The inequity of weighing planes differently depending on power system will change eventually. The unfairness is just too blatant for it not to. Momentum is growing, it is just a matter of time before the old gaurd with too much "skin in the game" changes, and the issue is finally fixed.

Ryan - thanks for pointing out the true cost of a top level IMAC style plane vs a pattern plane. Truly achieving the same high level of thrust, speed, low noise, and servo power of a pattern plane costs a lot of money, and the cost increases as the size increases.

Nathan - I agree with you that the current combination of 5kg max weight and 2x2 max dimensions and unlimited engine displacement is a bad combination. Quite a few people opposed the unlimited engine displacement, predicting the current scenario, and for the most part, those same people are opposed to an increased weight limit (as those people predict additional expense will be the end result long term).


How to reduce the cost of pattern (assuming that is really an obstacle) or make it easier to source a competitive pattern plane has been a hot topic for many years. When I look at the relative costs of pattern compared to other events where I see former pattern pilots and pilots relatively new to the hobby, I don't think cost is a big factor. Pattern is a specialized event that appeals to a specific personality type, and so long as pattern is about flying pattern, changing various rules will not change the type of personality attracted to the event.

Rules that are not enforced are bad rules? While my initial reaction is to agree with this, I don't believe it is without exception. Take a look at the noise rule, pattern planes are quiet because the noise rule exists, even though it is only enforced to any degree at the NATs. Because the weight/dimension/sound rules are enforced at the NATs and rarely at local contests (and in fact waived for Sportsman at many local contests), "testing" of the pattern waters is not so difficult, but the size, weight, and noise are limited (which controls cost at the top levels, which trickles down to the lower levels), and I think anyone looking to compete at the National level should be prepared to meet the requirements of the event to the letter.

A current YS CDI setup is expensive, as is a top level electric setup. Pattern is expensive because the best performance comes from the planes and equipment with the best power to weight ratio, which will always be expensive, and increasingly so with increased limits. It would seem at this time that both IC and electric are competitive at the highest levels, and the cost is arguably the same. Neither are required to compete in pattern, far cheaper options are available. Most agree that electric will increasingly become dominant under the current rules. Clearly electric will become cheaper in the future. For the first time in my 20+ years flying pattern, I see the cost of pattern getting cheaper if the rules are not changed. If the rules are changed in a manner which would allow increased weight, power, size, etc, there is no doubt in my mind that 2 things would happen -
1. The obselescence of IC would be accelerated. Why would this be a good thing?
2. Long term, cost of electric would be higher than if the current rules were retained. I don't buy the argument that the only innovation and escalation in pattern comes from the FAI ranks.....just look at the competitiveness of this discussion. And as I've pointed out, if the weight limit were increased, higher power motors, ESCs, and lipos are already available (with a higher price tag) and don't need to be developed by the FAI ranks.

For the current crop of planes that were designed to meet the criteria of 2x2M, 11 lbs, and <94 db (FAI) or 96 db (AMA) and end up on the high side of 11 lbs (for whatever reasons), that is a consequence of a plane being designed to take full advantage of the rules for maximum competitive advantage with little or no margin to the 11 lb limit. I think providing an allowance to the lower classes is a reasonable approach to preserving/extending the life of the airframes, and providing a degree of tolerance for builders/assemblers with less experience. If the weight limit for Masters were increased, it would at best be a short term solution. Inevitably, planes would be built, or would accumulate weight with age to the point that the new weight limit would be exceeded, and we would be right back at square 1 all over again (except we would be using more expensive bigger motors, lipos, and ESCs than we are now).

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

Lee,

Look at my breakdown earlier. If you're going to compare airplanes, do it fairly. You can't tell me that an IMAC airplane is cheaper than a pattern plane. I listed the most expensive componenents that you could possibly put in an airplane, and at retail prices, the pattern plane was still cheaper. It's a chunk of change, but that's a lot of technology in a little package. It's not a toy like I believe some IMAC guys believe it is. I think the hangup comes from a pattern plane being an object with a single purpose- to fly precision. An IMAC airplane can be setup to do both sequences and 3D relatively well.

Also, Sportsman is designed to be able to fly whatever you brought. They did it this way so that you could IMO, it's not hard to make weight with a pattern plane. Sure you have to use a little bit of common sense, but no more than is reasonable for anyone to posess. I implore you to come to a contest, you'll find it's not nearly as bad as you think it is. If you notice how many guys that are contributing seriously to this thread, you'll see that most of us fly Masters (myself included). That should be indicative of how important weight is to people in Sportsman and Intermediate. Discussions like this aren't commonplace at local contests, at least in D2 anyway. I think you're trying to scare yourself away before you see how it really is.

And Chris, yes, the whole world is governed by FAI rules. Come countries aren't big enough to have a bunch of pilots to fill supporting classes like the US does. I think that the US needs to by in large follow FAI rules as well, as that's what pattern is. I don't think we need to follow things to a 'T', and obviously AMA is a different animal, but the rules for airplanes should at the very least be similar. Otherwise you're going to create something different. IMAC can do its own thing as that was something that was created to fill a niche here.

Dave makes a powerful argument, but I think there is one thing that should be pointed out.

A lot of the current angst about weight is caused by the fact that there are only certain battery sizes available that can be used, and with the rules as they are currently, you can generally make weight with the smaller size, but you don't have quite enough capacity to get any life out of thrm, whereas you can use the larger size and have enough capacity, btu then you have to move heaven and earth to make weight.

Given this, a slight adjustment to accomodate either one battery sie or the other is something that would make like easier for a lot of people, without significantly affecting the cost of the sport. (just my humble opinion ...)

I don't buy the IMAC plane costs more thing. Of course it's going to cost more, the plane is 120" winspan. That's a silly thing to compare to. Compare it to a 2m IMAC plane. Then you'll see that they are indeed MUCH cheaper. Because they don't have to limit themselves. The size of our 2m box doesn't change from this proposal right? Sizes of our fuses have hugely increased in size. So we build lighter. Lighter seems to cost more to me. I dunno.

Think about this. When the rule changed for us and allowed bigger motors, of course the size went up along with the price. It went to where it is now. Did they design this rule around the current pattern plane? Or did they design it for what there was back then? Or did they just take a stab at it and guess? Do you think they had our current technology in mind when they designed that rule? Do you think they could have built a plane back then to weigh 11 lbs and fit in the box with the available materials?

C

Start with a skinny 2M plane.....like a Prophecy, and cost it out.

Move to a current day "widebody" 2M plane, and cost it out to have the same thrust ratio, available speed, same noiselevel, wingloading, servo power, etc.

Then move to a current day IMAC 2M, and cost it out all things equal.

"Bigger" costs more, this is not something where economy of scale helps. Increased power becomes quite expensive with no increase in noise level.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

What did a Prophecy kit cost, I was flying a curare at the time in Sportsman. I'm going to assume that the kit cost didn't make much difference over what I bought my Emotion for. With inflation, I would assume they cost about the same. Look at your servo's, and other stuff, the technology has all changed, costing more. The technology for motors has changed, costing more. Yes, I am including size, but you are also paying more for new technology. Again, back to the servo's, same size, new technology, more cost. That's never going to change. Any change in design, or even a part number change (example say, Hacker C50 -14XXL) would cost more. That's just the way this society is. We pay to have the latest things out.

The price of inflation since the (Prophecy era) and the cost in the lighter materials used in current designs, doesn't make for an even dollar for dollar comparison. Heck, I was paying like $1.50 for gas back then vs $3.00 now and a loaf of bread cost......... and so on..

I just don't see that heavier is going to cost more unless FAI changes their rule. I could think of many things I could buy that cost less but weigh more currently. This could and may change and become the opposite. I can't see into the future so I'm trying to have an open mind as to your side also Dave. Yes, if we increased the size of the planes to say 80" the cost will go up tremendously. How much bigger can a fuse get and why would it become larger for AMA classes? I don't know, I haven't been around like you Dave.

BTW, when I get the money, I am buying a 26% Pilot RC extra 260 for $419. And I can get it with motor for $699. Or I could get the Extreme Flight Vanquish for how much? $850 if you do the Euro to dollar conversion. Both wood arfs, both similar in size, both good quality. My 74" Extreme Flight Yak cost in the $400's also. I don't see comparing pattern planes to a 35 or 40% as being apples to apples. Comparitavely, if you scaled pattern inches, to IMAC inches, I'm guess IMAC 35% or 40% is cheaper.

Now in Ryans breakdown, comparitavely size wise, pattern is much more expensive. Think about it like this comparitively. Ryan brings the 126" to the table at 7300. That's $57.93 per inch. Now bring in the pattern cost Ryan discusses, 78" at 5200. That's $66.66 per inch. Now this is apples to apples comparison size wise.

Thx,

Chris

That is until someone documents that lighter planes spin better. And since the spin is usually the last maneuver, and since 1st vs. 2nd place on most rounds is decided by the spin, it's totally unfair that glow is allowed to be lighter at the end of the flight. (TIC)

Seriously though, weigh 'em on landing and you have to be at or under 11. What's unfair about that? That’s essentially what we have today.

Chris,

Remember, I'm comparing an ARF pattern plane to a kit. If you get a good builder to build and finish the 126" Carden, you're looking at another $2500 roughly for the build and finish job. That brings the total to $9800, and a cost per inch of $77.77. A pattern ARF (Oxai) will set you back as much as having someone build you a kit.

Hey Chris

Your E-motion is awesome BTW

Comparing size is only one way to look at it....you can also look at it from a more competition oriented standpoint, that a 2m pattern plane inexpensive ARF would be competitive in all classes (take the Focus for example that has won FAI). The 26% comparison would not be competitive at the NATS in Unlimited, for that you are going to need a 40% setup. To compete at the top levels in pattern is less expensive than IMAC. I have looked at it and there is no comparison to be competitive, a 3.3m CARF Yak is almost $4k, thats about 3 times the cost of an Integral, which made the top 10 in the Worlds in 2009! (ok it was an Integral X...close enough LOL ) The motor for the Yak is more than twice was a DZ costs, probably 3 times as much in servos/rx's/powerboxes etc. I bet you could field three Integrals RTF for one 3.3m Yak RTF.

Powerboxes are not cheap. I just used a JR 1222 Powersafe receiver for my equation, but there is a Powerbox 12K Royal that has a JR 1221 receiver built in, and I think it retails for $8-900. If IMAC were cheaper, I'd probably be doing that. I'm a poor, 23 year old college student, I need to get my kicks the most cost effective way possible!

So a custom build you are speaking of. Do you know what I would charge to custom build a 2m?

Now you are speaking about something close to the $4000 Oxai's. Also a custom build IMO. This could go on and on. I'm just saying. The reason a 40% costs more is because it is 40%. If you took the same plane and made it 2 meters, it would be much, much cheaper. Take a pattern plane and make it 40% with no restrictions, it would cost the same as the 40% IMAC plane I'm guessing.

Hey Chad,

Yeah, I agree, size is only one way to look at it, but it seems to be the discussion point here for some reason. Bigger costs more vs less. The 26% may not be competitive in IMAC, correct. But they don't have limits on that. Let's build a 40% pattern plane and see what happens, I'm guessing our 2m stuff wouldn't be competitive either. I'm just comparing planes. I'm guessing Jason, QQ, Andrew, Christophe or Chip would have no problem beating most in IMAC with the 26%.

It really doesn't matter to me either way. At the current prices, I'm almost being forced out of pattern. So unless we can start running cheaper parts, I may be forced to stay home. Or wait, I guess it does matter to me.

Chris

FYI, we can get the same Pilot RC plane, all up (all equipment included and installed) in a 37.5% (121" DA 150) from Chief custom built by Dave Sullivan for $6750 or $55.79 a wingspan inch all up.. Or any others as he is a custom builder. His prices are pretty good though as is the price for the whole package IMO. Not saying there aren't bigger and more expensive. Just throwing it out there as a discussion thing.

Most Small Glow Airplanes: $200-$400

50cc Size Airplanes: $500-$750

100cc Airplanes: $800-$900

150cc and Larger: $1000-$1500

Some composite airplanes require more time and depending on the manufacture can cost a little more.

Chris,

Out of curiosity, how much would you charge to build a typical, composite pattern kit? I know two builders that charge $3000 on top of the price of a kit to build and finish the airplane, to the point of you dropping your equipment in. Also, from what I've seen, Dave Sullivan assembles ARF's so there isn't much critical building going on there.

Yes, Dave's are ARFs. Not quite the same as the Carden you speak of, but over all, the $2500 + the $1299 isn't as much as an Oxai still. And it's almost twice as big. Of course the components will add up to more, there's more of em.

Me, well, it seems I build for free. Ask the D7 guys. lol. Seriously though, if someone were to want me to do 1, I would charge $2500 minimum for a kit all up. Depending on if the wings were already sheeted and other stuff suck as the complexity of paint. It doesn't pay me to build a plane though as I , well, I normally have my regular work (none lately, lol). Yeah, expensive I know. The build part of it is the cheap part, it's the paint and covering part where I would charge.

C

Chris,

You've got me on the cost of the Prophecy kit....that is a data point I don't recall. And certainly inflation costs are a complication when trying to evaluate the cost of an older skinny 2M to a current day 2M. I think it is fair enough to look at current day kit prices from companies that offer the same (or similar) plane in different sizes.

There are lots of companies that make similar models in multiple sizes - 40, 60, 90, 110, 120, 2M, etc - for pattern and IMAC styles. There are lots of companies that make motors, ESCs, servos, lipos, etc over a broad range of sizes. Pick any size (or weight) plane you want, and outfit with any price level equipment you want, and then bump up to the next size (or weight) while maintaining the same level of performance, and the cost goes up.

And, I'll mention noise again....even at the 2M IMAC size, it is not easy to achieve 96 db while retaining the thrust, speed, and smooth throttle response pattern planes enjoy. The noise issue becomes increasingly difficult as the power output increases. The typical 2M pattern plane costs more than the typical 2M IMAC plane because the pattern plane has more thrust, speed, and is quieter. The increased cost associated with increased size, weight, and power is easier to see with IMAC style planes since there is a broader range of sizes.

It doesn't make me happy to think someone will drop out of pattern if the prices don't drop, but certainly the prices will drop if the rules are left alone. If the rules are changed in a manner that favors electric, I'd expect a lot of the current IC fliers to drop out when they can't afford to reset in a short time period for electric (no matter what the electric costs).

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

From reading the posts there appear to be two camps supporting a change of weight requirement.

(1) Those who want/have a really good airframe and want to save some pennies and put in cheap gear.
(2) Those who have a really good airframe that's a touch heavy due to repairs/age and want to keep good gear in it. (a safety issue here)

How can the AMA be expected to cater to those from camp one who wish to compete in the highest classes and at local, state and national level who are not committed to having the right equipment for the job? If you don't wish to fly in the highest classes and at national or state level then your plane isn't weighed and it doesn't matter. Run what u brung and hope the person you beat for third place doesn't lodge a protest.

The competitiors in camp two have genuine problems that the AMA should consider looking at. From a safety perspective I would much prefer to allow a plane that is a few ounces overweight to compete with all the right gear in it rather than one that has had half it's airframe ground away along with skimpy battery packs and tiny servos trying to make the weight. A sliding scale incrementing a few ounce per class should see this covered but again it seems that this will only be enforced at national level.

The battery pack in or out issue may need redressing at tha FAI level but it doesn't stop the AMA from making it's own local rules regarding the matter. Perhaps someone could petition that the flying weight of a li-po pack is 75% of it's measured static weight, A123's could be 50% and so forth calculated on it's energy density or better yet a national average on capacity used. I'm sure the AMA could get a few top level electric flyers to fly all the schedules and measure the capacity used to get the average values for each class for the following 12 months. If the average for a class is 4500mAh and I use a 9000mAH pack then my pack flying weight is 50% of it's measured static weight. Yes I could put "bigger" stickers on my pack but that would be cheating

Well said Dave.
And I agree the noise thing would be the issue with the 26%. Therefore costing more to produce a motor-muffler setup for the IMAC stuff without an increased cost. Good point, something I didn't think of. The noise part of it. But when I get that 26% plane someday, it will be electric so I won't be worried about it. I'd buy a bigger one, but I just got rid of my 33% as I don't want anything bigger than my pattern stuff.

I'm guessing a lot of the glow pattern guys may already started collecting a few things as they probably have smaller electrics.

Although, and I'm not as knowlegable as you, I don't see prices dropping if things are left the way they are. They have consistently gone up and I don't see that ever changing for the top quality stuff. Look at glow. Have their prices gone down under the current rules or are they going to if left alone? I'm just sayin...

Thx,

Chris

Hacker A60-20S listed at $189.99 on Aero-Model.com, $160 at Esprit...that's down significantly from two years ago.

Edit - Esprit price was for old stock...they want $200 for current stock, still cheaper than two years ago.

Didn't Dave do extensive testing with this motor? I don't see him using it now. I could put a Hobby City Motor in as it's cheaper, but I don't see it working out in the long run.

Anyway, I'm out of this conversation. Ya'll have fun with it. Back to an easier life where I don't check RCU very often. hehe.

Chris, your perfect IMAC plane was just released by Extreme Flight; it's their 2 Meter Extra 300. It will fly on exactly the same setup as an electric 2 Meter Pattern ship. Easy to get to 11.5 pounds, and should be possible to make 2KG. Expect to see some IMAC guys show up at a few D7 pattern contests with these this year. They are already practicing the sequences. LOL!

Here is a link to the plane:
http://www.extremeflightrc.com/html/78extra.html


And a build thread

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...3#post13743623

As a side note, the Carbon Fiber landing gear made for the Extra weigh right at 3 ounces. They are strong, very light, and with minor modifications will probably fit many pattern planes. I know a Valiant pilotthat is modifying a set for his plane right now. They are only $49.95.

Chris,

Thanks.

I don't see IC prices dropping for competition grade powerplants, and agree that the price has always gone up, but I see the future of pattern will be electric. The highest end competition grade electric stuff will always be relatively pricey, but the prices overall for electrics will drop as the electric technology matures. We have already seen this with the Neu F3A motor vs the C50 comp motor (~$500 vs ~$800), and lipos - whether the high end TP stuff went from 5300 V1s at ~$630 to the current 5300 V2s which just dropped to ~$420, or the HC/HK stuff. And even things like the Castle ICE 80HV which is not only cheaper than the prior 85HV, but includes data logging so you don't need as much support equipment (ie, wattmeters, dataloggers - tho I will personally keep using the ones I have in some instances).

The Hacker A60.....not only did I do extensive testing with it, but I made the US FAI finals with it several times, and won the South African NATs using it, and Ken Velez won the US NATs using it. Great motors, especially for the price, and I still have one in my backup plane, but I have moved on to the Neu F3A (not available when I first starting running electrics).

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

I'm sorry I even posted anything, it seems my posted has kinda caused this thread to get a little off track, that was not my intention. I can assure you that when done the right way, a IMAC plane that is capable of the same performance and results in "IMAC" as a top level pattern plane can be in "Pattern" can be cheaper, especially if you are just starting out with a top level pattern ship and have to buy batteries, chargers, powersupplies, etc.... My thought was it would be great to see more people getting into pattern, specifically young talented pilots since they are the future of the sport, but the cost makes it difficult. Dave Lockhart has filled me in on things and information I missed on this topic since my last post which has helped me understand things a little better now.

Lee

I think that $1000 for the Vanquish airframe, motor, and speed controller will do wonders. I was looking at the video on FlightPass where Andrew was looking inside it, and I really like some of the ideas being incorporated into that airframe.

Boy, you go flying for a day and look at what you've got when you get back!

Dave says if we increase weight we will increase expense. I don't see how that is in any way a correct prediction. Say, with the current 2-meter rule we made the weight limit 4.5Kg. What would happen to costs? Of course they would go much higher. So if we buy into Dave's theory that higher weight would only lead to higher costs, then were damned if we do and damned if we don't. I don't accept that. It is only reasonable to assume that if our 2-meter models could weigh more then they could be less expensive.

As to all the IMAC comparisons, the only legitimate comparison is in the 50cc class of models. You can buy IMAC 50cc ARF airframes for $600. Equip it with pretty much the same radio gear as in a 2-meter pattern model. Then put in a $400 gas engine and you're ready to compete. You have much less money into it then a 2-meter pattern model. It probably weighs 16-17-18 pounds. Now if it had a maximum weight limit of 12 pounds, what do you think it would cost. Of course, much more. To compare a pattern model to a 120" IMAC model is comparing apples to oranges.

And then of course you have the basic inequality of weighing the different power systems in different states of flight worthiness. An unfair situation that in itself is a good reason to change the current rules.