You have to love the anonimity of the internet. A venue thats lets people prove just how stupid they are!! Isnt it about time to FLY!!!!

Peace!!

Hahaha, you must be new here. Sad thing is he will attack even people who are on his side.

No, I am not new here, but one can hope, right?

CGr

No vote ever.... has had a majority? You sadly misunderstand American politics. Which this is not. It is just a Special Interest Group of the Academy of Model Aeronautics. We try to do our best, but in the absence of our members speaking up, we have to take surveys, polls, etc., to discern what the members want. The District VP's get to rub elbows a bit at contests and local club fields. Some members email their DVP's. Outside of that, we have done our best to ask the majority what they actually want.

I will challenge you to join the NSRCA. I further challenge a broader group of members to stand up and be heard. Paying your thirty bucks and getting a card provides us with funds and a number. Paying your thirty bucks and getting a card, THEN becoming an active member helps us provide some support to the hobby within the AMA. I appreciate all of the comments here, well, maybe not some of the really nasty ones , BUT, the next time your NSRCA asks what you think, SPEAK UP!!!

Brian Clemmons D6VP

I'm being quoted does this mean I'm being heard...LOL

Wow reading these posts and in between the lines really is astonishing for the most part... I love this open forum..RAOTFLMAO....

Well said...Brian... hope to see and fly with you soon..


G; )

So it sounds like the rule was changed for the battery connection - to just keeping the batteries disconnected until flying time.

Was the weight rule passed? If so, what IS the weight rule that passed? 5.5kg?

I am/was not in favor of changing the weight rule, especially with all the new e-pattern planes coming out - there will be a plethora of new and used options within the next few years. That being said, I ran a little poll a month or two ago, and was pretty shocked at how many people said they wouldn't attend, or were on the fence about attending NATS, due to a heavy plane.

Hi Joe,<div>   The proposals did pass the NSRCA BoD.  That does not mean they became rules however.  Those proposals were sent to the AMA which will forward them to the AMA R/C Precision Aerobatics Contest Board which will take all the proposals received and decide which ones stand to reason and which ones need to be amended or even deleted.  The process is only in its infancy and nothing will be final until Nov-Dec of this year.  Those rules will then take affect in 2013.  </div>

I have a modern e-pattern plane, a Visa. It has a new Pletty Advance, CC Ice 80 esc, assembled as light as possible with a CF spinner, carbon battery and rudder tray, feather light wheels, CF prop, and a 4900mAh F3a pack. This is 130g over weight! To fly in the nats, I would need a 4400 TP pack or less, which is pushing it on a windy day. I don't see what we are accomplishing with the 5Kg limit. I would bet half or more of maters pilots in D7 ate over as well.

Dale

servo selection , rec batt selection, mounting of the rudder servo , canopy mounting, battery plate mounting , wire 12 or 10 ga connector selection, how long are the wires , motor mount selection , horn selection , clevis selection, glue disapline, etc,etc,

you have to look at weight in percentages if this connector is lighter than that connector by half even if its 3 grams its still 50% savings ... its a total package selection not just one item that does it...


We aren't accomplishing anything its the rule.Changing a rule just because its hard is no reason to change the rule.

"Its the hard that makes it fun" Tom Hanks league of there own..

I have a wind that was fat when i bought i,t it didn't cost me a arm and a leg to get it down just proper selection.

Gary

+1.

Also make sure the receiver pack is light enough to sustain one flight plus 2X of that as backup. I have TP 250mah and 470mah packs. Fully charged 250 is good for 4 flights and 470 for 6 flights.

Gary,

The correct quote is: "It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great."

The "hard" we should be talking about is flying precision aerobatics, not making weight. The non-flying rules should be designed to keep the playing field reasonably even.

You need to reread Dale's e-mail. He used light components throughout for a new airplane he is going to campaign in Masters ending up about five ounces overweight. It's tough to make up five ounces through lighter linkage than that provided and a bit less epoxy on the motor mount. Sounds to me like he got a Visa that had a little extra something in the layup.

Why can't we just move on with some relaxed weight rules? There is no advantage to being heavy but there is a big disadvantage to locking flyers out because they don't want to or cannot afforf to spend the money to make weight. With no BOM rule, why are we requiring the massive expertise required to make any given F3A airframe make weight for AMAclasses? You should be able to assume that if you add the right stuff to a new airframe, you will make weight. It just isn't so.

John

I stand corrected "on the quote"

The hard includes assembling a arf or full build . If one doesn't research and plan one only has themselves to complain to.

I see your point John but I disagree with changing the 11lb rule.


I removed 8 oz from my aircraft.. 'witnessed" the only purchase was a new wing tube and a world models $21 spinner the rest was done by grinding out platforms glue and replacing linkages and just an understanding of what light means. And have spotted 3-4 more oz.i think that can be removed by buying a piece of carbon plate from hobby-king less than $20 and reworking the motor mount.

I agree he may have gotten a fat layup..Having not seen his plane I of coarse can't comment on his build , but I saw a truck load of those aircraft at the nats and saw several weighed and make weight.

Im not trying to disparage anyone my first pattern plane was an escape that weighed in at 9.5 lb.."what a pig" ... 20+ years ago I recently built an XLT the same aircraft more or less and it came out 7lb 3oz. "attention to detail". Building light is a learned discipline. I say learn the discipline not change the rules.

Time and time again people have made weight not breaking the kids trust fund.

Trust me I am in no way some kind of guru to the building art. But my aircraft always make weight when its time without any supernatural magic or robbing a bank.


Gary

Gary,

You are an accomplished builder. We all know that. And we all know an accomplished builder can make weight with almost anything. But what you are saying is if you are not an accomplished builder, and even though you buy stuff that you believe should make weight and it doesn't, tough luck. Get better.

I'm sorry, but I think that is the wrong message to send out.

I am not an accomplished builder.

However, when I assembled my first 2-meter model about 3 years ago I had the good fortune to have the assistance - via RCU and e-mail - of Matt Kebabjian (MTK in this venue) who drilled into me the practice of watching weight at every single step during component selection, design and assembly. As a result, I ended up with an older design, a Focus II, with a hand-made soft mount for a Syssa 30cc gasser (yes, an ignition engine!) and an ES tuned pipe, custom modified pipe tunnel with an AUW of 10lb 8oz, which came in under weight FULLY FUELED. Total cost was about $2200.

Since then I have assembled a new e-model, the Sickle, that weighs in at 10lb 6oz (with a Himax motor, zippy batteries and CC 85HV) and a Spark Dynamic that I got second-hand. The Spark was very close to the limit, but I made some changes for my preferences and to lighten it a bit and it now weighs 10lb 11oz. So it CAN be done and it doesn't have to cost megabucks to do it.

Even with my relatively brief association with Pattern, I am aware some models have a reputation for being very hard or impossible to keep under 5kg without excessive expense and effort. I don't buy them! When contemplating a purchase I always search the build/assembly threads first for the weights of airframes and to see what equipment is being used.

The right message to send out is this: Guys, do some homework if you plan to attend the Nats!

Something occurred to me the other day: If the weight limit is increased to 5.5kg it will mean that just about every model will be able to make weight easily with the Contra Drive, so the next thing guys will be complaining about is that they can't afford an exotic and expensive drive system that offers a competitive advantage, and it's so unfair!

Hi,<div> So, we're concerned with keeping the weight rule at 5000g because the only place that we weigh things is at the NATS which consist of somewhere around 124 pilots(ish). Out of those 124, 45 are Masters pilots. FAI is what 30? The other 50 have a 115g allowance. Talk about a minority here. What about the guy that wants to attend the Nats but cannot, for whatever reason, make weight? Maybe a very old airframe which they<u>want</u>to fly that's had the gear ripped out a few times or wing chips fixed etc. What about someone that<u>wants</u>to fly his 2M ship but does not want to spend another $300-$400 to make weight instead of his Wind 110 in Masters at the Nats? Should we exclude them because we don't want to compete against the Contra?</div><div></div><div> I agree it will be easier for the Contra to make weight. The Contra did not win the NATS last year and to be honest, for the majority of us, the price is a little high to add another $1000+ for the drive. In fact Masters was won by a Q80 (heavy) and an APC. If we're talking about expense, those that can afford the Contra can also afford anything else and we know the Contra can make weight already. The finals will not have a whole new set of folks in it because of a piece of equipment and if you subscribe to the theory it will, that totally negates we all need to practice, practice, practice.</div><div></div><div> What if, because really we're talking about the Nats here, we have "some allowance" for all classes under AMA and attendance increases by a modest 7-10%. Have we made the wrong decision? Have we given the ability for some to fly a plane they want to fly instead of something they'd rather not fly in a national setting?</div><div></div><div> So, I bought a second De Ja Vu as we've discussed before. The plane made the finals at the NATS in 2011 at 4950g. I agree with everyone that you can make weight. I did it with this plane and I'm at 4955g. What did I do? I added a second switch and voltage regulator to the plane because I<u>want</u>redundancy, I switched to a Falcon prop, I added an external arming plug for safety of my wife and finally in order to make weight, I took my Castle ICE 80HV that came back after the recall and took off the plastic case and removed the heat sync and put heat shrink around the ESC basically giving me an 80HV Lite. Removing the plastic case and the heat sync saved 40g. You see, this is my problem though. I can run a battery pack that weighs up to 1180g with this configuration which, without spending money on ultra-lite batteries, limits me to about 4400mah. What's really concerning to me is I've removed factory equipment from the ESC in order to accomplish this. I don't like it and it worries me a little. I put the second regulator as insurance because if something happens to these two planes, I'm done competing for a while. Now, I've increased my risk to make weight because I've tampered with the ESC to save 40g. Personally, I think it's absolutely ridiculous to start modifying factory equipment (they put those pieces on for some reason) in order to make weight. I did it because, currently, that's what the rules say. I do not advocate doing this though to just anyone. The same thing applies to those who are using smaller gauge wire to accomplish the same thing.</div><div></div><div> Again, it is possible but I really don't understand why we should say it can be done so you have to or else you can't compete at the national level. I don't buy the fact that new aircraft designs will abound because of 200-500g in AMA classes. Design is dictated by FAI, not AMA. No designer would alienate the rest of the world to suit AMA fliers. I don't buy that you gain an advantage by strictly changing the weight standard for AMA only (if FAI changed, that's a whole different ball of wax). Heavier aircraft do not fly better. Contras can already make weight and if you can afford it, you really don't have an issue anyway because you can afford "whatever". If we feel so strongly about the weight rule and enforcing it, why aren't we jumping up and down that weight should be checked at the local level too? The NATS is one contest per year. 5 out of all the pattern fliers are going to win it per year. There are easily 6 contests or more each year that someone could attend at the local level. Why aren't we complaining they aren't weighed there if indeed there is an advantage to having a heavier airplane? I just don't see the logic in enforcing it at one contest where a very small percentage of all competitors attend and not being worried about it on the local level. This tells me that maybe it's just not that big of a deal in reality.</div><div></div><div> Gary, before you jump down my throat, I'll buy your first beer next time I see you </div>

Scott Ur lucky .. Lol I'm at work an this I phone cramps my hand to give a bloated dissertation ..


Gary

Thank you tony f but I am far from it ..still have new things to learn every build.

On modifying factory equipment, I say, if you have the knowhow, get after it. We are pattern people and it's in our "jeans"
Practice has always been the key and always will be, not weight and not power or type of propulsion or radio equipment
I am no longer certain that lightest flies best.....My Aesthesis is right at 11 pounds and flies well there; it was 10 1/2 # before when I ran lighter engine set-up. But it also wasn't in quite the trim it is in now. Still, the extra half pound seems to have changed (improved??) my ability to handle windy and turbulent conditions....that one snuck up on me since I've been a staunch believer in lightest=best
Personally, I'd love for the weight adder to pass so we can all move on. On the other hand, it's been alot of fun to drop in every now and then to chuckle at the latest. Where IS that guy with the deer eating popcorn avatar?

Put an OS33GT on pipe in the crate....you won't regret it and you won't have any issue making weight

Just a curious question here, at what point do we start caring about the manufacturing process. Scott, I know you bought finished De Ja Vu's, at what point is the manufacturer supposed to be held accountable for providing over weight air frames. I know of guys that have received RTF planes over weight. I'm curious as to why that is a weight issue, rather than a manufacturing issue. Why is it not OK to tell the manufacturer what it has to weigh and not accept anything less? I know companies that currently do this. Just because you paid 3K or whatever for the airplane, doesn't mean that you shouldn't have some assurance it will make weight.

Arch

If the weight limit is changed do we (us)become the new dumping ground for fat layups.. Valid point Archie. Good food for thought.

G

That would be up to the purchaser Gary. I think you have to tell them what is acceptable, especially for $2000+ for a 2M air frame.<div></div><div>Arch,</div><div>Only that second De Ja Vu was finished. My original one (the one you saw me with at the Nats) was ordered through Chip and Marcelo. It flies at 4850g with the difference being the 2nd has painted wings and stabs (100g ?). I do 100% agree with you. I dealt primarily with Chip and he did right by me. Todd Blose finished it for me but used "normal" equipment and nothing crazy. I guess the answer to your question is when those that do receive overweight air frames have manufacturers that actually listen and not say "too bad". There are some great companies out there for sure but I'm sure we've all heard the other horror stories. This, however, does not help the existing air frames that are out there and cannot compete.</div>

Scott,

By finished, I meant built and painted. Yes, Todd had to assemble and add equipment, but the airframe weight was already set. There have been people complain that they have received similar stuff heavier than what you had. I think the key was that you dealt with Chip. From previous dealings with CA before Chip was there to assist their quality control was a joke, and is one reason I wouldn't buy one of their planes, but yet many people bought planes from them and then fixed these issues rather than holding them accountable,

Arch

Arch,<div>   I understand what you're saying now.  The vast majority of planes are ARF's now of course.  We've seen many build threads and it still interests me how much weight difference there is in one plane to the next.  You're right about "my manufacturer" too.  If you took my two planes and Rick Byrd's De Ja Vu, you'd see three different amounts of anhedral in the tail.  Why (rhetorical)?.  Although you are absolutely correct, this still doesn't help those that are already out there.  It's a way to start eliminating it but doesn't do much for those that want to now.</div>

Nat might say "DE JA VU DU"

I've been following this thread with great interest. I was "trained" in pattern, but work requirements put me in a position that prevented me from getting the hours in that Pattern really needed. My instructor always told me the way to success is to burn fuel. Unfortunately, time restraints prevented me from being out as often as I really needed to be.

So, I guess you can call me a Pattern "wanna-be". That doesn't mean that I am not interested, it just means that there are situations we all have that make Pattern "overcome by events", I'm sorry to say.

However, what Pattern taught me was a couple of things. One was discipline and the other was to build them light. So, even with my "sport" planes, I attempt to keep them as light as I possibly can. So, I can't understand why manufactures allow planes that are very sport specific, Pattern, are shipped knowing that they are not going to meet weight standards. If it were me, I would think that, for the price you guys have to pay for a good, competitive, 2 meter airframe, why they can't be held to the weight limits and spend just a little more time making them meet requirements.

Anyway, I didn't want to butt in where I may not be welcome, not knowing you guys, but it seems to me, even as a "wanna-be" that watches such things as weight, that the very people that profit from the hobby are not giving you what you need to compete with.

CGr.

Inretrospect, the Rules Proposal Committee to the NSRCA did consider different avenues of attacking this. One thing we looked was setting a RTF weight for electrics minus batteries at 4100g and keeping nitro at 5000g less fuel. It was decided upon by the group that it may be considered helping only half of the problem. It also came to our attention that this still doesn't necessarily help the "old air frames" and those that were in existence that wanted to fly regardless of power choice may still not be able to. That's why this one was dropped. Personally, I still like it but I am far from the boss and I don't really agree with helping one aspect without helping all of the different aspects.<div></div><div>Dick, you sir, are always welcome (probably a lot more than myself...I'm the hated guy right now ).</div>