.

So what? I say bring 'em on.

I find noisy planes as irritating as the next guy but wouldn't it be great to see a sportsman class with 6 guys flying small gas powered IMAC style
planes? Better than three guys flying pure pattern planes. Ready made pattern pilots don't appear out of thin air, fully committed to the "purity" of pattern. They have to start somewhere and often that is with an affordable, quick build small gas plane. These guys are some low hanging fruit for pattern recruits. Alienating them is shooting ourselves in the foot. Get them hooked and worry about getting them pure later.

Most new pattern pilots will try their first contest at their local field or a nearby club. They will fly whatever they have. If you don't get them here, you won't get them anywhere.

You are not going to save any fields by prohibiting a noisy plane from flying in a pattern contest if the same guy can fly there the other 363 days of the year. If the field has a noise problem then fine, no fly.

Pattern purity = country club mentality = declining participation.

A noise limit is effectively a power limit. If there could only be one rule enforced, what would be more sensible, a noise limit or a weight limit?
Testing for noise rather than for weight would eliminate the silly debate over whether wet fuel has an unfair advantage over electric power.

Electric would benefit most from a noise only test since less vibration = less transmitted noise from the airframe.

You do realize that most if not all CDs of local contests allow any AMA legal airplane in Sportsman so that argument doesn't hold water except at the NATS where Sportsman is not flown. If you showed up at St. Clairsville and wanted to fly Sportsman with a 100cc Yak none of us would stop you...you'd be welcome with open arms.

As for the noise rule saving a field, perhaps not, but it may save a venue for a pattern meet for the next year. My local field has a noise limit and they have no equipment for testing or enforcement other than our ears telling us a plane is loud but it saved our field and it's there, just a rule to live by and if I want to fly there and practice I need to meet it.

Ok we have similar debates here in SA&gt;<div>
</div><div>Currently our rules for Novice and Sportsman follow the norm with T/O and Landing is judged. Planes have a max weight of 5.5kg and noise is not strictly enforced. This is too encourage folks who may fly 30% LS aerobat to participate. </div><div>For Advanced and Masters T/O and Landing is not judged and the weight limit is 5.5KG, again to help keep the cost within reason as a 2nd hand 2x2 that's done the rounds could be over the 5kg limit for F3a due to use and abuse and therefore necessary repair.</div><div>For F3A we follow the technical rules to the letter except noise is only measured at NATS and Masters.</div><div>
</div><div>The need for the weight rule has also been debated over here to death. No one sees why its needed but its the rules so its followed.</div><div>Some fear Large Scale Bipes may be eligable if the weight rule is not applied but heck if you can fly one of those as smoothly as a dedicated pattern plane then you probably deserve to win!.</div><div>
</div><div>Globally it would be ideal to see the weight rule removed. The more expensive planes will always be thereabouts but it will encourage moe F3A participation but at lower cost. F3A should not be about the size of the cheque book...</div><div>
</div><div>So my interest in this discussion is that changes that happen in the bigger participant area of the globe have a large influence over how the rules will shape up in future. I hope theres concensus around the lack of a need for a weight rule.</div><div>
</div><div>However T/O and Landing should be judged. I think by the time you're ready for F3A you should be able to land...and therefore its not necessary to judge that.</div>

I would like to see the AMA pattern maximum size reduced from 2 meters to a lower value
like 1.5 or 1.6 meters.
However I know that is unlikely to happen.

The large IMAC planes and 2 meter pattern models are just too costly and difficult
to transport and have the effect of blocking the development of new modellers
into pattern.

I know that one can legally fly pattern with smaller models but larger models do fly
better and a person flying a small model in a pattern contest is looked on
as a beginner and feels the need to get a 2meter model to continue advancement
in pattern.

I don't know for sure, but suspect the fraction of AMA-club modellers interested in participation
in pattern has greatly diminished over recent years. Pattern is dead
in my state but flourished a few years ago.

bjw4072, I suppose it depends on who is flying that "small model in a pattern contest"! As I recall, Tony F was giving lessons in Masters with a "properly powered" Sequence at one of the California contests last year. I'm sure no one looks on him as "a beginner". Unfortunately downsizing our pattern planes will not reduce the overall costs of competing. Anyway, I'm sorry to hear pattern participation has deminished in popularity there in the good state of Alaska. Wish all of you well and hope pattern makes a future comeback in your area. Regards, Everette

Why would a size reduction not result in less expensive planes and less cost for competing?
The 110 size planes airframes are cheaper, motors are cheaper, batteries are cheaper, and with less problems meeting the 5Kg weight, less of the expensive accessories would be needed. Could also carry them in less expensive vehicles if one wanted to.
I'm not advocating the change, but it would certainly be less expensive. Even cheaper if we all flew foamies!

Such a rule change is a frightening thought. Every plane and motor/engine designed to be competitive under the current rules would be obsolete overnight. All the manufacturers tooling, jigs, designs etc would be junk. Talk about an expensive change, there is nothing cheap about such a proposal. Just convincing manufacturers to stay involved in a small market and start over would be a major task.

There is not that much difference in airframe costs right now. The Vanquish is $850, the Wind 110 is $600. Similar construction methods. If you want a smaller aircraft that is composite, costs will be right back up there over $2000, if you are lucky. A lot more if the manufacturers want to amortize their new startup costs ever the first 100 out the door.


John

Thanks, John (jgg215), you took the words right out of my mouth! My experience over the last 24 years is that pattern has never been and will never be cheap. Now, I've seen my fair share of pattern pilots that have tried to "play it cheap" with very limited success. Like others have said, you get what you pay for and nothing more!___Everette

Perhaps limit the Sportsman class to the 110 stuff. This would level the playing field for the class, would be an inexpensive intro for guys and would eliminate the intimidation factor of beginners having to face flying against full blown F3A rigs at that level.

But then what happens to the guy who shows up with a IMAC bird to try Pattern?

Not sure, but it is a pattern event...Flame suit is on[&o]

Nomex underwear is always a good thing.

You can bring an 110 sized pattern plane to win AMA sportsman competition. I did that with Venus II + YS110 , which presents as well in air as 2M ones for that class.

The ground is already leveled for AMA sportsman and the pilot's skill is what matters.

You could bring a 110-sized airplane to a local contest and win FAI. It's the skills and practice that counts.

And who else shows up!

Thank you. I thought nobody is reading this thread on Sunday's evening.

Hmmm, last rules cycle there was a gaggle of proposal submissions. So far I see only one.

.
I think guys have given up . . .
.
Succumbed to "The Man" . . .
.
Laid down under the Bus. . .
.
Clutched their chest, leaned back and screamed "Elizabeth, I'm coming to see ya!!" . . .
.
Volunteered to be turned into Soylent Green. . .
.

Good luck Joe! Been there, done that.

Im sure no one will want to hear this, but in all honesty.... and this is just from my own observations, mind you.. maybe Im evil...

Most people use a rule change as avoidance to really admit that there are just simply better pilots out there. (no matter what the hell they are flying!)

I honestly believe that even if you went to the length of only allowing ONE designated aircraft to be used in each class, and everyone had to use the same exact equipment, had to weigh within grams of the exact same weight, etc.. there would be those out there that would just still not accept that they are just not ever going to be as good as the next better pilot that beats him consistently.. (and would impose some rule changes to compinstate thier handicap)

Come on guys.. lets just fly.

*Forgot to mention the other half reason, wich is not having having the money that other guys have for the best of the best gear/equipment..

Mel, you're not willing to believe that many make rules proposals because they believe it will make the event better? I made my weight proposal last cycle after I had won the Masters class at the AMA Nats. Was I trying to change the rules so I could win?

I do believe you are saying that everyone has an ulterior motive. I don't accept that.

No motive on my part. I will continue to make my stuff be within the current rules just because I know it will always fly better. For the most part, FAI rules and sequences will always drive what designs are available.