Been flying Pattern for one year now, got out of IMAC when a 50cc plane became a small plane and everybody wants bigger planes still. Could the problem with weight of pattern planes be handled is this manner. Instead of a max weight of 4.5kg make the rule a minimum weight of 4.5kg. This would let older or heaver planes to fly lower the cost for new bees. The flyers that are ultra competitive will still come in at 4.5kg.

I was just thinking about one of the proposals I saw. Maybe the .5kg was too high a number, I think the proposal was 4oz? Anyway, my thought was that us at the bottom could try to score a decent used airframe, or even a decent new airframe, and worry about getting lighter components as we moved up. Me, for example, could use the heavy Zippy batteries I'm about to buy for now, and upgrade to lighter packs down the road. Since Masters is a step below the highest level, they should practice the same rules as FAI. I guess my proposal was almost what we have now, except a linear change from the open Sportsman to the full restrictions at Masters, rather than a free-for-all in Sportsmans and full on FAI limits at intermediate.

It's just a thought (out loud).

Anyway my point, which wasn't so clear, is that I'm more in favor of lenience to the lower classes but not necessarily an increase in weight limit. I guess I'm between that, and weighing planes in a true flight ready condition, which would include fuel. I don't want planes to be forced to be even lighter, so an increase by the weight of a necessary amount of fuel for a safe flight.

I don't see a full on increase in weight, or removal of the weight limit, to be beneficial to anyone but those with the ability to modify their plane to be draggier and more powerful.

Hi Glen,

I don't recall being checked in Muncie, however at the Worlds every electric model is checked in the ready box for voltage.

Chad,

If you would, could you please tell us exactly what the Canadian rules are for aircraft limitation in the lower classes? And how long they have been in effect? And is anyone running more powerful systems in the lower classes then in F3A?

Thanks!

Hi Tony,

The Canadian rules essentially have mimicked F3A essentially because we are a small group and its easier to simply manage it that way. Back in 2005 we changed the weight rule such that electric models are weighed without batteries, at the time lipos were very expensive and other options like A123's were becoming available at lower cost, but huge weight penalty. I made the proposal as I felt it was in our interest to not exclude those who could not afford the TP 5300's and Hacker/Pletty's of the day but wanted to give electric a try.

Since then I have never witnessed anyone taking advantage of that change, it obviously has the potential to give a huge advantage to electric models in Canada....but as you say most of the guys just do what is done in FAI, and most of the lower class guys in my area are flying used FAI models, or simply copying setups used in FAI. I can't speak exactly to eastern Canada because its a long ways from me, but I think the same applies there as well.

In hindsight, I would probably have preferred to have the rule changed to be a max T/O weight in our own classes. Possibly something to do during our next rules cycle.

I happen to agree with you that if you upped the AMA class weight rules to be 5.5 kg T/O weight, you would unlikely see any change to the models being flown. I suppose someone could get very ambitious, and do up their own design, but they will probably have the ambition to practice more and win anyway LOL

Why did they (in AMA) decide to use the weight of a plane with an empty fuel tank?

Tony,

You want to make the currently achievable high performance electrics cheaper to obtain (by increasing the weight limit, allowing less expensive components to be used). My question is oriented at what will the cost of currently achievable high performance electrics be by the time your a rule were put in place, and what will be the achievable high performance electrics in 1, 2, 3 years?

When I stated IC would become obsolete, I think it will become obsolete in terms of peak performance in the near future (1, 2, 3 years??). Anyone choosing to use IC will be akin to anyone choosing to fly a sub 2M plane. Certainly glow will remain in the classes that are less demanding of performance for a much longer time period.

I think electric has hardly matured. I started following it closely in 2003 (as many did), and I was fortunate to make relationships with some of the best electric minds in the business, and in 2004, 5, 6, 7, they all said "we won't see another big jump in performance or reduction in cost for some time now". And they were wrong everytime, and basically gave up trying to guess where electric would be next year, or where the next jump would come from. I can't think of a motor, ESC, or lipo around in 2003 that has not seen at least 2 iterations of improvement since (in terms of lower weight, more power, or lower cost).

Compare a Jeti/Hacker 77 to a Spin 99 - huge increase in power handling. Look at a YGE80 - huge reduction in weight (close to 50%). Look at the software advances allowing greating power handling, and the software advances for downline braking (which allows much higher pitch props to be used for a far wider speed range).

Geared inrunners went from 14XL to 14 (and 13) XL comp motors at $800 to the more powerful Neu at $500. Plett went from the Extra 25 to the 30-10 to the 30-10 Evo. AXI went from the 5330 to the lighter 5330 F3A, and now the 5325. Viable outrunners are now available for ~$225 (winning the NATs in Masters in 2008). Even cheaper outrunners are being used, and while not reliable yet, they will be soon enough. The Shulman Fury prototypes are similar design and performance to the Evo, and production models will be substantially cheaper than the Evo.

Batteries are certainly the biggest contributor to higher performance. Comparing performance is not easy due to differences in how ratings are determined (C, capacity, continuous and burst power levels, etc). Many started with TP PL 10s4p5300s at ~$600 per set, and these were a huge change in peak power, lower weight, and lower price from the Gen 1 TP 10s4p 8000s. The current day TP PL V2 4350s (released within the year) are lighter still (10%) and make more power at ~3500 mah discharged (~10% more watts) and are cheaper (currently $330 per set). Lipos are not done advancing, and other chemistries will surpass lipo in the future.

Airframes.....more and more airframes are being developed exclusively for electric, and most are easily 4 oz lighter than than glow counterparts.

Cost is certainly relative - my Bravo w/ 1 set of TP PL V2 5300s, CC Phx 85HV, and Neu F3A motor is about $3,600 with everything except the servos. Some guys in F3A, Masters, Adv, Int, and Sport are spending more than that on the airframes alone - theie choice. As is the choice of an individual to buy anyone of several kits that would save ~$1,000. And the Bravo can easily stay <11lbs using heavier lipos and a heavier motor (saving more money). Extreme Flight will soon be releasing a 2M airframe with motor and ESC for <$1000, and based on first hand reports from top fliers, the airplane is competive at the highest levels in Masters (which is not much different than F3A prelim sequences, depending on the year).

Regards,

Dave

Scott,
There is a big difference in flight performance of a 78� long 74� span Prophecy and a 78� long 74� span Integral. The Integral is a much bigger plane, and has room as a monoplane to grow within a 2M box without increasing wingloading. The 2M bipe would be even bigger.



1bwana1 and Joe M,
AMA simply blindly followed the interpretation of FAI (which appears to have been illogical and flawed). Fixing this “flaw� can be done 1 of 2 ways –
1. Require glow to be <11 lbs with fuel at takeoff. Probably not a good option as it obsolete 90% of the glow planes used today…not good.
2. Allow electrics to be <11 lbs without batteries. Far worse option as it would allow electric airframes to grow from 7.5-8.5 lbs to 11 lbs, and obsoleting all current day glow and electric planes……very bad.


ARTP47,
You are assuming the size of the planes would not increase. Monoplanes could grow to around 12 lbs before added weight would be detrimental. Bipes might grow to 15-16 lbs before added weight would be detrimental.

Regards,

Dave

Dave,

I am never going to convince you and you are never going to convince me. So there we are. I respect your opinion but I disagree with it.

I think Chad's report on what has happened in Canada in the 4 years since they changed their weight limits invalidates the argument that someone will develop some sort of killer lower class model. Unless you think Canadians are less driven or competitive then US pilots.

I am getting somewhat tired of the talk of biplanes taking over. It just won't happen. People are already moving away from them and they hold no advantage in the AMA classes. At least as long as the AMA patterns are not turned into the knife-edge crazy patterns in F3A. Again, vapor.

Your quote,

1bwana1 and Joe M,
AMA simply blindly followed the interpretation of FAI (which appears to have been illogical and flawed). Fixing this “flaw� can be done 1 of 2 ways –
1. Require glow to be <11 lbs with fuel at takeoff. Probably not a good option as it obsolete 90% of the glow planes used today…not good.
2. Allow electrics to be <11 lbs without batteries. Far worse option as it would allow electric airframes to grow from 7.5-8.5 lbs to 11 lbs, and obsoleting all current day glow and electric planes……very bad.

You forgot the third option. Limit them to 5.5kg at takeoff. Problem solved.

I am utterly convinced that we need these changes to the AMA rules and they have the potential of increasing participation.

Dave,

Check your e-mail.

That's post is indicative of what we here refer to as a well balanced character ; 'A chip on each shoulder'.

Thread has been cleaned and put back on topic....

Tony F.

You may have forgotten the disadvantage the USA pilots suffered in the very early days of turnaround when we were not aligned with the rest of the world flying turnaround wholesale. Your proposals takes us back to those dark days. IMO...
Many feel AMA should be more closely aligned with FAI. This would, could, just maybe, help our USA FAI pilots of the future and present achieve better success at the world level competition. This being for those of us that don't have the ultimate top tier skills a since of national pride. As a NSRCA board member I have opposed weight change and will continue to do so.
Having said all that I respect your opinion and do see your logic. I simply see this issue from another angle.



gary
d-3

What dark days? We won the Team trophy in 1989 and the individual in 1991. The results of the World's for the US have gone up and down over the decades but they have really had very little to do with what the aircraft limitations were in the AMA classes. Since I first made the Team in 1983 the Team has never placed lower then 4th. This year, with all this following F3A stuff, the team placed third. I think we just might be able to find that next World Beater if we do something to make it easier for a newcomer to try our event and get hooked. Quantity has a certain quality all to itself.

I am not saying that we are going to go back to the days when we had 250 or more at the Nats. Too much has changed since then. But don't you think that when that better-then-average sport flier sees a pattern model at the field and gets told it's cost that they get turned away? I do.

If cost is the driving factor here, then how do you explain the migration to IMAC style planes? Most of the young kids who flew really well at the NATS this year in the lower classes, also fly IMAC and have airplanes that dwarf the cost of what we are flying today. I think the reason most kids migrate to the IMAC style flying is the freestyle and the unknowns. They love to fly the foamies and learn crazy maneuvers with them, and then learn them with the larger 40% stuff, and then get to do the freestyle's at IMAC events. At all of the IMAC events I saw last year, there were many younger pilots and most of them, regardless of the class they were flying flew freestyle, and some of them had amazing routines. Pattern is never going to be that "wow" event any longer. Planes and times have changed.

Arch

Arch, you have a good point. But let's look at the real costs of IMAC to Pattern.

I see an awful lot of the Hangar 9 Extra 260's being flown in the Freestyle events at an IMAC meet. Horizon's price on that is $899. A DA 100 for that model is $1150 plus a $145 muffler set. Add radio gear and you might have another $1500. And when you're done it runs on gasoline, not 30% nitro. So in effect, that model is cheaper then a current pattern model.

Of course, a 42% model costs more, but it is not that much more then buying and equipping a $5k Oxai model.

Tony,
Dave is spot on!

I respect your oppinions But I have to say,
"Money" has the least to do with people trying pattern.

I know you fly or have flown Jets, Large scale IMAC style aircraft, and number of other diciplines, including gliders.
Have you gone to Joe Nall, or a IMAC contest, or any Jet events lately? has participation gone down there? no, they dwarf the size of our Nat`s and the money layed out is just Stupid to me!

The cost to participate in these events make our cost look like getting into foamy flying.
Please ,name me one event at the Nat`s that has gone up in participation ,,non of them have.
there are just too many interest in the hobby now days.
I talked to a top level sponsored IMAC guy this weekend about getting involved in flying, and when I told him about what to expect with cost he laughed and said I have that tied up in my 40% airframe alone, that aint nothing. He was jazzed the cost was so low.

I saw some sling gliders this weekend that sell for 400.00$`s just the glider, and they can`t make um fast enough, a sling glider,,,
I dare to say there were around 20 fliers at this fly in and the cost of these "non contest fliers" setups ,scale or IMAC style airplanes were more than the total value of your normal Masters and FAI line at the Nat`s combined.

It`s not about Money it`s about Having Fun to most of these people.
Most Guys will pay for the entertainment they most enjoy.
Pattern on a Whole is one of the cheapest competition to participate in,
I think the rules as they are are near perfect and drives improvement.

Bryan

Not at all. But do you really think it is a valid comparison considering the vast difference in numbers of competitors in the two countries?


I responded to 1bwana and Joe M, neither of whom addressed a “3rd� option. The "3rd" option is your idea, and I've previously noted in this thread why I do not think it will be a longterm solution.


Ever since the weight limit actually became a limiting factor in pattern, there have been proponents of increasing the weight limit. And no matter who the proponents were, none have answered some simple questions (not to suggest the answers are simple), many of which I’ve noted previously in this thread.

Many local contests have removed weight and size restrictions to draw in the potential competitors with the 11.5, 12, or 15 lb planes with 80 or 84" spans. Rarely does it result in a single new entrant, let alone one that follows up by sourcing a pattern plane and attending additional contests. I share your concern that pattern does not have the numbers it once did. Unlike you, I do not think pattern is broken and needs to be fixed. Times have simply changed, and pattern will never be what it once was. Arch is also making this point. Growth in RC is in giant scale (some cheaper, but most more expensive than pattern), turbines (very expensive), and 3D "Huckfests", and other large fly in events that do not have competition elements - and certainly these large events represent huge amounts of time and $$$$....look how many people show up for 4 days of flying with trailers full of planes.

Several years ago, I flew a pattern demo at a local club picnic. And then I flew twice more later in the day. Each time I came back to the pit area, 1 particular guy was watching closely, and after the 3rd flight, he had this to say -
"I was very impressed with your first flight - awesome maneuvers and incredible performing plane. I was bored with your 2nd flight because it was exactly the same as the first. After your third flight, which was exactly the same as the first two, I realized just how challenging it is to fly that precisely and consistently. I want to fly pattern." And he did for several years, and then got involved in full scale aviation. He could care less about 11 lbs or 12 lbs, 2M or 2.1M, 96db or 94db, flying unknowns, or large flashy loud planes. He wanted to fly precision aerobatics and recognized it was best done with dedication and committment. His observation is one that is rarely made, but he is exactly the type of guy that will fly pattern once exposed to it. I push to do pattern demos at all events I attend, and at all club funflys/picnics/festivals I attend. I know 95+% watching would rather see 15 full throttle low inverted passes, but that won't get any of that 95% into pattern, nor will it entice the 5% that might once they are exposed to it. The appearance of an impending crash is what appeals to the masses the most....be it flying model planes, NASCAR, or a snowboarder going for a backside 1080 with a double grab.

Pattern does not get the publicity it once did, and on the surface it does not have glamour and excitement of other events. It will never appeal to the masses (it never has), and I think the way to make it grow is with very grassroots interaction by guys in pattern. I can't think of a single rules change that has measurably increased participation in pattern.

Regards,

Dave

Bryan,

I can't help myself, I have to respond.

I think many of your comments are based on just looking at the surface and not the true underlying reasons, so here goes.

I did do jets for a few years. If they are more popular now, and I'm not sure they really are, it is because there has been an explosion of lower cost ARF's then when I was doing it. Companies like Skymaster, Feibo, TBM and such have dramatically lowered the cost of an airframe compared to say, BVM. And there is much less building being done then when I flew jets. And I can say with I think a fair bit of accuracy that 90% of those model never get flown except at a rally. So rallies are popular for jets and the numbers attending are high. How many times have you seen a turbine model at the local field?

What is the most popular type of airframe at an IMAC meet? It will be CARF or a wooden ARF. Notice the trend. It is an ARF. And not one of those ARF's have a maximum weight limit to go against. Sure, everyone wants lighter, but no one will be illegal if they are over some arbitrary weight limit. And they all run gasoline which has a very low operational cost.

Since we are talking about only changing the AMA rules, not F3A, all that great development will continue. Making it easier for someone to take an F3A airframe, use lower cost stuff in it and compete can only help the event.

Dave,

First comment. Absolutely it is valid. Even with lower numbers in 4 years if it was going to happen someone would have "pushed" the limits. It didn't and it won't.

Second comment. No comment. Your point is made and so is mine.

Finally. I can't think of a single rules change made in the AMA rules designed to increase participation. Yet we stand by and watch it dwindle and do nothing.

Tony,

There are plenty of examples of rules/systems/processes that work for small groups and not large ones, and vice versa. You think the number of Canadian pattern flyers is sufficient to compare to the number of US AMA pattern flyers, no problem, your opinion. I doubt you'd find any statistician who would agree (just opinion, as I am not a statistician).

Your assumption is that AMA pattern is dwindling because of a problem with AMA rules, and that it can be fixed with some new rule. Numbers in AMA pattern are not dwindling because of a problem with the rules, they are dwindling because of competing interests which are different from pattern. When AMA pattern was at it's peak, what was the rule that brought it to it's peak? Name a single rule implemented since the peak of AMA pattern that has increased numbers. None. It is a much easier argument to make that numbers in pattern have decreased with each substantial rule change, despite the fact that some of the rules were promoted as ways to increase participation (and this certainly did not happen).

Nothing is being done to increase numbers in pattern? As if changes in the rules are the only avenue to increase participation? Then I guess there is no need to hold primers, no need to help sport flyers at the local field, and no need to give away and cheaply sell old pattern equipment. Maybe if we banned IMAC, 3D, jets, and foamies we'd see an increase in pattern again? It obviously will never happen to find out, but the numbers in those events come from somewhere (and it just might be pattern).

Regards,

Dave

Dave, show me a single rule instituted in AMA pattern since it's peak designed to increase participation? The only ones I can remember in AMA rules were to keep it in step with F3A. How has that worked out?

The rule in AMA that brought it to it's peak was in the mid 70's with the skill classes. Wildly successful rule that brought huge numbers at local contests and the Nats.

I am not saying that expense is the ONLY problem with pattern. I do believe that the rules are a significant part of the problem. It is obvious that there are many competing interests. But that is why we need to make it more attractive.

Now I'm going flying, so as our governor likes to say, I'll be back!

I am an advocate of pattern flying everywhere I go - local clubs, friends clubs, in other forums, etc. I honestly don't think cost is a driving factor in keeping people away from precision aerobatics. I don't think I can say I've never heard someone say 'nah, too expensive' however that maybe only happened once or twice, and by people that didn't want to get into anything bigger than a .40 size plane.

People see me fly pattern moves at the field all the time, and usually someone comments or wants to try. Generally people give up shortly thereafter - they don't want to put the energy into perfecting a maneuver, they just want to see the plane fly and do fun things.

When I help new people at the field, I try to get them to fly a box, maintaining constant altitude, constant roll angles through the turn, etc. and people DO NOT want to practice this; they'd rather 'just fly' their plane.

3D on most lower levels totally lacks this precision! There are some amazing pilots that fly 3D in my club, and they even comment that IMAC and precision is just too hard! They take off and do a cool snap 20 feet off the ground, but the plane is NEVER on the same flight path! They admit that they are in awe at seeing the top pattern guys do this, but I haven't seen any of them put in the effort to try to do this. To me, it's ugly! What good is a snap if you can't hold a flight path?? That's what makes us pattern pilots, and the others 3D and/or IMAC pilots. It is not the difference of .5kg in an airframe.

Just for some clarity, I am not saying that 3D/IMAC pilots lack any kind of skill. Their maneuvers require a different kind of discipline, and it is a style of flying that seems to be more attractive to new pilots. Each discipline has it's own challenges and I prefer the aesthetics and control of precision aerobatics. I can't do 99% of the maneuvers the guys in my club are doing, however they don't seem to do any of their maneuvers with the precision that I do my (basic) maneuvers with.

If you put some of the downgrades we see into 3D competition/maneuvers, I bet you would see a drop in contestants.

Forget the weight, here is a rule I want proposed....that all pattern practice must cease and desist between the months of September and March, to allow fair preparation time for all competitors. Since those of us in the north are "seasonally" challenged LOL

That's totally not fair to those of us in the North! We only get to fly from May to October