I truly hope that EF can do the Vanquish at that price and make the weight limit. But maybe the reason we haven't seen it available yet is that they haven't been able to do it?

I think EF could make the weight limit with the Vanquish. I have their 2 meter Extra, and it is bigger than the Vanquish. I could make weight with the Extra, it would just cost a bunch more than the setup I chose. Donatas had to keep his 2 meter EF Extra under 5KG for it to be legal in the World Air Games. He did, and won every round with it. Which proves your weight/cost equation.

I'll bet the farm that when EF comes out with the Vanquish that you will be able to equip one as an electric and make weight. I'm just not sure that they will be able to do it for an entire airframe/powerplant package under $1000. Hope so!

I saw some stuff on the World Air Games on EF's site but I have no knowledge of what is required for that competition. What kind of patterns do they fly and what is the duration of a competition flight? Also, any idea what equipment he used in his model?

I got the impression that it is more of a Freestyle event, maybe the Artistic Aerobatics event. I have a 2-meter Funtana that I play with some. I have an E-Flite Power 160 in it now but for a while I had a Hacker C50 14XL, which at the time was the same motor I was using in my electric Partner in 2004 and 2005. One thing I noticed, 7 and a half minutes of 3D flying would consume a lot less power then 7 and a half minutes of pattern flying.

Tony,
  Here is a link to the WAG FAI information: http://www.worldairgames.org/2009/sp.../aeromodelling

In short they did use the Artistic Aerobatics format at the games.  They are after crowd appeal, and we all know what a crowd pleaser flying sequences is.  LOL!

Donatas did post his setup on a thread on RCG, I don't remember what it was off the top of my head.

Yes, 3D does use less energy than flying the sequences.  Half the time you are floating around in high alpha at 1/3 throttle.

Tony,

Hope you had a good day of flying...too cold here for that....let alone the 35+ mph winds.

IF you actually read the full breadth of what I've written, you would see I am not concluding "damned if we do and damned if we don't". IF you considered outcomes other than what you specifically want to happen (cheaper pattern, which I think everyone would like), you just might see other potential outcomes. If the weight limit were reduced to 4.5 kg (which I have never proposed), I bet the first thing that would happen is substantial numbers of IC and electric flyers would leave the event.

With regard to the IMAC cost comparisons.....they show how similar dimensions but higher weights can result in higher costs (to have equivalent performance). They show how cost increases to be competitive at the highest levels of competition. So far as comparing an IMAC 50cc ARF for $600 and a $400 gas engine to a 2M pattern plane, I don't see this as valid at all. At that price, the IMAC style plane will have far less thrust per pound, less speed, and be much louder than a 2M pattern plane. To equal the 2M pattern plane, you'd have to spend at least as much money - the extra weight and drag of the larger plane (in volume, not necessarily length and span) will require more power to get equivalent performance, nothing more than physics at work.

Donatas used a relatively high KV AXI and 6S for his WAG winning EF Extra, and the routines are aeromusical freestyle - very different power demands than pattern. EF makes some great planes, and I'm sure the Vanquish 2M will fly well and be <11 lbs with the recommended setup. No doubt it will be good for pattern.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

Dave,

And "IF" you would read what I post you would see that I never said you said "damned if we do". I am saying that if we accept your conclusions, then that is the case. And again, I don't accept that. And I never said you made a proposal to reduce the weight. Please re-read what I wrote. You say that if we were to reduce the weight limit substantial numbers would leave the event. I agree. I also believe that is basically what we have done with the 5kg limit. Raise it and we just might see an increase in participation.

Is there a possibility that I could be wrong? Of course. And can you admit that there is a possibility you are wrong? I would hope so. Now my personal opinion is that the first possibility is small and the second is larger. That's my opinion based on flying in pattern for 34 years, through a lot of changes and at, and I apologize if this comes across as prideful, at a high level. And that is why I am pursuing this change. It is two-fold. To remove the obvious bias when you don't process all models at the same state of readiness. And to try to bend the cost curve on the constantly increasing costs of the event.

There appear to be three major camps arguing against change:

1) Any change will have bad results, so let's not change

2) Everything is fine, you knew the rules, so no change is needed.

3) This how we do things and have always done them, so no change is needed.

In light of what appears to be most people falling into one of those three camps, I think I may submit a proposal which approved will prohibit all future changes. The rules are apparently perfect now so there is no reason to consider any changes now, or in the future. This will also end all the endless, and fruitless, discussions on rules changes. It's a win-win!! [&:]

Oh, I guess I should put the caveat in that we will do anything FAI does, because, you know, that's the way we do things.

See? Easy.

Dialing that back slightly it would be more accurate to say:

1) Any change could have bad results so let’s change carefully.

I agree raising the weight could reduce the cost for casual pattern fliers. However…
Fact – We’re talking about the Nat’s
Fact – The Nat’s are very competitive.

Reasonable Conclusion - The competitive fliers will use this increase to gain an advantage. This will drive up costs to stay competitive. The casual flyer will still not travel a thousand miles to a contest.

To be a truly fair event, we need a rule that prohibits outdoor sequences from being flown between the months of Oct and April. Talk about unfair!!!

Excellent post, Scott.

While we're at it, why don't we prohibit people from practicing more than twice a week. We could also start a handicap system that prevents the better flyers from practicing even this much. Sort of like the short story "Harrison Bergeron".

Fact - countries that have relaxed the weight rule for electrics in the classes below F3A have not seen any escalation in the hardware used by those classes.

Fact - technology development has always come from the F3A class, never from the AMA classes.

Reasonable conclusion - making the playing field even between electric and IC will increase participation by the "casual" flier and have no escalation in the AMA classes at the Nats, other then that which will be developed by F3A competitors. Net effect will be more people participating in the event, primarily at the local level.

Tony,

Which countries have relaxed weight rules for electrics in the classes below F3A?

Canada. They weigh them without batteries. I have heard other countries just never weigh the models in the lower classes.

What I think keeps getting missed here is that Tony is not proposing increasing the weight limit just for the sake of doing that. The point is to weigh both electric and IC ready to fly and to do so we have to allow a higher weight so that the nitro planes that are currently weighed empty of fuel will be legal under the new limits with full fuel. Otherwise a lot of currently legal nitro planes would no longer be legal.

Tony,

I'm glad we agree reducing the weight limit would be a bad idea.

Obviously I believe in my own predictions. I want it to be clear that I am not saying "damned if we do, and damned if we don't". A prediction I have made is that absent any rules changes to the event, the number of electric flyers in the event will continue to increase, and as the relatively new electric technology matures, it will decrease in cost, resulting in a decreased cost for the event. I see that as a positive thing for the event. Another prediction I have made is that if changes were made to the event that would favor electrics (even if this change is fixing the current bias we all seem to agree exists), the obselescence of IC would be accelerated, and some IC flyers would be lost from the event. I see that as a negative thing for the event.


I never thought you were attributing a proposal to reduce the weight to myself, but after re-reading some of the posts, I can see where you thought that.


I think the 5kg limit is problematic when paired with unlimited displacement and 2M x 2M. AMA is in this predictament having followed FAI rules changes. Now that AMA is in this predictament, how/if/when it can be improved is where we differ. I certainly would not want to make any changes on the premise that FAI will not change the current limits in FAI.


I think I understand your goals (and I agree with them) and that you'd like to achieve them sooner than later (also good), but I respectfully don't agree with your approach.

I think the existing bias will be moot soon enough as even with the bias, electric will become dominant, and the cost of the event will decrease as electric matures. This is not a "do nothing" approach akin to"damned if we do, damned if we don't", it is a prediction of what will happen if the event is allowed to mature within the current rules structure. If the bias could be removed and costs reduced sooner than later, that would be great, but not if it means -
- accelerating the obselescence of IC.
- achieving the goal of no bias in exchange for 5.4 kg electrics (more expensive) vs 5.0 kg electrics (cheaper).

You could be 100% correct, and I might be 100% correct, and I'd be most willing to bet the future is somewhere in the middle. In any case, I'd be happy to buy the first round.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

A couple more facts...

AMA flyers do not need FAI flyers to develop any new technology to take advantage of an increased weight allowance. More powerful motors, lipos, and ESCs already exist that are drop in replacements (or require minimal modifications).

Plenty of flyers are currently competing at the local level at >5kg, and increasing the weight limit would have no effect on them.

Competition grade equipment costs more money than casual equipment. The larger, heavier, and more powerful the competition grade equipment is, the more it costs (and the same is true for micro....where the increasing smaller stuff costs more).

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

- accelerating the obselescence of IC.
- achieving the goal of no bias in exchange for 5.4 kg electrics (more expensive) vs 5.0 kg electrics (cheaper).


Here's another area where I completely disagree with your predictions.

A 5.4kg at take-off rule may accelerate the decline of IC. Only because it will bring the cost of electrics down to the point where it becomes more attractive to switch. Not because they will suddenly become uncompetitive. The rule change may in fact allow for the development of competitive gas engines in the event, as their fuel is lighter allowing more leeway in the empty weight. I do believe that with no changes, we will continue to see more electrics and fewer IC models in pattern. That is how the entire hobby is evolving. But with no changes the costs will rise.

Your basic statement of heavier electrics being more expensive is in my opinion flawed. There is nothing in pattern that is less expensive when it is made lighter. Just the opposite.

Tony,

Would a weight increase for the advancement classes but not Masters be OK in your opinion? That would certainly allow those in Intermediate and Advanced the ability to use older airframes that have gained weight due to repairs or cheaper electric gear.

If that is not acceptable, I would be very curious why. If a person wants to compete at the National level in Masters and wants to win, They are no doubt going to pay for what they need to do so. If it means buying 3 sets of 4300mAh batteries just for the Nats and using 5000 mAh for local contests then can we not agree it is the cost of being competitive?

Again, I'm on a very tight budget this year but working hard on making weight with the plane I'm building for electric and using less than top of the line motor/ESC/battery combo.

Pete

Pete,

What would be good for Sportsman, Intermediate and Advanced would also be good for Masters. As I have said before, it is a matter of making the airplanes fall under the same weight requirements and of reducing the costs, primarily of electric models. Also, keep this in mind. A legal, just under 5kg F3A model that can get through the pattern with plenty of pad on 4300maH batteries would not work in Masters. Do not some of those used F3A airplanes go to Masters competitors?

I feel that any competitor, in any class of pattern, that wants to win bad enough at the Nationals level will do whatever they need to do to attempt to achieve that goal. Certainly not just in Masters. But the entire idea is to try to make it just a bit easier on the wallet to reach that goal.

Don't you think that there is a basic flaw in a rule that you just recommended I should violate at a local contest? Just so you know, when I discovered my model was over the limit with 5000 maH packs I never competed with them again. I used them to practice and flew the 4350's in the contests. I've got new models coming for this year and a wing kit from Dave Snow for my current model to get some weight out.

I think that if they do indeed process all models at the Nats next year we are going to see a significant number of people not bother to attend. I know for a fact that there were many there last year who knew their models were over the weight, but also knew they would not be in contention to make the finals.

If the weight limit were increased and it allowed those guys to use a CDI - wouldn't that make their per flight cost cheaper since the CDI uses less fuel? Ok, I realize that the initial investment of the CDI is more expensive but...

Playing devil's advocate here...

I think anyone experienced with pattern currently flying IC is already considering when they will switch to electric. Yes, the transition from IC to electric would be easier if electric became cheaper. It is still a cost to transition for the IC fliers (and one they might have to make sooner than they are planning, if the rules change). There is a whole thread ongoing about a competitive gas setup being developed under the current rules (and to my eye, the anticipated performance and price looks to be extremely good).
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_9237216/tm.htm

The cost of electrics has continually decreased since 2003 with no changes in the rules. Why is it you think this trend is going to reverse?

Heavier electrics with no increase in performance are cheaper. Heavier electrics that have increased performance are more expensive. Pick a relative level of quality and the cost increase is very clear for motors, lipos, ESCs, etc from any of the manufacturers that produce small, medium, large, XL, etc., and the costs go up.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

Let me respond in sections:

I do believe that what is good for the advancement classes is good for Masters which is precisely why I do not advocate a weight increase. The sequences of the advancement classes certainly allow smaller and lighter batteries. Two years ago a set of batteries that could be used in a 2 meter plane was a bit expensive; now however there are more affordable options and as technology progresses we will see a further reduction in cost and weight.

Sure some of those FAI planes make it to Masters competitors, but is it not incumbent upon the purchaser who decides to fly at the Nats to make sure their plane meets the rule criteria?

I fully understand that making it easier on the wallet would be a great thing, my wife lost her job this past year and she brought in 70% of our household income. I can tell you from experience in quite a few different venues of competition that if you increase the weight limit there will be those who use it to more the performance bar up and widen the disparity between low cost options and the winners circle. I was relaying this conversation to a friend of mine who is still in drag racing and has never flown a model airplane and his response was the same as mine....not a good idea because of the very same reason.


There certainly is a problem with breaking the rules, but people do it and no I do not advocate it. If you choose to compete using electric in a current airframe then you do what you need to do to make weight. It's the same as flying glow, I can't power a new widebody airframe effectively with a 1.20 and some will need more than a 1.40 so the choice is pay the money for the power you need or be happy with level of competition that you can afford.


I think you are correct on seeing a lower turn out for the Nats for a variety of reasons, the economy being a good one. As for those who went with overweight models, they were not in contention for the finals and did not get caught, right or wrong that is fact of the matter, now if all planes are to be processed they have a good 7 months to put that baby on a diet or come up with a plan B.

To further this exchange, which I do enjoy, let me offer this; at one time I raced a Ford with a 302 in it that regularly beat the Chevys that I raced. A small block Chevy at that time (mid-80s) was a whole lot cheaper to build than the Ford. Then the 5.0 revolution came and building a small block Ford became very affordable. My point to this anecdote is that electric is becoming more affordable by the day and we don't need a rule change to level the playing field.

I support rule changes and I support Tony 100%

Tony, I meet you but you don't know me. I am a intermediate pilot, been to 2 nats, finished in 5th place wood last year and won the concourse award for my scratch built prototype Black Magic VF3 - (everyone's seen it)

Being a scratch builder I would like to see the rules change and often. specially if it makes older designs obsolete.

also being a professional designer, builder and painter, I can see a BIG new demand for new designs and airplanes - built quickly to new design specs, instead of waiting for the boat from taiwan or china. which could be a year or more once the weight limit changed.

BUT Since this is an AMA rule the overseas importers won't build airframes to AMA spec. there would be a lack of optimized designs for the new weight limit.

Also I don't see this issue as electrics vs. ic - - I see this as a rule change to allow larger displacement in the 2m box. To me this rule doesn't support growth or any of the "feel good" reasons people like to hear.

you see being able to scratch build a 2m competitive wood airframe is my primary competitive advantage. As I am an intermediate pilot and do not plan on moving up until 2011 or 2012 - ??


SO BRING ON THE WEIGHT CHANGE - I've got a big stack of 9 gram wood just waiting !!!!!

I support Tony 100%, weight change YES !!!!!!!!

happy new years all !

Dean

Hi Tony,

Could you point me to your source for this statement? I've spent the last half hour searching for MAAC Nats results to get a feel for their attendance and hardware usage but came up empty.

Thanks,

Scott

Scott,

Chad Northeast.

Pete,

I'm sure if you talk to a friend of yours not involved at all in pattern competition about the issue, you will get complete agreement. That's what friends do! But let's face it, I'm sure the explanation of the issues to him might be a bit slanted? Don't you think? Maybe? I know that I can relay conversations I have had with many who totally agree with my proposal. From both those who compete in pattern and those that don't. Does that prove anything?

If you read through the thread, I have, in my opinion, answered every objection to my proposal raised here. To respond to the latest would be just repeating what I have already posted. Honestly, I think if we were all in a big room talking about this it would get worked out a lot easier. I have yet to see a single issue worked out by internet threads and email lists. That is why I hope my proposal will at least make the Initial Vote cut by the Contest Board. So we can have some time to talk about it at the flying field.