Looks like we should be targeting about 11 lbs - 2 ozs., as a new weight.<g>

Remember, let your contest board member know your feelings on this issue. You can discusse all you want here but in the end it's the board that makes the vote.

I see now why the slant is a different angle on the glow line. You changed the size of the weight line.

I guess you can go ahead and show the maximum weights for electric and some less then maximum for glow, if that's how you want to slant your graph. My feeling is that electrics will end up at some less then 11.9 pound number just like glows do now. But hey, it's your graphics. Go for it!

Honest, I didn't! Excel may have recalculated X axis but I did not.

OK, here you go. I reduced the e RTF weight and limited the flight to eight minutes. Heh...the lines still diverge! Why is this more fair than what we have today?

(sorry, I typo'd the legend...should be electric weight, not edit weight)

You're right. It is unfair that glow will be getting lighter and higher performance as the flight goes on. And the electric will be losing power as the battery discharges. Any ideas on how we can get the glow to weigh the same throughout the flight? Oh, wait a minute, maybe a power-to-weight graph throughout the flight will converge and then it will show the glow will be better at the end of the flight.

Lots of ways to massage data.

Hi Chaps,

Great discussion,
Personally, i think an weight-increasement would do just fine to the sport. As long the size limit (2+2) is kept as it is, i think it would reduce some of the cost needed to stay below todays weight-limit.

There could be a possebility that the airframe would grow bigger ( fuse-size )and thereby take advantage of new rules, but i am not sure it will happen, i think it has stabilized more or less.

With todays limit; even an light airframe will need expensive items (motor, reg, bat , u/c, spinner etc ) to keep limit. Those el-pilot`s who can not still keep the limit will need to reduce the battery capasity with following consequenses, or buy expensive batteries.

I think that the high-end pilots would still keep weight as low as possible (below todays limit) ,even with new rules, ... The different with new rules ,as i see it ; would open up for heavier plane`s and a possible lower cost.

Just my thoughts
Kjell Olav

Once again, all these charts, and arguments cloud the basic issue.

Why are there different weight rules for planes based on chosen power system?

Using the logic being argued here:

Why not different rules based on composite VS wood construction?

Why not different rules based on mono-wing VS Bi-Planes?

Why not different rules based on % of nitro?

Why not different rules based on CDI or not?

In my opinion, unless you are trying toprotecting some legacy turf, all planes should be weighed the same.Ready to fly the sequence, if EP with batteries, if IC fuel tank full. This is the easiest to monitor, and is the fairest. Simple.

I'm not entirely sure what Scott's point is. At the limit, Glow planes are heavier right now, and Electric planes are lighter, but with Tony's proposed change, the Glow planes will be lighter instead? Is he proposing that the rules should be changed so that Electric and Glow planes weigh the same? Why should we care? Why don't just leave it as an option for the pilot to build and fly his or her plane at whatever weight he or she feels is appropriate? (Within whatever rules are adopted of course ...)

I agree with Kjell by the way ... Less angst, more options for pilots, and an easier way for people to get into the sport.

Speaking for myself, I think I have a pretty good idea what I would do if Tony's proposal passes, I will probably run 35C batteries, I might look at soft mounts to isolate high frequency vibration, and I'll look at possible options to increase overall efficiency and power, but this is just me ...

Sorry, I'm not trying to cloud anything and I’m certainly not protecting anything…I’m just asking questions.

I honestly don’t know. Maybe the orignal authors considered the whole flight and figured glow can takeoff a little heavier and would land a little lighter…averaging out over the whole flight. (just a guess)

Because there are no variable there that would change during the flight (just an opinion)

Nope…I’m just a software developer; we’d need a NASA engineer for that!

I’ve answered your questions, please answer mine: Why is equal takeoff weight more fair than what we have today given that fact that one propulsion system will get lighter throughout the flight?

My point is we should be considering the whole flight when determining what is fair, that's all.

I guess I have been unclear. My point is that in regards to the weight rule, the propulsion system should not be a factor. Weigh the plane with whatever the competitor feels he needs to complete the flight. If the IC powered planes get lighter during the flight, and the competitor feels that is an advantage he can make that choice. That is fair.

Well, I'm not an engineer but I worked at NASA Dryden for 11 years on model research projects. Besides, NASA isn't where all the best engineers are anymore. After all, the world runs on software!

Scott, I'm having a very hard time wrapping my head around your point. Are you trying to say we should be weighing an IC model with half of the fuel that it would use for a pattern? How in the world would you determine that? I'm sure I'm not grasping what you are trying to say.

Besides, as I said earlier, since an electric is losing power from the first turn of the prop, thereby having a steadily decreasing power-to-weight ratio, and IC is losing weight, thereby having a steadily increasing power-to-weight ratio, your graphs are misleading.

Boy, I know I should have taken those Excel classes when I could!

All of this goes away if the whole absurd idea of some arbitrary weight requirement being a part of the rules is eliminated.

Again, the size of the plane is defined. The noise limit is defined. Those two factors alone will do what is needed to keep the dreaded 50cc or 2 by 2 by 2 meter plane from appearing. The whole concept of a maximum weight makes no sense at all to me.

Sure, there are endless arguments that can be made once you decide it matters, but if you do not use that as your starting point it is very hard to understand.

Perhaps tune up the measurements a bit more, like max fuse height & width if need be and be done with the whole weight issue. Heresy I know, so burn me at the stake!!

The discussion about fair seems to be missing the point (my opinion).

14MZ/12X vs RD800/DX7 is not fair.......YS 170CDI vs OS140 is not fair. Pilots that compete for free or at a reduced cost is not fair. Those with the greatest amount of resources (time, money, sponsors, etc) and a competitive nature will find a way to gain an advantage, no matter what the rules are, fair or not. Choose to compete with whatever you like that fits the rules and your personal needs however those are defined - top grade competition, budget friendly, or fits in your eco friendly car (whether a fuel sipper, electric, or fuel cell), etc.

The focal point should be about whether a change in the rules would be good for the sport.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

OMG... Bill... you and I agree on this weight thing!!!

:O

it seems like meeting 11 pounds with a 2 meter plane typically requires a lot of money.....

if part of the goal of Precisiion Aerobatics is to get more people involved..... the weight limitation is counterproductive to that...
besides... weight is bad under most conditions.... if someone wants to make their plane heavier...well.. so much the better for everyone else right....

besides... I have a 2 meter funtana 140 with Hacker C50 and 10S x 5000 LiPo's at 11.65 pounds... hard for me to imagine a plane built conventionally
this size weighing any less...

and it really flies fluffy and creamy....

if my weight was legal... I would do pattern!!!

yeah.. I would....

ok, heres my slant. If you chose to go e powered with your patternship you made a few more decisions than just going e powered, the weighing issue is just one of them when it comes to full on F3a competition flying. I would compare this to perhaps buying a house next to a railway line and then complaining about the noise of the trains, or as happened over here on blighty many years ago, buying a house next to a church and complaining about the bells ringing on a Sunday morning , the later example was eventually sorted by the new owner pushing his weight around (and his cash) and eventually had a ban placed on the bell ringing [X(].

The concept of change for you guy's has to be placed in the right environment, aimed at the right people, the FAI select committee being a good place to start!

I'm quite happy listening to my beloved YS's purring away like good un's, and watching my servos bouncing around wishing they were on their holidays and all this apparently whilst enjoying an unfair advantage over the e-powered guy's .

At the end of the day, a great pilot will still win even if he has an underpowered brick to fly, it's all about the thumbs...................................

No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying maybe the way we’re currently doing things is as fair as we can get, so don’t change. (That is if No Fuel vs. Batteries is the driving factor for a change.)

Will still have all these other points to work through: [:@]

1. Declining participation – what cause can be attributed to 4.3
2. High cost of participation – what cause can be attributed to 4.3
3. Safety – Is 4.3 making models unsafe
4. 4.3 not enforced at the local level therefore is unneeded
5. Why have an arbitrary weight limit
6. 4.3 was not properly enforced at the '09 Nat's and this needs to be addressed

The biggest hurdle these proposals have <at least from where I sit> is that nobody from D1 (or D2 for that matter) is looking for a change. That wheel just ain’t squeaking here! (If I’m wrong and you’re from D1…please contact me!)

1. Models are almost never weighed at local contests. I've seen it happen once, as a courtesy to those who were contemplating being at the upcoming Nationals. No one was told to go home.
2. More often than not, CD's post weight waivers for Sportsman class to provide for your exact situation.
3. Start flying Pattern!
4. Start planning your next airplane at 11 lbs or less. Then maybe we'll see you at the Nats!

How many sport flyers know that the weight rules is waived at local contests? Hardly any is my guess. My thinking is that sport flyers are generally very timid when it comes to trying pattern, and the current weight rule just gives them an additional excuse not to.

How many sport flyers have ever owned a copy of the rule book and would even know there is a weight limit without asking someone who flies pattern. Anytime someone has asked me, i mention the weight limit, but tell them it usually doesnt matter for sportsman and come out and play.

Arch

in your example.... if one of the goals is to get more people to move into the neighborhood... then the tracks should be moved.....

does anyone remember the point of a weight limit????

I used to get "K-Factor" in the mail 10 years ago... is there an online link for pattern??? (I could google it I s'pose)..but what do you guys s'gest?

www.nsrca.us

You can download sample (year or so old) KFactors there, check out the email lists, and other documents. Also join up!

Tom M

Agree with brenner...

My personal thoughts:
I think most pattern pilot`s would do what they can to stay below limit, even they know they won`t be controlled... It`s a part of the game to achive this so to speak...

... "to speed at 35mph in a 25mph speed zone doesn`t mean it is still allowed because probably no-one would control this" ... This increased "unlegal" weight has probably no benefit, but we feel more comfortable to stay within the rules...

Personally i hope we will see both fuel and el-power in our sport. El-power has brought a new option to our sport; let us give it space. Increased weight limit (or no limit) for all powersystems. Fair or not; very difficult to separate glow / electric... besides, what we use to compare those two today would change tomorrow... The el.-technoligy will just be better and better, and it happens fast...

What really matters is that we all have a choice, use what you want,whitout the rules controlling the cost...

Kjell Olav

I suggest that most sport pilots interested in pattern are not interested because they happened to have a copy of the AMA rulebook laying around and happened to read about pattern. The exposure to pattern comes from seeing it, or reading about it on forums - and neither has size, weight, or noise limits "visible" initially. I agree with Arch that potential new recruits are going to be encouraged to show up with any reasonable aircraft.

My experience with sport pilots and the majority of new recruits to pattern is that they find an appeal to the pattern style of flying, and no matter what they are currently flying, they start practicing pattern with whatever they have. Then one of two things happens -
1. They are hooked, and they continue to fly whatever they have that is best suited for pattern, and they plan future models to be more optimized for pattern.
2. They realize pattern is hard and not easy, and start looking for excuses why they won't participate (perhaps easier on the ego....not that competition oriented people have ever been known to have egos <G>).

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

I have to agree wholeheartedly with you Dave.

There have been several "kids" at our field who've "wanted to fly pattern". Most of them "want to fly 3D" after failing to fly straight and level paralell to the runway for six or eight passes....and that is before they even try to center a maneuver!

It's amazing how pattern is "too boring" when they can't do it and "3D" is "more exciting" because they can do it quickly.

G

Scott your right. and what about point #6 ? and why hasn't it been addressed? One violation of the rule is too much and can not be tolerated at the Nats level.

after my initial post, I am not in support of the rule change. Because I am afraid it will not be fairly enforced anyhow....

and didn't e-power already dominate the 09 nats - every class except adv was almost a sweep. Isn't e-power already at an advantage over IC for a number of reasons.

Also the fact that guys bring oversized "illegal" weight batteries with them to Nats makes me wonder makes me question a number of other things...... IF you know your not going to make weight with a set of batteries - why bring them to nats ???

The argument that e-planes have a fixed weight seems less solid to me.

Believe me I would love to exploit a new weight limit, for my own competitive advantage and as a model builder.

Right now the two powerplants are virtually equal. Everyone is partial to their favorite, but they both work and work well. The top pilots in any class could certainly be competitive with either type of power. I am smart enough to realize that in the future, that might not always be the case, but at least for the next few years it will be. Pattern is always going to be expensive. If someone wants to TRY pattern and do it cheaper, then buying the latest and greatest isnt the answer. Pick up a used plane, a used OS 1.40RX or something and go fly. No weight problems there. There are also MANY 1.10 size electrics out there now that will ALL make weight with cheaper equipment. Whether flying glow or electric, you are going to have to pay attention to detail to ensure the plane is under weight. Regardless of how much we like to act like it wont change anything, the top level guys will always go for the competitive advantage and spend more. If you do much changing of the rules it will have an effect. It might let a few more people play (although I seriously doubt it), but it will also change the cost to keep up at the top. I really don't think that whether airplanes are processed at the beginning of the NATS or just in the finals will have any impact on whether people show up. With the cost of scales available today there really isnt an excuse to not know the weight of your plane. It really isn't that difficult with most setups to save a few ounces if needed. Pattern or any type of competition is going to cost money.

I realize that changing the weight limits will allow electrics to play cheaper, but then arent you punishing glow pilots? I don't see the cost of glow fuel going down anytime soon. Even if someone goes gas, although I have really yet to see a competitive gas setup, and giving a few ounces isnt going to change that. Although the cost of gas isn't cheap either.

As Dave has said several times, the cost of electrics is coming down and has been for some time. The cost of the middle of the road stuff, probably wont change much, but it probably isnt all that competitive either. I could go out tomorrow and swap all my stuff for OS 1.60's and save money. Tony, you could swap your stuff to the E-flite motors, but I don't think either of us will do it as it does put us at a competitive disadvantage. Both systems would probably get us through the masters sequence, but you have to admit that your Neu setup and my YS setup are a step up from the "middle of the road" stuff. I find it funny how people fly pattern with 12X and 14MZ radio and then complain about the cost of the smaller stuff. Save 1000 bucks on a radio as we don't need all the features and spend it on other items. I understand pattern costs money, and I am not going to give up my 14MZ, or my YS equipment, but I would say hitting 7-8 contets, plus the NATS each year, I spend that much on travel alone.

Arch