Pattern Rules Proposals
01-07-2012, 04:43 AM
#51
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bolivia, NC
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: EHFAI
A proposal that might keep the older generation more interested and competitive would be some form of score handicapping. I favor 0.5% addition to the score for each year of age, say above 55. Could really be made interesting if 0.5% were deducted from scores of those below age 30. [img][/img]
A proposal that might keep the older generation more interested and competitive would be some form of score handicapping. I favor 0.5% addition to the score for each year of age, say above 55. Could really be made interesting if 0.5% were deducted from scores of those below age 30. [img][/img]
01-07-2012, 05:25 AM
#52
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ossining,
NY
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
Earl,
I have no problem at all with fresh perspectives and out-of-the-box thinking.
The situation we have here is that the perspectives are neither fresh nor out-of-the-box.[
]
I agree that on rare occasions an outsider or a neophyte in any area of human endeavor will stumble upon a keen insight that is immediately (or perhaps eventually) adopted, but far more frequently the real innovations come from those who have worked within a discipline for a long time and have a deep understanding of what has come - and in most cases, gone - before.
If there is a newbie who wants to propose something, he could enlist a sponsor who does meet the requirements. This would provide a "filtering" effect and reduce the number of frivilous and repetitious suggestions that the contest board must deal with.
I have no problem at all with fresh perspectives and out-of-the-box thinking.
The situation we have here is that the perspectives are neither fresh nor out-of-the-box.[
]I agree that on rare occasions an outsider or a neophyte in any area of human endeavor will stumble upon a keen insight that is immediately (or perhaps eventually) adopted, but far more frequently the real innovations come from those who have worked within a discipline for a long time and have a deep understanding of what has come - and in most cases, gone - before.
If there is a newbie who wants to propose something, he could enlist a sponsor who does meet the requirements. This would provide a "filtering" effect and reduce the number of frivilous and repetitious suggestions that the contest board must deal with.
01-07-2012, 04:29 PM
#53
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bolivia, NC
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
Does a newby get a discount on his AMA dues since he won't have full membership status to submit ideas on his own without some "Old Fart" approving?
Not a good idea IMO. Or am I just missing that this is a tongue in cheek suggestion?
Not a good idea IMO. Or am I just missing that this is a tongue in cheek suggestion?
01-08-2012, 06:12 AM
#54
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Orlando,
FL
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
Here is my rules proposal: get rid of the weight rule, but enforce the 2 meter size and the noise limitation. No minimum or maximum weight. Things might then be simpler at the Nats in regards to the issue of weighing after each flight ...and by the way I do not have weight issues on my plane...just my opinion on the rules.
01-11-2012, 11:51 PM
#55
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Richmond, CA
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
I am a new Sportsman pilot with just 2 contests under my belt, so I'll remain silent on burtona's proposals #1 & 2. But #3, I'm with Arch. As a matter of fact, the landing and t/o are the most interesting parts of any flight for me. That's where you get to see a pilot's airmanship up close and concentrated in time! Serious - when I see youtube video of an rc flight, I always fast forward to the end to see the landing. If the landing's edited out, that's lame imo. I don't understand why they don't judge them in FAI. Nothing's more satisfying to me than consistent landings in challenging conditions. Also, I don't think most guys who can't land or take off safely in the first place, cutting the judging on those elements won't keep anybody from getting hit.
Actually, maybe i will ask a question or two about weight: If EP has to weigh with a battery why doesn't GP have to account for fuel somehow? Yes, I know it's volatile/messy/problematic to account for if you have to fill the tank for the weigh-in, but there could be a standard fuel weight based on engine size added to the total aircraft weight get around those logistics issues. Would doing so address burtona's suggestion about "...weight disparity..." without the radical step of throwing out the rule?
Bill
Actually, maybe i will ask a question or two about weight: If EP has to weigh with a battery why doesn't GP have to account for fuel somehow? Yes, I know it's volatile/messy/problematic to account for if you have to fill the tank for the weigh-in, but there could be a standard fuel weight based on engine size added to the total aircraft weight get around those logistics issues. Would doing so address burtona's suggestion about "...weight disparity..." without the radical step of throwing out the rule?
Bill
01-12-2012, 06:21 AM
#57
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bolivia, NC
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: n233w
I am a new Sportsman pilot with just 2 contests under my belt, so I'll remain silent on burtona's proposals #1 & 2. But #3, I'm with Arch. As a matter of fact, the landing and t/o are the most interesting parts of any flight for me. That's where you get to see a pilot's airmanship up close and concentrated in time! Serious - when I see youtube video of an rc flight, I always fast forward to the end to see the landing. If the landing's edited out, that's lame imo. I don't understand why they don't judge them in FAI. Nothing's more satisfying to me than consistent landings in challenging conditions. Also, I don't think most guys who can't land or take off safely in the first place, cutting the judging on those elements won't keep anybody from getting hit.
Bill
I am a new Sportsman pilot with just 2 contests under my belt, so I'll remain silent on burtona's proposals #1 & 2. But #3, I'm with Arch. As a matter of fact, the landing and t/o are the most interesting parts of any flight for me. That's where you get to see a pilot's airmanship up close and concentrated in time! Serious - when I see youtube video of an rc flight, I always fast forward to the end to see the landing. If the landing's edited out, that's lame imo. I don't understand why they don't judge them in FAI. Nothing's more satisfying to me than consistent landings in challenging conditions. Also, I don't think most guys who can't land or take off safely in the first place, cutting the judging on those elements won't keep anybody from getting hit.
Bill
Those of you who like to watch yourself and others fly a TO and landing will still get to do that. Your still going to do the maneuver.
01-12-2012, 06:44 AM
#58
Senior Member
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: n233w
Actually, maybe i will ask a question or two about weight: If EP has to weigh with a battery why doesn't GP have to account for fuel somehow? Yes, I know it's volatile/messy/problematic to account for if you have to fill the tank for the weigh-in, but there could be a standard fuel weight based on engine size added to the total aircraft weight get around those logistics issues. Would doing so address burtona's suggestion about ''...weight disparity...'' without the radical step of throwing out the rule?
Bill
Actually, maybe i will ask a question or two about weight: If EP has to weigh with a battery why doesn't GP have to account for fuel somehow? Yes, I know it's volatile/messy/problematic to account for if you have to fill the tank for the weigh-in, but there could be a standard fuel weight based on engine size added to the total aircraft weight get around those logistics issues. Would doing so address burtona's suggestion about ''...weight disparity...'' without the radical step of throwing out the rule?
Bill
This has been debated for many years with reasonable arguments presented by both camps.
About the only argument one may use for weighing empty, with no gas/glow fuel, is the fact that the fuel gets burned off. Can't say that with batteries....
One may consider the average weight of fuel (or around half the weight originally filling any tank) as an added weight to gas/glow planes for the sole purpose of assessing regality. It would be a contrived number. If we ever got to this, there are ways to get around most of the gas/glow fuel weight anyway. In truth, even the thirsty YS170-175's using the densest of fuels we use, 30% nitro, only use around 8 ozs of fuel for a competition flight. So out come the 20+ oz tanks and in go the 10ozs or maybe less. And in my case, I'd use a 6 oz tank since I fly gasoline (which is at the lowest density of any liquid fuel we currently use).
It gets messy.... you will wind up having to manage the different fuel densities people use and account accordingly, making things more complex rather than less.
So in the worst case and assuming half fule weight is adopted, those that run the YS with 30% nitro, will add maybe 3-4 ozs to their empty weight, and someone like me, would add around 2 ozs to my empty weight. Yes it's a disparity but in my view a really minor one
01-12-2012, 07:53 AM
#59
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
The glow set up with no fuel is comparable by weight to the electric set up with batteries, that's why is that way, and the weight with no fuel has been in place years before electrics entered the game, so electric being the new thing was adapted to the fuel powered regulations, not the other way around, if models are to be weighed with fuel, then most will fail weight check, and then the fuel industry in Pattern will disappear.
Regards
Alejandro P.
Regards
Alejandro P.
01-12-2012, 08:47 AM
#60
My Feedback: (46)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Bridgewater,
NJ
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: burtona
My beef with judging TO and Landing is almost entirely from a judging perspective. I'd like to see the judges have a little more break from having to concentrate on the planes. Not having to watch the plane all during the traffic pattern parts of the flight will give judges a little more of a break. Those of you who have spent half your time at a big contest judging will understand.
Those of you who like to watch yourself and others fly a TO and landing will still get to do that. Your still going to do the maneuver.
ORIGINAL: n233w
I am a new Sportsman pilot with just 2 contests under my belt, so I'll remain silent on burtona's proposals #1 & 2. But #3, I'm with Arch. As a matter of fact, the landing and t/o are the most interesting parts of any flight for me. That's where you get to see a pilot's airmanship up close and concentrated in time! Serious - when I see youtube video of an rc flight, I always fast forward to the end to see the landing. If the landing's edited out, that's lame imo. I don't understand why they don't judge them in FAI. Nothing's more satisfying to me than consistent landings in challenging conditions. Also, I don't think most guys who can't land or take off safely in the first place, cutting the judging on those elements won't keep anybody from getting hit.
Bill
I am a new Sportsman pilot with just 2 contests under my belt, so I'll remain silent on burtona's proposals #1 & 2. But #3, I'm with Arch. As a matter of fact, the landing and t/o are the most interesting parts of any flight for me. That's where you get to see a pilot's airmanship up close and concentrated in time! Serious - when I see youtube video of an rc flight, I always fast forward to the end to see the landing. If the landing's edited out, that's lame imo. I don't understand why they don't judge them in FAI. Nothing's more satisfying to me than consistent landings in challenging conditions. Also, I don't think most guys who can't land or take off safely in the first place, cutting the judging on those elements won't keep anybody from getting hit.
Bill
Those of you who like to watch yourself and others fly a TO and landing will still get to do that. Your still going to do the maneuver.
01-12-2012, 09:04 AM
#61
Senior Member
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: apereira
The glow set up with no fuel is comparable by weight to the electric set up with batteries, that's why is that way, and the weight with no fuel has been in place years before electrics entered the game, so electric being the new thing was adapted to the fuel powered regulations, not the other way around, if models are to be weighed with fuel, then most will fail weight check, and then the fuel industry in Pattern will disappear.
Regards
Alejandro P.
The glow set up with no fuel is comparable by weight to the electric set up with batteries, that's why is that way, and the weight with no fuel has been in place years before electrics entered the game, so electric being the new thing was adapted to the fuel powered regulations, not the other way around, if models are to be weighed with fuel, then most will fail weight check, and then the fuel industry in Pattern will disappear.
Regards
Alejandro P.
01-12-2012, 10:40 AM
#62
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Orlando,
FL
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
Why are you guys making the weight rule issue so complicated ? We either make weight or not, whether we run glow,gas,electric, steam, rubber powered or whatever ... My opinion as stated earlier in the thread is to get rid of the rule and just limit the size and maybe the noise. Keeping things stupid simple....
01-12-2012, 12:56 PM
#64
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: nonstoprc
Then you could see a jet engine powered ship in your next contest.
Then you could see a jet engine powered ship in your next contest.
Idont agree to any of that at all. The reality is, that guy still has to be a great pilot.
Guys, Idominated novice with an Ugly Stick... Ithen moved up and dominated in Sportsman with a SuperKaos 60. Ialso dominated most contests with that same Kaos, beaten up and oil soaked, in Advanced. Ending up 11th out of 100~some contestants at the 89 Nats.
Thats all Icould afford with Dad's help back then. Iknow Iwould have done much better if Iwas sponsored with the best of the best, but Iwas handicapped with my ugly kaos 60.
Ithink we just need to be honest... its not the plane that may show up to compete against... its the pilot!
I can promise you all, when my biggest competition shows up at a contest, what he is flying is the secondary thought/concern.
I really dont believe removing the weight rule would change much of anything, so long as the size stays in place.
01-12-2012, 01:19 PM
#65
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
I guess my point is misunderstood.
Yes the skill of the pilot is most important. No question about it.
But, when the weight limit is removed, different kinds of planes can enter the picture.
Would you want to compete with a jet in a pattern contest?
Yes the skill of the pilot is most important. No question about it.
But, when the weight limit is removed, different kinds of planes can enter the picture.
Would you want to compete with a jet in a pattern contest?
01-12-2012, 01:42 PM
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Charlotte,
NC
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: Shimano
I keep seeing this kind of statement being the ending argument for removing weight limits.. or the classic ''Some guy in a massive overpowered biplane will dominate''
I dont agree to any of that at all. The reality is, that guy still has to be a great pilot.
Guys, I dominated novice with an Ugly Stick... I then moved up and dominated in Sportsman with a Super Kaos 60. I also dominated most contests with that same Kaos, beaten up and oil soaked, in Advanced. Ending up 11th out of 100~some contestants at the 89 Nats.
Thats all I could afford with Dad's help back then. I know I would have done much better if I was sponsored with the best of the best, but I was handicapped with my ugly kaos 60.
I think we just need to be honest... its not the plane that may show up to compete against... its the pilot!
I can promise you all, when my biggest competition shows up at a contest, what he is flying is the secondary thought/concern.
I really dont believe removing the weight rule would change much of anything, so long as the size stays in place.
ORIGINAL: nonstoprc
Then you could see a jet engine powered ship in your next contest.
Then you could see a jet engine powered ship in your next contest.
I dont agree to any of that at all. The reality is, that guy still has to be a great pilot.
Guys, I dominated novice with an Ugly Stick... I then moved up and dominated in Sportsman with a Super Kaos 60. I also dominated most contests with that same Kaos, beaten up and oil soaked, in Advanced. Ending up 11th out of 100~some contestants at the 89 Nats.
Thats all I could afford with Dad's help back then. I know I would have done much better if I was sponsored with the best of the best, but I was handicapped with my ugly kaos 60.
I think we just need to be honest... its not the plane that may show up to compete against... its the pilot!
I can promise you all, when my biggest competition shows up at a contest, what he is flying is the secondary thought/concern.
I really dont believe removing the weight rule would change much of anything, so long as the size stays in place.
1) Nats attendance could possibly increase by approximately 40% according to the survey
2) Guys\Gals could tip the scales slightly to attend the Nats if they needed or wanted to
3) Could possibly eliminate the concern over lipo manufacturers and distributors not being able to economically cater to a limited market seeking lighter and lighter batteries. It is getting more difficult to get 20c's anymore, which are lighter.
Here are a few certainty's.
1) It will reduce costs overall for pattern.
2) No one will fly a jet in a pattern contest (well their will always be that one)
01-12-2012, 02:11 PM
#67
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Orlando,
FL
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
Well right now anyone can enter a jet into pattern and weight would not be an issue. Look at the Kolibri turbine. It is smaller than a soda can. The only rule that might prevent one from using it in pattern would be the noise. Also AMA rules do not restrict the use of jet propulsion. I'd love to have someone enter a jet in a contest. I bet it will be really hard to perform a stall turn and make the noise limit. Unless it has thrust vectoring... I recently heard a prominent jet manufacturer talking about the possibility of jet pattern... But that is a totally different topic.
01-12-2012, 02:15 PM
#68
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
MTK,
I have seen many many glow set ups in the world championships on the edge of the 5Kg than in any local competition, and there is no way a YS powered plane can fly FAI with 8oz and be safe to finish schedules with 20mph winds. My Osmose in the WC in Portugal was 4995gr with no fuel, so thinking about the amount of fuels needed is not realistic, my Axiome with top of the line gear is 4890(dual batteries and regulators), it will not pass with a full fuel tank, an Onas will pass as it is a smaller plane, I have it too and in electric, and with batteries(Rhinos) is 4800gr.
The rules are simple and haven argued for years anyway, what you propose is not possible as the helpers in the competition need things as simple as possible or they won't do it, is hard enough to make a simple weight check already.
As Neil said, if the weight rule is eliminated more people will attend, and it is not a WC anyway, there is people that do this for fun still.
Regards
Alejandro P.
I have seen many many glow set ups in the world championships on the edge of the 5Kg than in any local competition, and there is no way a YS powered plane can fly FAI with 8oz and be safe to finish schedules with 20mph winds. My Osmose in the WC in Portugal was 4995gr with no fuel, so thinking about the amount of fuels needed is not realistic, my Axiome with top of the line gear is 4890(dual batteries and regulators), it will not pass with a full fuel tank, an Onas will pass as it is a smaller plane, I have it too and in electric, and with batteries(Rhinos) is 4800gr.
The rules are simple and haven argued for years anyway, what you propose is not possible as the helpers in the competition need things as simple as possible or they won't do it, is hard enough to make a simple weight check already.
As Neil said, if the weight rule is eliminated more people will attend, and it is not a WC anyway, there is people that do this for fun still.
Regards
Alejandro P.
01-12-2012, 02:49 PM
#69
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: NeilRivera
Well right now anyone can enter a jet into pattern and weigh would not be an issue. Look at the Kolibri turbine. It is smaller than a soda can. The only rule that might prevent one from using it in pattern would be the noise. Also AMA rules do not restrict the use of jet propulsion. I'd love to have someone enter a jet in a contest. I bet it will be really hard to perform a stall turn and make the noise limit. Unless it has thrust vectoring... I recently heard a prominent jet manufacturer talking about the possibility of jet pattern... But that is a totally different topic.
Well right now anyone can enter a jet into pattern and weigh would not be an issue. Look at the Kolibri turbine. It is smaller than a soda can. The only rule that might prevent one from using it in pattern would be the noise. Also AMA rules do not restrict the use of jet propulsion. I'd love to have someone enter a jet in a contest. I bet it will be really hard to perform a stall turn and make the noise limit. Unless it has thrust vectoring... I recently heard a prominent jet manufacturer talking about the possibility of jet pattern... But that is a totally different topic.
01-12-2012, 03:26 PM
#70
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
FIrst of all, I luv you all. 
Sometimes, I think we are afraid of change. Sometimes, I think we take the side of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". I have yet to see one valid reason why the weight rule makes pattern better. Not because it's always been there or someone could put a gas engine in a plane and have more power but an honest to God reason why the weight rule holds merit or how it makes pattern better. Mr. Sweeney gave several reasons above why removing the weight rule would be extraordinary and they are valid reasons. The argument that this has been hashed over and over doesn't make a hill of beans when it comes right down to it. Obviously, nothing has been done AND there's probably a good reason why. So....what is the reason really? That's all I'd like to hear...why? To me, the reasons to remove it are superior. Keep the 2 meter size and that's going to limit us plenty. We ALL have more power than we use. My 4995g De Ja Vu flies the entire sequence at 1/2 throttle and the verticals require just slightly more. We NEVER use full throttle and if you are, I'd suggest checking your packs. I've flown Hebert designs, I've flown Glen Watson's planes on glow and they too have more than enough power. A bigger engine isn't going to change the ball game. Removing the weight restriction could and will entice more people to attend events, especially the NATS according to the Weight poll here on RCU.
Let's discuss safety for a second. I'd like to put an arming switch on my second De Ja Vu. Guess what, I can't because it would put me over the limit. I've already discussed the redundant regulators so no need to go there again. My point is, we shave here and there and we bore holes over there and run lighter gauge wire here all to save weight when in reality, we are not as safe as we would have been had we not done that. Particularly with arming switches and lighter gauge wire all in the name of a few grams. I'm not saying it can't be done but is it really necessary to go to these great lengths that I've seen posted around here all in the name of grams? I don't think it is and I also think it's sad that people stay away from a National event because they are just over the limit. The size and noise limit is sufficient. No one has given a definite safety, "field-leveling" reason why the weight limit needs to be enforced that solidifies the weight rule. It's outdated and we should change it for the betterment of pattern as well as increased attendance at our national level.
And, I still luv y'all.
Sometimes, I think we are afraid of change. Sometimes, I think we take the side of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". I have yet to see one valid reason why the weight rule makes pattern better. Not because it's always been there or someone could put a gas engine in a plane and have more power but an honest to God reason why the weight rule holds merit or how it makes pattern better. Mr. Sweeney gave several reasons above why removing the weight rule would be extraordinary and they are valid reasons. The argument that this has been hashed over and over doesn't make a hill of beans when it comes right down to it. Obviously, nothing has been done AND there's probably a good reason why. So....what is the reason really? That's all I'd like to hear...why? To me, the reasons to remove it are superior. Keep the 2 meter size and that's going to limit us plenty. We ALL have more power than we use. My 4995g De Ja Vu flies the entire sequence at 1/2 throttle and the verticals require just slightly more. We NEVER use full throttle and if you are, I'd suggest checking your packs. I've flown Hebert designs, I've flown Glen Watson's planes on glow and they too have more than enough power. A bigger engine isn't going to change the ball game. Removing the weight restriction could and will entice more people to attend events, especially the NATS according to the Weight poll here on RCU.
Let's discuss safety for a second. I'd like to put an arming switch on my second De Ja Vu. Guess what, I can't because it would put me over the limit. I've already discussed the redundant regulators so no need to go there again. My point is, we shave here and there and we bore holes over there and run lighter gauge wire here all to save weight when in reality, we are not as safe as we would have been had we not done that. Particularly with arming switches and lighter gauge wire all in the name of a few grams. I'm not saying it can't be done but is it really necessary to go to these great lengths that I've seen posted around here all in the name of grams? I don't think it is and I also think it's sad that people stay away from a National event because they are just over the limit. The size and noise limit is sufficient. No one has given a definite safety, "field-leveling" reason why the weight limit needs to be enforced that solidifies the weight rule. It's outdated and we should change it for the betterment of pattern as well as increased attendance at our national level.
And, I still luv y'all.
01-12-2012, 04:57 PM
#72
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bolivia, NC
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: CLRD2LAND
FIrst of all, I luv you all.
Sometimes, I think we are afraid of change. Sometimes, I think we take the side of ''If it ain't broke, don't fix it''. I have yet to see one valid reason why the weight rule makes pattern better. Not because it's always been there or someone could put a gas engine in a plane and have more power but an honest to God reason why the weight rule holds merit or how it makes pattern better. Mr. Sweeney gave several reasons above why removing the weight rule would be extraordinary and they are valid reasons. The argument that this has been hashed over and over doesn't make a hill of beans when it comes right down to it. Obviously, nothing has been done AND there's probably a good reason why. So....what is the reason really? That's all I'd like to hear...why? To me, the reasons to remove it are superior. Keep the 2 meter size and that's going to limit us plenty. We ALL have more power than we use. My 4995g De Ja Vu flies the entire sequence at 1/2 throttle and the verticals require just slightly more. We NEVER use full throttle and if you are, I'd suggest checking your packs. I've flown Hebert designs, I've flown Glen Watson's planes on glow and they too have more than enough power. A bigger engine isn't going to change the ball game. Removing the weight restriction could and will entice more people to attend events, especially the NATS according to the Weight poll here on RCU.
Let's discuss safety for a second. I'd like to put an arming switch on my second De Ja Vu. Guess what, I can't because it would put me over the limit. I've already discussed the redundant regulators so no need to go there again. My point is, we shave here and there and we bore holes over there and run lighter gauge wire here all to save weight when in reality, we are not as safe as we would have been had we not done that. Particularly with arming switches and lighter gauge wire all in the name of a few grams. I'm not saying it can't be done but is it really necessary to go to these great lengths that I've seen posted around here all in the name of grams? I don't think it is and I also think it's sad that people stay away from a National event because they are just over the limit. The size and noise limit is sufficient. No one has given a definite safety, ''field-leveling'' reason why the weight limit needs to be enforced that solidifies the weight rule. It's outdated and we should change it for the betterment of pattern as well as increased attendance at our national level.
And, I still luv y'all.
FIrst of all, I luv you all.
Sometimes, I think we are afraid of change. Sometimes, I think we take the side of ''If it ain't broke, don't fix it''. I have yet to see one valid reason why the weight rule makes pattern better. Not because it's always been there or someone could put a gas engine in a plane and have more power but an honest to God reason why the weight rule holds merit or how it makes pattern better. Mr. Sweeney gave several reasons above why removing the weight rule would be extraordinary and they are valid reasons. The argument that this has been hashed over and over doesn't make a hill of beans when it comes right down to it. Obviously, nothing has been done AND there's probably a good reason why. So....what is the reason really? That's all I'd like to hear...why? To me, the reasons to remove it are superior. Keep the 2 meter size and that's going to limit us plenty. We ALL have more power than we use. My 4995g De Ja Vu flies the entire sequence at 1/2 throttle and the verticals require just slightly more. We NEVER use full throttle and if you are, I'd suggest checking your packs. I've flown Hebert designs, I've flown Glen Watson's planes on glow and they too have more than enough power. A bigger engine isn't going to change the ball game. Removing the weight restriction could and will entice more people to attend events, especially the NATS according to the Weight poll here on RCU.
Let's discuss safety for a second. I'd like to put an arming switch on my second De Ja Vu. Guess what, I can't because it would put me over the limit. I've already discussed the redundant regulators so no need to go there again. My point is, we shave here and there and we bore holes over there and run lighter gauge wire here all to save weight when in reality, we are not as safe as we would have been had we not done that. Particularly with arming switches and lighter gauge wire all in the name of a few grams. I'm not saying it can't be done but is it really necessary to go to these great lengths that I've seen posted around here all in the name of grams? I don't think it is and I also think it's sad that people stay away from a National event because they are just over the limit. The size and noise limit is sufficient. No one has given a definite safety, ''field-leveling'' reason why the weight limit needs to be enforced that solidifies the weight rule. It's outdated and we should change it for the betterment of pattern as well as increased attendance at our national level.
And, I still luv y'all.
01-12-2012, 06:48 PM
#73
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
The NSRCA board is putting together the rules committee this month and I already know of a few rules submissions for consideration. Maybe this time it will be different. Rules submissions are due mid-March
Dick, Mrs. Mundee may have taken you but pattern will always have your heart.
01-12-2012, 07:34 PM
#74
My Feedback: (46)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Bridgewater,
NJ
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
What we will get with eliminating the weight rule is noisy IMAC type planes because people know that CD's have not been enforcing the noise rule at local contests. This will force CD's into doing sound tests to prevent things from getting out of hand.
Maybe we outta get rid of the noise rule why we are at it
Next will be the size limit. Heck let anything go. I bet pattern will not grow much because it just ain't got that wow factor. Guess what, as you can guess I am still a pattern purist. I've followed the rules since the late 80's, why can't everyone else. Eliminating the weight rule is just another example of the indoctrination that kids get today in competition that everyone is a winner. Yeah right. Ain't the 4 ozs extra that was added enough?
Maybe we outta get rid of the noise rule why we are at it
Next will be the size limit. Heck let anything go. I bet pattern will not grow much because it just ain't got that wow factor. Guess what, as you can guess I am still a pattern purist. I've followed the rules since the late 80's, why can't everyone else. Eliminating the weight rule is just another example of the indoctrination that kids get today in competition that everyone is a winner. Yeah right. Ain't the 4 ozs extra that was added enough?
01-12-2012, 09:29 PM
#75
My Feedback: (92)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rosamond, CA
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
I really have a problem with the viewpoint that the rules should never be changed. Everything changes. Electric was not even close to practical when the majority of the rules were made. We change the patterns on a constant basis. Why shouldn't the rules governing the models be reviewed and adjusted as the times change?