Which brings us back to the weight rule is not usually enforced at a local contest.

You do have a point about the wrestling.

Yes, I looked at both and I liked the Power box better.

Yes, I looked at both and I liked the Power box better.

I am using TP 350's and they come out around 46 grams together as a set with the velcro and so forth. I was actually thinking of going with a little more next time, but perhaps I should re-think it. I sliced a good portion of the cone off of the spinner for additional airflow to the motor, ESC and batteries and all of that comes out to 60grams including the bolts and so forth. Where are you getting the titanium bolts?

I got my prop nuts (10mm 1.25) at a shop in Toronto (http://www.torontocycles.com/Selling...ium_Bolts.html).

[link=http://www.mcmaster.com/#socket-head-cap-screws/=g13o63]McMaster-Carr[/link]

They have almost anything you could imagine, and they ship so fast you'll think they mailed it before you ordered it.

Of course, they're not cheap!!

Try MetTec...Ti bolts are very expensive but these guys are about 2/3rds the cost of McMasterCarr and less in some cases. Delivery was around 5 days or 5X longer than McMaster. I replaced the whole set of steel bolts on my DLE55 with Ti (around 40$), and shaved about 1 1/4 ounces. These were 5mm bolts (about 10-32 size) which are heavy and the heaviest and most expensive were the two 60mm carb bolts. Didn't have the guts to try them on the prop tho...those 4 bolts are also heavy and aircraft Ti would probably work okay there too; just too chicken to try them

For electric stuff, why not use aluminum bolts? In my search for strong and light, I've saw some Ally aircraft alloy bolts with rather high tensile strength (probably more than adequate for e-stuff). Ally is around 2/3rds the weight of Ti at 1/3 the cost (I think that's right). Met Tec is one decent source for Ally bolts too. My search was not exhaustive by any stretch and I had no interest in Ally alloys so I didn't dig very deep. I could be a little off in my estimates.

For a really snazzy look, take a look at their anodized colors, but these are even more pricy

Still waiting on a response on this. Why do we have the 2-meter rule, and why is it more important than the 11 pound weight rule?

The AMA followed the FAI paradigm about 20 years ago.

There was a time (70's? maybe even a bit later) when size was not a limiting rule

Please correct me if I am wrong but in the 70's/80's pattern was flown with a 60 size plane BECAUSE that was the technology of the day. A 150cc 3m pattern plane was just a dream......

We have just been through a provincial (state) competition locally where the pattern rules have come under fire. I am not against rule modifications perse but 2m / 11lb is what we currently consider pattern. Locally many LSA pilots consider pattern "expensive" but that is just because of the lack of international participation in our LSA. Size is cost and if you want a bigger plane then fly F3M. IMAC doesn't count (locally in any event) in my opinion as I fail to see the PRECISION in IMAC.

I would rather consider weight increases. The current 11lb weight limit is a legacy of the "glow"past. A 12lb ( or 13lb) weight limit would open the field to many more cost conscious 'electric' pattern pilots. Maybe allow a 2lb leeway for electric only? The weight penalty combined with the size limit will be enough to discourage top pattern pilots from following suite, especially at the 2013 world champs at 4000+ feet ASL and 90F and above.

.
Because doorways in Europe are 2M high. If you build airplanes any larger, they can't get them out of their apartments. . . .
.

.
BTW - I just made that up . . .[img]../../punymce/plugins/emoticons/img/trans.gif[/img]
.

And there I was just thinking that EVERYTHING in the USA was bigger

.
You oughtta see the 4 meter pattern planes they fly in TEXAS!!!!
.
I think this one is McHarg's . . . .
.

We all know that the 5000g rule was set way before the advent of e-power for our pattern ships.  Technology does continue to improve but we all know there was no thought of ever having an electric powered airplane when that rule was created.  The glow ships easily make 5000g (typically and without great expenditures) and when that rule was made, 5000g would have been considered a ridiculously heavy ship.

It really is OK to change rules to adapt to newer technology.  Technology has ushered in the advent of LiPo powered ships swinging 22" props and contra-rotating drive systems.  We do want to innovate but sometimes in order to grow, our base rules need to be modified.  I say we should consider looking at this simply due to the fact the rule is actually archaic and should be redefined based on current technology.  Again, no way were electric powered planes considered for the current weight limitations.

True and all those have flown at the NATS and made weight. Had the 5 KG weight limit not been there would the technology exist as it does today? Necessity is the mother of invention.

[/quote]
And there I was just thinking that EVERYTHING in the USA was bigger
[/quote]
.
You oughtta see the 4 meter pattern planes they fly in TEXAS!!!!
.
I think this one is McHarg's . . . .
.


[/quote]

Keith......now THAT was funny!! Had a good belly laugh from that one!

Pattern planes up here in Canada have mittens on their wings and tail feathers and touques on their canopies!!

Re the weight rule change I would very much support at least changing the rules to even out the difference between EP and GP. Who's to say the GP guy has a half a tank left at the end of the sequence and after landing is still overweight? There is a common belief that a heavier airframe does not handle any better but I think in windy/gusty conditions the heavier loaded airframe has an advantage. Just my opinion though. I do know very well that gliders in those conditions really benefit from adding ballast.

Keep up the discussion......it is interesting!

Cheers

MJ

Pete what you say is very true, very true indeed. The point is though and in my opinion always has been that innovation typically costs money. Some of us have it and some of us don't. I believe that we are limiting our potential by making this a "pay to play" sport. I don't think it has to be like that. Do you think we should have stuck with solely ARSA and TRSA designations instead of adopting the current classification of airspace? What was the purpose? The purpose was because the older classifications could not handle the amount of air traffic and congestion without further parameters and for a standardization that everyone else did back in 1990 vs. 1993 when the US went to a slightly modified version. The rule was changed due to new technology and the need to adapt to changing demands.

I don't believe in the "I did it so you can too" mentality. Not everyone has the money, skills or time that it takes to keep up with innovative resources that allow electric planes to be "easily" under 5000g. I don't think we should look at it within those terms. I think we need to consider everyone and especially those that don't participate for whatever the reason. Just because we made weight doesn't mean that Joe Blow has the money to do it as well. I think that if we go with this mindset, we will indeed wind up hurting the popularity and certainly the attendance of pattern competition be it on a local or national level. I think that we will be limiting ourselves and our facet then becomes a country club of the rich.

Almost every other country has adopted a 5500g weight rule for every class except FAI including Austaila, Europe and some of Asia. The UKhas even gone as far as a 7000g limit. I am not saying that we absolutely must follow the rest of the world but Iwould like to point out that the majority of the world has made this change for a reason. Are we just not willing to look at the potential good things this does and could provide because we are American and we do our own thing? I hope not.

Scott, is there some way to find out if the higher weight allowance led to increased participation?

Everything costs money Scott, innovation and stagnation. What is the first rule of economics? There is no such thing as a free lunch.

I have such a small budget for my hobby that if escalation does happen, as I have seen in other hobbies over the years, pattern will nothing but memory for me. If for no other reason the is why I am so opposed to this unless we institute anther constraint. If the crux of the argument is truly to make things more affordable then we institute a price cap on the airframe/power plant combo and everyone is happy as well as having a little more pocket pocketchange. $2000 all up cost for a RX ready pattern ship as a cap and we are all happy, except the manufacturers.

This is very much a pay to play hobby, they all are. As I indicated above I do not have the monetary resources to buy a top of the line ARF and outfit with the best stuff out there, nor do I have the time to go and fly my face off to be the best I possibly can be. I can however build, use a scale and research my equipment to make sure I meet the rules. You may not be of the if I can do it you can too mindset, but if a person would rather relax the rules instead of work to meet them that falls under the the we are all winners mindset so why are we competing?

Unfortunately the airspace argument does not relate to this issue, the preservation and safety of human life and toy airplanes are nowhere near being on the same level in my view of the world.

Final point and then I will go back to lurking and just abide by the rules. If all these other countries have adopted a higher limit, what was the reasoning and the final impact on cost? I am curious what data has been gleaned from this that directly impacts this discussion.

Hi Bob,
   If there is, I don't have it sir.  I'm basing this solely off of my opinion.  I do see in that poll at least "X" number of people that say they would attend the NATS if.....
  I try to use reasoning and I'm not saying it's perfect.  I see a lot more people even in this thread that say they would like an increase more than are saying don't change it.
   Sir, by no means am I being smart to you, I am just being honest.

Scott

Pete,
The reasoning behind the example of airspace was weak I admit but, in a way, it does fall into play here. There is actually a safety reason behind this such as people changing the airframe to save weight, people running lighter gauge wire on the ESC, no arming switch on the plane and plugging a battery straight in to the ESC and it becoming live, people running 150mah-350mah rx battery packs to save the weight. All of these things, in one way or the other, are a safety concern. Of course, we've learned the hard way to not act until something happens but it will. Even the airlines have faced this same scenario. Don't worry about it until we get caught.
There are a lot of people posting in this thread Pete and you are one of those guys I truly respect. I don't have the data to back it all up but it is reasonable. I agree I should be able to present some of these things and I cannot. I'm simply trying to get people to think outside the box (pun not intended) and look at potentially the good things that this would do vs. the things that are bad. I hope that maybe the good things out weigh the bad. They do for me anyways. I do follow the rules and whatever the AMA Committee decides, I will follow then too. I would just like to try while there is time remaining.
One other thing. If we take the price cap idea and project it to even next year, that means that the majority of current planes then become obsolete. That certainly doesn't help Idon't think. Raising the weight limit does not obsolete our De Ja Vu's or any current design. It simply allows room for those that cannot make the weight and these folks are out there.

Scott, I appreciate that sentiment.

However, before you mentioned it I did not know about the higher weight limits elsewhere, so perhaps we can ask some Pattern organizations about the effects of the weight increase in other countries before we experiment with it here.

Seems to me if there is a metric available we should use it.

Maybe some of our UK and Oz posters could enlighten us a bit.

Scott I am very big on outside the box thinking, my concern is solely based on past experience. As for the current gear being obsolete that can be addressed by a grandfather clause, but the cost cap will never gain traction.

Again, if raising the weight limit is considered you need to balance the equation and that would mean some other limit of equal value.

There are a lot of people reading this thread and I enjoy reading all the responses as you never know what a persons input can spawn in open conversation.

Why was it introduced? Why the arbitrary 2-meter limit?

I understand that it followed FAI, but why?

My point being, some people feel that the weight rule is antiquated and pointless because they have to spend a little extra time or money to conform to it. It is seen as an imposition and to continue to follow it promotes the herd mentality. I have made my stance on the weight rule known in the other thread, so I’m going to play devil’s advocate.

Since the reasoning for the genesis of the weight rule seems to be cloaked in ambiguity, and the best explanation that has been given is that it just was; why don’t we look at eliminating the size rule? After all, it’s been done that way for years. I’ve been looking for an excuse to sell my soul and every worldly possession to build a Dalton Extra 300 MEL with a DA200 anyway, so if I could fly it more by flying it legally in a pattern contest; that would be sweet.

Why is the weight rule less important than the size rule?

Scott, I would like some more information in your post 193. I would like to know which countries (specifically in Europe and Asia) have passed such rules. If possible, I would like to see a report from the aerobatic SIGs of each country that details:

1. When they raised their weight limit.
2. Why they raised their weight limit.
3. What ramifications they have seen, if any, from raising the weight limit.
4. Some sort of gauge of how much it has helped their sport; locally and nationally. I would envision this as being a graph showing the number of participants from events (excluding DNFs), and contrasting that with the numbers post-increase. I think a trend of several years prior to the weight increase’s introduction would show a good trend.

The purpose of this is to see if it actually helps gain an appreciable amount of participation from people in lower classes, or if it’s just water cooler banter amongst the peanut gallery and those who either don’t go to contests, or fly two rounds and leave.

My personal history will tell my feelings quite well. I’ve never had a ton of money to spend on the hobby, and I didn’t receive really any help from my parents when I was living at home. There is no way in the world that I could dole out the money that most ARFs command these days, not to mention not really being able to afford a kit recently. I can’t/couldn’t afford to build an airplane to conform to increasingly strict rules that require a different airplane, truthfully. That being said, I did have a rather large benefactor that helped me get into the hobby; Joey Hayes. We worked out a deal for his Partner that allowed me to start flying pattern. I flew that airplane from my first contest in Sportsman all the way through to my first several Masters contests several years later. This included two Nats participations. I honestly would probably still be flying it if I hadn’t lost it due to a battery issue (owner/operator induced).

The resale value of anything is drastically less, from what I’ve seen and experience, than what one pays for something. You can lose quite a bit of money selling an airplane to try and fund a newer one, and further be in the hole if you are upgrading. I could not do that. I can, however, be smart and put in the legwork ahead of time and have an airplane and equipment that will work for what I need it to and last me. Complaining about having to buy different batteries because they didn’t work for you because they were too heavy is a bit like complaining that you bought a Telemaster and are mad because you expected to be able to fly pattern with it.

For those that want to interject something about my whining about sponsorship dollars/support, save it. Not interested in that discussion and I promise you I have more facts to argue my case than anyone could possibly have conjectures.

In any case, if someone can answer the question of why the two-meter rule was made; a tangible, real reason why (akin to Keith’s explanation, which made me chuckle), and if the information that I requested regarding other country’s experiences with weight increase can be answered, maybe I will be able to see that I was wrong all along and that increasing the weight will contribute to the continued health of pattern. Honestly, I would not be opposed to checking those sources myself, and I would be happy to compile a report for presentation.

Until then, I will still see it as the same small group of folks that claim to not have a problem making weight, but are simply concerned modelers. I have my opinions, and many, more experienced modelers whom I truly respect and look up to, share these same opinions. I am more than happy to be proven wrong.