I agree that on the world market, a 5500g rule would probably lead to advancement IF the rule stayed the same with a different weight.  Seeing how the rule is listed as "weighed with fuel", I don't think that an extra 200-300g is going to make a huge surge in advancement of airframes.  Electric guys get to carry bigger batteries if that passed which means they get to stay in the air more than 8 minutes.  Maybe they'll get in 1 1/2 - 2 rounds per flight depending on class but not even that in FAI.<div>
</div><div>I also think this is like professional sports too.  We complain about the high salaries that players make and we complain that a hot dog and drink costs $11.00 at the ball park.  Well, if you don't like it, don't pay the ticket prices to support them and don't buy that $9.00 hot dog.  We saw it happen last year with a good manufacturer who was charging $3200+ for their models.  People stopped buying them and now that same company is producing that same $3200 airframe for $2000. </div><div>
</div><div>I fought for the increase here in America because manufacturers aren't going to cater to AMA pattern and produce planes solely for that market.  They'd loose the rest of the world market if that happened.  For FAI, I think there are pros and cons to doing this but what is for certain in my opinion is that there needs to be a leveling of the field between glow and electric as far as weighing goes.  If the weigh with fuel passes, I don't see enough weight room for the market to change drastically.</div>

To all the people claiming that this will lead to more expensive planes, etc. I ask, that's the rule that's been in place for about 4 years now for F3C did that happen with helicopters? NO, in fact, helicopters, even F3C full-body helis, have come DOWN in price and electric + glow compete on a level playing field. No one is saying increase the weight limit, what's proposed is to unify the weight limit so apples are compared to apples, either weigh planes without their primary fuel source (nitro/gas/electric) and keep the limit at 5000 or weigh planes WITH fuel (as you do now with electric) and bump the limit up. A 10S 5000 pack weighs in at about 1100g if you get the lightest available stuff, a full tank of nitro for a YS170 weighs about 500g, so the minimize the potential impact the bumped weight limit makes the most sense and is what F3C did.

Peter+

It was done (in a way) 15+ years ago. Now people don't want to fly F3A with a cheap .91 2-stroke.

I've seen a Sebart Angle S flown properly in medium conditions and it's plenty good enough if the pilot is prepared to set it up properly and actually do some practice. It will never have a weight issue and I'd be surprised if a 2M ship could be decked out cheaper.

The options are out there, people just don't want to take advantage of them. Oh, and a fancy airframe with rubbish gear in to save money is a false economy, but hey it's the name on the airframe that wins points in the pits.

I have been involved in this sport for many years.
In my country I am a judge and I see very followed competitions. Permanently I fight so that what it cares is the precision of the maneuvers and not the airplane with which is carried out them.
It is acrobatics of precision..... it should not care the rest.
This fair serious way that the best pilots are those that win the competitions and not those that have but available money to have the models but light and with better power.

Sincerely

Mario Vagliente

Bob,
Throw in the noise limit in your numbers. We developed as much for noise abatement as we did flight in yesteryears. Today electric poweplants have greatly reduced the modeling/tinkering/innovation aspect of noise abatement with off the shelf components

I suspect the same regarding exploitation of any new, higher weight rule. This has been proven several times in the past whenever a change to the limits (any of them) was granted. Cost leaps followed, of course.

We shouldn't forget that Don won F3A US Nats about 8-9 years ago with a Focus. The Focus was obviously competitive in that day's schedules and was inexpensive to own and feed.

No, I'm afraid that competitive models in the 90's cost less than today's...... competitive models in the 80's cost even less than those of the 90's. And in the early to mid 80's guys were still building their own stuff. I suppose if you paid yourself $50 an hour for building and finishing your own model then cost might be in similar territory. But I think that kind of analysis is reserved to thosefor whom modeling is notits own reward

The masses have always followed those at thetop of the heap. One key thing missing in today's Pattern landscape is the top pilots with guts enough to win with simple, inexpensive equipment.....And international and domesticjudge panelsthat weren't so "blinged out" to allow such wins.....I will always admire Hanno for at least trying

'The masses have always followed those at thetop of the heap. One key thing missing in today's Pattern landscape is the top pilots with guts enough to win with simple, inexpensive equipment.....And international and domestic judge panels that weren't so "blinged out" to allow such wins.....I will always admire Hanno for at least trying '

Hi Matt,
The current WC did exactly that.
Wings covered in brown paper,home made headers,silencers etc.
Success will bring sponsorship of course.
I don't buy the ; 'rule change = development = more cost ' argument at all.
The current trend in deep fuz,, designs has only just caught up with what Hatta was doing 15+ years ago.
There are no rule changes driving the development of the radios - and just look at the development there.
They have even gotten bigger and heavier .
It's just human nature to 'improve'.
It's just too easy to pin this 'tale' on the rules donkey.
All this development will happen anyway !! - maybe with subtle directional differences.

Brian

Soooo... is the future of F3A (and AMA pattern by corollary) going to be very much different than what we have today?  Are the changes to our very small (numerically) aerosport likely to be also small, incremental even, if at all?  A lot of threads point out that we are consumers in a niche market where production is expensive and there are few buyers (compared to other RC hobby mass markets) for our highly specialized product needs. There are innovations in electronics that are finding acceptance in the mass market that may not be welcome or relevant even to the pattern world, i.e., telemetry and/or stabilization for the smaller models.  While competitive aerosports may have driven innovation with "trickle-down" to the sport flyer hobbyists in the past, I wonder if that is still true, as it seems that the RC hobby may now be big enough for industry to innovate to capture market share and sales irrespective of what builders or competitors are doing to win RC flying contests.  Given the relatively high cost of competing on even the regional level (practice time, effort, driving to contests, meals, accommodations, toll on marriage), I would think that the majority of us do not want too much change at all, as the variable costs each season compete with what most can spend on replacement equipment. While my friend Matt can always build his way out of a major rules change, I would think that many of the small ARF makers and their very small customer bases might suffer if change were other than incremental in nature: meaning last year's airframes are no longer compliant or competitive and not just "out of fashion?"<div>
</div><div>Which begs a question about future pattern fashion: what is the next trend in the cycle of designs that we enjoy seeing, buying, owning, and flying? Are biplanes the next big thing coming around again?  After that?  (All in the spirit of fun and good conversation of course, with all due respect to the serious rules conversations above.) If everything old is new again, what fun can we have with our future of F3A fashion prognostications? Cheers!</div>

If anyone thinks a modern F3A ship is "complicated" then they've really missed out on the golden years of the sport.

The current crop of F3A equipment have never been simpler. No retracts to worry about (air or electric) no tweaking of tuned pipe lengths and compression ratios, no inflight mixture control, no CG changes as the fuel is used. I'll grant the split rudder idea, biplanes and the odd 4 servo wing are the exception to the norm but I could fly my current ship on a 4 channel radio with a bit of mixing thrown in. And for the really young guys, YES aileron differential can be achieved with Y-leaded ailerons and the correct linkage geometry.

Hi,
The following might be interesting ;
Current average ind,, wage is 615 Euro/wk. Ireland
Average (high end model) is 2000Euro = 3.24 wk's.
Average engine/motor is 615 Euro = 1.00 wk's
Average servos/rec etc is 750 Euro = 1.22 wk's
Average (high end) radio is 750 Euro = 1.22 wk's

Total cost is 6.68 x AIWW - With Very high end stuff say 10 to 11 x AIWW.

The cheapest ,that works very well, is less than 3 x AIWW (for the items listed).

When I started work as a quality tech I got 115 / wk
The shop floor employees were on 89 / wk - so say 100/wk - Early 80's Ireland

Model kit + finishing materials (paint) 450 = 4.50 wk's
Engine 60 ABC + retracts 200 = 2.00 wk's
Servos (BB's) and reciever (DS) 350 = 3.5 wk's
Radio-Royal MC ( 1st modular) 425 = 4.25 wks

That's a total cost of 14 x AIWW . The cheapest, that would work, cost 10 to 12 x AIWW.

I have ignored things like props ,exhausts etc as these were hand made then and really expensive.

Also in the early 80"s a RTF fron Japan was 3000 - ie 30 x AIWW.

Back then when these things were 'simple and cheap' only the Japanese and a select handfull of Europeans and another handfull of Americans + a few others had models that would compare with today's normal for fit and finish.
The rest of us were not able money or ability wise.

What you can get now for 2 to 3 weeks wages is far superior to what you could get then for 10 wk's wages.

So in conclusion I am saying that this talk of increased cost is a myth.
Yes we could have cheaper models - right now - they are there but who really wants them.
The more power / better equipment argument is of no relevance what so ever.

Why ?? - This is going to happen anyway - so long as there is a customer - and there is clearly a customer. Take the radios as THE example.

Just stop and think about the number of high end /top quality F3A models that are out there compared to how it was in 1980 to 1984.

I hope the big picture trend continues as is or better if rule changes accelerate it.

Brian

With all respect.....
I believe that these opinions change a lot according to the country in the one that you alive.....
In Argentina or wage average is 1/3 of that that you put like average in its country and to have a model and necessary equipment is three times but expensive.
It is really very difficult to settle down that it is expensive and that it is not it there being so many differences from a place to another.
Equally respect the point of view of all who here have been expressed

Cordially


Mario Vagliente

Hi Mario,
I agree - absolutely - the standard of living varies a lot from country to country. I could only look at our own example. It's for others to examine their relative positions.

However with what is available today , for example take $300 models / E motors / gas engines / radios and accessories , in the 'value' end of the market this sport is much more doable for a great many more people.
Globally it is getting much bigger in terms of the participation levels.
Add the sport scale aerobatic / IMAC scene and it's fair to say RC aerobatics is expanding exponentially.

Brian

Let's not forget that we have pushed the manufacturers into delivering what we ask for. Today, everything is ARF. The manufacturer builds, sands, and paints our models. We put in the firewall and have our pattern ship up and flying in 1-2 weeks. I'll never forget the 2011 NATS in the US and watching Chris Moon and Mike Mueller sitting in Chris' hotel room. I don't remember what happened but in one night, they took a plane out of the box from the manufacturer and had it ready for trim flights the next morning. That's how complete our models are today. It wasn't that long ago you would pay $400 for a fiberglass fuse and a set of foam cores and spend 3-4 months building it and painting it. Even the kits today are more completed than they ever have been before. Like someone above said, if you include the man hours required to build one of the older ships in your equations, the cost has not really increased as much as one would think. If you are a builder then that's part of the hobby and something that is to be enjoyed.<div></div><div>Innovation and technology do cost but that same technology comes down in cost as time progresses. It's evident in everything we have in our lives. Computer components are a perfect example as well as cell phones and even microwaves. I remember when Mom and Dad saved for a while to buy that brand new $800 microwave that could barely hold a plate of food. Today, that microwave is available at Walmart for $89. </div>

Weighing an Electric without its batteries is like weighing a liquid fueled IC model without its fuel tank. The battery packs are the containers just like a fuel tank is a container.<div>Only difference is the electrics fuel is always present in the tank.</div><div>
</div><div>So trying to change that rule will require the liquid fuel guys to remove their fuel tanks as well.</div>

The idea is to weigh electrics WITH batteries and weigh glow with liquid fuel in the tank.
<br type="_moz" />

You have not adjusted your figures to account for consumer pricing index shift, inflation and general cost of services that has increased, resulti n less disposable income ebven though wages have increased.
Morgage costs have increased etc etc.
A dollar or pound or rand doe snot go as far as it did in the 80's or 90's
<br type="_moz" />

That places the liquid fuel aircraft at a disadvantage so its not a good idea.
The liquid fuel aircraft needs a heavier airframe and its take off weight will be greater than 5050gr. This proposed rule change will result in even more expensive airframes which seems counter intuitive
<br type="_moz" />

Respectfully disagree to your point. Look what MTK has managed, look what CPLR has managed with glow, look what Bryan Hebert manages with even the new Shinden. Even so, the point is if the weight is increased, no one is at a disadvantage or advantage. Heavier does not fly better. The goal will still be to keep your weight down. If the weight is set at 5500g per the proposal and the glows weigh with fuel, they will be at 5200-5300g. They will have 200-300g room. The electrics are able to carry higher capacity batteries (which is absolutely of no advantage in a competition) and certainly allows them to be competitive when the winds are very strong and a pilot flies bigger which ultimately requires more energy. Bryan Hebert told me just the other week that the nice thing about glow power is that as long as there is fuel to the engine, the engine develops the same amount of power take off to landing. Electrics are already at a disadvantage as the pack is depleted. Adding 200-300g will not change everything but certainly there is a little more room for the advancement of bipes and contras.
<br type="_moz" />

Brian,
I hope you're right. Historically, it simply isn't so.

The Irish numbers of yesterday versus today, no argument there. As a percent of the family budget, maybe we are dealing with a wash, in Ireland.

In the US in the 80's, the top of the line kits of the day (MK) cost around $200. A good engine from the top 3, Webra, YS or OS cost around 200-300 (excepting the Hanno Special-450). Thirty years ago, 400-500 bucks bit a considerable chunk out of my household budget. Of course alot of elbow grease went into that Arrow or Curare to get it RTF and I don't count that as cost since I am a modeler first. Paints and finishing were much less than today, and easier to afford in my opinion.

But as a percent of household budget today, buying a Shinden from Bryan at $1500 (the cheapest around BTW, same as Griffin) doesn't have the same impact TO ME as 500 did 30 years ago, I agree with that. But I don't think that's the main point. Many younger pilots have tighter household budgets than I or you do today. That $2500-5000 required today to put a truly competitive set-up together puts a heck of a dent in their budgets.

What we had in relative abundance 30 years ago (and sorely lack today) is the opposite end of top of the line. We had good flying models from Bridi for example. Easily affordable even on tight budgets, and stayed affordable because the market wasn't limited to Pattern alone. Covered in wrinkle kote, they flew well, whenbuilt well, and won their share. Those days are gone forever.

Scott, Timble,

I've suggested the following before as a reasonable compromise for wet powered models....

Obviously gas/glow is consumable while a battery isn't (usually that is). Maybe the compromise of adding half the weight of gas/glow (that's typically carried in the model at TO)to the otherwise empty model, makes sense. If the model has a 20 oz tank and will run 25% glow, add 9 ounces. If the YS powered model can fly one schedule on 16 oz tank, even less would be added to the empty weight (empty=sans fuel).

Of course on my OS GT33 powered model, the tank size is 6 ozs for one schedule. Add 2 ounces.....LOL....Reminds me of one ofMonopoly's Chance cards, "Pay Poor Tax... $10"

Hi Matt,
I think that is the point ; 'those days are gone forever' .
So is a horse and cart as a mode of transport. - though the nostalgia is hard to resist.
Time to move on !!

Brian

Many glow powered aircraft out there struggle to make the 5000g. Some electrics also. 5500g with fuel will still be a struggle for some. A YS170 glow will need a 500cc tank, putting the 5000g plane still on the edge. Therefore no benefit would be gained there. Using the YS cdi a 300cc tank can be used, which would be ok but not everyone uses a cdi.

[/quote]


You have not adjusted your figures to account for consumer pricing index shift, inflation and general cost of services that has increased, resulti n less disposable income ebven though wages have increased.
Morgage costs have increased etc etc.
A dollar or pound or rand doe snot go as far as it did in the 80's or 90's
<br type=''_moz'' />
[/quote]


Hi,
Err,,,, ! - I did.
I am comparing todays costs with TODAYS earnings.
I am comparing yesterdays costs with YESTERDAYS earnings.
Simple really.

Brian

Yes only for the hobby components.<div>Disposable income factors in other expenses, water ,energy, rates and taxes, fuel (household).</div><div>If you taken that into account then I don;t see it under your definition of AIWW since that is not disposable income.</div>

Hi,
One aspect of the proposed rule changes being discussed is the impact of F3A rule changes on the cost of the equipment that will HAVE to be used.
Some have claimed that over the years such rule changes have 'driven' up costs.

Well actually the costs have come down so that right now we can purchase much better equipment for a lot less than we could - as a proportion of what we earn - ie; in the period since the introduction of turnaround.

You can't blame F3A rule changes for the rising costs of water,energy, rates and taxes - can you.

Brian

Brian,

Soassuming a constantradio expense, and ifI got you right, the average good set-up today for ARF plane and powerplant, costs less than the average good set-up of the mid 80's. That's, 3000 US is less than roughly 1000 US in mid 80's....? Nah, still don't buy what you're selling