Dave,

Not to be rude, but are you planning on flying Masters any time soon? I don't think AMA rules changes will affect you flying in FAI.

Your mistake was buying an Integral with them damn heavy wings.<g> I have two myself, I know. I have replaced the wings on both. I will never purchase another model with heavy composite wings again. The Spark, Integral and all those overpriced Oxai airframes have heavy wings. Probably the CA Models that up until now were probably on the heavy side too. Finished RTF wings should not be more than 14 ozs. period!

It is a well known fact that the Integral requires some work to make weight. They have been around quite some time. Again, I repeat myself here. It is the kit manufacturers that are at fault, not you and your choice of equipment to put it in.

Ryan,
My post was really meant to be an example of how raising the weight limit may reduce cost for a lot of AMA guys. I have to do all that stuff for FAI if I go to the Nationals this year. However, sometime in the future I may be flying AMA as more local contest fly a finals schedule in FAI on Sundays. I have zero interest in flying a FAI finals sequence and at those contest I'll fly AMA class.

I think a CD confronted with this situation could use rule 6.1 - (Safety requirements) to disqualify a plane as it's at the CD's opinion.

Ryan,

Not to be rude also, but when has not flying in the class affected by the rules proposals kept anyone from commenting on this thread?

Never, and it shouldn't.

I took Dave's response that I quoted to mean that he was for the weight increase so that he wouldn't have to spend the money to get his airplanes to a legal weight. This perplexed me as Dave has flown FAI as long as I've known him.

Also, to play devil's advocate, and my apologies if I've glossed this one over, but what if someone builds an airplane to conform to the new AMA rules, assuming that a weight increase is permitted to include Masters. This pilot decides to move to FAI, where they presumably will retain the 5kg weight limit. This pilot would be screwed, wouldn't he?

No more screwed than someone who has been flying in regional contests, where the weight rules are completely ignored, is should he decide to go to the NATS where they are enforced. Is it possible that there is something wrong with rules that are not enforced consistently?

Ryan,

Since deciding to fly F3A at the Nats is a pretty big commitment, then that competitor would have to get whatever they would need to compete at the Nats. Since it will still be a 2-meter airplane, most probably an airframe developed for F3A, then it might mean they now need the expensive motor/ESC/batteries to meet the weight limit. But why make it expensive for everyone for those who are competing at the Nats in F3A?

Steve,

The pilot flying in regional classes also has knowledge of the rules and what his airplane is supposed to conform to. This isn't any big surprise. The scenario that I presented represents someone that's moving up and has to conform to a different set of rules.

I have revised my original proposal and submitted it to the AMA. Notable changes are a limit of 5.4kg instead of 5.5, and a defined procedure for processing and disqualification if exceeding the limits. I am attaching it here,

Tony,

What's the difference between 5.5 and 5.4 kg (other than the obvious that 5.4 is lighter than 5.5[:'(])? Do you feel that would be easier for the opponents of your plan to accept?

One of the complaints I heard was that 5.5 added too much to electric. So compromise. Does anyone think you can't get through a pattern with 400 grams of fuel in an IC model? Or can someone say what weight fuel it takes to fly an IC model through the Masters pattern with a little pad?

I can get through Masters with my Partners with a 1.70DZ (non-CDI) flying at approximately 160-170 meters with maneuvers appropriately sized, and with appropriate speed on 10oz of glow fuel even in wind. I can do the same with an electric Integral on 3800 mAh. Seems fair to me.

I like Tony's proposal. One question though. If we don't actually weigh planes before each flight, how would we make sure that the tank hasn't been underfilled at the weigh-in, and overfilled when it comes time to fly? Isn't there a risk that protests and challenges will become the norm, slowing the flight line to a crawl?

Given this, would it make more sense to require that whatever tank is in the plane, that it be filled to overflow? This way the amount of fuel at take-off can't be increased without changing the tank, and the tank that was used in the weigh-in could get a sticker or something to prove that the same tank is being brought to the flight line.

Now that I think about it, maybe stickers should be used for battery packs as well. Otherwise it's all too easy to show up at the weigh-in with a light pack, and then fly with a heavy pack.

This one should be easy to handle. If you have a 16 oz tank, then the weight of 16 oz of fuel gets added to the empty weight of the model. If that exceeds the weight limit, then you can either install a smaller tank, or go home.

Assuming you pass the weight test above, then if you choose to use less fuel, no big deal. You can choose to run the risk of having insufficient fuel, or not. One wrinkle to this is that nitro content of the fuel makes a difference in the weight / oz, so if you really want to get particular, you would then need to either monitor the fuel used (big pain, no one will want to do this), or force everyone to use the same fuel. That won't fly either. Now what? Do we split the difference and assume everyone uses 15% nitro for purposes of calculating takeoff weight? I can hear it now. "Hey, THAT'S NOT FAIR. "

Hey, maybe this isn't so easy to enforce after all! Any new rule to have liquid fueled models conform to a takeoff weight rule will need to figure out how to do this without disrupting the contest flow, and still be fair to everyone, right?

There are any number of methods to weigh planes with fuel, batteries, without fuel, batteries, before flying, after landing, and on and on that would insure absolute compliance.
The problem is that it needs to be something easily done at a time when the CD has manpower available and a suitable place. And it needs to be fool proof so that a competitor can't beat the system. There isn't a big government agency charged with doing this with a paid staff and unlimited resources. We are talking about a volunteer work force with very limited resources.
I just don't see the problem of eliminating the weight limit entirely. It's makes it a simple matter of weight compliance, requires no contest management to monitor compliance and someone flying a heavier airplane seems to be enough of a penality for being more than 5K.
Seems to me that the 2 meter box and noise restrictions are going to limit the size and cost of models sufficiently.

My proposal says that IC airplanes will be weighed full of fuel. In my opinion, at processing, either you can take off the canopy and show the official the tank is full, or bring your fuel supply and show that it is filled to overflow. For spot checks, you can weigh the model while the pilot is in the ready box. My proposal does say that all weighing has to be done inside, so you need a tent at the flight line to spot check. Weighing in a strong wind like was done at this years Nats is really difficult to do correctly.

I'm sure that you can come up with a hundred ways to cheat the system, but I believe everyone attending the Nats will not do that. And let's face it, the Nats is the only contest we are talking about.

It all makes sense to me. One other question though. In the higher classes the competitive nature of the top pilots is well known. Given this, is there any danger that some pilots might use this new rule as a psychological weapon against their opponents by asking for unecessary weigh-ins on the flight line? Would there be any advantage in specifying that the flight line director is the only person that can call for a flight line weigh-in?

Good point. I don't think we should allow an arbitrary method of spot checking models. You either check them all in the same, consistent way, or not at all.

Even with the current rules all models were open to spot checks. It has been done at times by the ED at the Nats. There has not been, as far as I know, a single time when a competitor requested a check of another pilots model. A change in the weight rules won't cause this to begin.

Sure, the Event Director can always call for something on a model to be "spot checked", but it ought to be based on something substantive. For example, in 2004 on the Advanced line there was most likely a mid-air where two models just seemed to clack together with nothing coming off either one. Good time for a safety spot check. Or if someone has the basis to think that a model is not within spec, it's also reasonable. You put up $50 and if your challenge is valid, you get your money back.

It just doesn't seem like a good idea to put rules into effect that specifically depend on arbitrary spot checks. That's a big difference from being exposed to the remote possibility of it happening someday. This actually seems like something that is more easily handled by the Event Director setting up a system for weighing everyone at check-in, then again before the finals commence. I don't see much value to doing it randomly throughout the entire event.

Ed,

Have you read my updated proposal? It outlines suggestions for how to conduct the inspections and the consequences of not passing.

Protests can always be filed about any of the rules. The process is outlined in the rule book.

Good grief! Is pattern only flown by a bunch on wanna be lawyers?

Man is there anything fun about pattern, it's sucked right out of you before you even arrive at the contest. I seriously think I've lost a couple years of my life trying to get involved in the pattern forums.

Lee

I understand and acknowledge the validity of this comment, but on some level doesn't this mean that the rules are fundamentally broken if the only place they are enforced is the NATS??