and put 2X the power you would otherwise, ala big block gassie, and you will open up a whole new world as far as flight envelope goes. The large wing and even larger power loading enable very slow flight. Try it! I have and I know
Even with the DLE55 up front, putting EVERYTHINg on the scale, I come up with 10 lbs flat. Paint will add another few ounces and I just have to paint wings and stabs. I ABHOR plastic film.
ORIGINAL: protectedpilot
Not picking on you, Matt, it's just a good place to weigh in.... I've heard people say, C'mon, I'd love to fly against you with your 13 pound airplane. Tell ya what folks, anybody wants to make it a bet, and I'm game. Within reason; I'm not gonna beat Arch, Frack or Chip. BUT, I'll build up a 1250sqin wing for the Shinden and away we go. You need about 90 squares per pound, give or take, and just jacking up the weight limit will not affect performance by itself appreciably. I'd need to keep the power on a bit more a la' ballistic pattern of the 80's. Might use a gas engine, even. Raise it to 15 lb, and I'll build a 1450sqin wing and use a DA. All within 2m X 2m. A full 15 lb limit will probably put the EP's at a disadvantage again, though.
Brian
Not picking on you, Matt, it's just a good place to weigh in.... I've heard people say, C'mon, I'd love to fly against you with your 13 pound airplane. Tell ya what folks, anybody wants to make it a bet, and I'm game. Within reason; I'm not gonna beat Arch, Frack or Chip. BUT, I'll build up a 1250sqin wing for the Shinden and away we go. You need about 90 squares per pound, give or take, and just jacking up the weight limit will not affect performance by itself appreciably. I'd need to keep the power on a bit more a la' ballistic pattern of the 80's. Might use a gas engine, even. Raise it to 15 lb, and I'll build a 1450sqin wing and use a DA. All within 2m X 2m. A full 15 lb limit will probably put the EP's at a disadvantage again, though.
Brian
Even with the DLE55 up front, putting EVERYTHINg on the scale, I come up with 10 lbs flat. Paint will add another few ounces and I just have to paint wings and stabs. I ABHOR plastic film.
02-03-2012 | 04:16 PM
#266
My Feedback: (31)
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
All this for one contest a year......... Good grief.
It's this simple.
Delete the requirement for weighing. All AMA Classes.
Kick any mention of F3A-FAI out of the AMA rule book and out of the AMA pattern realm as we have zero control over it.
It is NOT and never should have been even considered an AMA Class. If it is then it needs to be under our rules and a destination class. It isn't and never will be. Let FAI-F3A do what they want.
Tim
It's this simple.
Delete the requirement for weighing. All AMA Classes.
Kick any mention of F3A-FAI out of the AMA rule book and out of the AMA pattern realm as we have zero control over it.
It is NOT and never should have been even considered an AMA Class. If it is then it needs to be under our rules and a destination class. It isn't and never will be. Let FAI-F3A do what they want.
Tim
02-03-2012 | 06:55 PM
#267
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ossining,
NY
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: Mastertech
All this for one contest a year......... Good grief.
It's this simple.
Delete the requirement for weighing. All AMA Classes.
Kick any mention of F3A-FAI out of the AMA rule book and out of the AMA pattern realm as we have zero control over it.
It is NOT and never should have been even considered an AMA Class. If it is then it needs to be under our rules and a destination class. It isn't and never will be. Let FAI-F3A do what they want.
Tim
All this for one contest a year......... Good grief.
It's this simple.
Delete the requirement for weighing. All AMA Classes.
Kick any mention of F3A-FAI out of the AMA rule book and out of the AMA pattern realm as we have zero control over it.
It is NOT and never should have been even considered an AMA Class. If it is then it needs to be under our rules and a destination class. It isn't and never will be. Let FAI-F3A do what they want.
Tim
Click on [link=http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/compreg.aspx]THIS[/link] and scroll down to RC Aerobatics. Interesting stuff on about page 10 or so.
02-06-2012 | 01:16 PM
#268
Senior Member
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
Personally, I think AMA should adopt use of a 2.5m X 2.5 m box for its planes.
My rationale is simple poor sight as my years advance more and more. I don't want to go over to IMAC since I don't much care for that flying. I want to stay with pattern but a little larger won't hurt anything and will help ME see better.
Flew my Temptress this weekend and man was she hard to see!! If she was 98" x 98" she would have been much better on my eyes
My rationale is simple poor sight as my years advance more and more. I don't want to go over to IMAC since I don't much care for that flying. I want to stay with pattern but a little larger won't hurt anything and will help ME see better.
Flew my Temptress this weekend and man was she hard to see!! If she was 98" x 98" she would have been much better on my eyes
02-06-2012 | 07:50 PM
#269
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ossining,
NY
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: MTK
Personally, I think AMA should adopt use of a 2.5m X 2.5 m box for its planes.
My rationale is simple poor sight as my years advance more and more. I don't want to go over to IMAC since I don't much care for that flying. I want to stay with pattern but a little larger won't hurt anything and will help ME see better.
Flew my Temptress this weekend and man was she hard to see!! If she was 98'' x 98'' she would have been much better on my eyes
Personally, I think AMA should adopt use of a 2.5m X 2.5 m box for its planes.
My rationale is simple poor sight as my years advance more and more. I don't want to go over to IMAC since I don't much care for that flying. I want to stay with pattern but a little larger won't hurt anything and will help ME see better.
Flew my Temptress this weekend and man was she hard to see!! If she was 98'' x 98'' she would have been much better on my eyes
It does make a big difference when you can SEE what the model is doing!
02-06-2012 | 08:50 PM
#270
Senior Member
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: cmoulder
Matt, one of the best things I did last year was to get some prescription Ray-Ban sunglasses with the amber tint.
It does make a big difference when you can SEE what the model is doing!
Matt, one of the best things I did last year was to get some prescription Ray-Ban sunglasses with the amber tint.
It does make a big difference when you can SEE what the model is doing!
Keep hearing about how good Ray-Bans and Serengetis are but don't have personal experience. My optician said the best you can do is get polarized...two colored lenses bonded at right angles to one another rather than tinted. Tinted lenses are colored on their surfaces only, not through the lens, that's why you have color options. Polarized is what I'll get except they only come in neutral grey or red-brown. Oh, he also said that Ray Ban and Serengeti are not so much lenses, but rather frames. The very best is optical glass but in my PRX they would be so heavy I'd have a constant neck pain.
Still, want to see AMA adopt larger pattern planes. Since weight don't matter, neither does size...oh weight, I heard size does matter
02-07-2012 | 05:15 AM
#271
My Feedback: (46)
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bridgewater,
NJ
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: MTK
I am overdue for mine. Just got a new set of office and close up glasses....hi index super clarity type. Made only a small difference by correcting my PRX, not so much because of improved clarity. Interestingly, seeing someone else plane is NP
Keep hearing about how good Ray-Bans and Serengetis are but don't have personal experience. My optician said the best you can do is get polarized...two colored lenses bonded at right angles to one another rather than tinted. Tinted lenses are colored on their surfaces only, not through the lens, that's why you have color options. Polarized is what I'll get except they only come in neutral grey or red-brown. Oh, he also said that Ray Ban and Serengeti are not so much lenses, but rather frames. The very best is optical glass but in my PRX they would be so heavy I'd have a constant neck pain.
Still, want to see AMA adopt larger pattern planes. Since weight don't matter, neither does size...oh weight, I heard size does matter
ORIGINAL: cmoulder
Matt, one of the best things I did last year was to get some prescription Ray-Ban sunglasses with the amber tint.
It does make a big difference when you can SEE what the model is doing!
Matt, one of the best things I did last year was to get some prescription Ray-Ban sunglasses with the amber tint.
It does make a big difference when you can SEE what the model is doing!
Keep hearing about how good Ray-Bans and Serengetis are but don't have personal experience. My optician said the best you can do is get polarized...two colored lenses bonded at right angles to one another rather than tinted. Tinted lenses are colored on their surfaces only, not through the lens, that's why you have color options. Polarized is what I'll get except they only come in neutral grey or red-brown. Oh, he also said that Ray Ban and Serengeti are not so much lenses, but rather frames. The very best is optical glass but in my PRX they would be so heavy I'd have a constant neck pain.
Still, want to see AMA adopt larger pattern planes. Since weight don't matter, neither does size...oh weight, I heard size does matter
Matt, I've tried polarized lens and hated them. Just look toward the North and you will know why. Don't know about Ray Ban, but I'll swear by my Serengetis. Your doctor is wrong. You can get Serengeti lens with whatever frames you want. At least I did. I did have to have the tint done to my prefered darkness in two tries and at no cost. The lenses that I have are darker up top and get lighter at the bottom.
02-07-2012 | 08:07 AM
#272
Senior Member
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: MTK
Still, want to see AMA adopt larger pattern planes. Since weight don't matter, neither does size...oh weight, I heard size does matter
Still, want to see AMA adopt larger pattern planes. Since weight don't matter, neither does size...oh weight, I heard size does matter
Well..... 2m x 2m box (square) also has diagonals at 45's as David pointed out.
By my calculation, diagonal length is around 2.83 meters. Therefore if you turned the model on bias, a 2.5m x 2.5 meter will fit fine. So there youse go; have at it
02-07-2012 | 08:51 AM
#273
My Feedback: (58)
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
Oh that's good. I like that interpretation...very nice.
I had to go look and found this: "No model may have a wingspan or total length longer than two (2) meters (78.74 inches)." which shoots that in the foot but if the 2mx2m box was still there on it's own it would make for interesting discussion.
I had to go look and found this: "No model may have a wingspan or total length longer than two (2) meters (78.74 inches)." which shoots that in the foot but if the 2mx2m box was still there on it's own it would make for interesting discussion.
02-07-2012 | 07:09 PM
#274
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ossining,
NY
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: petec
Oh that's good. I like that interpretation...very nice.
I had to go look and found this: ''No model may have a wingspan or total length longer than two (2) meters (78.74 inches).'' which shoots that in the foot but if the 2mx2m box was still there on it's own it would make for interesting discussion.
Oh that's good. I like that interpretation...very nice.
I had to go look and found this: ''No model may have a wingspan or total length longer than two (2) meters (78.74 inches).'' which shoots that in the foot but if the 2mx2m box was still there on it's own it would make for interesting discussion.
