|
RE: F3a The Future
I have so far owened 7 2x2 pattern ships, byplanes,monoplanes, YS and electric, all of them are under 5kg, I still have 5 of them, I do understand some one cannot understand why I am saying, but it is very clear to me and I am sure most FAI guys are.
If you do make weight is because of poor airframes wich are very Heavy, not using the lightest batteries, not using the lightest prop, etc, the list can go on, I do not claim to be the owner of the truth, but why do you think someone have to explain why heavier planes ar better, who stated that anyway? That! Is the problem. Again, the weight limit is to get a parameter along with size 2x2 as "not exceed" , it does not have to be explained or proven, it is what it is, I just shared what I know after talking the CIAM president in person for a while, as well as the top pilots and designers, and if someone does not agrees, then fine, this what forums are all about, open discussions, but that does not change the known fact. Again FAI is a professional category, and as such is very demanding in equipment as it is on the pilot, it is not easy and has never been, it is not cheap and has never been, and that is something that will never change. Please not my original comment was not targeted to a person but a comunity. |
RE: F3a The Future
And I do compete, I have spoken to representatives and I still haven't gotten a single answer as to why a heavier plane is an advantage. Whatever the reasons, it isn't likely to change anytime soon, although I can see an argument for having glow models meet the weight requirement with fuel. Probably put the final nail in the coffin for glow. Since it isn't going to change, why don't some of the innovators out there start working from a 1.7 or 1.8-meter standard that would permit all kinds of design flexibility without bumping up against the 5kg limit? Sebart is already 'sort of' doing this with the Mythos. The one (almost) universal constant is that people would rather complain instead of "working the problem". |
RE: F3a The Future
And still no explanation why all planes are not weighed ready to fly. I am more about that inconsistency than I am about the actual number. The only reason I see that you may need to increase the max weight is if RTF weight became the method for weighing. Otherwise a lot of IC powered planes that make weight now woud not make it with fuel.
|
RE: F3a The Future
Alejandro,
I don't know you and I don't want to offend you, as you are probably a nice guy, but you are not understanding what we are talking about. we don't want bigger planes, we don't want bigger engines and most all we don't want planes that weigh over eleven pounds. I just don't want to be forced to spend extra time and money to stay under eleven if it is close. If someone can just buy any plane out there and all the latest and greatest equipment, I can see where this weight limit would be a non issue. It can be done fairly easy with the almighty dollar. Try designing and building it yourself with new ideas and things that will hopefully make it fly better and also try to make it look like a work of art, with light balsa getting harder to find now you have a problem. And your friend Bryan H. is also my friend and I promise you he works ten times as hard as he should on a new design, just to make weight. But hey, he enjoys it. Randy Hicks Team TALON extreme |
RE: F3a The Future
[
|
RE: F3a The Future
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R I am just lost when it comes to understanding why we weigh one plane with its fuel and the other without. When viewed in that light, each type of power recieves equal treatment, no? |
RE: F3a The Future
I just re edited my post, as it do not contribute at all to the subject, all FAI pilots know what to do about the weight.
On the fuel or not fuel, the glow models change weight and CG (as fuel moves fwd or aft in the tanks on the vertical lines as tanks are in the CG), so this is a dissadvantage compared to electric, so glow are weighed in their lighter wait, as it will always be more but no less. Regards |
RE: F3a The Future
Well, I didn't think this post from nearly 10 years ago would spark a weight debate again.
The main interest for me was the lack of prediction of what HAS come about (Electrics), as opposed to what hasn't came about. Personally, in another 10 years time I'd expect nearly 100% Electric, with sensored motors and contra-drives as standard fare, and lots more aerodynamic gadgets poking out into the breeze ala F3P. Will "roaches" survive another 10 years? As for size and weight, that depends on who does the lobbying and how hard? |
RE: F3a The Future
ORIGINAL: ROOKIE PILOT Alejandro, I don't know you and I don't want to offend you, as you are probably a nice guy, but you are not understanding what we are talking about. we don't want bigger planes, we don't want bigger engines and most all we don't want planes that weigh over eleven pounds. I just don't want to be forced to spend extra time and money to stay under eleven if it is close. If someone can just buy any plane out there and all the latest and greatest equipment, I can see where this weight limit would be a non issue. It can be done fairly easy with the almighty dollar. Try designing and building it yourself with new ideas and things that will hopefully make it fly better and also try to make it look like a work of art, with light balsa getting harder to find now you have a problem. And your friend Bryan H. is also my friend and I promise you he works ten times as hard as he should on a new design, just to make weight. But hey, he enjoys it. Randy Hicks Team TALON extreme Brian Clemmons |
RE: F3a The Future
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R For those that say ''FAI does it that way'', well consider that FAI weighs helicopters in F3C with fuel or batteries and they have a 6.5kg limit. Looks like they have a total of 9 registered for the Nat's this year...RCA has 104, second to Soaring with 132 |
RE: F3a The Future
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R And still no explanation why all planes are not weighed ready to fly. I am more about that inconsistency than I am about the actual number. The only reason I see that you may need to increase the max weight is if RTF weight became the method for weighing. Otherwise a lot of IC powered planes that make weight now woud not make it with fuel. Will pilots of glow (or gas) models be permitted to de-fuel before weighing? |
RE: F3a The Future
When F3C went to 6.5Kg, did the cost of participating decrease? Did the number of participants increase? Looks like they have a total of 9 registered for the Nat's this year...RCA has 104, second to Soaring with 132 |
RE: F3a The Future
.
When I have to jam a $2000 bill between the tip of the spinner and backplate, I'm out. . ORIGINAL: bjr_93tz . . .<snip> .. and contra-drives as standard fare, and lots . .<snip> . . |
RE: F3a The Future
ORIGINAL: Scott Smith ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R For those that say ''FAI does it that way'', well consider that FAI weighs helicopters in F3C with fuel or batteries and they have a 6.5kg limit. Looks like they have a total of 9 registered for the Nat's this year...RCA has 104, second to Soaring with 132 My intent in posting that information was an answer to the idea that the 5kg rule with electric and nitro/gas weighed differently was somehow written in the Holy Stones of FAI. I do not think it was done as a means to increase participation in the US or at the AMA NATS. It was a response to the desires of those who participate in the event. The heli guys saw a need for a change, and made it. Interesting thing about helis. Most people who fly them have little interest in precision flight competition. Consider that the heli NATS will have around 25 total entries and 3 weeks later the IRCHA Jamboree, held at the same field, will have over 1,000 participants! Beyond that, it appears that the consensus in the pattern community is that change is bad and change should only be made if it decreases costs or increases participation. There should be some consideration to doing things that seem logical, and weighing one type of plane without fuel and the other ready to fly makes no logical sense. There is also a clear precedent in FAI to make a change to address that logical inconsistency. The bottom line is that rules should make sense and be rooted in some kind of logic. |
RE: F3a The Future
.
The same thing can be said about the Peach Pattern Classic vs. SEFF. Both are held at Hodges Field . . . . Coincidence? I think not!! . ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R Interesting thing about helis. Most people who fly them have little interest in precision flight competition. Consider that the heli NATS will have around 25 total entries and 3 weeks later the IRCHA Jamboree, held at the same field, will have over 1,000 participants! |
RE: F3a The Future
I was dreaming about my F3A future. I started thinking about varying sequences, adding some high alpha maneuvers and a few spins.
Then I found it on Youtube - F6A?!?! I would like to learn more :) |
RE: F3a The Future
[quote]ORIGINAL: klhoard
. When I have to jam a $2000 bill between the tip of the spinner and backplate, I'm out. . [quote] LOL. Seriously, LOL.:D Instant classic! |
RE: F3a The Future
We will see a transformation in pattern in exactly three weeks. Aircraft designs will be optimized for constant speed and knife edge and constant rolling loop maneuvers going forward. Watch Christophe and Benoit's as well as other European new designs. Joseph is thinking hard on a new design as well. Guys pay attention this is the next level in competition in the finals F3A unknown manevues will drive the next generation of designs. These are K6 (trust me this is not as in K6 kindergarden) but I'd call the rolling horizontal 8 with 4 rolls in each loop more like a K10.
At Poconos, when we walked up to the pilot box and the judges had masters scoresheets still on their clipboards, I said lets fly Masters.. inverted entry? maybe... Dave jokingly challenged to fly the entire masters sequence entering in knife edge, and was serious. I did not take him up on that challenge (calling would be a bit of a challenge on the spot) but this is serious guys and separator maneuvers related to complexity (but here is a hint- the maneuvers can be done with both a YS 170 as well as a $149.99 Eflight 160 and by the way with power curve dialed back to 80 percent, for the eflight motor on the front of the Pegasus, so this in fact shatters the perception about powerplant cost...) knife edge triangle loop (inverted entry). Knife edge triangle loop with snap on top leg knife edge vertical 8 knife edge vertical 8 with half rolls (you will like this one) knife edge cuban 8 with rolls knife edge reverse cuban 8 (more difficult than the knife edge cuban 8) rolling horizontal figure 8 family with 1, 2 or 4 rolls in each loop (P.S. I'd recommend doing this on the simulator first) And finally, what you've all been waiting for, the double keyhole... See y'all F3A propectives at the NATS and bring the popcorn.. Don |
RE: F3a The Future
Design considerations. Think hard, hard rudder at slower speed without the yaw or roll. And at higher speed without the roll or yaw (we feel that it tends to go opposite that of low speed knife edge). Multi-point mixing helps but bottom line steady thumbs and quick reaction time is required....
Cheers! Don |
RE: F3a The Future
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R Beyond that, it appears that the consensus in the pattern community is that change is bad and change should only be made if it decreases costs or increases participation. There should be some consideration to doing things that seem logical, and weighing one type of plane without fuel and the other ready to fly makes no logical sense. There is also a clear precedent in FAI to make a change to address that logical inconsistency. The bottom line is that rules should make sense and be rooted in some kind of logic. A consensus of one, perhaps. It does go without saying that changes should increase participation. And cost is a factor. Your argument about electric vs glow is flawed. The rule was written when electrics were not yet a viable alternative. The pattern community and the contest board are looking at rules, but have yet to reach a consensus. Just because YOU do not understand a rule, or because YOU cannot see the logic does not mean there is none. I'm not sure what direction we will take; but, I do know that the eventual consensus will include more than one mans opinion. As it should. This is a forum for discussion, but rather than taking potshots at the rulesmakers of the sport, why not get involved with the process and do something positive? The NSRCA here in the States is the pattern SIG within the AMA.... put your efforts there. Brian Clemmons |
RE: F3a The Future
ORIGINAL: Don Szczur We will see a transformation in pattern in exactly three weeks. Aircraft designs will be optimized for constant speed and knife edge and constant rolling loop maneuvers going forward. Watch Christophe and Benoit's as well as other European new designs. Joseph is thinking hard on a new design as well. Guys pay attention this is the next level in competition in the finals F3A unknown manevues will drive the next generation of designs. These are K6 (trust me this is not as in K6 kindergarden) but I'd call the rolling horizontal 8 with 4 rolls in each loop more like a K10. At Poconos, when we walked up to the pilot box and the judges had masters scoresheets still on their clipboards, I said lets fly Masters.. inverted entry? maybe... Dave jokingly challenged to fly the entire masters sequence entering in knife edge, and was serious. I did not take him up on that challenge (calling would be a bit of a challenge on the spot) but this is serious guys and separator maneuvers related to complexity (but here is a hint- the maneuvers can be done with both a YS 170 as well as a $149.99 Eflight 160 and by the way with power curve dialed back to 80 percent, for the eflight motor on the front of the Pegasus, so this in fact shatters the perception about powerplant cost...) knife edge triangle loop (inverted entry). Knife edge triangle loop with snap on top leg knife edge vertical 8 knife edge vertical 8 with half rolls (you will like this one) knife edge cuban 8 with rolls knife edge reverse cuban 8 (more difficult than the knife edge cuban 8) rolling horizontal figure 8 family with 1, 2 or 4 rolls in each loop (P.S. I'd recommend doing this on the simulator first) And finally, what you've all been waiting for, the double keyhole... See y'all F3A propectives at the NATS and bring the popcorn.. Don I am sorry to say that the biggest limitation you guys will face now and in the future is Judging. F3A difficulty in Finals is truly exceeding Judge capability excepting for very very few diehards..... |
RE: F3a The Future
LOL!!!!
We used to joke about how the patterns had changed such that almost 50% of the time we flew inverted......now....it is quite possible that an F3A unknown sequence could have 50% of the time consumed by KE and integrated maneuvers. Don is spot on with his comments about the maneuvers driving the innovation....and as he points out.....its really the challenge is primarily met with innovation in the airplane designs.....not the cost of the components. That said, I really like flying my Contra, and I expect to see it grow rapidly in popularity after the US NATs this year. Regards, ORIGINAL: Don Szczur We will see a transformation in pattern in exactly three weeks. Aircraft designs will be optimized for constant speed and knife edge and constant rolling loop maneuvers going forward. Watch Christophe and Benoit's as well as other European new designs. Joseph is thinking hard on a new design as well. Guys pay attention this is the next level in competition in the finals F3A unknown manevues will drive the next generation of designs. These are K6 (trust me this is not as in K6 kindergarden) but I'd call the rolling horizontal 8 with 4 rolls in each loop more like a K10. At Poconos, when we walked up to the pilot box and the judges had masters scoresheets still on their clipboards, I said lets fly Masters.. inverted entry? maybe... Dave jokingly challenged to fly the entire masters sequence entering in knife edge, and was serious. I did not take him up on that challenge (calling would be a bit of a challenge on the spot) but this is serious guys and separator maneuvers related to complexity (but here is a hint- the maneuvers can be done with both a YS 170 as well as a $149.99 Eflight 160 and by the way with power curve dialed back to 80 percent, for the eflight motor on the front of the Pegasus, so this in fact shatters the perception about powerplant cost...) knife edge triangle loop (inverted entry). Knife edge triangle loop with snap on top leg knife edge vertical 8 knife edge vertical 8 with half rolls (you will like this one) knife edge cuban 8 with rolls knife edge reverse cuban 8 (more difficult than the knife edge cuban 8) rolling horizontal figure 8 family with 1, 2 or 4 rolls in each loop (P.S. I'd recommend doing this on the simulator first) And finally, what you've all been waiting for, the double keyhole... See y'all F3A propectives at the NATS and bring the popcorn.. Don |
RE: F3a The Future
Interesting about KE of the future: Any new/recent designs already out there that suggest this trend? And does contra-rotating propeller power plant become a product category with mainstream potential, meaning more than one make, or is this still too soon or too "boutique" an innovation for that?
|
RE: F3a The Future
ORIGINAL: protectedpilot Just because YOU do not understand a rule, or because YOU cannot see the logic does not mean there is none. |
RE: F3a The Future
ORIGINAL: danamania Interesting about KE of the future: Any new/recent designs already out there that suggest this trend? And does contra-rotating propeller power plant become a product category with mainstream potential, meaning more than one make, or is this still too soon or too ''boutique'' an innovation for that? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:44 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.