rcpattern

My Feedback: (45)

Tim,

You are right, I've never had my plane weighed, or sound checked at a local level. I would also bet that if you did, you'd find a lot of overweight planes. then they get to the NATS and guys find a way to get under the weight. If you don't intend to go to the NATS, then fine, fly a heavy plane, but I think at a National level contest, you have to have VERY strict rules and follow them. Even at the NATS, they only weigh and measure the planes that are in contention. And the guys that are going to be at the top will have their equipment in top notch shape.

On the other point about raising the weight limit. Lighter planes dont necessarily fly better, there is a happy balance. Try flying a 9.5lb 2m in winds near the limit. Also, you can keep the wing loading the same with a larger plane by turning them into bipes, which will again raise the cost. Right now with the rules being the same a few years, you are seeing a lot of ARF's that are coming down in price and getting better on weight. Changing the rules will cause people to redesign planes. Right now you can easily pick up a used plane that is legal and competitive for a very nice price. Changing the rules will once again do away with that.

I really am not seeing a lot of planes though that are close to the limit. People are building electrics now sub 10lbs ready for takeoff, Dave Lockharts prestige's being one. A lot of the ARF electrcis are coming in around 10.5lbs and most glow setups are lighter than that. I think part of the problem is that when a new ARF hits the market, people jump on it. The shinden being a perfect example. The first shipment was HEAVY...and hard to make weight. By the second shipment they were well under weight. Just because something new hits the market dont jump on the first batch. Wait a little bit. This is one thing I will give Oxai credit for. Their planes have been through so much testing and such they are always under weight with no problems when they first come out.

The cheaper lighter options are there, people just have to choose to use them. Changing rules never makes it cheaper. Leave things as they are and watch the quality and price start dropping. A perfect example is servos. Look at how much better manufactures have made servos that fit the same holes we had 10 years ago. And the price of the top notch servos really hasnt gone up that much..especially considering inflation, but look at how much better they are now.

2 meter planes are now much easier to make weight and are MUCH cheaper now than they were even a few years ago. There are also a lot more options coming down the pipe.

Arch

bwick

I think you're underplaying the advantage of the newer models. Trust me, I flew a Focus II in intermediate, and while I was not nearly as good at trimming or flying the airplane there is a huge difference in performance between what I was flying then and what I'm flying now. That being said I demand a hell of a lot more from what I'm flying now than what I was flying then. I think there is this misconception in the lower classes that the best airplane for Quique, Jason, Andrew, etc. is the best plane for them. All of these designs for F3A are designed for the finals pattern and unknowns, not P. The finals pattern involves maneuvers like rolling loops, circles, knife-edge loops, etc. that are never flown in anything less than the semi-finals of FAI. The canalizer... the advantage of this thing is when you get into the bottom of rolling loops and things like the knife edge loop yet they're on planes competing at site 4!

Now part of pattern is playing with all the newest gadgets. One of the things I love about this sport is the constant creativity and ingenuity of designers and pilots, however most of this stuff is meant to aid these world class pilots in the finals of the Worlds, a place only 10 people in the world get every 2 years. They're designing to give them the advantage where it really counts. A lot of guys think they don't have the best stuff unless they're flying what CPLR and Quique are flying but in a lot cases it's just not true. Given the normal skill and preperation one could be competitive through masters with a whole lot less than what it takes in FAI. I never understood the argument that pattern is too expensive, like others have said there is in 95% of the cases much more money wrapped up in an IMAC plane than a pattern plane. I think what has attracted some people to IMAC over pattern is the younger community and different attitude. Those persuing the most intense and pure competition would be drawn to pattern I think, while your casual giant scaler who has a couple friends that tried out IMAC will come with said friends to an IMAC meet and start competing. Pattern models are so purpose specific the same cannot really be achieved.

As far as less expensive options: Fliton is coming out with a promising 2M, Shinden, Integral (little higher end, but can take you all the way through FAI obviously...), FocusII (little more difficult to fly, but proven design), Pentathalon (Great kit for builders), Black Magic V3 (great kit for builders).

Stick in a 160DZ, some digital servos, all the fixings and you have a plane that can win masters for 2-2.5k. Doesn't sound very cheap, but trying doing that in IMAC.... 2.5k will get a really cheap 100CC sized airplane...

Decline in attendance has to do with changing times more than expensive airplanes, that's just life.

Oh and changing the weight limit would just make prices go up for aforementioned reasons, I think.

Mastertech

My Feedback: (31)

Hi Brett,

Conragts on your team placement. Well deserved imho.

The climbing expense of flying Pattern or IMAC will never end no matter what we do with the rules. It's human nature to try to "Keep up with the QQ" I submit you'll see many bipes this coming year in local contests. Why? You hit the nail on the head, "that's what the world champ flew so there for I must have it".

By allowing the weight to be eliminated or raised to 15 pounds (Just a number I threw out here) it opens up our sport to far more airframes and engines and will, IMHO, open the cheaper ARF market to explode. We've already seen the arf market try to introduce Pattern planes and largely failed due to having to make the weight limit. The air frames literally fell apart.

Radio gear is pretty much a wash, so what we have left is power plants and airframes.

Look at BVM for instance, they sell the Proline and a few other composite air frames. The Proline is 2k, the Astral XX is 2500. They sell the 2x2 Edge for 1k. There is no more work or material in that Astral XX than the Edge. So why is it $1500 more?

Let's look at the facts on pricing to run a 2x2.

The YS 1.70 is $700
Header is $60
Muffler is $140
Soft Mount is $125 to $280
Muffler mount $30

So we have a total of an avg of $1130


DA50 $600
DA Pipe $200

Total - $800

so We could have a BVM Edge with engine for $1800

or an Astral XX with engine $3650

( I used the price of the Astral as it's about in the middle of Pattern Arf's out there price wise.)

There are many 50cc air frames out there for under $500.


Take the YS 1.10 and the 1.70

There is perhaps $20 worth of difference in material between the two and the same machining cost. So why does the 1.70 sell for near double the 1.10? Only thing I can think of is they probably sell 5 times as many 1.10's as 1.70.

IMHO if the weight limit were eliminated you'd see far more trying pattern and the cost for those that choose to do so go down dramatically. As with everything the amount you can spend is never ending.

Chris Moon

My Feedback: (8)

All other issues aside, we will create 2 events with 2 different types of planes. FAI is not going to change the limit so those guys need 5kg compliant planes. Everyone can have bigger and heavier (still 2X2) for the AMA classes. See the problem? We are going to require people to change planes to fly FAI class. We have a big enough problem now getting guys out of Masters and into FAI so this will seal the fate of FAI class. Where does our World's team come form...FAI of course. We should make it easier to move to FAI and not harder and require a possible change in equipment to do so.

Mastertech

My Feedback: (31)

Arch,

What we really have is a rule largely ignored even at the Nats. If we're going to have a rule it needs to be enforced. If we're not going to enforce it why have it? Doesn't the Worlds process every airplane and certify it before the contest begins?

If at a contests they ask anyone to weigh their airplane they better be asking everyone else. Placement shouldn't have any bearing on it.

apereira

When you pay $2500+++, you are not paying for the materials really, you are paying for the way it flies, that's it, and the craftmen in certain cases.

rcpattern

My Feedback: (45)

Tim,

You are right, at the World's they process every airplane. They also have several days to do this. That doesn't happen at the NATS. Checking the planes in contention works very well. Doesn't take a lot of time and everyone is happy. Everyone is given the opportunity to check the weight of their plane on the day before it starts if they choose. So there are no surprises.

Brett, you are right. The planes now are definitely better for the F3A stuff..and you are right, the Focus II and such are still very competitive. I would even argue more competitive in Intermediate. The planes penetrate really well and actually require less wind correction work due to the less side area. Pattern people are going to spend what they spend. The cheaper options are available, people just have to choose to use them. You can outfit an Integral, or build a Black Magic kit with an OS 1.60 for less than you are paying for your Pro Line kit. That is YOUR choice. The Integral and the Black magic are definitely competitive on a world stage. The Integrals have finished higher at the Worlds than the proline, so you certainly do NOT have to spend the amount of money you have above. That was YOUR choice. Go ahead and outfit your BVM edge for 1800, and then fly it compared to your Pro Line..wont take you long to go back to your Proline for pattern competition...

Tim, EVERY time they have changed the rules, the price has gone up. It just happens. Prices will come down if you leave it alone and let technology catch up and then there will be more available used airframes. People are never going to turn pattern into a mainstream event anymore. There are too many people flying other events. You can show up in the lower classes at most contests and fly whatever you want. Especially Sportsman. That airplane though is NOT competitive, even with a rule change in Masters. If someone wants to fly the DA-50 plane, let them fly IMAC. Growing pattern is great, but start having 50 people at a local contest and let me know how that works for you. People will quit because they will only be flying 4 rounds instead of six after driving several hours. People that want to fly pattern are going to fly pattern, the ones that don't, wont. If someone is capable of flying Sportsman, more than likely they have a plane that will do it. Let them enter and fly a few contests. And actually TRAVEL. I see contests all the time with 6 local guys flying sportsman, but if they don't travel to any other contests, then we really haven't attracted anyone new have we?

Arch

Mastertech

My Feedback: (31)

I hope you're right of course. I really do.

I was just using the BVM Edge as a comparrison. I wasn't advocating using that airplane in pattern. Sorry if I misled anyone.

The entire point I was trying to make is this.

If the weight limit was eliminated I believe there would be far more choices in airframes and power plants. yes there will always be the guys that have to spend XXX when XX would do. Did these Prolines help improve my flying over the Eclipse I was flying? Yes they did. Was that improvement worth the $5,000 I spent. In retrospect, No.

At your level and Bret's I'd say yes it would be. I contend that 95% of the pattern fliers out there couldn't tell the difference between an 10 pound and a 11 pound airplane.

Now if I could just get that wings level before pulling/pushing thingy worked out................

rcpattern

My Feedback: (45)

If this is true, which you are probably right. I would contend that Brett would win Masters flying a Focus II. That being said, then the other pattern guys have cheap options.

Focus II ARF 700.00
Element 1.70 ARF 600.00
OS 1.60 260
Header 50
Pipe 150
Servos 500


So either of these options, the Focus II or the Element you can put together for less than 1500..RTF....

The Cheap options are there.

Arch

jrpav1

My Feedback: (17)

NO. NO. NO. Leave the weight (and size for that matter) rules alone. It's not rocket science to make a Pattern plane weigh 5Kg (11.023 lbs) or less. My first attempt (a Black Magic V2.2) came out 8 ounces under weight. 8 whole onces! If you can't make weight you're doing something WRONG! Don't use the electric thing as an excuse either. Dave Lockhart's (electric) airplanes make weight and then some. Maybe it's because he knows how to build light. Imagine that. Please don't try to change the rules every time there's a new challenge (electrics). We're supposed to be the best at what we do. Let's keep it that way.

John Pavlick
Team Black Magic

BTW - if you save .25 oz. 4 times You have shaved a whole once off of your plane. That's the secret. Like I said, it's not rocket science. You don't need an Erector set to rig your pushrods. Or your landing gear. If you have ever used the words "I had to 'beef that up' a little" - you need to re-think your building methods.

Chris Moon

My Feedback: (8)

This thread is coming back to the age old..."how to get more people to fly pattern". Increasing the weight limit is not the answer. One of the many challenges of pattern is to get the plane you want with the components you want and put it together and have it weigh less than 5kg. Learning about components and composites and weight savings ideas etc is part of the event. Granted, sometimes frustrating but something we have to deal with. We have to all acknowledge that pattern is not and never will be for everyone. Increasing the costs for those already here in order to maybe attract a few more is just not a good idea. Most Contest Directors already do try to accommodate by waving the weight/size limits in Sportsman and sometimes Intermediate classes and very rarely do those who fly their giant planes in those classes go out and buy a pattern plane and continue to compete in pattern. They are usually local club members who just want to fly in a local event. Net gain = 0.

jrpav1

My Feedback: (17)

Yes, I agree. When I first started flying Pattern a few years ago, I had a scratch-built Super Kaos Jr. That made weight because it was a 40-size airplane. VBG It also fit into my compact car. After I was forced to move into Intermediate the following season (I placed second in Sportsman at a contest with 7 people flying in my class), I bought a used Focus 1 with servos. I think I paid about $800. I added a brand new OS 160 Fx, a pipe and a Hyde mount along with a new Futaba PCM receiver AND a carbon fiber wing tube (this allowed the plane to make weight @ 10 lbs, 14 oz.). Total cost of all of this (airplane included) was less than $1500.00 Oh yeah and I had to buy a minivan to lug this monster 2-meter contraption to contests. So where's the problem? LOL

I won the 402-class district championship with that airplane. The ONLY time the plane was weighed was when I put it on my scale here at home. Like it or not, increasing the weight limit WILL NOT attract new Pattern pilots. It will only allow sloppy builders to conform to the rules. By the time you make it to Masters or FAI, you should have figured out how to build a light airplane. Please. Sorry, that's the way I see it.

John Pavlick
Team Black Magic

Erik Johansson

I can´t really see why the weight limit should be kept. Like many have stated, a lighter plane flies better. So why not let people make the choice themselves if they want to fly a heavier plane? I´m all for keeping the 2x2m size limit though.

/Erik

Jason Arnold

Why change anything at all??? Personally I think the current rules are fine although perhaps there should be a minimum weight to maintain safety?
I'm only new to pattern and think it's a great way to become a better pilot. I couldn't give a rat's backside about where I finish in a comp as long as I learn something new and actually fly better.

If you want to promote pattern, perhaps we should focus on the strengths of pattern to promote it to newcomers?

Ask yourself why you fly pattern...

Cheers
Jason.

DaveL322

Actually,

The mistake was long before allowing unlimited engines. The mistake was allowing 20cc 4C engines when the engine limit was 10cc. Limiting the power to a 10cc displacement meant airplanes anywhere near 2 meters or 11 pounds were going to be underpowered and not competitive. It is easy enough to figure out that in any competitive event, a 2:1 displacement advantage for a 4C is going to lead to 4C dominance.....and it did......obsoleting 2Cs and the airframes, bringing more power and larger airplanes. The intent of the rule was to allow the 20cc 4Cs of the time to compete in pattern - the benefit to pattern being the greater torque at lower RPM and lower noise level of the very mild sport 20cc 4Cs available at the time....and it worked until the manufacturers started developing and producing 20cc 4Cs intended for competition. The new generation(s) of 4Cs made more power (and noise) which lead to bigger planes, increased cost (for engines, planes, servos, support equipment, vehicles, etc), and an increase in the average weight of planes - bringing them much closer to (and over in some instances) the weight limit.

So instead of fixing the problem and adjusting the ratio of 2C / 4C, the unlimited engine rule was introduced (apparently it was ok to obsolete both 2C and 4C engines, instead of establishing parity with either of the available 2C or 4C engines available). The thought was that if the 2 meter rule (and 5 kg weight limit and noise limit) was left in place, the planes wouldn't get any larger, because many were already 2M in length and/or wingspan. And it was thought that the use of gas engines would be more feasible, and larger displacement mildly tuned engines (perhaps a Moki 1.8 on 5% nitro) would become competitive in the event, and be easier to operate/maintain. Nice thoughts.......with little or no relevance in a competitive enviroment. The end result was a very limited use of gas engines (heavy and loud) which were only marginally competitive when attempted by very skilled builders and very skilled engine tuners. The mildly tuned engines were rarely used (heavy, poor power to weight ratio), and the size, weight, and cost of the planes went up again as the engine manufacturers developed more power for the pattern market.....obsoleting another generation of engines and airframes.

In the competitive environment of pattern, the engines (power systems) with the best power to weight ratio will always yield a competitive advantage, and the airframes with the best strength to weight ratio will always yield a competitive advantage, and the "biggest" airplane will always fly better. If you were to "freeze" the current state of airplane design and powerplants, but implement an increased weight limit, there would be little or no change in the event - very few would ballast an existing design to 5.5 kg to improve the flight qualities, and the 5+ kg planes would not realize a performance advantage. However, in any competitive events, the rules are examined closely and any competitive advantage that can be gained within the rules is the end result. We have seen how airplanes can grow within a 2 meter box (compare a Prophecy to any of the current day designs) and how unlimited engine displacement can lead to more costly airframes. The weight limit is truly the only limiting factor in the current day rules. Give a competitor a 5.5 kg weight limit, and it will result in newer designs that fly better and obsolete the current generation of planes and equipment. Of course the newer designs and associated equipment will cost more.

The rules (weight, size, noise) must be in place and enforced to keep the playing field level (no matter what the level is) at high competition levels. At local levels, participation is encouraged, and the well used Focus II, Eclipse, Partner, etc, that is 5.1 kg with a YS140 is gaining no competitive advantage being 5.1 kg......similarly, the 6 kg 75" DA50 Cap/Extra is not gaining a competitive advantage either.......there is no harm in allowing these planes to participate at the CDs discretion. For anyone keeping track of history, any increase in weight, size, or displacement has lead to an increased average cost in the airframe, with very few "cheap" options being used. "Opening" up the rules will never do anything other than increase the top level of performance. Countless efforts on the local level to "open" up the rules to encourage broader participation have generated very few long term pattern competitors (nonetheless, I support such efforts on a local level).

-

So far as the electric vs glow/ignition debate........there are competitive examples of fuel planes and electric planes close to the 5 kg limit.....and they will always push the weight limit (again, it is the nature of competition), and there are competive examples of each as light as 4.2 kg (fuel) and 4.5 kg (electric). For the most part, the average weight during flight of the electric is less. Reviewing the top 10 finishers at the 2008 US Nationals, I see -

- 5 YS 170 (I think all were CDI), I believe all were fully sponsored for engines/fuel
- 5 electrics (top 2 spots) of a variety - Plett Evo/Jeti/TP, Hacker C50/Hacker/TP, Neu 1514/Castle/FP, Plett Evo/Schulze/TP, Hacker A60/Castle/TP - to the best of my knowledge, 3 full and 2 partial sponsorships for motors/ESCs/lipos.

I don't see the need to "help" electric. Consider the development of electric is in it's infancy.....it will only get better with time.....and very likely at a more rapid pace than improvement in glow/ignition. Electric does not need help or special consideration from the rules, let alone any rule changes which would allow airplanes of increased size or weight. Having said that, if any change were to be considered in the rules, it should be to limit all airplanes to 5 kg takeoff weight (rather silly in my opinion to compare weights of planes that are not equally flight ready).

Regards,

Dave Lockhart
Team JR, Castle, Thunder Power, Central Hobbies

apereira

As we can see here, most people think the weight limit is ok where it is, and ussually everybody that flies in advanced classes have the money to get top equipment anyway.
Again, weight limits should be changed in the lowes classes which are the real entry level and where this changes to attrack more people should be focused to.

DRC1

My Feedback: (10)

I can already hear the new spin for the next debate...***If the takeoff weight is the same, that would give the advantage to the 2C / 4C because the airfraime weight will decrease during flight and the electric will remain the same***

Sorry, couldn't resist...LOL

LLD

Mastertech

My Feedback: (31)

Hi Dave

I thank you for your well thought out response. You brought points to the front I missed in my initial evaluation. I now agree with keeping the 5k rule, only thing I might change would be to raise the limit to 6k only if it was a "Ready to take off weight".

Seems every 3-4 years the bar is raised yet again and obsolete's the current "Cream Of the crop" at the top level which then trickles down to the lower classes. Yes there will always be those who just have to fly state of the art equipment in the lower classes even if there's no real advantage to do so.

You know as well as I the best investment most lower class fliers can make is a drum of fuel and a darn good coach. Heck even the top 10-20 FAI fliers in the country never stand alone, they always have a good coach. They also, most likely, burn more fuel or electrons than most any lower class flier.

Back in my hay day of Pattern I flew 4-5 days a week 4-6 flights a day and my flying showed the results. I couldn't afford the state of the art stuff back then but I won my share of contests. Today I can afford state of the art stuff but can't devote the time, nor can my coach, But that is whats needed to bring my performance back to the level I once had. I doubt at my age my reflexes will allow it either. I think perhaps Tony feels the same way.

So now when I go to a contest it's to fly the best I can, not have equipment failure and let the standings fall where they may. I doubt I'll ever fly at the Nats again so the weight rule will not be something I worry about. I would still like to see more participation at the local level. It just sucks for me this year with mine and my wifes health problems, but at least both are temporary and should allow me to make a few contests this fall.

I love the sport and airplanes and the friends I've made far to much to quit.

Tim

Troy Newman

I think one thing that needs to be taken into consideration. A weight limit change in AMA vs a weight limit change for all of pattern. I don't think some of the non USA responders understand where some of the USA pilots in AMA class pattern are coming from.

I will contend that Dave and Archie are 100% right in their assumption and points with regards to FAI pattern.

I will also contend that changing the AMA weight limits will not have the affects they point out. AMA pattern is not driving any design, or development. They are just taking the FAI setup and flying it.

here is why........
Currently and for many many years since the change of AMA pattern to turnaround (20 years now)....The AMA pattern ranks are not driving the boat. There are not AMA designs that are pushing the limits of design or engineering. There are not models out there that are AMA pattern designed with the exclusion of F3A sequences.

Rather quite the opposite. The Models are trickling down from the top. The designs are F3A based, and as Brett has stated these models are becoming more and more engineered to meet the F3A "F" schedules.

With the trickle down nature of this problem. A model that was once legal in F3A now with a little time on it. A few repairs, and perhaps a change to heavier battery packs, glow engines, or muffler systems might be on the edge of making weight. This could discourage lower skill level pilots with hand me down models. The "top" Masters pilot like Archie or any of the other Masters contenders are going to be flying F3A designs...its the Sportsman, Intermediate, and Advanced pilots here....And these are not the guys that are designing the models. Yes a few, Mark Hunt, Jeremy Chin and so on.

Perhaps a staged limit change....

Sportsman class any legal AMA model limit of 50cc and no weight limit, no size limit ( the idea is to not let a 40% extra be the Sportsman model. The 50cc will do that)

Intermediate class any legal AMA model 50cc limit, but now employ the sound rules that IMAC uses 98db at 25ft

Advanced class go with the 2 x 2 limits, 96db (current AMA by the way) sound rules, and move the weight limit to say a 13-14lb takeoff weight.

Masters Class is FAI Specs allow a 13lb takeoff weight.


What this would do is allow the hand me down models to be easier to trickle down. The "older" repaired plane is still viable. in ALL Classes!

Yet it infuses the lower skill sets with a whole different group of rules that are very lax and allow for people to come and enjoy the fun. And it just might, just might inspire some of the current Intermediate, advanced guys to be designing models and pushing the limits like Dave and Archie suggest would happen. Then they can take those skills and move up to the MASTERS and FAI ranks and refine their skills and designs within the now tighter limits.

There has to be some sort of compromise to this situation. Yes we FAI guys are fully capable of and choose to spend the money, and work to get our models under the FAI limits. I question if a an Intermediate pilot, not only with his intermediate building skills, trimming skills and budget feels the exact same way. No question it can be done we are doing it now...but how many people are we chasing away because they can not.

Is cost a deterrent to Pattern?..well it could be.

Is the fact that a guy gets on this forum and says I have a 50cc YAK and want to fly pattern...

The first response is " its not legal but you can do it"

This tells the pilot that "we DON"T want you to do it but if you really must we will let you. Just don't go to the NATS with it."

To me I think this sends a mixed message to the new people.

The idea laid out above is by no means perfect but I think it could provide a solution to many aspects and not hurt the sport. The lower skill sets are mostly trying to learn to fly straight lines and combine elements.

When was the last time a guy in Sportsman or Intermediate designed his own airplane? Yes there are a select few.

When the last time a guy with a 50cc model asked if he could fly in a pattern contest? Yes this is almost weekly if not monthly request on the NSRCA mailing lists or RCU forum.

Which one happens more often?


I think solutions to our problems would be more beneficial than the same rhetoric that is posted every time the questions come up. Obviously the AMA and the NSRCA same old story is not going to improve Sportsman and Intermediate participation.

Troy Newman

wagen017

IMHO if you want to decrease cost of entry to pattern flying you have to DECREASE the weight limit. Just kidding, but there are now excellent flying airplanes available for the YS1.10. For anyone who wants to enter pattern, this is an excellent choice. I have a 2m ship which I use for competition but just finished a Fliton Inspire-90 with a Saito-125 which is almost just as good and much cheaper to run.

There is still so much to learn when you start in pattern...I don't see the need for an expensive 2m plane for myself for the next three years, maybe never. And then still (as was already mentioned) you can always buy a 2nd hand from a really good flyer for a good price.

Just my 2c., off course...!

BTW reading up on Troy's comment he is absolutely right. In principle anyone should be able to participate in Sportsman if he wants to. When you come to the higher classes, the rules should kick in.

mmattockx

This is the most rational solution I have seen mentioned and I think it embodies what many people are trying for in asking for a weight increase. Now you simply have to manage to get it into the rulebook, Troy!

Mark

can773

My Feedback: (1)

Mark,

Canada follows FAI rules, changing AMA rules has no effect on our rules.

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

Let the FAI do what they want with F3A. As I've said before, those rules are only intended for continental and world contests, not a care in the world for local meets.

AMA needs to do what is best for AMA members and potential pattern competitors. To be honest, I've seen some pretty selfish logic in some of these responses. I turn a deaf ear to someone who says don't change it because after all, I can build one weight legal, why can't you? Well, in today's ARF world, most cannot. They rely on what they can buy to be legal. And under $2K the pickings are pretty slim.

And again, why does anyone who can build under 5Kg care if their competition is heavier? Are you afraid of more being in your class to compete against?

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

BTW, Dave L buys his planes also. He outfits them, but he didn't lay them up.

vbortone

My Feedback: (2)

This is a reminder note. Most of you know but it is an important detail. By "international" definition a model airplane should be below 5 Kg. This is for all types of competition. The only exception to this rule is scale which is a little higher but not much. If we increase the weight limit, all the National designs won't be useful in the International market. Yes, we can argue that we don't produce a lot of planes in the US for the international market. However, it does not make sense that we impose that limitation to models designed in the US. What about the Brio and the Focus? How many Temptations, Brios and Focus were sold in the Internationa market? How many copied our designs?

I want to share were I learned this. I was at the AMA museum. The curator was giving me a nice tour. He got a call from someone claiming that he broke a record of altitude flying a model airplane. Guess what was the first question. Is the model below 5 Kg? It was clear that it was below 5 Kg. The second question was: What is the altitude you flew? At the end, the actual altitude record was higher. The curator showed me the plane that broke the record. Yes, they have it at the AMA museum.

Vicente "Vince" Bortone