Viable dual motor/shaft cannot be that far away!
[/quote]

Direct driven set-up may not work at the weight we want. In-line motors driving independent but coaxial shafts may need to be sized according to the torque requirements of each prop. If one were to gear the shafts down, then one would have little to no difference over the current contra.

A twin motor driving independent and coaxial shafts without an add-on contar drive needs thought and innovation. I don't think it's a straight forward undertaking to create an elegant solution!

.<div>And "they" swore that the only way to keep costs down was to keep the weight limit. </div><div>.</div><div>Looks like someone found an innovative way to cram more $$$'s into our 2mx2mx5kg box. </div><div>.</div><div>Just saying'</div><div>.</div>

One of the guys from Singapore flew this in Argentina back in 2007, with twin motors driving independant props. It sounded awful as the motors went in and out of phase causing variable beat frequencies

Keith

Direct driven set-up may not work at the weight we want. In-line motors driving independent but coaxial shafts may need to be sized according to the torque requirements of each prop. If one were to gear the shafts down, then one would have little to no difference over the current contra.

A twin motor driving independent and coaxial shafts without an add-on contar drive needs thought and innovation. I don't think it's a straight forward undertaking to create an elegant solution!

A lot of amazing things are already being done with those tiny helicopters. I'd wager it's a lot closer than we think...

OK, what about airframes? Anything out there today a harbinger of things to come?

Bob,

Yes, glow planes will be allowed to be de-fueled after the flight as long as its done in front of the people weighing. This is so much easier than doing immediately before a flight and then having the pilot go fuel his plane. They are even permitted to wipe off any excess oil and such if it comes to that, and I have seen it come to that.

Arch

...and don't forget to drain your batteries as everyone knows fully charged batteries weigh more than dis-charged ones.... :-))

I think there should be a minimum weight. That's the way it is in Air Racing, everyone tries hard to get it DOWN to weight. In the Biplane Class it's 600 lbs with 5 gallons of gas, normal oil and pilot must weigh 160 lbs. Usually there is a whole lot of dieting going on in August and early September.
Make it 9 pounds for 2M, 6 lbs for less than 2M.

Of course the idea that AMA Skill Class categories conform to an FAI rule is completely ridiculous. It is only appropriate for FAI.

Chris...

Check out the current thread on Randy Hicks' Talon Extreme. Some interesting things going on there with fuse side strakes (or fences) and ducting/venting.

I saw some photos recently of some models with dorsal and pectoral shark fins. If I see them again I'll save the link.

I sincerely hope F3A doesn't head down the F3P route with so much knife edge and rolling.

It will become a huge hardware gap between what novice pattern pilots needs to develop their skills and what a top level flyer needs to perform the maneuvers. I'd bet very few would disagree that a good model from the 1.40 era is a better deal for a novice pilot performing schedules that have minimal integrated rolling and maneuvers designed to bleed energy (eg, upline snaps) than some of the current crop of F3A machines.

Maybe someone has taken a hard look at an IMAC machine and what manuevers that "scale" airframes will never be able to perform as smoothly, and decided that's where F3A needs to head to differentiate itself?

IMAC is Snap Snap Snap, F3A can be Rolling, Knife edge something, Roll some more...

<div style="text-align: left; "><span style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">Just what hardware does the novice pattern pilot need (today) to develop their skills towards the F3A of the future?</span></div>

It's inevitable I suppose...Novices see what the top dawgs are flying and believe they can immediately "get there from here"

IMO, novices need any reliable hardware that will allow as much flight time as possible with minimal break downs. Novices need stick time, that's it!

Nothing wrong with your Vanquish...fly it till it dies and then buy another one and fly it until it dies

Good advice Matt, no worries! I was wondering about the "hardware gap" mentioned in the post above actually, more of a discussion question. Cheers!

It's perception more than anything else. A contra driven, properly designed model doesn't exist yet. The contra is too new....

So people have built all kinds of gadgets on their planes to perform the highest level stuff with minimal effort on the pilot's part. That's the key really....many current models, without any gadgetry installed, will perform the highest level maneuvers just fine, albeit with more pilot "interference". Good thumbs will never be trumped by model design.

The problem is that guys early in their experience will think they must have the latest and "greatest" to be competitive. Hence the perception of a "tool gap".... The way I see it, it not the saw; never has been

HHMMMMMM!! I may stand corrected!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md_99...ture=endscreen

I couldn't agree with this more. As a newer pattern pilot, the biggest mistakes I've made are not seeking proven, reliable equipment. I've experimented, taken chances, tried new things, and it mostly has resulted in a lot of extra down time, and subsequent cost of buying what I should have bought the first time around.

If I could talk to myself 3 years ago, I'd say to keep the Venus, lose the pump, stick with the OS, and fly the airplane until it wears out.

I see the only jump in plane functionality is needed when going from F3A P to F3A F/Unknowns. Many of the recent F3A designs are actually harder to fly for many AMA pilots, but it's the cool factor that counts. I've heard of trainers beating out 2M pattern planes in Sportsman and I've even flown my Super Cessna to a 3rd place in Advanced once against 2M planes. I've watched a 50 size Wind S win Masters against 2M planes and flown/shared my 50 sized Era in F3A. I think even classic birds are competitive in the AMA classes, easily through Advanced (Double stall turn, that's classic right lol) and even Masters to a certain extent. Nothing wrong with the Venus, Sequence, Osiris, Vanquish, Wind.... are all great AMA planes, but without proper practice even an Axiome+ won't make you a winner.

IMO I think it will take some purpose built planes for the F3A F/Unk's to be flown easily, and that most likely won't translate into planes that are easily flown in AMA classes.

Which was my point exactly, I've seen some 1.40 era planes drawing lines in the sky in difficult conditions that I'd kill for with my 1.70 powered Oxai Aries.

You tend to pay for the extra maneuverabilty by trading off a bit of stability, and when the conditions get rough it starts to show up, something a top pilot would be able to compensate for but is just too much extra workload for a novice. Older models weren't a full 2M with skinny fuses for no reason.

Design schedules which force the planes to slow down further, require more agility and capable of 4+ lateral G and the resultant airframes will be a real handfull for a novice pilot trying to fly straight lines in anything but the best of weather.

investing several thousands o dollars into a 2m pattern plane makes no sense to me at all  They do not cost that much to manufacture and the price doesn't reflect on there flight ability  To me its all about bling and bling in rc aircrft is demented In my opinion  No offence intended But It IMPRESSES ME TO KNOW END  when someone achieves a result with minimal amounts of money  It does the exact opposite when someone has to bust the bank to achieve the same thing  It seems well  vry hrd to think of correct thing to say without seeming rude but it seems really dumb to me  forgive the abruptness.  A beautiful scale or fancy plane makes sence to cost allot  but pattern chips all look nearly exactly the same

Gee, and here I was thinking all these years that Canadians were a polite group of people after watching "Due South" back in the 90's

Seriously, it's not all about the bling. There's only ever been a handful of IC engines offered for sale over the counter by the various manufacturers that ran good enough to fly pattern without requiring too much experimentation from the end user. So a fancy pattern engines is/was a must have unless you wanted to muck around and try and get something else going properly. Although some have good sucess with the OS 1.60's when pumped. Electrics have been a bit of a game changer in this regard.

Airframe wise, if you can tell me why every man and his dog wants a "scale" looking flying turd instead of a proper flying plane then I'd like to know the answer. Until Joe average modeller decides he want to start buying planes that fly properly, the ARF manufactures will keep turning out far cheaper (because of mass production) scale looking planes. To be honest I think the blokes that buy "scale" planes because they want to believe they're flying the real thing have bigger problems than the blokes who spend up big buying something that flys properly.

Radio wise, faster more powerful and precise servo's are always a good thing.

I agree though, bang for your buck isn't what pattern's about, but is a $100 dollar bottle of wine really that much better than the $2 bottle of leg opener from the bottle shop? It all depends on how you intend to use it I suppose

I agree. Pattern ships definitely fly much better than a scale model. A well set up pattern ship is a joy to fly and will improve your flying skills.
As for being expensive, well i can't argue with that in regards to the Oxai's etc. But there are much cheaper planes out there to cater for all price ranges.
Also you can pick up a used plane from a top flyer when he upgrades to the latest ship for a very reasonable price and alot of the times you only have to add a Rx.

Interesting viewpoints on this...

I happen to think that the top end of RC benefits the bottom end (hate to use the words top and bottom though). It is kind of like the R&D and technology that is developed in the military eventually works its way into civilian life (ie. GPS). At the top level there is always a demand for more and more because every little bit helps in competition.

I'm trying to get my five kids through college so you won't see me flying anything that expensive any time soon...but I love the way the higher end stuff drives the lower end stuff.

Technology doesn't discriminate.

Tom

The OS GT 33 gasoline engine is neither expensive (compared to other engines for pattern) nor difficult to own and operate. It should be piped for best power and low end torque, but Pattern people do that regardless. The best pipe is the ESComposites 40G. All components are off the shelf, about as simple as it gets

For a nominal lay out of dollars, this is a top end powerplant for anything we fly in pattern. Powerwise, on par if not slightly better than YS175, with terrific low end grunt. So far, after some 13 gallons of gas through mine, maintenance has been zilch (BUT to be fair, I had an early factory flaw in mine that was repaired under warranty when the engine was just out of the box).

And BTW 13 gallons equates to around 160x15 minflights, or around 40 hours of trouble free operation. I have started the second season with it and just love how this powerplant just keeps on working with no hassles....

As far as wine, I've had great 100$ bottles worth the moneyand average to mediocre that took your money for a ride. I've also had great 10$ bottles but most in the 10$ range sucked. Wine is a matter of taste and understanding what you seek in that taste, savoring every afternote.....if you're a wine guzzler best to stay with the turpentine

Hi,
I was tinking for the future what can attract new and Young flyers to F3A, not necessarily the FAI class.

First, the cost - a slight bonus factor forplanes that was built by the flyer himself, that would encourage own designs and balsa/ply based planes that can keep the cost down. The really good flyers even if they have ARF's should not have to much disadvantage of that.
You could also have some bonus for lighter planes so if You wanted to use a gas engine You should be allowed but the plane would probably be little heavier then. It's up to the flyer to choose what he prefer as powerplant but more weight should give no bounus effect. Although the contra rotating prop system is probably herer to stay - one can have a slight bonus for people that do not use contra system and that way encourage the less expensive solutions.

Second, how can the flying attract people to watch it - many say it is boring to watch F3A flying. In some way that should be something to take into consideration for the future. I do not know what can be done but in the long run if spectators do not think it is fun to watch F3A flying that should be a hint to make some changes.

/Bo

Here's something interesting that will effect more than I care to discuss.  FAI-F3A is considering rules changes.  Two specific proposals that are under consideration by CIAM is A. Changing the weight rule to 5500g or B. Eliminating the weight rule completely.  We had plenty of this discussion during the USA Rules Proposals.  I find it interesting CIAM is considering this now.  This does not mean it will pass, it's just interesting it's here again.<div>
</div><div>Unlike changing this rule for AMA Pattern, this would change the face of pattern all together.  Huge biplanes which drive the cost up OR older planes that couldn't make the 5000g +1% which could drive down the cost.  Obviously, on this platform, folks are going to have the best equipment possible so I don't foresee a lesser cost.  Changing anything on this level changes pattern for everyone.  Change it just for AMA pattern, it changes nothing as far as weight goes as the market is driven by the world market (FAI) vs. AMA pattern exclusively.</div>