Hi Matt,
It is hard to wrap ones mind around what time does to money in real terms.
I'll try;
I'm talking early 80's Ireland though.
Sticking with your figures ; $1000 v's $3000 then and now.

In 1983 I bought a brand new Nissan 1600 diesel @ £6,000.00 = €7,620.00 .
The equivalent model today costs €28,250.00
That's a ratio of ; 1 ; 3.7.
You are not buying ; 1 ; 3

Furthermore just compare what you get for your $3000 as opposed to what you got for your $1000.
You got 3 months hard labor and a model that just does not even begin to compare - though it was typical of the time.

I'm just trying to keep it real.

Brian

There are still alternatives out there if it's cost you're worried about.  Vanquish, Mythos 125, (hopefully sooner than later) Osiris 2M.....kits.  All of these are under $900 US.  If you subscribe to the theory that what you fly doesn't matter (as it should be), these airplanes then should be competitive.  The point still remains, as several have pointed out, what the "big boys" fly is what sells.  If that weren't true, people would not have sponsors and sponsors would pick people randomly.  They do not.  They pick the people that are going to take their product and win.<div>
</div><div>The rule doesn't drive cost, competition does.</div>

The cost isn't the problem, if it were then IMAC, ducted fans and turbines would have died out years ago or probably never even gotten off the ground.

The issue is finding value. Right now I can honestly say that my multi-thousand dollar F3A ship impresses no-one at the flying field so I get no satisfaction from people walking up to me saying they really want a plane like mine. There are no real material rewards at comps. Nobody is impressed by the certificate I bring home, there's definitely no buzz at the club that I've just returned from a pattern comp with a third new YS engine for the year and a bag of Futaba servos.

The reality is my plane and flying impresses precious few others and it's pay, pay, pay all the way, so if not for the intrinsic value I derive from pattern flying there's no point doing it. It's that intrinsic value that each and every one of us must find because in most cases the extrinsic value isn't there.

Build value into the sport and people will pay good money to participate. Easier said than done I agree, but a top F3A ship is still cheaper than a new motorcross bike and there's no shortage of young fella's going into debt to buy one of them.... Maybe it's because chicks dig scars ??

Brian,

You're right, the current 3K buys a whole lot of prefab. Imay notcareall that muchabout that, but I ackowledge the fact that many just don't want to build a boxo' balsa or just don't have the skills to build a top shelf competition thoroughbred.

I also admit that I've purchased judicious ARFies. Heck, gettingBryan's Shinden for 1500 is a pretty fair bargain I must admit. Also putting a Vanquish in the air to test engines was also fairly inexpensive. But I think both of these are on the lowest rung of the price ladder.Several othersare double that and more

I think you are right....Time to move on! We've beaten this one to death....AGAIN!!

Regards to weight, I think if the rule passed it will open the door to true 2 meter biplanes with 1500+ squares of wing which would be great. But new motors, esc's and batteries will probably be needed to drive them. These would likely require 4K+ watts to drive right.

I would use a piped DLE55 and a Mezjlik 20x12 carbon 3 blade and call it a day, but that's just me.....

Hi Scott,
Agree 100%.
So when examining the proposed rule changes, which is the discussion I'm participating in, we should leave out the claim that such changes cost more - it just isn't true.
We should examine the proposals from the point of view of the potential they have to add to or take from the sport.
Are they relevant in terms of ongoing development.
Are they fair.
Do they improve fairness.
Do they have any foreseeable anomalies.
Do they deal with any already existing anomalies.
Do they make running these comp's more difficult or perhaps make it a little easier to run these comp's.
Etc,,,

I for one would be happy with either of the proposed weight rule changes.
I think the idea of no weight limit is fine.
I can't see any threats to what we have in that idea - at all.

Brian

I'm really not trying to harp, I just don't see how the pattern world is going to end, based on what we've discussed, because of a weight increase. People say it'll get more expensive. Sure it will, if you want the newest platform and technology. But that's true in any case and whether or not the rule changes. If you don't want to spend more, buy the cheaper stuff. You should be able to take a $900US plane and be competitive if you are already competitive with the newest platform. Newer technology will always cost more period and regardless of the facet we are discussing. I thnk the question begs, what makes the top fliers, top fliers? Somehow, I seriously doubt that the airplane and the amount of money they spend dictates that. We, as a whole, still think that is the "norm" and we buy what they have. There are a ton of Axiome + EP and GP out there but they are not all on the podeum. We could raise the rule to 5500g and make glow weigh with fuel and electrics with motor batteries. It is fair and everyone will still strive for as little weight as possible. Sure, it's possible we get a bigger bipe with more wing area but that doesn't put it in first place. The pilot does that. I'd suggest that if you aren't in first now, buying that newest technology expensive airframe with more wing area isn't going to put you there. If you are in first and you need to stay there, then maybe that will make the difference but that same technology almost always comes down to us common folk as time progresses at an affordable price.

I like this. Something else that smcharg touched on in his last post and paraphrased by me is "who are we competing against"??

From my perspective I am mostly competing against myself. I also like to compete against the guy who is ever-so-slightly better than me. I mostly don't need better equipment for that (in fact, we fly the same equipment). Mostly I just need to practise more.

We had a guy coming into our Sportsman class this year with a Wind S 50. He cleaned up against the 2m ships in his class. Why? He took advise on setup and practised and listened. Most of the "whingers" that I have met think they know it all, don't practise and look for every excuse in the book as to why they can't improve.

That said, a uniform weight measurement for IC and EP would be welcomed.

$1000 in 1985 is equivalent to $2100.10 today according to several inflation calculators I checked, so not that far off. And it doesn't cost 3K to put together a competitive plane right now, my Vanquish cost about 2K all up using a high end motor (Hacker Q60) and servos (JR HV). My Griffin, admittedly, was a bit closer to the 3K mark all up.

Edit: A bit late to the party I guess, since I missed that there was a page 9!

Anyway, I agree with the points already made we need a rule change to level the playing field (increase fairness) between IC and Electric, the current system is fundamentally unfair. Anytime I describe the current weight rules to someone at the field (regardless of whether they are glow or electric fliers, they get crosseyed and say "that's kind of unfair, isn't it? Shouldn't you weigh the glow plane WITH fuel or the electric WITHOUT battery?" If people outside the sport see the unfairness on first glance, why do we have so much trouble making a reasonable adjustment to create fairness?

Peter+

Have you followed any of Matt Kebabjian's threads? Gas powered is 100%viable. The OS 33GT on an ESpipe is one heck of a good engine. Other choices work too, but that 33GTis worth a look if serious about trying gas powered. Much lighter than the ZDZ, very powerfuland well mannered. The only drawback is the side exhaust, but it can be accomodated with a few pieces of pipe elbows brazed together.

Ed's got a point.  I fly at the same field with Ed, Matt and a few other pattern pilots in NJ.  We have flown Matt's gasser and it is terrific!  I have sold my 2m Vanquish since Matt did his gas conversion, and while I have not flown that one of his, I have enjoyed conversation with Matt about how light he was able to keep his Vanquish without those heavy LiPos, LOL.  While I'm all electric since before starting out pattern, if I were to go IC at some point, I definitely would do a 2m gasser before going glow.  Until then, I am pleased to fly electric while working my way through the AMA classes.  Cheers!

Ed, Dana, thanks for the vote of confidence....

Back when Cronkite wrote that comment, about the only game in town was the ZDZ40F3A. Having flown that engine I can say with certaintly it is anemic, heavy and clunky by OS standards.....It took another 8-9 years before the OS offering but it is available today. The only other two worth considering are the PTE36R and the DLE35RA, both of which I've run. Neither is as strong as the OS but both have enough beans to get the job done....

I would love to see OS come out with the rear exhaust version of the 33. I wouldn't change anything else. More than enough power to fly the largest 2 meter we have available today...

The cost of ownership and maintenance/feeding are lower than anything else going right now.

I don't see where the need to change the FAI weight rule is coming from. From an electric point of view, it would have helped a lot when electric pattern was getting started. The FAI gave a leg up to 4-strokes to help them get going and then removed the displacement rule completely. Currently it is not that difficult to use gas, glow or electric and make weight in FAI. At that level cost is typically not that big a factor. It has also been pointed out that these planes are not that expensive in historical terms. <div>
<div>If the FAI increases or removes the weight rule, you will see a change in complexity and cost of new designs. We do already see this in the FAI patterns as the schedule difficulty continues to increase in an effort to challenge the best in the world as they refine new designs. A weight rule change would accelerate this process.</div><div>
</div><div>Each country has the ability to change the weight limit for their introductory and advanced classes. This alleviates the pressure to make weight on a model that has been converted, crash repaired, a handmedown from FAI that no longer has the expensive and light prop, spinner,wing tube, batteries, etc. Also  takes care of the builder who is only beginning to learn how to build/assemble a light model. These are  valid reasons for a relaxed weight rule.</div><div>
</div><div>We tried to get a weight increase through here in the States for our AMA classes in the last rules cycle and failed miserably. I still haven't figured out the logic of this rejection but do consider it to be shortsighted. </div><div>
</div><div>John Gayer</div><div>
</div></div>

Hi John,
Without going back into too much of the detail covered already ;

- Currently there is a difference in how the FAI treat IC and electric powered models.
There should be no difference - however that's done.

- If the limit is increased or removed for FAI the other classes will follow very quickly in most if not all countries.

- The 2x2 limit and noise limit will still apply - so not much will change.
Though something will need to be done to keep honesty in noise tests.

Brian

Here's a prediction:

A number of top "names" are going back to IC power for the World Champs in case its really windy and they get caught out stored energy wise.

If they sweep the board, I can't see the FAI CIAM Technical Committee, chaired by Michael Ramel who was really the first successful exponent of electric powered F3A models, allowing this particular inequality to stand for much longer.

Malcolm

[quote]ORIGINAL: serious power

Hi John,
Without going back into too much of the detail covered already ;

- Currently there is a difference in how the FAI treat IC and electric powered models.
There should be no difference - however that's done.
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">Not unusual to have dry vs wet weight used, which is the case here. I do not see electric suffering any longer due to weight restriction. I was at the US Nats and saw Andrew's unknown flights in the wind(and all the others). That demonstrated what could be done by electric with the current rules. I also saw Chip's issues in the wind. He was using a heavy airframe and a heavy powerplant. Something had to give and it was battery capacity.</span>

- If the limit is increased or removed for FAI the other classes will follow very quickly in most if not all countries.
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);"> I already made the point that individual countries can and should increase the weight limit now. We, unfortunately, have not</span>

- The 2x2 limit and noise limit will still apply - so not much will change.
Though something will need to be done to keep honesty in noise tests.

<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">I believe there will be substantial change if the FAI weight limit is raised/removed. Only time will tell who is right on this.
Do you believe there is cheating going on with regard to noise tests? If so, what would you do to stop it?</span>


Brian

<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">Cheers
John</span>
<br type="_moz" />

[quote]ORIGINAL: jgg215

Hi Malcolm,
Who do you have in mind.
BTW the 74K's are no more - it was a typo !!

Brian

Opening up a different can of worms, is 94dB at 3 meters a good noise rule?

Consider what IMAC types are generating over a wider footprint than Pattern does. The AMA rule for IMAC, I think, is 96dB at 6 meters? Haven't checked tho</p>

Hi Matt,
There are no proposals re this in the current round - so the can isn't quite open.
To answer your question ;
I think the 94db has worked well.
I think that F3A models sound great and are very quiet considering the performance.

Brian

Brian,

I know that . So quiet in fact I fall asleep in the middle of flights. Don't laff, It happened.

We need loudspeakers on some electrics with P51 strafing runs playing. No, no, not P51's...how about Lycomings on Aerobats

I want louderto get spectator blood pumping...Oh, wait, we have no spectators I forgot!! Yawn, it's been a slow afternoon

Hi Matt,
Yes, I think that's the one thing that sets IMAC and the type apart - the noise.
It appeals to the boy racer in us.
Great for countries with lots of wide open and free space.
Otherwise it just gets the entire hobby a bad rep with the neighbors.
I do fly a 42% Giles btw.

Brian

IMAC no longer uses a hard defined sound value. Instead they have each judge assign a completely subjective value for each pilot they judge. It, along with the subjective "Airspace Control Score" gets factored into your final score for each sequence.

I've not been able to get a good answer to the difference between say a 6 and a 7 score.

In an earlier post on this topic there was copied an agenda of resolutions for the CIAM to consider. This included the sensible proposal by Thailand to have parity of weight limits between electric and glo. That is both to weigh 5500g max, but the glo to be measured with fuel, not without as currently done.

Michael Ramel, sub committee head asked for e-mail indications from countries as to which way they would vote at the upcoming sub-committee meeting on April 19th. This is to be held in the morning, followed by the whole CIAM meeting in the afternoon, which gives formal approval to the votes. Countries only had two weeks to answer. Out of 41 countries on the sub-committee, only Switzerland, Lichtenstein, and Thailand voted in favour of the proposal. The remainder voted in favour of keeping the existing rule. This included the votes from the USA delegate, Mr Koopmans.

Did you guys know this was happening? Also note that rules are normally frozen for two years, and so will not be up for change until April 2015. If you are not happy with this situation, then contact your AMA or other national body to lobby to change this vote before April 19th

Here is the quote from Ramel :-
Agenda Proposal 13.8 d) Thailand
Another proposal tackling the weight limit. However, this proposal shows much more thought behind it than the previous one by Switzerland.

The reasons phrased along with this proposal show some serious concerns:
It is true somehow that models driven by internal combustion engines are weight to a standard different from electricly powered ones.
It is correct that class F3C has changed to that unified weighing method cited.

My opinion: Once we even want to change the weight limit for F3A model aircraft, then by this methode, while I’m not sure wether the proposed limit of 5,500g is approriate and I recommend a further consideration.

I don't know who "Koopmans" is and also don't know his credentials to represent USA F3A concerns to CIAM. He'd have to be an AMA member but is he an NSRCA member who is actively participating in this SIG?

Maybe some of US's F3A pilots have some answers on Koopmans...OTOH, questions are why did heemail as he did? Who are his influences? Does he answer only to the AMA or the NSRCA also? Besides an AMA presidential appointment, what qualifies him to play the role of US F3A rep?

Thanks Neil, interesting

Matt,
He is speaking of Derek Koopowitz. Derek is able to attend this as the AMA will no longer support the cost to send someone to the CIAM meetings. The NSRCA stepped up to the plate and is paying for the trip. I believe Derek said he is leaving next Thursday at the BoD meeting.

Scott