The same could be said that most of the people arguing for the rule fly electric....

Arch

1 change at a time IMO.

Just because someone wants a rule changed, doesn't mean the whole book has to be changed. Even though it probably should!
A thought on the sound rule, yeah, it probably should go away. Electric pilots could use a " throttle limiting" switch also and pass anyway. Heck we all can, and I've watched some do it. It's hard to police. Rule or not.
I can see where you might say that about the sound rule Arch, it makes sense to me. Us E guys could cry foul that our props are bigger and make more noise right? But when down on power "the offender" would pass at the end of the flight. Makes sense. But with the subject of the thread, E pilots still weigh under 11lbs the whole flight, not just at the end. Fair or not, I don't care.

Wanna keep pattern small so that most everyone gets a trophy at a contest, let's never change anything with new technology? Or do we want to fly against 10 or more guys in each class and have a real "competition" at locals?

Why does this affect the glow community so much? It helps glow also.



Chris

Shhhhh....thats the electric secret man! We dont wanna be spreadin' that little nugget around too much

I don't really see what the issues are now making weight I guess is my questions. Mike Hester built a YS 1.70DZ powered black magic at 9lbs 15oz, and the V3 is a fairly large airframe. Dave Lockhart has been consistently under 10lbs on his electric stuff, so both can be built light. My current V3 had no problems with weight even with the CDI unit and I was running dual battery packs. My new on that is being finished is even lighter and it is 100% glass and paint. I guess I don't see what we gain by changing the rules, except opening up a new set of issues with larger airframes. I certainly don't see where it is an advantage for AMA to go away from the FAI set of rules as far as airframes go.

I guess I just don't see what the issues with what we have. It seems we are always in a rush to run out and change things.

Arch

I really dont see why the weigth issue, take the cheapest ARF use the cheapest equipement on it and 99% of them will be under 5kg so? whats the problem??

also these rules limit the top end, maximum 5kg, max 2M, so nothing is telling you you cant fly with a .90 size airplane, in the lower clases (the case in this country) and I am sure is the same in the US, lets see basic, or sportman the guy flying a state of the art top F3A airplane is in advantage formo any other plane?? lets say a venusII or a focus 110 NO! same thing so?? is expensive because people want it to be expensive, everyone can fly with a cheaper model, but we want state or the art technology..

I have submitted a rules proposal concerning noise and I have submitted one to eliminate the wing LE radius rule.

Arch, I don't know how you can say that we are in a rush to change things. We have had these weight rules for quite some time and have needed a change for many years. Our numbers at the Nats have been in a decline for quite a while. We were under 100 actually flying in the Nats this year. Are we going to just sit back and watch it continue to decline?

The noise test at the Nats has always been a poorly conducted test. What is "Full Power" and how is it confirmed? You can talk about the electric retest but how are you confirming full power on anything tested?

As to when we enforce rules, if we can't enforce them locally then it seems to make sense to not enforce them at the Nats. Take the noise for instance. Do the models need to be quiet at Muncie or at the local fields? It seems the local fields would be the choice. But we are getting off topic.

Most people think that being lighter is better, so what is everyone scared about with a modest weight increase? You can still spend as much as you want to be as light as you can get it. Do you think a heavier model will be more competitive? Do you not want more activity in the event?

Tony,

As I said above, if we are going to do this, then it definitely needs to be a takeoff weight, not getting rid of the weight rule entirely. 5.5KG takeoff is certainly reasonable and fair. I really dont think this will increase participation at the NATS as I believe that is more driven by economic issues as well as many other disciplines out there. I just dont want to see this lead to a 6KG weight or anything like that. Personally it wont affect what I fly at all, as my stuff is comfortably under 11lbs now.

Arch

I’m joining this conversation late as I just got back from 3 days of fun at JR Indoor. One of the things that I confirmed this weekend is that the $60 14.5 gram Neutrino makes more power than the ~$40 14-15 gram Eflite Park 250 and Hacker A10-15S (both of which I see as good values and good performing motors, just not equal to the Neutrino). Surely this observation has nothing to do with this topic (TIC).

I agree it is not “fair� to weigh some planes ready for takeoff, and weigh others incapable of takeoff. Nonetheless, the current performance level of glow and electric is comparable as evidenced by actual performance levels at local, regional, national, and international contests. If this inequity is to be remedied, it should be done in a manner which does not allow escalation in the cost of the average airframe on the flightline. This means weighing all planes RTF (with fuel and batteries) at 11 lbs, and this would immediately obsolete glow (which will happen in time anyway, given no changes in the rules). Several points –

1. Every rule made in recent years regarding increased limits (engine size, weight, or size), no matter how well intentioned (all intended to increase diversity and reduce costs, and all failed in those respects) generated unintended consequences that resulted in increased performance levels and increased cost of the average plane on the flightline.

2. What has fair got to do with competition? The rules are the same for everyone, that is fair. Since when should a cheaper setup be competitive with a more expensive setup? Rules are rules, use whatever design, construction method, powerplant, radio, etc you choose to have the most competitive plane possible that FITS within the rules and your BUDGET. Electric is the latest and greatest, as is the YS CDI. Both are more expensive than the established glow options. If the latest and greatest doesn’t have a performance benefit, don’t pay the premium for it. I see no rules being offered with the intent of making a YS160 competitive with a YS 170 CDI, so why are rules being offered with the intent of making cheap electrics competitive with expensive electrics (which will not work anyway, keep reading if you dare).

3. Designing future rules to address the current state of the art which includes a rapidly evolving technology is extremely difficult, if not futile. Glow is well refined and while improvements will continue, the relative change in performance will be small. Changes in electric performance in recent years has been dramatic, and will certainly outpace glow in future years. With the current rules structure, and consideration for the typical lifecycles of airframes and equipment in pattern, electric will dominant glow in the very near future (with no changes in the rules). This is progress, this is technology at work, this is competition driven advancements, and in this event it means a shift from glow to electric.

4. No disagreement that pattern designs worldwide are driven by F3A. AND, in the US, AMA pattern classes have always mirrored F3A in terms of aircraft limits. There is no history on what might happen if AMA classes did not mirror F3A limits. AMA Masters IS a destination class for many very skilled, very competitive pilots who choose not to fly F3A for any number of reasons. This is a reason to not increase the weight limit (or any other limit) for the AMA classes. For the pilots in the US using Masters as a developmental class or stepping stone to F3A, it makes sense to keep AMA limits the same as F3A.

5. Very few would argue that adding weight to a given plane will make it more competitive, if no other changes occurred. Take a 10.5 lb glow plane, add 16 oz of fuel, and takeoff at 11.5 lbs, land with 2 oz of fuel. Now, add 32 oz of fuel and land with 18 oz of fuel. Power loading has decreased and wing loading has increased, both bad things (assuming the plane was well designed in terms of wingloading to begin with). Allow an electric to takeoff at a higher weight, and what happens…….lipos used go from 35-42 oz 4300 – 5300 mah running 2000-3000 watts to 43-50 oz lipos running at 3500+ watts. The higher power (and more costly) lipos are available right now, as are the ESCs and motors which would be needed to handle the higher power (also more expensive). Hmmm….big time power increase…new performance standard, obsolescence of all current (expensive and cheap) electric and glow systems. Not that glow systems could not escalate as well - it is entirely possible to have a full 2M glow plane at 9.5 lbs without fuel……and completing a Masters schedule with 16 oz of fuel is not a problem….so there would be a full pound available to increase the size/cost/performance of the glow plane as well (and it would still fall short of a 3500+ watt electric).

The performance bar is set by the systems with the best power to weight ratio (glow or electric). Raising the weight limit would initially allow the heavier cheaper systems (glow and electric) to be used side by side with the current expensive state of the art systems (albeit still at a still at a disadvantage because of the added weight). However, higher power electric systems would immediately follow, raising the performance bar, and increasing costs exponentially. Heavier cheaper options would still have the same disadvantage at 11.5 lbs as 11 lbs.

Raising the weight limit does nothing to reduce the cost of entry to electric pattern. Sub 2M electric planes, motors, ESCs, and lipos are available now for far less expense than a 2M electric setup. The smaller or cheaper setups will never equal the performance level of the higher expense setups – that is simply the nature of competition.

6. Safety. Where is the data / track record of safety problems attributable to the absence of arming switches or radio switches? If this is a problem, then all planes should be required to have “kill switches� (ignition kills, fuel shutoffs, shorting plugs, etc) and radio switches (perhaps redundant or failsafe variety). Absent of these requirements in the rules, it is the choice of the competitor to use these items, or not. If an electric competitor prefers to utilize the weight “budget� (at 11 lbs or 11.5 lbs) to run a higher power electric system instead of a system that is lower power with extra safety features, it is their choice to do so. It is also their option to fly a slightly smaller plane (with added safety items) which would easily come in under the current weight limit. This is no different than a glow competitor choosing to use a Moki 1.8 without a radio switch and changing a 500 mah RX pack every 2 flights, when he could use an OS 140RX and a switched 1400 mah RX pack.

7. Size vs weight. History very plainly shows that a size limit alone does not limit the true size, performance level, and cost of a pattern aircraft. Even in the early 90s, some planes were being flown at near 2M lengths and spans (some of which were <9 lbs and powered by piped 60 2Cs), and none would be competitive today because they were very skinny and high aspect ratio. The late 90s saw many 2M fuse lengths with ~1.85M wingspans and weights of ~10 lbs without fuel….not unlike current designs (linear dimensions). The designs from the late 90s are not competitive at the higher levels because they lack the fuse volume (which also adds weight) needed for the current maneuver schedules. I would also point out that there are many popular IMAC style and sport pattern style ARC, ARFs, RTF, etc planes that are <11 lbs, and are not commonly used in pattern. They are not used because they are not 2M in size, and do not represent airframes with the best power loadings and wingloadings for the pattern event. Raise the weight limit to any number, and the larger IMAC style and sport pattern style ARC, ARF, RTF, etc planes will still not be used, because they still will not represent the best power loading and wingloadings for pattern (but they will cost more, just as the bigger pattern models). Anyone who wants to simply participate at a less intense level can do so with a smaller plane which would easily come in under the current weight limit – but it won’t be as competitive, and admit it or not, most in pattern go for the most competitive setup they can afford.

Any rules which target a specific type of technology are just plain wrong. The average plane on the flightline is going to reflect the designs of the top flyers, whom will always design to the limits of the event. Any change which allows the top flyers to design to a higher level will result in planes on the flightline with a higher average cost.

I would point out that planes designed and built to fly Masters at <11 lbs do in many ways have an “age� allowance as they are passed down to Advanced, Intermediate, and Sportsman pilots. Adv, Int, and Sport schedules are shorter in duration and less demanding of power, so smaller, lighter, cheaper lipos can be used to offset any weight gains as the plane ages and needs repairs.

I am not oblivious or insensitive to the Adv, Int, or Sport competitor who buys a reasonable 2M kit and due to lack of building skills and experience ends up at 11 lbs 1 oz, nor am I insensitive to the owner of a 6 yr old 2M plane that has gained 4 oz in repairs and is now illegal. I am sensitive to changes in rules which would allow escalation in the cost of the average pattern plane on the flightline. Providing a limited allowance for 11+ lbs planes in Adv, Int, and Sport is something I can live with, but such a rule change must not allow escalation of the cost and performance. Therefore, I think it is critical to NOT increase the 11 lb AMA takeoff limit in any form for Masters (or F3A). How big an allowance should be allowed for Adv, Int, and Sport? Certainly open to debate, but I’d think 4 oz should be more than sufficient (especially considering the ability to use smaller lipos in these classes).

F3P is indoor pattern......my opinion is that the Neutrino is the best motor for the event (based on what I've run and flown, which is not everything available)....and is is the most expensive. F3A is outdoor pattern....my opinion is that several powerplant options (YS, Neu, Hacker, Evo) are available for the "best" performance, and it is debatable which is the best current day, and debatable which costs the most current day, but clearly none are cheap. And it is also my opinion (with substantial history behind it) that no rule change can make it cheaper, and any change that allows escalation for the top levels will INCREASE COST (as it has in every historical instance for pattern).

Regards,

Dave Lockhart
Team Horizon/JR/ThunderPower/Castle

Why? Maybe a different interpretation in the past would have allowed competitive electrics sooner (and pretty much ensured dominance at this point in time), but at this point, there is arguably parity in terms of cost and performance for glow and electric. The "flawed interpretation" still exists, but correcting it now by allowing escalation (higher takeoff weight) helps no one (obsoletes everyone), and correcting it by further limiting glow (to 11 lbs takeoff weight, including fuel) is not fair to the guys currently running glow.



Yes, the numbers are declining, and were declining long before electric arrived on the scene. Just maybe the growing number of competing interests has something to do with the decline in numbers in pattern? Maybe the age of instant gratification and "everyone is a winner" directs participants to other events/activities that don't require the preparation and dedication that is rewarded in pattern? This is really a different discussion.



Great points about noise...and a different discussion (as you noted). I would note that the original addition of the noise rule to the books brought about the quiet models we have now (whether checked or not), and the continued presence of the noise rule restricts development/useage of loud powerplants, and this does protect the local fields (which I think we agree is important).



I think this is a gross oversimplication. Many of the current day pattern planes fly very nicely (electric) at 11.5 lbs (with batteries, or with fuel), and most fly better at 11 lbs (my opinion), and better still at 10.5 lbs (my opinion). Would they fly better still at 10 lbs (probably not, my opinion), or 9 lbs (certainly not, my opinion)? Evaluating performance is not about total weight, it is about wing loading and power loading. Plenty of current day models at 11 lbs would fly better at 11.5 lbs if that added weight were used to generate more power. 11 lbs is a limiting factor on available power for electric, and if removed, peak power for electrics would increase, and raise the bar needed to be competitive. The proposed 1/2 lb increase might be modest for the average competitor, but it is hardly modest for the competitors driving the event, setting the performance bar, and influencing the average model on the flightline.

Regards,

Dave

You can argue that Masters is a destination class, but in reality it is not. Anyone with the skill level to compete in F3A does so. If they don't have the skill level or the drive they fly Masters. That is why I chose to fly Masters instead of continuing in F3A. I no longer have the skills/drive/desire to take on the difficult schedules and the unknown pattern. Check the list of those flying Masters at the Nats and you'll find basically two types. Older pilots not wanting to go up against the younger ones in F3A and the up-and-coming younger ones hoping to eventually fly F3A. I have no pretenses that winning Masters at the Nats is the same level of achievement as winning F3A. But I still love to fly and compete in pattern!

There is very little reason to keep the AMA weight limits the same as F3A, especially when the F3A limits are not equitable. I say the 2-meter rule is appropriate, as that is the rule that all the airframes developed will follow. Please look at the list of those who flew at the Nats and what they flew. Did anyone in the Masters finals fly their own design? I'll bet there were very few who even built their own plane! Designs for a 5.5kg take-off weight, 2-meter size model are not going to come flying off the boards and dominate the AMA classes. It just isn't going to happen. You can talk hypothetical but then there is reality.

Those choosing to move on to F3A will have enough drive and desire to acquire whatever airframe they need for it. Making everyone meet an expensive limitation for those moving through is detrimental to participation.

Increasing power is not necessary for a 2-meter model. I saw no lack of power with both the electric models and IC models I watched at the Nats. 3,500 watt models would be way overkill. And if power loading and wing loading were the only thing being judged, then the results of the Nats would have been a lot different then they have been.

You can talk about smaller then 2-meter models all you want, it is not the way people are going to fly the event. When Tipo's and Phoenix's were the planes to fly, that was what everyone flew. Even though we all knew a well-trimmed Kaos flown a lot was just as competitive in Sportsman and Intermediate, practically no one went that route. I'm sure a Wind 110 in Intermediate could be just as well flown as the Integral that won this year, but they are not going to be seen at the Nats. Again, reality bites.

I am certainly a fan of electric and I believe it is a great way to fly. But the World's have this nasty habit of showing that IC is still a very viable way of winning. Maybe launching at over 11 pounds instead of under 11 is an advantage? Who's to say!

I know for a fact that in my case at the Nats that the weight limit increased my cost to participate. I had to buy a new ESC and two battery packs that I wouldn't have needed except for the weight limit. And the battery packs aren't going to last flying Masters. I'd be willing to bet that there were a lot of others out there that had to do something similar. I know of several, even one in Intermediate. Also, please refer to my earlier post, a legal 5050 gram electric F3A model using a 4300 maH pack won't work in Masters.

The AMA aircraft limitations have been blindly following the F3A forever. I say, how has that worked out for us? The event has been in decline for a long time. I say it is time for an attempt to revive it.

Tony,

Your rule proposal on noise has a penalty for being over the limit rather than a disqualification. I don't see why a weight limit could not have a similar provision. Assess a slight penalty for being slightly over the weight limit, a moderate penalty for a moderate violation. This would eliminate the crisis of being 51g over the limit. Rather than a tiered penalty like your noise proposal a mathematical formula could be applied to tie the the amount of penalty directly to the amount of violation. y=.5x^2 ? Something like this would barely penalize the plane that is 1g over the limit and severely penalize a gross violator.

Tony,

Your proposal effectively establishes a new dry weight limit for glow power at ~10.5 lbs. Will that increase or decrease participation?

My proposal just stayed with the penalties that were already in place for exceeding the noise. Let's face it, if you go over the noise at the Nats, it means you are being tested in the finals, and at that point exceeding it will be game over. There is no room for any penalty. My main intent with my noise proposal is to outline the retest procedure and to mandate availability of the test equipment prior to the beginning of the contest. Noise is not as cut and dried as weight. It is a big variable. Since weight is somewhat easily measured I would be against a penalty system.

aerobear,

How does my proposal at 5.5kg at take-off limit glow to 10.5 pounds? 5.5kg is 12.13 pounds. How much fuel do you need to fly a pattern? In actuality, a glow model could be over 11 pounds and still make a 12.13 pounds at take-ff limit. So my proposal would not further limit any current IC model. In fact it would make it easier.

Part of your complaint was that you did not have access to a scale of sufficient quality to know where you stood.

True. I read your proposal too quickly. Retracted.

I have corrected the lack of a good scale problem!

One more comment.

There has never been a weight increase in F3A and I assume AMA. It has always been 5kg. Why weight became important is when they removed the engine limitations, something I tried hard to get stopped. But it went through and now the cat is out of the bag. And with electric, it's an entirely new world.

So to say costs rose due to weight increases is really not correct.

Not if I can help it!!

I'm hoping to have a Wind 110 at Nats within the next 2 years.

Arch, I agree that initially the price might go up for the top level competitors if we eliminate the weight limit because Bi-Planes take over but after that then what is going to cause the price to go up Tri-planes? If we have a different weight limit for glow and electric then there may be a time when one or the other has the upper hand due to advances in technology. Then this issue will rear its ugly head again.

By eliminating the weight limit the cost of competing should go some for us schleps.

Like I said, I could go either way but my preference is to eliminate the weight limit.

We will likely not make any change because FAI won't and everyone is making planes to cater to FAI.

Perhaps the idea of "destination class" is not well defined. I think the destination class for anyone is the one where they spend the majority of their flying career. For most, that is Masters. For some it is Advanced, and for others it is Intermediate. Whether the destination class is where someone's skill level is exhausted, or that is the highest class they choose to fly in, makes no difference. The ability to compete in F3A requires skill, time, and resources, which can vary throughout ones flying career. I know many very skilled flyers who have yet (and may never) to make it to F3A - whether it is lack of time due to school, work, family, etc, or lack of resources.

Pattern guys have always used all the power available, and always been happy when more became available. Reviewing 20 years of YS 4Cs for pattern - sometimes minor, sometimes major power increases from one model to the next, whether the 120SF to the 120AC, or the 140L to the 140DZ, there was one thing that never changed. Nitro. Pilots always used 30% nitro because they never had enough power (or never had too much), and they are still using 30% nitro, and this is never going to change.

You are absolutely right that the majority will never fly models smaller than the max allowed....which is exactly why increasing the weight limit solves nothing long term. Models will still be built at the weight limit, and they will still be over the weight limit as they age.

FAI has always changed rules in a manner that would allow escalation, and you are absolutely right that AMA has always blindly followed, and many are not happy with how that has worked out. So now we are going to change AMA rules to allow another round of escalation? Doesn't make sense to me.

Regards,

Dave

That makes sense (whatever the weight limit is...the lower the better).

Dave

Round 1 Escalation - short sighted rule allowing 120 4C along side of 60 2C (to allow diversity and at the time quiet mild sport 4Cs, without consideration for development of competition grade 4Cs). Result - Competition 4Cs were developed and made more power, cost more, and the 60 2C became obsolete.

Round 2 Escalation - Instead of limiting the 4C engine to a displacement that would result in similar power to the 60 2C, a 2nd short sighted rule was put in place to allow unlimited engines (again diversity; cheaper mildy tuned engines of larger displacement which could compete with existing competition 120 4Cs). Result - Specialized competition 2Cs and 4Cs were developed and made more power than the 120 4Cs and they cost more, all prior engines became obsolete, and the cheaper engines were never used in meaningful numbers.

Current day - weight has become the limiting factor.

Future escalation - increase the weight limit.

Regards,

Dave

What would happen if the weitht limit in AMA was DECREASED ! Would not the tendency be toward slightly smaller planes & engines ? And could this be a good thing ?

Ron,

Are you assuming that increasing the weight limit would allow you to more cost effectively achieve the current level of performance? When the performance bar is raised rendering the current day setup uncompetive, will you not have to spend more money to attain the new higher level of performance?

Being 10% behind a 2M 11 lb monoplane is much cheaper than being 10% behind a 2M 15 lb biplane. Add up the extra servos, extra horsepower, and extra technology needed to keep the added horsepower <96 db. Bigger costs more.

Making rules biased towards one form of technology or the other will ensure added cost for the event - switching between technologies is costly, and giving the manufacturers moving targets ensures they will have to charge more to make up for R+D on shorter production runs.

Regards,

Dave