This is to Chad then...does Canada have a pattern Nat's?
(sorry for my ignorance on this!)

All I could find here on RCU was a statement you made back in 2005 which would leave me to believe there may not be such event:


Do we need a Nats in Canada? I dont know....I think the US should just refer to their Nats as the North American National Championships (much like Europe has the European championships) and call it done....we all go to Muncie every year and have a blast landing our foamies in the hotel's pools, and on the front desk in the lobby LOL. If we want to run a Canadian Nats as a side line item fine....

It would if they contacted their Contest Board rep with their opinions!

BTW - I've gotten one opinion back on the weight issue from AMA D1 members....

My friends are more likely not to agree with me if I am off base and no the information relayed was not slanted. A simple statement that there is currently a discussion in model airplane land that raising the weight limit will reduce competition expense. Not biased, but a simple statement.

I have read through the thread repeatedly, it's my favorite soap opera at the moment. You and I will just disagree on this, no biggie.

Tony,

I think it is possible that any of us could explain the issues in a manner that might be slanted....consciously or not. And our friends might immediately provide support, or play devil's advocate. And how many people we've had conversations with that agree with us, you are right, it doesn't prove anything per se, other than illustrate human nature. There have been several people advocating/reminding that feedback to their RCACB member is the official place for feedback (and I know of at least 2 people that have done that <G>), and hopefully this thread will increase feedback to the RCACB - and of course there are some of the RCACB reading this thread.

It is a long thread, with lots of questions and answers.

You stated the cost of electric will go up if the rules are not changed (correct me if I am not stating this accurately). I would like to hear why you believe this? Seems to me since 2003, electric has gotten cheaper every year and there have been no rules changes. Seems to me electric will continue to mature and continue to get cheaper under the current rules.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart


BTW - Scott - yes, there is an annual Canadian NATs, and I believe it is usually late summer, and moves around each year to different parts of Canada, and I believe it is generally a 2 or 3 day event.

Hi Scott,

Yes we do, pretty much like Dave said Due to the demographics and the size of the country its smaller than yours and generally is more regional in participation. If I can get a flying field it might be in Calgary this summer

Its interesting to read ones own comments from many years ago I would likely disagree with myself today lol Nearly 5 years, three jobs, and two kids later I have probably changed a few opinions as much as underwear

We did indeed remove the requirement to weigh with batteries, so in our MAAC classes (mostly identical to the AMA ones) electrics can be 5kg without batteries. I personally have not seen any significant (if any) change as a result of this. There are very few people that have the time/motivation/whatever (I certainly don't) to build a specific model to take advantage of this change. There is one interesting project going on by an Advanced competitor in BC, who is converting an old damaged Twister kit into a bipe. I am certain this model would be overweight with the FAI rules, but will probably be ok with the MAAC rules. Very few people have access to the resources that John has to do something like this though I for one am glad that a set of rules will not stop this kind of experimentation.

http://picasaweb.google.com/Dave.Rea...rProjects0910#

Case in point. Thunderpower Pro Lite V2 10s 5000maH 20C packs - $379.99. Those are older technology cells. I don't know how much longer they will continue to make them. Maybe forever. Practically no one else in the high-performance electric world is hanging on to the older 20C cells. I sure know helicopters haven't!

Current Thunderpower Pro Power G4 10S 5000 maH 45C packs - $469.99. A price increase with newer, improved technology. Better power, better life-cycles, ability to charge at 2C, 3C or more. Lower operating temperature. Make good power even when cold.

With a fixed set of rules maturation of technology in pattern has always caused a price increase. Is there a specific reason to think electric will be different?

Thanks Chad!

Could you tell me what year that rule change went into effect?

I can't help but think once that Twisted Bipe starts winning the glow guys aren't going to cry foul! After all, he's got a 2.6 lb (sorry...1.2kg ) margin to play with. Neat looking project though, thanks for posting the link.

I would much rather see a chance similar to Canada than a RTF takeoff weight. If you want to weigh electrics without batteries, thats fine. Only in AMA classes. A RTF weight will only punish guys flying older YS stuff carrying more fuel. Not to mention the logistical nightmare of doing it at the NATS.

Arch

I think:

1. Introducing a general max. take off weight of 5.4 kg would make it possible to enter with a reduced cost, because:
A. You could possibly use a gas engine.
B. You could use an old damaged/repaired model that would otherwise be overweight. (Glow or electric)
C. You could use cheaper batteries, such as 5000 mAh packs from HobbyCity instead of 4350 or 5000 mAh packs from ThunderPower, and cheaper motor/regulator.
D. Making a composite airframe at 3 kg. rather than 2-2.5 kg. is cheaper. (I make my own composite models, and reducing weight is expensive and time consuming.)

This weight increase would therefore be good for those that want to enter at a low price/budget, and therefore POSSIBLY increase the number of entrants.

2. It would make it more expensive to be truly competitive, because:
A. YS can now develop a 2.0 or a 2.2 that has 30% more power, (CDI of course) and still be ok for weight.
B. The competitive electric pilot would still use a light (expensive) airframe and take advantage of the weight increase to increase power by carrying larger battery packs, bigger motor etc.

From my point of view it therefore boils down to what you want to achieve, and which end of the scale you are prioritizing.

Reduced min. cost, Yes.
Increased max. cost: Yes.

Magne (In Norway and therefore not AMA affiliated, but the principle of this discussion is universally applicable. Most countries have entry level classes.)

The difference between the current draw and need for higher "C" packs in a helicopter, especially one doing 3D, and a pattern plane is like comparing apples to jelly beans....they're both sweet, tasty and have sugars in them but that is pretty much where it ends.

Any battery pack from a manufacturer in the same mAh and cell configuration will cost more as the "C" rating goes up...it is the same as saying 30% nitro fuel costs more than 15%.

The maturation of technology you mention does give me pause, and I am curious as I did take a 15 year break from RC. When and how did a lack of rule change cause costs to escalate? I know of the displacement increase, but I do not know of a point where the rules did not change and the costs increased not related to inflation. Again, I am asking in earnest, as I was busy playing with other toys for a good number of years.

I think the rule in Canada weighing electrics without the batteries is
a good one. The IC airplanes are weighed minus fuel, so should the
electrics.

tommy s

I guess you could compare the C rating to nitro levels. Except when the lower nitro stuff stops being made. Original C ratings for LiPo batterries used in pattern were if I remember correctly, something like 6. They flew the models competitvely back then. You can't even buy them now.

Let's look at top line radios. Futaba 8GAP to 9ZAP to 14MZ. Each more capabilities, each more expensive.

JR Unlimited 8, PCM9, PCM10, 10S, 10X, 12X. Each more capabilities, each more expensive.

There have been medium range radios that have come out, ie. Futaba 10C, JR 9303, Airtronics SD-10, with the capabilities to use in pattern, and they have been lower cost. But almost all the winners in the upper classes use the top line radios.

Lets look at servos. JR 4000 series, to Super Servos, to current digitals. All greater performance, all more expensive then the last one. Same true of the Futaba line.

Now a look at engines. I started flying pattern with a K&B .61 engine. That was when 10cc was the limit. I then went to a ST G.60 BH, ST X.60, O.S. .60F-SR, .61F-SR, .61VF, .61VR, .61RF, .61 Hanno Special. They were all the same size and they were all more expensive then the previous. In 1.20's I went from the O.S. 1.20F to the Y.S. 1.20, 1.20AC, 1.20SC, all were the same size and more expensive. Then a size increase with the Y.S. 1.40FZ, 1.40L, 1.40DZ, all were more expensive then the previous, and they were all the same size. Hard to compare the cost increase with the 1.60DZ, 1.70DZ as they were larger motors. You can compare the 1.70DZ to the 1.70 DZ CDI. Same size, more power, more expense.

My prediction about electric systems goes something like this. There has been a reduction in prices in some areas of electric systems due to greater production as electric has begun to take significant market share from nitro. And as electric has opened up entirely new areas of the hobby, like the indoor arenas. This has been particularly true in the LiPo batteries. As market share stabilizes prices will do the same and then begin to rise in the upper end market as the technology matures and develops. The "sport" line of products, such as E-Flite, Rimfire and AXI will probably be pretty stable. I don't know for a fact, but I'll bet there hasn't been any price reductions in those line of motors since their introduction.

Arch,

The older YS engines can't get through a pattern with .9 pounds of fuel? I find that hard to believe. And what is harder about weighing the models for one round in the finals before they take-off then weighing them after they land? They go from the scales to the ready box. Simple. Right now there are two problems with weighing after the flight. A glow guy gets to empty his tanks. Unless someone watches them do that, what's to say they don't do something like pull other equipment out of the plane, like a regulator or a battery? With an electric model, especially in the Finals, you need to get the battery on charge ASAP. The delay in the weight check after the flight can be a real problem, especially if you only have one or two "contest" packs. I guess I just don't understand the difference.

Magne,

An excellent post, my opinion.

In the US, I can't recall any rules changes, or waiving of rules that has resulted in any significant increase in participation - in fact, it is more the opposite. Most rule changes have resulted in more in the event leaving the event, than new people joining the event.

I see the AMA Masters class as large enough and competitive enough the increased max cost will be realized, and it is what the masses will emulate.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

I don't know how much fuel a YS140DZ might need, but I do know it was not uncommon to see 20-24 oz tanks, which was one of the reasons I always favored the 2C which have a much better power to weight ratio, even if it didn't have the same peak power.

I think any plane that is going to have a tech inspected after a flight should be -
- impounded immediately by an official, without being touched by the pilot or his helper
- the TX should also be immediately impounded

Obviously the pilot/helper should be allowed to shut down/unplug/depressurize, etc the radio, plane, etc. While cumbersome, I see this as the only way to ensure post flight tech inspection is fair to all.

The point about needing to get lipos on charge ASAP is very valid, my opinion. On the FAI semifinals day in 2009 (not AMA, but applicable since the same effective format was used), flight order rotations were changed (to correct an error), and one competitor ended up short on time to charge his "competition" pack. It was great to see practically all the competitors on that line looking for solutions, and in the end, enough time was available to complete the charging. It would seem reasonable to me to have a minimum time between flights.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

What would happen if the rule change to no weight limit????

what is the point of a weight limit in todays environment????

(I bet the Bad ***** Guys with the money still come in under 11 pounds RTF)

Tony,

Good stuff.

I think you are clearly showing 2 things with the examples you have provided -
- increased costs with additional capability/performance
- increased cost with increased displacement (perhaps more appropriately power, to be inclusive of electric)

And there is always the cost of inflation along with maturation that is part of the reason for price increases (sometimes small, sometimes significant).

For the electric propulsion side of things, I think there will be two trends happening in the future, and which will be dominant is the question. I agree the "sport" line of products may not see much change in price, but they may have to in order to compete with the "budget" options from Hobby City. Or maybe they will cease to exist. On the higher end, there are several examples I am aware of that show a decrease in price with maturation -
- Compare a Castle Phoenix 85HV to the new 80HV. The 80HV is cheaper and has more features.
- Hacker has dropped prices across the board on all motors.
- ThunderPower has dropped prices across the board on all lipos.

Outside of decreases within product lines, new companies in the market are making equivalent products at lower prices - most obviously to me is the Neu F3A motor in comparison to the Hacker C50 comp. I expect at some point the C50 comp will be replaced/updated, and probably at a lower price to better compete with the Neu. I expect the Plett Evo will have more direct competition (same performance and cheaper price) from the F3A outrunner Hacker has been working on for 2 years, or the Shulman Fury which is under development (JAS?). Certainly the various products from China (direct brand or rebranded) are priced very aggressively, and some are having very good results (quite honestly, I can't keep up will all of the new motors and lipos coming from China).

To the point of lipos for pattern application, I talked in detail with Charlie Wang at Thunder Power during the time that the ProLite V2s were being developed. It was at that time that TP was realizing/concluding that changes made to improve performance for 3D helis, EDF, and pylon applications were not showing improvements for pattern applications (and other applications with relatively limited duration high bursts of power). That is basically the reason for the development of the current ProPower series (30C, 45C) and the ProLite V2s. I don't recall the exact cost, but the original Gen I TPs JAS used were I believe 5s4p 8000s x2, and cost quite a bit more than the ProLite V1 5300s (about $630 per set to recall) which cost quite a bit more than the V2s (originally about $500, now down to $420). And the Gen I TPs at competition power levels were being pushed extremely hard and had limited life. The cost for the lipos has dropped substantially as the lifecycle has increased substantially. I expect the cost of premium lipos such as TP will continue to drop to compete with the influx of Chinese brands increases, some of which are very close to the weight and power output of the TP, according to those I talked to (and perhaps some of these guys will chime in). Certainly the higher C rated lipos cost more than the lower C lipos...whether premium brands like TP, or cheaper options. And guys can certainly use the higher C lipos in pattern if they like, but, the benefits of 45C aren't really evident in applications with 16-18C limited bursts. Maybe at some point technology will change to the point that the "best" cells for both 3D helis and pattern applications will be the same, but that is not the current trend.

I think electric is early enough on the maturation curve that it is still in the declining cost stage. I expect the overall cost for electric pattern will continue to decline as it matures and volume increases, and then, as with all things, it will start to climb, and when it does, it will be cheaper at 5 kg than 5.4 kg (just like bigger engines cost more than smaller ones).

Regards,

Dave Lockhart
Team Horizon/JR/Spektrum/ThunderPower, Team Castle Creations

1. A few guys may go to the Nats who wouldn't otherwise go, a few more wouldn't have to spend $$$ to get planes under a weight limit to go to the Nats.
2. ????????
3. Yes, because they want to be as light as possible because it's a competitive advantage.

Just throwing this out there for a point of discussion…(don’t want to lose momentum! )

For those that say weighing electrics with batteries is grossly unfair, please look at the following graphs that plot the flying weight vs. flight time of a glow and e-powered plane. The first chart is current state; the second is a proposed future state. Given the divergence throughout the flight in the future state, how is this more fair?

Hi Scott,

I don't recall exactly as it was a while ago, but probably 2006 or 2007. So far no complaining We will see though! I am looking forward to seeing the Twister bipe in action

Thanks for the info Tony. I do remember looking at some of those 60 sized engines with lustful eyes, especially the Super Tigre X 60.
It does show a couple things:
1) expense went up as manufacturers tried to increase performance within the given rules.
2) Competitors bought the newer, more powerful engines as they were available to gain a competitive edge.
3) This is my point...When the size restriction was lifted you were no longer flying the 60 sized engines...you went to the biggest available competitive engine....lift the weight restriction and bigger power systems are not far behind.

Servos are a great example, as better performing servos came to market the top competitors and those with deeper pockets used them and kept raising the performance bar and widening the disparity between the top and bottom of the pack. A 3 pole servo with less than precise centering is now MUCH more obvious to the judges as the pilot makes corrections due to lack of precision and holding power. Look at the new brushless servos that are on the market, speed, precision, and lighter package than what we were flying back in the 80’s.
Radios, now computer radios are the norm and the radio I have today isn’t much more than what I paid for my 7FGK back in ’81. Sure the top guys are using the latest and greatest, most are sponsored and even if they were not I would venture to say they would still use the same radio simply due to any competitive edge that can be gained.

Scott....chances of this losing momentum anytime soon is pretty slim.

This current recession has hit the hobby harder then any before it. There have been a lot of price reductions during this time just to try to keep afloat. So what you are seeing now may be very temporary.

Scott,

I have some problems with your graphs. First, what pattern takes 11 minutes? I don't think any electric pattern model can fly for 11 minutes. Most much shorter. Then, in the upper one it starts with a glow model below 11 pounds. Now they can weigh right at 11, then add whatever amount of fuel they want to put in. Most are running 24 ounce tanks. Much more then they need to get through a pattern. You're not displaying that fact at all. Your lower graph has glow somehow burning less fuel in 11 minutes then the upper one. What is the assumption there? And the proposal would allow glow up to 11.9 at take-off.

Have I missed something?

Please keep in mind that the 2-meter rule, the size of the aerobatics box along with the noise rule is going to limit just how much power we need or can make. I believe we are already there. The fuselage sizes have stabilised. My 2004 Partner fuse is not much smaller then the 2009 PassPort. And the wing on the Partner is bigger then the PassPort. The amount of power I needed in 2004 has not increased significantly from what I used in 2009. I had a Partner with an old Hacker C50 14XL, non-competition, as my back-up for the Nats. Ask some of the guys who watched me fly the two back to back which one was better? Jon Carter and Kris Fitzsimmons at the practice field were sort of telling me they liked the Partner. I preferred the PassPort, especially in turbulence and wind.

I believe the threat of greatly increased electric power is vapor.

Assumptions:
Glow empty weight: 10.8 lbs (because glow doesn’t seem push the limit!)
Fuel weight: 1 ozm per fluid oz (I know this isn’t exact)
Fuel Consumption : 1 oz per minute
Flight time: 10 minutes

Between the two charts, the glow parameters did not change. All that changed was the e RTF weight.
(The intent of the proposal after all is not to change anything for glow.)

The key point is the fact that current state converges and the proposed future state diverges (no matter how you tweak the numbers.)

Edit: I should add…accepting the numbers for what they are, which chart better represents a level playing field?