Community
Search
Notices
RC Pattern Flying Discuss all topics pertaining to RC Pattern Flying in this forum.

Updated Weight Requirements?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11-12-2009 | 12:12 AM
  #201  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (25)
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

Also, I should say that I am in the class that you describe as being a young and up and coming flyer with ambitions on flying FAI. If I hadn't been advised by several close friends that have been around pattern for a long time to make the Nats in Masters before I move up to FAI, I would have skipped Masters back in 2007.

Consequently, I guess my thinking is more in line with FAI's thinking, therefore I don't see where a weight increase is necessary. I don't have the brainpower that Dave does, and I don't see where your proposal will hurt anything, I am more in the middle of the road.
Old 11-12-2009 | 12:13 AM
  #202  
My Feedback: (4)
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 751
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
From: Clovis, CA
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

Is anybody else tired of hearing about 'sponsored guys' whine about not getting enough from their sponsors?
Old 11-12-2009 | 12:17 AM
  #203  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (25)
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

Above post edited to remove "whining".
Old 11-12-2009 | 12:31 AM
  #204  
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
From: DENHAM SPRINGS , LA
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

My Sponsors are tired of hearing me wine about them not giving me enough. LOL ,So!
Bryan
Old 11-12-2009 | 12:45 AM
  #205  
My Feedback: (92)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Rosamond, CA
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

Ryan,

I don't have a scale that will weigh the entire airplane anymore. When I worked at NASA I used their calibrated scale, but I haven't been there for two years. I have a scale that will take up to 10 pounds so I weighed the model with it in pieces. It said I was two ounces under the limit. My Intermediate friend used the same sort of scale as I have and his said he was under.

When I got to the Nats I went looking for the AMA scale to check my model. I couldn't track it down. It was either at this site or that site, but I couldn't find it. At the practice field both Rusty Fried and Jerry Budd came out with high dollar scales that were more accurate then mine. That is when I found I was over along with my friend. I had somewhat planned on being over and had bought one 4350 pack. BTW, I don't get my packs for free. My friend had also bought one 4350 pack. He could make weight with a 4350 but wanted to use the 5000 packs he had been flying. So we worked on his model to get it legal with the 5000 packs which also let me borrow his 4350 packs to use at the Nats. You really need two packs, especially in the finals to get through the contest.

Turns out when my friend weighed his model on the AMA scales it was 7 grams over. He didn't end up placing, but I know it worried him to death. When I was checked during the finals I was under by 20 grams or so. Thanks again Mike!

BTW, in 1999 I went to the Team Trials with a model that weighed on the NASA scale at 1.5 ounces under. At the Team Trials it somehow increased to 1.5 ounces over. No repairs done, nothing changed. I had to remove stuff in Florida to make a weight I was sure of when I left. Ask Greg Frohreich how much fun that was. I was sicker then a dog with a gall bladder attack and he processed the models. So he had to do the work to get the primary passed.

I'm trying to think of a single AMA event, RC, CL or FF, that eliminates you for being over a weight. I guess IMAC is bumping the AMA limit of 55 pounds, but other then pattern I can't think of another. Quite a few make you weigh a minimum, but not limit the maximum.

Just FYI. I drive a 1998 Ford van with 212,000 miles on it. Headed out to the Nats and got to Barstow before it broke down. Needed a new alternator. I remember going to a Jet Rally in 2003, crashing a turbine Bandit, and realizing that I was driving home in that same van that was worth way less then the jet I just lost. That was when I stopped flying jets!
Old 11-12-2009 | 12:49 AM
  #206  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (25)
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

Fair enough. Who owns the scales used at the Nats, and how sure are we that the calibration weights are what they are? Also, both times I've gone to the Nats to be weighed, it was done outside, don't you think that being inside would be a much more controlled environment? I realize that it probably would be hard to do this for 100 or more competitors, many with two airplanes, but it sounds like a scale problem versus a rules problem. I think I would trust a NASA scale over about anything else.
Old 11-12-2009 | 12:55 AM
  #207  
My Feedback: (92)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Rosamond, CA
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

A good friend of mine, Don Chapman, a great engine guy, used to tell me, "He who has two tach's, really doesn't know what their engine is turning". Basically, there will always be a problem with measuring weight and noise. Calibration of both of those devices is difficult, expensive, and necessary if you are going to use them as limitations.
Old 11-12-2009 | 01:30 AM
  #208  
My Feedback: (92)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Rosamond, CA
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

Hey Bryan,

Certainly no hard feelings. I appreciate your passion for the event as I hope you appreciate mine.

So let me get this straight. The U.S. Nationals rely on competitor supplied calibration weights to determine the legality of an entered model? Forget my proposal. I volunteer to supply the calibration weights for every Nats I attend!
Old 11-12-2009 | 01:35 AM
  #209  
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
From: DENHAM SPRINGS , LA
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

LOL, I like the way you adjust
I do appreciate your passion and I know you are doing what you think is best I can`t fault you on that.
Bryan
Old 11-12-2009 | 05:36 AM
  #210  
Scott Smith's Avatar
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Agawam, MA
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

ORIGINAL: Ryan Smith

Fair enough. Who owns the scales used at the Nats, and how sure are we that the calibration weights are what they are? Also, both times I've gone to the Nats to be weighed, it was done outside, don't you think that being inside would be a much more controlled environment? I realize that it probably would be hard to do this for 100 or more competitors, many with two airplanes, but it sounds like a scale problem versus a rules problem. I think I would trust a NASA scale over about anything else.
Which is an excellent point...if 11.2 does pass, what are the logistics involved to weigh an aircraft before flight? Is this really possible on three flight lines on our budget? We'd probably need a metal POD storage unit at each line for a "weight house" seeing as tents seldom survive the week!
Old 11-12-2009 | 05:56 AM
  #211  
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: wexford, IRELAND
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

Hi Bryan,
You said in an earlier post that the 5Kg limit was not a random choice.
You are absolutely correct in this.
5kg is/was the FAI's max for their definition for a 'model aeroplane' .
It's used for comps, attempts, records etc for all aircraft types.

I say 'is/was' because in some classes the rules have 'evolved' in recent years.
In F4C the weight rules are at variance with the 5Kg definition.

Also in F4C electric models are weighed without batteries !!!!!. (at WC's )

There are two discussions in this thread; Weight limits as an absolute and; The 'fuel' issue between 'E' and 'IC'.
This is making for some confusion.

From the outside I would make the following observation ; To agree a solution you need to first agree as to the nature of the problem.

Brian
Old 11-12-2009 | 08:54 AM
  #212  
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
From: DENHAM SPRINGS , LA
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

Thanks Brian ,
But I don`t see a problem from where I`m standing Nor does Dave Lockhart
Therefore I`m working against any kind of so called solution .
In my opinion at the moment,
The market place and technology will fix all these issues faster than the rules cycle.
Bryan
Old 11-12-2009 | 10:04 AM
  #213  
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: wexford, IRELAND
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

Hi Bryan,
Well 'if it's not broken ,,,,,,,, !.

Brian
Old 11-12-2009 | 10:46 AM
  #214  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: huntsville, AL
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

Saying that FAI lets aircraft weigh over by 50g. is a false interpretation of the rules. The rule is in place for scale variations ( scales out of calibration). Therefore if the scale is calibrated there is NO ALLOWANCE for being over. This is the rule as interpreted to me by a contest board member and several others I consider knowledgeable and I agree. I also agree that scale calibration is a important point to get right at the nats so that those that weighed before they get there to compete are not left scrambling to get legal. I to have seen a 1.5oz variance in scales from my home scales, very typical at the nats and I plan accordingly with my aircraft so that I am not left in that situation.


gary
Old 11-12-2009 | 10:58 AM
  #215  
My Feedback: (92)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Rosamond, CA
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

Gary,

If the scale says 5050 grams at the Nats for an F3A airplane it would be called legal and the model allowed to compete. If that same scale says 5001 on an AMA model at the Nats the model would be deemed illegal and not allowed to compete. That is the correct interpretation of the current rules in both classes. I'm sorry, but the interpretation as you stated in your post is incorrect.

Here is the wording from the F3A code,

A tolerance of 1% will be allowed for possible inconsistencies in measurement instruments for size,
weight, and voltage unless otherwise stated.

No where does it state that there is no tolerance if the scale is calibrated.

Here are the AMA rules,

4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5) kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff. Electric models are weighed with batteries.

No where there does it state that there is any allowance. Of course, 5kg is 11.02 pounds, not 11.
Old 11-12-2009 | 11:09 AM
  #216  
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
From: Crewe, UNITED KINGDOM
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

I interpret the 50g "allowance" is there to accomodate the unavoidable systematic error in the measurement of weight, to which the scales are quoted as being accurate to +/- 1%. Regardless of the quality or accuracy of the scales they will always have a tolerance, unavoidable in any measurement instrument. So if your scales have a tolerance of +/- 1% and this is defined as acceptable to the rules, then anyone turning up with a model weighing 5050g is within the weight rules.

Keith

PS. Taken from http://alpha924.server4you.de/FAI/Sp...obatics_09.pdf

5.1.2. General Characteristics of Radio Controlled Aerobatic Power Models:
Maximum overall span.............................................. ............................................. 2000mm
Maximum overall length............................................ ............................................. 2000mm
Maximum total weight, with batteries......................................... ............................ 5000g
A tolerance of 1% will be allowed for possible inconsistencies in measurement instruments for size,
weight, and voltage unless otherwise stated.
Old 11-12-2009 | 11:47 AM
  #217  
My Feedback: (1)
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 741
Received 8 Likes on 7 Posts
From: Franklin, TN
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

Thank you Keith and Tony. I felt certain someone would get it right. Signed:Everette
Old 11-12-2009 | 01:16 PM
  #218  
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: Denham Springs, LA
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?


ORIGINAL: 2Sunny

There must be some way to take this into consideration. Maybe provide an ideal battery weight (say the weight of TP Pro Lite V2 4350's), subtract that from 11lbs, and then make the empty weight for e-machines that number. That way batteries that don't weigh the ideal amount (i.e. are cheaper) are not excluded.
I tried to post something the other day in regards to this point, but I took too long to type it all up and timed out. I didn't have the energy to go through it all again. Basically what I had done was I looked up the definitions of "battery" and "cell" (because by definition a battery is a collection of cells), and basically showed that the battery itself is just a collection of containers that have the capability to produce/store electrical energy by chemical means. So if you want to weigh the electrics "empty" then feel free to discharge the battery prior to weigh-in, it probably won't make a difference. It's not the fault of glow pilots that electrics have fuel tanks that weigh a pound and a half (or whatever they weigh).

I also tried to point out in that post that Tony has come the closest to providing a decent argument for the change, but not having read his proposal, I'm not sure if it involves total takeoff weight (which I would assume it does, but I can't say with any certainty). My problem is that Tony came up with the proposal after having trouble making weight with an airframe that had made weight in F3A the prior year. To me it seems the better solution would be to allow for the 50g variance for scale errors that F3A allows for and also fix the problem with AMA wording (and this may have been done, I haven't read the rule book this year) that says 5Kg or 11 pounds, because they are not equal.

Flying electric power is a decision people make for many different reasons, but that decision is made with full up-front disclosure of the rules. It sounds like electric pilots are crying foul because now they don't like the rules because it's hard to make weight sometimes. It's like playing cards with my sister's kids...
Old 11-12-2009 | 02:01 PM
  #219  
My Feedback: (92)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Rosamond, CA
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

Well, I guess you can make the statement that having a problem with my model this year is why I made this proposal. That is not the case as I have stated in previous posts in this thread. Perhaps I am guilty of not making a proposal earlier. I thought it would have been done way earlier, and like I also stated, I have been in and out of pattern a couple of times. For that I accept responsibility. But this inequity has needed to be addressed since the F3A interpreted the rules to mean that electrics had to weigh with their batteries.

Are you saying that rules should never be adjusted for changing technologies? If that was the case we would all still be flying rudder-only, rudder-elevator and throttle, and multi-channel.

Why is it that an IC engine powered model can fly it's entire flight over 5kg yet an electric has to take-off less then or right at 5kg? You don't see the problem with that?
Old 11-12-2009 | 03:20 PM
  #220  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: huntsville, AL
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

Tony

I think the only way the perceived or apparent inequity can truly be resolved between I/C and Electric is to separate them into different competitions with specific rules for each. So the debate will continue until then.

As far as the weight rule goes for FAI i have seen it interpreted as you describe and as I have.

If you wish to have a model at 5050g. fly FAI I know you are more than capable, and give us less talented up and comers a shot at the finals in masters or at least one more opening. I should be ready for them in say 10 or 12 more years with the proper practice.[sm=drowning.gif] [sm=drowning.gif][sm=drowning.gif][sm=drowning.gif][sm=lol.gif][sm=lol.gif][sm=lol.gif][sm=lol.gif][sm=lol.gif] Just Kidding...


Tony I do understand what you are trying to accomplish I simply disagree... at this time....

gary
Old 11-12-2009 | 03:22 PM
  #221  
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: Denham Springs, LA
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?


ORIGINAL: TonyF

Well, I guess you can make the statement that having a problem with my model this year is why I made this proposal.

I wrote that before I had completely caught up on reading the thread. I stand corrected, but I still stand beside my assessment of the problem. Electric technology is in its infancy compared to the 4-stroke powerplants we use for glow. Give the electrics a couple of years and they battery/motor/esc technology will make the weight rules look generous.

Why is it that an IC engine powered model can fly it's entire flight over 5kg yet an electric has to take-off less then or right at 5kg?
I could easily get my planes under 5 Kg with fuel, it would involve changing the tank. But even if I didn't, do I have to fill the tank all the way for your weigh-in, or can I just put as much as I use in an official flight? I fly with a 20 oz tank so I can have long practice flights. If I would get better at throttle management I could probably do 3 Advanced patterns on that fuel with an ounce or two to spare.
Old 11-12-2009 | 04:02 PM
  #222  
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
From: Jacksonville, FL
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

.
Old 11-12-2009 | 04:10 PM
  #223  
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: Orange County, CA
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

Can anyone explain why 5 kilograms is some sort of mystical number that cannot be changed without altering the very heart and soul of pattern flying?
Old 11-12-2009 | 04:22 PM
  #224  
My Feedback: (55)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: Tomball, TX
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

Because "they" said so !!

tommy s
Old 11-12-2009 | 04:59 PM
  #225  
DaveL322's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: Medford, NJ
Default RE: Updated Weight Requirements?

Awesome!! Great that your situation/geography has so many pilots proximal to a single field for one day events. In the Northeast US, it is rare to have anyone travel any substantial distance for one day events.

Regards,

Dave

ORIGINAL: 1bwana1



As I have previously stated, I agree with those that think the weight issue on electric planes needs to be addressed. However I don't believe that this is the key to increasing participation in pattern flying. Since weight rules are not enforced at local contests, and the NATS are really not on the radar for beginning Pattern Flyers, the weight rules are not stopping people. I think the biggest deterrent to Pattern flying is that from the outside looking at the sport it seems like too big a commitment for most people.

I felt this way when I was learning to fly. We have a reasonable sized IMAC group here in San Diego. I noticed that the best pilots at the field seemed to be this group of IMAC pilots. I wanted to improve my skills, so I talked to them about it, and when there was an IMAC contest close by I went to watch. I was convinced that learning to fly with precision was the best way to improve my skills. However, I had recently retired from driving race cars, and traveling on weekends to events was a bigger commitment than I was willing to make. In racing the feeder series are local one day event series, I thought that this format could be adapted into a precision flying series. I discussed this idea with the IMAC group, and they all said things like I am reading here. Most people don't have the discipline, they won't make the effort, they are not interested. After some discussion we decided to give it a try anyway, and with the leadership of the IMAC pilots we started the EMAC series here in San Diego. It has been a great success, and will be starting it's fourth year in 2010. The contests are at our local field, one day events that start at 10:00 am and are usually done by 4:00pm. They are easy to attend, and cost nothing. The series has a regular group of more than 30 pilots, resulting in about 20 pilots in each event. The rules for planes are easy, fly what you have (they are all electric because the field is electric only). Although we fly the IMAC sequences (due to the originators IMAC background), Pattern planes have become the choice of many (my guess is 50%) pilots, because at sizes that are convenient for electric, they fly the best. Yes, many of the pilots have begun to fly IMAC, and have bought big planes for that. It has proved successful as a feeder series. However, as a great number of pilots have pattern planes, interest has developed in having a real pattern contest in San Diego. We have discussed this with the EMAC group, and asked how many would want to enter if a pattern contest was to be held locally. None has been held here in the 4 years I have been flying. There is a commitment from 17 pilots who said they will enter. Just from the potential, there are now at least 10 guys who are at the field practicing the AMA sequences. Some of these are planning on attending district events this season. We are talking to a nearby field (our regular field does not allow glow), and they are open to letting us have the field for a weekend. San Diego's one serious pattern participant has agreed to CD the event. I attended two contests in my district last year, and had a great time. Hopefully we will end up with an official AMA contest in San Diego for the first time in many years this summer. If we get support from the regular district pilots, I believe we will have well in excess of 30 pilots.

My point is that it is not the expense, people will sell their children once they are hooked. It is not lack of discipline, or lazyness that keep Pattern from growing. It is exposure to other pilots having fun flying pattern that keeps the sport from growing. The thing that overcomes this is effort and leadership in the local flying community. The feeder series seems to work well.
</p>


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.