There seems to be several 'mini-threads' inside the main thread.  I just want to put my 2 cents on two points, the decline of participants and the "cost of entry" into pattern.

I'm planning on entering local pattern competitions next season...Sportsman and maybe move up to Advanced if I practice hard enough.  While I'm not a beginner on pattern planes or rc aircraft for that matter, I've decided to take myself to the next level and compete.  Basically, I'm looking at this from a beginner's point of view which seems to have been lost in conversation.

I really believe that the main reason for less competitors is definitely the price of the current equipment just to be competitive.  Really!  That's it.  I've competed in Sportsman a long time ago with some cheapo ARF with an older motor and a 'normal' FM radio.  I've noticed that, at least in the ones I have seen, the winners in the lower level classes have 'real' pattern planes.  These are planes that, even if they are hand me downs, they have the ubiquitous YS 120, an airframe that was, and still is competitive maybe even to Masters, the PCM radio, etc, etc.  I am dead serious about this comment.    So now what?  I have to beat that kid whose dad bought the best stuff for him with the monetary resources wherein kids think of their parents as walking ATM's.  Really, you never see the top F3A pilots use an old FM system with servos that cost less that $100 a copy AND WIN.  You always see the latest Futaba or JR UltraSnazzy X-2012 with the computing power of a decent laptop. 

For me, I am f*^%ing scrounging to make myself more competitive.  I'm building a plane from 1989 and one of the oldest YS 120 SF's I know.  Now, I'm saving every single penny I can afford outside my familial responsibility to purchase older servos from carefully chosen swap meets.  Once the plane is done, I'll be scared $h17less since that will be my only flying plane to compete with.  My other plane is a 40 sized sports plane.

You may say, "Well, what the heck are you doing trying to compete if you can't afford it?"  I have my reasons.   Keep thinking that way and you'll really see the numbers dwindle until it turns into a model aircraft technology show rather than the premiere competition that it is. 

Ok...said my peace.  Flame suit on.

Dave,

Your comments are based, in my opinion, on a flawed premise. That those in AMA will develop models for a 5.5kg take-off weight limit. It is simply not going to happen. You who fly F3A have got to realize that we are talking about changing the rules in AMA. That is a very different animal then changing the rules in F3A.

The personalities that will spend the time and money to develop a model design within rules limitations will all fly F3A! Please try to grasp that concept.

I think that sends the wrong message Ryan.. effectively that is "If you don't think you'll get caught it's perfectly fine to cheat."

Amen brother!

Doug, I agree we all police the weight limit at local contests. If you knew someone was flying a 50 cc engine with a 2m airframe someone would complain. As long as everyone is clearly using a 2m airplane with standard equipment we assume that they are close to the required weight limit. They may be over but it isn't worth complaining about.

Of course all rules should be strickly enforced at the NATS and if someone is clearly taking advanced of the rules at a local contest it would be appropriate to say something to the CD.

Tony,

Your opinion that models will not be developed for in AMA for a 5.5 kg limit is clear enough. It is your opinion.

Between RCU, the NSRCA list, and KFactors going back 20+ years, I have been quite vociferous regarding the distinction and differences between AMA and FAI F3A. It is not a difficult concept for me. I have always advocated AMA do what is best for AMA and not blindly FAI F3A.

My comments are based on the perspective of a competitor and competitive human nature - be it in pattern, or any other sport / event. Competitors push limits and exploit rules; a well proven concept in many competitive events, not just pattern.

I agree with many of your concerns, and think you make a number of good points. Decreasing the cost of pattern would be a good thing. Increasing accessibility to pattern and increasing the number of participants would be good things. Increasing safety margins is a good thing. I don't think increasing the weight limit will ultimately accomplish any of these things. If an increased weight limit went into effect for AMA, what would happen in 1 to 2 years when planes were built 1 oz over the new limit (overweight because of heavy paint, heavy lipos, heavy motor, heavy servos, etc)? We would be in the same situation all over again, just with heavier planes. So long as there is a weight limit, there will be planes pushing (and exceeding) the weight limit. And increasing the weight limit will provide an opportunity for AMA pilots to raise the performance bar by utilizing/exploiting the added weight - new designs, higher power systems, or something not yet considered - all of which or none of which may be realized - none of which could be realized if the weight limit is left alone.

Regards,

Dave

HAHAHA. Gungadin, you're beginning to think like me! Can't we reverse our way out of this? Or have we opened Pandora's box?

I'm not condoning the message. You know just as well as I do that is how the ball bounces. When I was in Advanced, I lost two flights because of motor trouble. As such, I fell from first place to last. The line chief came up to me and said "This is the first time we have weighed the last place competitor" since I had a chance to win still.

Rules are there for a reason, I just hope that they are going to be enforced like they're supposed to.

Dave,

If in 1 to 2 years planes are again pushing the weight for the reasons you stated, it would probably mean that each of those airplanes cost the owners considerably less then what they cost now. And that would be a good thing.

Let me give you a for instance in why I am sure that no models will be developed strictly for AMA. For a long time F3A has not judged the Take-off and landing. So airplanes went away from the tricycle landing gear and went to tail draggers. But in AMA take-offs and landings are judged, and they are a very significant part of the pattern, especially in Intermediate. But no one flies a trike. Because they are not readily available.

I agree with you that if the weight was increased in F3A with no other changes it would probably eventually raise the cost. But it won't happen in AMA.

Gungadin,

You might see a "rebirth" of lightweight 2Cs like the OS140RX, Webra 145/160, Mintor 140/170, and smaller 120 variants. And smaller YS 110 and 120s. Older airframes would make a comeback, and in time, newer designs suited for the lower weight limit would arrive to bolster the current (thin) crop of 1.7 - 1.8M sized stuff. Electrics might use the same motors, being able to save weight with lower voltage and/or smaller mah lipos, smaller ESCs, and possibly smaller motors that currently exist. In time, you would see a 120 CDI and competition versions of currently available smaller electric motors. And yes, it would all be cheaper, but many would have to ditch the planes they currently have, so the transition could be costly.

Regards,

Dave

First I'd like to apologize to joenella as one fellow pattern enthusiast to another. Limiting discussion is against all that I believe is right and good in this world, and I like to think open discussion is at the heart of what makes America great.



Second the opening question presented by Joe was sufficiently broad so as not to be focused on AMA alone and as it is true F3A drives the lower classes any discussion of weights must keep them in mind.






Third, seems like Tony got onto this quest because he wanted to use cheaper batteries that weighed more. I am experiencing that same problem myself with an Integral built by Ryan Smith. Using Rhino packs I'm over 11lbs. Using 4350 Pro lites I'm under. The cost difference is a factor of 3 for said batteries. Isn't this the real issue driving the original rule change, and aren't there ways to resolve this without increasing the weight?!








I built a Fliton Inspire for a few hundred dollars. A plane that would be easily competitive all the way through Advanced. I plead guilty to being one of the newcomers able to spend as I want, but from what I see in the used market today I don't know why anyone should be "scrounging" for a plane. My experience so far has been that individuals and clubs involved in pattern are incredibly generous to those wanting to compete, but limited in personal resources. The secondary market for planes is VERY cost effective today.




Finally, I admit to being biased as I have had an opportunity to listen to DaveL in person and have found his thoughts to be well balanced and built upon decades of personal experience. The "bottom line" is e-planes are more than competitive as they are today. It's true that at the peak of performance one must buy the expensive batteries, but is that really a cause for creating the uncertainty involved with a rule change?






JP

P.S. - Not wanting to get too far off course . . .

Dave - how much does a Neutrino weigh, and do you have a link? Or better yet a video of someone flying with a Neutrino

2Sunny,

First comment. Cheap shot.

Second comment. The proposals mentioned in the original thread were specifically about the AMA proposals.

Third comment. In fact, the packs I had to use at the Nats are actually cheaper then the ones I normally used. If you have a way to resolve this without increasing the weight, please let us know.

I am not discounting Dave's opinions. I just disagree with them. And that is based on 35 years of competing in pattern.

Tony,

First off I apologize for coming across as attacking you. If you talk to folks who know me, I hope you'll find that I am honestly interested in "open" discussion.

Truth is I am grossly biased towards electrics, and I think the answer is trivial. Make the weight 11lbs without gas or without batteries. I believe this will invalidate glow immediately, but I also believe such was inevitable anyways. Of course that's politically impossible hence my support for Dave's position of "leave well enough alone for now".

I look forward to meeting you at the Nats in 2010, and hope you'll take my arguments in the collegial manner they were intended,

Fraternally yours,

JP

http://www.neumotors.com/Site/1200_series.html
14.5 grams w/ mount and wires. 1210-1850

http://www.pafunfly.com/
There is a 553 meg file with lots of the activity at the 2009 KIEF....at about 24 minutes there is a demo flight of my Deluxe V3 with Neutrino. The V3 is is HUGE for an F3P plane, and is handled easily by the Neutrino.

I don't know of any shorter videos

Dave

2Sunny,

Accepted, no problem. The basic difference we have is that I don't feel we are "well". Hence the need for a change.

I hope to make the 2010 Nats but it is a long way for a west coaster.

Thanks!

Tony

Is it a law that there can only be one JR guy in the finals in Masters? []

I like the concept of keeping rules simple.  If you want an example of a sport that has been ruined by rules just take a look at Americas Cup sail boat racing.  Total destruction of the sport by complicated, and manipulated rules.

The most clear, simple, rule would be technology agnostic. 

The model shall weigh no more than (insert weight here), fully fueled, ready to fly the chosen sequence.

Anything else is trying to create balance between different technologies, which inevitably leads to vested camps trying to create or maintain an advantage, or protect their preferred technology.

It is, but they only weigh the radios if 2 or more JR guys finish in the top 5. We don't bother with that rule at the local events, but it is in the books

Maybe the answer is that people need to get back to building their own radios[&:]

I know I said I was too lazy and uninvolved to get in on this thread, but I AM too lazy to do that. Airplane design and scratch building is about where I draw the line!

Tony,

The one question/issue I have yet seen addressed by proponents for increased weight for electric is this - given the rapid progression of electrics, how is it possible to draft a rules change that will be implemented in 1-2 years?

Current day, there are relatively cheap and expensive electric planes at 11 lbs (+/-). Generally, the expensive planes have the benefit of more power or larger airframes - same can be said for the more expensive glow planes. In the next few years, glow will become obsolete as electric matures, and electric will become cheaper while yielding more performance (higher power, lighter weight) - and this applies to motors, ESCs, batteries, and airframes. There will still be relatively expensive and cheap electrics, and I would rather see this happen at the 11 lb mark vs something higher (as history shows heavier and/or bigger planes always cost more).

We can have differing opinions on what will be, and what might be the outcome of rules tweaks.

We agree on the FAI influence of landing gear! (TO / landing stopped being judged in FAI F3A ~1989?). I do think it would be a bit of a hard sell that 3 extra oz, extra drag, extra building/maintenance would be worth a couple points for takeoff/landing today tho.

Tony/Joe,
If I may, I know you both, and both are direct and passionate with the best interest for pattern. I re-read the entire thread and see plenty of room for some interpretation on content. Both of your inputs are needed and appreciated. Few have the expertise that Tony shares willingly, and guys like Joe are needed to maintain and grow the sport. I don't think pattern is broken, but it is competing for participants more than it ever had to in the past, and for those of us that have been in pattern for a long time, that is something new.

Regards,

Dave

Dave,

I'm not sure I understand your question. We are right now discussing rules proposals that would take affect in 2011. So that is less then 1 1/2 years. We can change the AMA rules in a fairly timely manner.

I disagree with IC becoming completely obsolete, especially in AMA. Check what is currently being flown in Sportsman & Intermediate. I saw a number of O.S. 1.40's and 1.60's. Obsolete in F3A and Masters but far from obsolete in the other classes. And electric has yet to win the WC. And my proposal may make it easier to do a Gas engine in AMA. If one develops that is competitive just think of the operational cost reduction in fuel!

Relatively cheap is frankly a relative term. Those in F3A have gotten used to much more expensive airframes. It just turns in to sticker shock for those contemplating entering the fray.

Electric in my opinion is pretty mature right now. I haven't seen a decrease in motor or ESC weight since I started flying electric. Not in pattern sizes. Batteries are one area where it may improve, but it hasn't in three years. They are more powerful, but not lighter. I do suspect that will get better.

It is true that pattern has a lot of competition now. That is why it is even more imperative to make it attractive.

I think it's been iterrated many times here that if the weight limit isn't being enforced at local and regional level then, for the average entry level or mid level pilot, a two or three year old ARF (be it an oxai or whatever) that's 1/4lb to 1/2lb over weight is perfectly ok.

However at National or State level then it's not OK.

To be honest I think pattern is boring in that I know I'm going to fly the exact same six flights at every two day comp I go to for the next two years at least. To set a goal of perfecting that shedule requires a certain type of personality disorder bordering on OCD or Aspergers.

I want to see pattern comps at regional/local level be a fun challenge and spend a couple of days with like minded people. I'd much prefer a new unknown for each day with maybe the set schedule being one round in the middle after you've blown out the cobwebs but haven't fried your brain. Leave the State and and National championships to sort out the men from the boys with a well practiced schedule and planes that comply with the rules to the letter. Local comps should be all about fun and learning, not beating the other guy.

I did a bit of a ring around today looking for a new F3A ship and spoke to some very helpful people and they reminded of one of the reasons I left the sport a long time ago. Marketing is it's own worst enemy in this sport.

Every new ARF is marketed as the latest and greatest, flying so much better than the last and the competitors who buy into this are also the judges at the competitions. End result is that subconsciously you end up judging the plane not the pilot, after all the new Axiome HAS to fly better than 4-5 year old Pinnacle, doesn't it? Of course it does otherwise Oxai would be making Pinnacles, or so you tell yourself. I can save about $1500 AUD between a brand new latest F3A Oxai and a brand new recently discontinued Oxai and have the feeling that I wouldn't touch the older one with a barge pole even though it's tremendous value for money, so what must the judges be thinking?

.......

I couldn't disagree more. Adding unknowns will not attract new members it will do the opposite. Even the Masters pilots struggle with a new sequence at the beginning of the year because they don't yet have it memorized. Now you want even the lower levels to fly a sequence they aren't familiar with. I think pattern is fine. Sure we could use a few more sportsman, intermediate and advanced pilots at local contests. Once local contest get into the 30's it gets real hard to get everyone 6 flights so be careful what you wish for. I've tried with no success to get some of my club members to get into pattern. Pattern just does not have the bling factor like IMAC and idea of competing is intimidating to many. I think having young hot shots like Andrew Jesky will help give pattern some more appeal to the younger crowd. Especially if they continue to particate in local contest. Andrew does a great job of that in D4.

Ron,

Unknowns can be fun, and they arent that difficult to fly. You just make sure the difficulty level is consistent with the class. They also make you a better pilot as you have to learn to fly what is in front of you instead of being able to use muscle memory. HOWEVER, i don't think they have a place in pattern. My biggest issue with unknowns is that the sequence is now a "team" competition with your caller. I think everyone should go fly unknowns periodically just to practice as it does definitely make you a better pilot. Lower class pilots are certainly capable of it as shown by IMAC, but I don't think pattern needs them.

Pattern is kind of a different breed. It always has been. I don't think long term you are going to see a lot of the kids that start out flying pattern stick with it, as it does get boring. I don't know how to fix this, but its certainly not as exciting as taking a 40% out and wringing it out in front of a large crowd. It takes a certain type of personality to fly pattern, and just being a competitive person isn't enough. You can go fly IMAC and freestyle and just wring your plane out to keep your interest, whereas pattern is much more disciplined. This is a good and a bad thing in a lot of aspects. 20 years ago, pattern was one of few competitive disciplines, but today that has changed.

I think what is going to happen right or wrong is that you will see more younger kids migrate to the IMAC freestyle side after flying pattern for a couple of years, but I think you will see some of the older IMAC crowd migrating back to pattern as they don't want to deal with the 40% stuff and the complexity any longer.

Arch