Tony
I thought you had withdrawn your proposal? Is this a new one?

I have to agree with these two statements on thier own, it is a big commitment to compete at the National level and it is up to the competitor to make sure they are within the rules. It is not up to the rules to make sure competitor can compete.

... really, this just speaks to the hobby and sport nature of the events. There is not enough money in this per se' to go to local contests, get the scales out, get the sound meters out, and start turning people away who don't pass. The key here is that the guys who fly pattern, and the manufactueres that support it, have gone a long way's towards ensureing there is equipment available to make for an adequate plane. A quick example - you basically can't buy a loud (offendingly loud) setup anymore if you were trying to setup a 2M plane.

I think it is safe to say the pattern community has institutionally accepted the airframe parameters and seeks to have planes that meet the requirements. At the Nats though, we all want the hobby/sport combination to switch to sport first, hobby second, and have rules in place that make for a fair and competitive event.
Jim W.

I have revised my original proposal and submitted it to the AMA. A few posts back I attached it to a reply.

Ryan,

How big is the tank in your glow powered plane?

Thx and Happy new year!

C

Chris,

To be honest, I couldn't tell you. They are MK tanks, I believe the main tank to be around 17oz, and the header tank to be close to five. With the CDI, I could get through Masters and burn through about 1/3 of the main tank, without the CDI, I am burning a little over 1/2. My glow setup uses 20% Coolpower heli, and an APC 19x11.

Happy new year to you as well, I hope you're doing well!

I have a question as I'm in the posistion of being ignorant on the subject.

What is the purpose (intention) of the rule for applying a weight limit to begin with? I see the point of a size restriction. But why weight in addition to size?

It seems to me if you wanted to level the plane end of the equation why would there not be a MINIMUM weight limit instead of a maximum?

Again this post was in all seriousness as I do not fly pattern but have been following this discussion.

Nathan,

It is argued by some that planes will increase in size, and or bipes will become the norm if we increase the weight limit. I'm not sure that many would actually design a plane for an AMA class so not sure if it's true or not. We have a weight rule to keep the size from increasing which may in turn (as argued by some) cause planes and their parts to become more expensive. Minimum weight in pattern will never happen. We do try to keep them as light as possible anyway because lighter generally fly's better. Way back when the engine displacement rule changed planes did get bigger, but there was still a limit of 2 meters by 2 meters, so they could only get so big. Of course they cost more, everything got increased in size. Once they got to the 2 meter stage, things needed to be lighter (speaking in terms of glow power still) which cost more so that we could still make weight.
Now we throw in the E power. Well, fair or not, the rule is the rule. Rules are made to follow, but in time, rules change (or we wouldn't be flying 2meter size planes anyway right now with big 170's or big E motors). This rule is very old. Is it time for a updated weight limit? Only those voting on this will be able to say. It will be interesting to find out.

Chris

Ryan,

No disrespect by this as I was curious when I asked, but thinking on it, why does one put 22 ounces of fuel capacity in a plane to only use 10 ounces?

Chris

Chris,

No disrespect at all, my friend.

I do that because that's what fuel tank was in the airplane, and it was too much trouble for me to switch out the tank. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the PL airplanes, but they have two vertical formers on either side of the wing tube for the fuel tank(s). You cutout the shape of the tank slightly oversized, and put fuel tubing to line the hole, and it gives just a tight enough fit so the tank won't move. I suppose I could take the header tank out, but I've always flown one with the DZ's to ensure that I don't get bubbles in the fuel line. When I was flying a 1.60DZ in the airplane, it used up way more fuel than the 1.70 does, and truthfully, it's not hurting anything to leave them in there, so I just have. I could just underfill the tank, but I'd either have to put a different vent line in the airplane, or take the canopy off every time to fuel it. With that weight being located directly on the CG, I honestly can't feel it during the course of the flight, so I really haven't felt a need to do anything about it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Most of the time anyway. [:'(]

I don't know if getting bigger would make it more expensive...I mean for what I've seen the top pattern planes full rigged go for I could fly a 35% IMAC plane and have money left over...and the pattern plane would still have to fit in a 2x2m box.

That's kinda my whole thing with the current weight rule. There is nothing that says you can't weigh 20 lbs if you wanted to add enough fuel as long as your airframe is 11lbs. I would be curious to know with 22 ounces of fuel, what your takeoff weight, and landing weight actually is. Not that it really matters.
In E, we are pushing the limits of our batteries and don't have anyroom for reserve (well in Masters). They would last much much longer if we weren't pushing them. Which would make it more cost effective.

Thanks for the input Ryan, it makes sense to me why you left that tank there! But I see many others that run big tanks, and header tanks, and land with 1/2 tank. It's odd to me that anyone that flys glow would do this (not you Ryan) and then complain that some e guys want a rule change.

As for me, I don't think there is a disadvantage to a weight change, but I haven't been around the block nearly as long as Dave and Tony. I've spoken with both on this issue, and can see both sides. Just don't know who is correct on what would happen if a rule change were made. Time will tell, and whatever happens, happens. It's not cheap now to fly the 2meter planes, and it will never be regardless of what the decision is. Pattern is expensive, and complicated and I feel that is why some people stay away.

Chris

You're not comparing apples to apples.

A top of the line pattern plane is expensive. A top of the line IMAC airplane is definitely more expensive. A 126" Carden 300 is $1695. A DA 200 with mufflers is $3095, or a DA 170 with MTW RE3's is $2295, not including headers and associated hardware because I couldn't find it on DA's site. You'll typically use nine servos (two per aileron, two on push-pull on the rudder, one each per elevator, and throttle), and call those $140 a piece (8711 price from Horizon), plus receiver, batteries, a rather expensive propellor, accessories, and you've got a very expensive airplane. A rough calculation gives me rougly $7300 for an airplane with a 200 and mufflers, and $6300 for the airplane identically equipped with a DA 170. This doesn't include having the airplane either built for you, or the cost of building and finishing materials. I don't know how to begin to price that, but you can figure on the price of the kit to get a builder to build it, and probably that much again for them to finish it.

Call it $3000 for any high quality ARF (Oxai, Delro, Wistmodel, etc.) that you'd typically see as a high end model. Add $515 for a Pletty, $380 for a Schulze 32.90KA, plus accessories, a 10S Thunder Power battery, servos, and everything else to get you flying, keeping in mind similar quality of components, and that leaves you with $5200 and an airplane you can take out and fly. A YS powered setup may be a little less, but this is for a very high end ARF. It's still a chunk of change, but it's a hell of a lot less than you'd be spending on an IMAC airplane. Not to mention the fact that I can fit a pattern airplane in my Ford Explorer Sport. I'd need a trailer or a bigger vehicle to get the 40% airplane to the field.

I see what you are saying to a point...that's why I said 35% which I would say in my part of the world by far most IMAC competitors in all classes combined fly over a 42% (which I own both).

Most of the money from going from 35 to 42% planes in IMAC is size in nature. Bigger engines, bigger planes, more servos etc....not really related to shedding more weight for a given size. You'll run the same exact servos just more of them, same brand/type of engine just a bigger one, same make/model of plane just a larger one.

What if IMAC had a minimum weight for a 35% plane and they had to weigh 22lbs or less and 42% planes had to weigh 32lbs or less as an arbitrary example. The size would stay the exact same but the price would go up tremendously.

I guess what I'm saying I don't see where the arbitrary number that pattern uses came from. The maximum size AND maximum weight seems counterproductive.

If you are flying a plane of either power source and you are well under the weight limit that is currently in effect, what disadvantage do you get for flying against someone who has the same exact plane (or smaller) that weighs more than yours? That's the thing I don't see.

I don't understand the comment on the trailer. The 2m box would still be in effect correct? Going bigger results in more money spent I think everyone can agree, going heavier doesn't always mean that.

I understand that most people fly 35% airplanes in IMAC contests. That's the same around here. However it's not fair to think that everyone flies an Oxai or whatever have you, and the latest and greatest everything. It's not the same in pattern, just like it's not the same for you guys in IMAC.

As far as size and weight limitations go, pattern is something that's contested around the world. There are many countries that pattern is really the only discipline that's contested, and the maximum size and weight were put there to make airplanes that could be flown in noise sensitive areas of the world, like parts of Europe and Asia. They also had to be small enough to transport and store. I think the Volvo XC90 is the largest car in Europe, not including some of the cargo vans. Things are very tight everywhere else, and you get reminded of it very quickly when you go somewhere else outside of the US.

What if IMAC had a minimum weight for a 35% plane and they had to weigh 22lbs or less and 42% planes had to weigh 32lbs or less as an arbitrary example. The size would stay the exact same but the price would go up tremendously.

I guess what I'm saying I don't see where the arbitrary number that pattern uses came from. The maximum size AND maximum weight seems counterproductive.

If you are flying a plane of either power source and you are well under the weight limit that is currently in effect, what disadvantage do you get for flying against someone who has the same exact plane (or smaller) that weighs more than yours? That's the thing I don't see.

That is about as well said as anything I've posted in this thread. And in my opinion, absolutely correct.

Thanks for the info.

Not trying to pick any fights just actually curious and I didn't understand.

I would lover to get into pattern as the closest contest would be a days drive away - same for IMAC as well...so until then I just bore holes in the sky lol.

Not trying to scare you off, Nathan. I think if you went to a contest in either discipline, you would be very well received.

I dunno, I could get a Hangar 9 33% for the same price basically as a similar quality pattern arf.

Chris

Isn't it contested around the world in FAI though? Why would the proposed change affect that and in what way?

Nathan

if you are in nacodoches you are in between many contests. They are going to be between 3-5 which is about average for a contest drive. Houston is very active for both. As well as Dallas. You have several more contests easier to get to than I did in SA. Check the NSRCA or IMAC website and contests the district or regional guys for the area.

Arch

For those who advocate a weight increase, why not just eliminate it? Once we start building to the new weight limit, won't we have to go through this again?

Also, for all those contributing to this thread, it would be helpful if you clearly stated which side of the fence you are on if it cannot be implied from your post.
(From the RCU weight poll, 58% feel no change is needed...will this hold up?)

My opinion...While I find the disparity of no fuel vs. batteries odd, I don’t think a change is necessary (and I fly electric.) Asking for a change now equates to the person buying a home near the airport and then complaining about the noise.
This disparity seems to be keeping things pretty level.

If cost is the real issue (e or IC), I don’t see any harm in creating an allowance for the advancement classes. I wouldn’t expect this to have any effect on contest attendance, but it does help maintain the value of the planes as they are handed down/repaired.

Scott
D1 Masters pilot

The weight rule has been an issue since LiPo batteries made electric a viable alternative. In fact even before that. I know in 1993 Dave Von Linsowe tried very hard to get the FAI to weigh electrics without batteries. I don't know if there has ever been a formal rules proposal submitted to the AMA to change the weight limit rule before, but I know it has been discussed amongst the Contest Board before and a proposal wasn't made as the board wouldn't pass it. So I don't accept the "airport" metaphor. Sometimes it takes time for an unfair rule to become obvious to enough people that the support for changing it reaches the needed level.

I agree Scott that if any weight concession is made, and I personally don't think there is a need, the advancement classes are the place to make it. not the destination class.

However that will cause someone in Advanced to have to do something about their airframe if they have a plane that is alright in weight for their class but if they are moving to Masters it would be overweight. They need to either do some liposuction on the existing plane or go buy a new plane that would make weight. Although a nice new plane is always a cool thing to get.

I really like the home by the airport analogy.....very accurate.

Maybe I just don't understand the whole topic here, what exactly is the point of this 17 page discussion when it doesn't seem that anything is going to change. From what I know and have seen with pattern, it seems like guys struggle to make weight limits all the time, why not just change the limit to say, something just slightly heavier. I would think that would make it easier for the average guy or kid to get involved without being discouraged by the headaches of weight limitations. Those of you with lighter planes will have an advantage anyway right? Seems to me the only way to get involved in the sport and be able to compete in the upper classes and be taken serious is if you can hand out large sums of money in order to get a plane that will be light enough to meet the weight, and you still get picked apart at times. There are so many talented pilots out there that dont have the money, as well as super talented kids that have parents who just can't afford it either. It doesn't make sense to me that you can buy a IMAC plane twice the size of a pattern ship, ready to fly, that is capable of winning the top class at the IMAC nationals for less money than a pattern plane.