papaone

Hello

I assume you are aware about this survey
You have to send it to Peter Uhlig
[email protected]
Claude

wattsup

My Feedback: (1)

If this is what the majority F3A flyers want to do, then so be it. I can guarantee you one thing, if this set of changes was to pass worldwide, pattern as we know it would be DOA! (Dead On Arrival). It's on life support now....Let me also add, with the onset of Covid 19 two years ago and in recent months issues with the availability of merchandise/supply chain not to even mention the shipping delays, if you really want to perform a Coup de gras on F3A pattern, then by all means check "Strongly Agree/Yes" on the first 10 items of this survey.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Who came up with this survey? I can’t imagine this would do anything to promote pattern/F3A.

ini

Survey is good because it emphasizes people to think about ways to promote pattern and make entry easier.
Two things that have been discussed earlier.
- Lift or increase weight limit. E.g 5.5kg would enable bigger batteries and less stringent weight discipline in building
- Increase voltage limit . E.g. enable 12S

Malcolm H

"Who came up with this survey?"

Peter Uhlig is the chairman of the F3A Subcommittee of the FAI CIAM (Aeromodelling Commission)

I guess its the subcommittee sounding out competitor's feelings about rule changes.

Malcolm

wattsup

My Feedback: (1)

If that is what "some" you of European F3A flyers want, then why don't you just go fly YOUR version of IMAC! Perhaps you would be better served if you reread my first response....Capiche?

Malcolm H

Bit confused by your reply. As it happens I agree with your sentiments in your first post, was only trying to answer the question as to who came up with the survey, wasn't commenting on its contents or consequences at all!

Malcolm

wattsup

My Feedback: (1)

Hi Malcolm, I understand that you are providing information related to the source of the survey. IMHO, pattern, as we know it, may well be "on the ropes" at this point in time and ANY possibility of expensive changes would only serve to push our beloved hobby over the cliff....I also understand these proposed changes would not take effect until 2028 but, time flies when you're having fun.

Malcolm H

I totally agree with you! Any time changes have been made in the past to many different disciplines supposedly to save costs, the costs rise. Pylon is a good example over here. People found more and more expensive ways to circumnavigate the rules the more proscribed they became.

I’m also not sure that involving competitors in rule making is a great idea. If you look at F1 motor racing (and maybe this applies to Indycar and NASCAR too), allowing competitors a say means they will try and drive the rules to their own competitive advantage.

My personal opinion is the formula isn’t broken. The problem the UK Great Britain Radio Control Aerobatic Association (GBRCAA) has this season is that there are more entries in the F3A class than single flight line venues can handle in one day contests and people are having to rely on reserve lists to get a place. Whether this is a short lived phenomenon caused by people going stir crazy in covid lockdown and wanting to get out again remains to be seen.

Malcolm

wattsup

My Feedback: (1)

Malcolm, you may well be correct. The issues the pattern flyers in your area are experiencing could be related to the impact Covid has had on all of our lives.The formula is NOT broken and like you, I hope this is only a short term phenomenon but as I look back at the last 5 years of pattern contests here in the USA, participation rates have plummeted by approximately 50% and I really don't see any future turnaround (no pun intended). I am here to promote pattern not price it out of existence! Most, if not all, of the manufacturers and retailers are all about changes because it relates directly to their "bottom line" and have lost sight of the fact that THEIR future is in jeopardy...ie, the blind leading the blind. In the recent past I've been quoted as saying "if you don't have the basic talent and or building skill set to successfully put together and compete with a 5kg pattern plane powered by a 10s system, 12s is NOT going to help you". We shall see....

Malcolm H

Couldn’t agree more!

Malcolm

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

The issue with R/C competition as a whole is lack of interest. I have flown pylon, IMAC, soaring and pattern. All those disciplines have had a large drop in participation. I agree to a point that the cost of participation has driven some off, not only cost in an economic sense but cost of time. In any form of competition one needs to invest practice time. The major hurtle in front of us now is the lack of interest. Aviation is no longer a magical thing to our youth. Pattern models are now slow and quiet thus boring to watch. We should be discussing ways to get the younger generations interested in R/C flying not changes to the formula, the changes will do nothing to build basic interest in our hobby.

FBW

Totally agree .......recently I was asked at a comp if I was ever going to change to an Electric set up.
My reply was there is no point because in my opinion Pattern will be DEAD in five years.

The lack of interest by new flyers is very evident but the lack of doing anything about it is much much more evident.

apereira

If the weight is increased, manufacturers will target that weight to make planes bigger and of course more expensive, then the story will repeat itself.

Electrics 12S? so kill the IC engines once and for all? why? what's the benefit? cheaper? then someone will complain on the cost, or changing all the setups, same thing as before.

No matter what people will keep complaining, and the people who complain the most doesn't even compete.

big_G

If we keep the 2 meter rule and increase the weight limit to 5,500 grams, why would the planes be more expensive?...It costs a lot to incorporate weight savings, from the selected balsa, lightweight motor/drives, carbon props and spinners. Then with the increase in weight comes a stronger airframe, which may tolerate less than perfect landings. Win-win. Now, if you think back, pre-turnaround didn't have a weight limit, and landing gears wouldn't rip out on an off-runway landing in tall grass. Everyone was happy then.

SAB

Big G. - I agree with apereira - because of unintended consequences - a great example of this was the removal of the IC engine capacity limit because the exotic 10cc motors of the time were deemed too expensive so if the restriction was lifted then much cheaper engines could be used such as the ST G23 - but that's not what happened, G23's were hardly seen in competition over the increasingly larger capacity YS 4 strokes, which were more expensive than the original "exotic" 10cc motors and the YS 4 strokes required expensive 30% nitro also.
Increase the weight limit and some will find a competitive advantage at increased cost.

Steve

apereira

Have you seen the size of the fuselages of the latest releases? That alone answers the question of the 5500grams.

The thing is, everybody try to get the most in any competition to the max stretch of the rules, so again, nothing will change..... and the people who aaaaaaaalways complain about the cost, will keep complaining, and so on....
This is like an example that has been used before, Formula 1 racing, they keep reducing the engine cylinder count, displacement, they keep being faster and more expensive, every competition of high level is like this, ie, I did not know until a friend told me that to run marathons you need to get new shoes every month or even sooner, so it is the same thing, even what we think is the cheapest sport.....

big_G

From what I remember from the late '80's-early '90's was with the advent of turn-around, the 2 stroke engines wouldn't accept a big prop to slow the down-lines. Gear and belt drives and multi-cylinders were too expensive and heavy, so the large 4 strokes hit the scene. The ST2300 seemed to have performance issues. It never caught on.,I still have one NIB. We now have 33-35cc gas engines that perform well enough for pattern. I don't think turn-around would have survived without 4-stroke, big cube engines swinging big props.

wattsup

My Feedback: (1)

Like SAB, I too agree with apereira. IMHO, if you allow ANY changes to the existing rules and regulations, in the end, you will allow that select group of manufacturers and retailers to fine tune their business model (the 4F's) to once again take advantage of the situation to increase prices/profits. Which in turn will continue to hasten the demise and eventual death of pattern. Guess what, they don't even care because it's all about the here and now and "making a fast buck" at somebody else's expense!

bjr_93tz

Lose the 5kg and it will free up YS to bring out a 50cc twin
The electric guys will need 12S then...

I agree with the statement about developing that basic interest. A kid (or adult) needs to see somebody fly pattern and think to themselves "I want to fly like that".

FBW

YEP......We need to make Pattern Flying exciting again.
HOW we do that should be the topic of conversation NOT who flys YS / ELECTRIC / CONTRA.......

bjr_93tz

More exciting is smaller and closer. Without a smoke trail, the current crop of floaty goldfish look like they're just bobbling around in a vast expanse of empty space.

At the top of a turnaround they can literally be 1/4 mile away from the pilot.

Either way, I've drifted out of pattern twice in my aeromodelling life and pretty much for the same reason each time. I needed to re-invest in a completely new setup and the bang for buck near the top of the learning curve just wasn't there for me. I can't justify dropping $8K-$10K AUD into an electric setup and support equipment knowing the on-costs are a few hours a week of practice just to maintain proficiency (let alone improve) and 5-6 weekends away each year.

FBW

[QUOTE=bjr_93tz;12713145]More exciting is smaller and closer. Without a smoke trail, the current crop of floaty goldfish look like they're just bobbling around in a vast expanse of empty space.

At the top of a turnaround they can literally be 1/4 mile away from the pilot.

Either way, I've drifted out of pattern twice in my aeromodelling life and pretty much for the same reason each time. I needed to re-invest in a completely new setup and the bang for buck near the top of the learning curve just wasn't there for me. I can't justify dropping $8K-$10K AUD into an electric setup and support equipment knowing the on-costs are a few hours a week of practice just to maintain proficiency (let alone improve) and 5-6 weekends away each year.[/QUOTE

Dude..
The idea is how to encourage people not scare them off with negative personal experiences !!!!

papaone

Hello

As in any sporting discipline, there is the top of the range.
But you can do aerobatics economically.
I have friends who make cheap F3A, no need for a Huiyang plane, counter-rotating or carbon propeller, Xpower motor costs less than $150 and works great with an APC. there are also used planes fully equipped for less than $ 2000 such as these Arixtra or Electra for example. The cheapest is to build your plane or have it done by a friend.
Claude

Flowmotion

Also, currently BJ Craft seems to me to be looking at a new approach to making F3A easier and cheaper.
Epilogue 1900

Among many other points, however, the main problem seems to me that the current F3A models due to their current appearance many people simply do not like. Even these are invented by very many as ugly. And the problem is that due to the ever more voluminous fuselages and the many additional aerodynamic aids, this problem is unfortunately getting bigger and bigger.
In any case, I have already had to hear on many flying fields that although the model flies very well, the optics do not appeal to them at all and that they would therefore not build or fly such a model. And unfortunately this fundamentally contradicts the extremely important statement made by "bjr_93tZ" in his post "I want to fly like that".

Gerhard