But if we raise the weight limit we will all need to have 2-meter wingspan 50cc alcohol burning biplanes to be competitive. Won't we?? [&:]

Either that or monoplanes will have a fuse that is 2 meters tall. The new names will be 2 by 2 by 2. On the bright side since the wing and fuse will essentially be the same, knife mixing will be a thing of the past!! I can finally fly a scale Star Wars X-Wing fighter in pattern. With a 50cc alcohol motor of course. How cool is that?

Well, Chip says the new CA Models Visa he has done already has no mixing, and I believe him. BTW, the Visa fuselage is really no bigger then a PassPort. Chip did a lot of contouring on it and eliminated the removable chin cowl which took significant weight out of it.

Just imagine the amount of space that we could have for advertising on a 2x2x2? How about, "This Space for Rent"!

I always find the biplane boogeyman to be a bit funny. The top competitors are already moving away from the biplane. There are very valid reasons why in IAC competition not many are using a bipe in the Unlimited class. Heck, look at IMAC. Hardly anyone is flying a bipe, and they have no limitation keeping them from doing it. I am convinced the "biplane" threat is vapor.

Tony,

I agree. The weight limit has never been changed. I did not say "raising the weight limit has always caused a raise in the costs". I said the cost would go up IF the weight limit were raised. That is a prediction, and is perfectly valid. Historical occurence is not a prerequisite for a prediction.

The weight limit was never "in play" with prior rules. With a 2C 60 engine limit, the available power was the real limit, and changing the weight from 11 lbs to 12 lbs or unlimited weight would have no effect on the cost of the event (because none of the planes were close to 11 lbs). The weight rule had minimal impact with the 120 4C limit (more power, some planes close to 11 lbs, but still not enough power to be competitive at >11 lbs). With the current lack of restriction on engine size and 2M dimensional limit, the weight limit is very much "in play", as is evidenced by the large number of planes close to 11 lbs. My opinion (prediction) is that if the weight limit were raised at this time, it would increase the cost of the event.

I have presented plenty of discussion and rationale with historical reference and basis as to why the event would get more expensive IF the weight limit were raised (now that the weight limit is in play). When limits that are "in play" get raised, the cost of the event goes up. There is no exception to this in the history of pattern than I am aware of.

So far as 2M truly keeping the size of the planes limited....it has had a limited effect. If it were truly limiting, we'd still be flying skinny 2M designs (Pythons, Prophecies, etc, when we were limited to 120 4Cs). We aren't, because when the engine limit was discarded, bigger 2M planes (that fly better and cost more) evolved, taking advantage of the added available power.

The weight limit now is restrictive in that it does effectively limit size and power (especially for electrics). If the weight limit were increased, the power of electrics would also increase - and the direct result would be more cost for the bigger batteries, motors, and ESCs. Secondarily, IF the planes also got bigger (and they can, without exceeding 2M), then that would be an additional added cost.

We both agree reducing the cost of pattern would be a good thing. I don't expect we will ever agree on how to reduce the cost of pattern, and that is cool, and there are others out there reading this stuff. Quite honestly, I don't think reducing the cost would bring droves of new guys to pattern, considering how much $$ is being spent in other areas of the hobby. If the rules were changed in an attempt to reduce the cost of pattern, I'd prefer to see a return to limiting the power - hard to do with both electrics and IC in the event, and not something that I think the current pattern community would support - but - I think it would reduce the cost.

Regards,

Dave

Arch said that increasing the weight limit has always caused an increase in cost. I say that is not a valid statement as it has never happened. You can say you "think" that would happen. That would be a valid statement. Not necessarily a correct prediction, but a valid statement.

But I still feel that with no change to the F3A rules raising the weight limit in the AMA classes would give those competing in those classes a chance to legally equip their models for less expense.

Tony,

You are correct. They have never raised the weight limit. However, any time a major rule change has occured, costs have gone up. Some are real, some are just a result of inflation. However if you develop more powerful engines, then the cost will escalate. You are right, that it is a prediction, but from previous rule changes, the costs have always risen.

Arch

But as you stated earlier, probably not in AMA. All the AMA fliers use existing F3A airframes. So I disagree with making a blanket statement encompassing all of pattern. I can see that being the case in F3A where all the engine/airframe developments are being done. But I believe a weight increase in just AMA has the potential for lowering costs.

How many rules changes have been made with the promise by the advocates that it would reduce the cost of pattern? All of them (excepting the noise rule). How many resulted in pattern being cheaper? None of them. Unintended consequences.

Absolutely it would be easier to assemble an AMA class model for less money at CURRENT performance levels if the weight limit were raised. The unintended consequence would be the use of bigger motors and batteries (they already exist and are more expensive) that would escalate the level of performance needed to be competitive, diminishing the competitiveness of anything flying today (glow or IC).

Competitors always push and exploit limits, this has always happened in pattern. Predicting they will continue to do so if allowed to use bigger motors and batteries seems pretty reasonable to me.

Regards,

Dave

Dave,

The increase to 20cc for 4-strokes was never sold as a cost reduction. It was for noise. There were some who claimed that there might be a cost reduction when F3A removed the engine displacement limit. I never bought it and I don't think it passed for that reason. The 2-meter limit was imposed to help limit the cost of shipping the models to World Champs. Some models were exceeding that when it was put in place. It probably has done that.

Escalation simply wouldn't happen in the AMA classes. If I follow your logic then there is absolutely nothing that can be done to help the event. And I don't buy that.

I believe you are wrong. You don't get it. So be it. Enough said.

Tony,

I believe you are wrong. You don't get it, but I believe you have every right to your opinion. I used to race cars and motorcycles in my teens and 20's and bicycles before that, now I play with toy airplanes and still have to spend money to compete (albeit poorly but I'm having fun). Competiton costs money and every rule change that does not specifically cap costs, and even those that do to some extent, do raise the cost of competing simply due to the nature of the beast. You said yourself above that when the 2 meter rule was imposed there were planes that were exceeding that size. The collateral damage was the competitor who had the larger airframe now had an airframe that was no longer viable and needed to replace it.....a cost increase for that person.

In some venues of auto racing they have a claimer class where you can actually claim your competitors engine and there are price caps in the rules. Now to run in a claimer class you have to pull your engine down and change some parts out or run in a class that does not limit you and you up against guys who may have deeper wallets.....pick you poison. Closer to home is the 424 pylon event that puts a price cap of $120 on the engine used...use any .40 you want but it's street price can't be over $120.

If controlling costs is the focus then cap the prices of the components if you remove the weight limit. How about total power package cannot be more than $540 street price? Now the high dollar lipos are no longer an issue. Neither are the more expensive electric motors as well as the expensive IC engines. The schedules will have to become less demanding which will also have the benefit of making those of us with less flying prowess more competitive

If making weight is an issue, then go to a smaller airframe, it won't be as competitive but you will make weight. Those who want to compete and be competitive will spend the money to reach their goals. You can still, to the best of my knowledge, get a Viper which should easily make weight with a heavy power system. There are plenty of airframes to fly out there that will make weight, the sticking point is those who want the latest and greatest and not have to pay the price tag to make weight. It is not a realistic expectation...competition=$ and having a competitive edge=$$$

I am sorry if I come off as bit abrasive, those that know me know I am much more abrasive than this , but my fear is that someone might actually take all this to heart and the weight limit will be removed and then the game changes. As it stands we all know what the rules of the game are and we have all decided to play.

Tony,

Thanks for the opinions on the rule changes. Various proposals over the years have been advocated for more than 1 reason, reasonable enough.


When 120 4Cs were allowed into the event, more power was available, it was used, and costs went up (and the event did not get quieter, the noise rule did that).

When unlimited sized engines were allowed into the event, more power was available, it was used, and costs went up.

Make a rule change (such as allowing increased weight, or unlimited weight) that allows more power to be available, and it will be used, and costs will go up. As I've pointed out before, the equipment needed is already available, it does not need to be developed by AMA or FAI flyers, it already exists, and it costs more $$$. The only prediction is that it will be used, and history says it will be used. Competitive nature says it will be used. History can't be changed, and I don't see competitve nature changing either.

Regards,

Dave

For me it still all comes down to the logical inconsistency of weighing one plane ready to fly and the other plane not ready to fly. Nothing I have heard adequately explains that situation.

Both systems are weighed ready fly. Drain the batteries and they are in the same situation. Electric "fuel" weighs nothing. Batteries are mearly a fuel tank of sorts. The weight difference in the "fuel" used.

Arch

I definitely agree with the proposition that better performance equals more cost, but I'm okay with this because I personally want to see more innovation, and I'm willing to pay more cost, at least within reason ....

I also understand that there are others that don't share my thinking, and who prefer to maintain current levels of performance, (if possible ...) and move to lower cost.

However, I'm thinking (hoping actually ...) that we don't have to choose between these contrary objectives, and that there are options for us to consider that would drive innovation in the upper classes, (Masters, and f3a ...) and also reduce cost in the lower classes. Of course I don't quite know what these options might be, but these are the high level objectives that I would like to achieve with any proposed rule change.

It seems the only way to regulate anything successfully is the size of the engine like it
was in the old AMA pattern. If the size of the engine is regulated the other things like
airplane size and weight will set themselves. A certain size engine can only carry so much
airplane size and weight and compete successfully. I don't think anything is going to lessen
the cost of competing in pattern. My brother has a car he runs on the drag strip and my wife
and I at one time showed horses and it's the same with any competition. There are always going
to be people who want to win regardless of cost and will push rules and development beyond
what was intended until ordinary people who want to compete just for fun can no longer afford to.
It 's happened in every sport and unfortunately, that's just human nature.

tommy s

I feel that intrinsically there is a big difference between aerobatics competition with model airplanes and racing real motorcycles or cars. There the point is to be the first across the line, period. Aerobatics is about something completely different. Having a lot of power alone doesn't get you the win. You have to look good doing it! So the comparisons in my opinion are not equal.

Dave, your comments are based on, I believe, an incorrect prediction that the AMA classes will develop airframes separately from F3A. That will never happen. It never has happened. It hasn't happened in countries that have allowed more weight in their developmental classes. AMA competitors will continue to use airframes developed for F3A. They will just have the option to equip them with lower cost, possibly higher weight systems.

And my rule proposal had all models weigh at take-off, thus eliminating the obvious bias the exists in the event now.

Arch, I can't believe you pulled out that old "battery is a fuel tank" thing. And the models are not both weighed ready to fly. There is no fuel in your tank when you weigh.

Yes, but how do you regulate the size of the engine when you have both IC and electric motors in the mix? do you put a limit on the power input, the power output, or do you have seperate regulations for each motor genre?

There really is no excuse for not making the weight requirements now. There are guys flying sub 10# electrics out there. My plane weighed fine at the NATS with fuel in the tank. Mike Hester had a sub 10# glow black magic with a YS 1.70 in the nose. The V3 is a big airframe. Yes, some of the ARF's out there can be heavier, but you can easily build planes under 11# now. Right now, both glow and electric are viable. Changing rules will virtually eliminate one or the other. Years from now, we will all be flying electric because the technology will dominate and the technology is still growing. But I don't think we are there yet.

Arch

Arch, you weighed with a full tank and passed?

Actually, having a lot of power doesn't get you the win in most forms of racing, raw power not judiciously applied will in most cases end in a loss. You need finesse just like in aerobatics, and they are both competition where the desired outcome is to win so they are the same at the most basic level.

Again, we will simply disagree. I'm used to having people (Arch) disagree with me.

At any rate Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Tony,

My comments are based in part on the assumption that airframes would get larger. That is not my only discussion point. That being said, I agree with you that the majority of airframes are developed for F3A and they are then used in AMA, and this has happened during a time when AMA and F3A rules matched.

No other country has the depth of flying and degree of support structure below F3A that AMA has. Comparisons of other countries to the US are suspect simply because of the big difference in numbers of flyers and other social/economic factors.

I agree that things like drag racing and pattern can not be directly compared, but the competitive element is the same. Limits (whatever they are) are pushed in every competitive event (no matter what event).

You are absolutely right that a higher (or unlimited) weight limit in AMA would allow the use of lower cost, possibly higher weight systems. I know that is what you hope for, and that would be a good thing. However, there is also another side to it which you have not addressed - it will also allow competitors to use larger motors and batteries (existing currently) that have a higher cost and drive up the level of performance needed to be competitive. There is not a single instance when higher power systems became available that they were not used, and in every instance, the cost went up (and this is independant of airframe size).

I agree absolutely that the rules as they are now are biased against electrics, and your proposal does eliminate that bias. However, I can not support any rule that allows the current models to become more expensive, and your proposal would allow this for electrics (higher takeoff weight).

I'd be happy with 11 lbs takeoff weight for all planes, but the majority of IC flyers would not support that. I'd be happy to see a power limit put in place - but with IC and electric being used, this would be extremely hard to structure and enforce to the point that I do not think it would be practically feasible.


Arch,

The tank empty tank full point is amusing (always has been), but how is it valid for one plane to be RTF (the electric) but the other (IC) still needing additional weight above 11 lbs to be RTF. It is not the fault of the electric flyer that "fuel" for the IC guys weighs more than "fuel" for the electric guys. My IC stuff was <11 lbs RTF, so it can be done, but I am not advocating such a rule because it would disqualify a lot of the current pattern flyers, designs, setups, etc.

Regards,

Dave

And better yet, do you measure the power static or in the air? Makes a big difference, since in the air IC unloads (higher prop RPM, which would calculate to be more hp or watts), while electric RPM is close to constant (in pattern applications) but the power input/output drops substantially. I really don't see a practically feasible way to limit/enforce a "fair" power limit - whatever limits are put in place will end up favoring IC or electric in short term or long term (as technology advances).

Regards,

Dave

Dave,

It's not the majority of airframes, it's all of them. Please tell me one model manufactured just for AMA pattern?

There simply will be no need for higher power systems in an event that will be flying F3A developed airframes. Particularly with the less demanding patterns that are in AMA. I can keep repeating that if you wish.

Right now we don't push the limits on wingspan, because it is not necessary. The same will be true for power to fly AMA with an F3A airframe.

I don't know if this is relevant, but in the German F3A-X class I believe the rules were changed for the 2009 season.
(F3A-X is the German equivalent to IMAC. I am not German, so this is just something I read, and is quoted from memory.)
Previous rules were max. 10 kg, the new rules have no weight limit.
In the new rules the models are limited to 2600mm wingspan. These are "scale" models, with max 10% deviation from scale, (same as IMAC) so fuselage length will be a function of wingspan, hence no requirement for further dimensional limitations.
In addition, there are limitations on the engine size/power.
IC engines: max 110ccm.
Electric motors: max 42V and max 8 kW static.

I don't know how they measure/enforce the power rule, but presumably they have sorted it out.
So it is clearly possible to have engine capacity limitations combined with electric power limitations, if one wants to.

Magne

Focus and Black Magic v2.2 I believe are billed as being AMA airframes.

This is an interesting discussion. I have learned far more listening than trying participate. This most definitely isn't cut and dry, and I certainly appreciate the heartfelt feelings that go into this.