[F3A-Discussion] FAI rules proposals

Fri Mar 15 06:33:51 AKDT 2013

+1.

There are numerous current designs that show that weight and safety can easily be met with minimal use of expensive materials.  The BJ Craft series of planes (Nuance, Prolog, etc) only use carbon fiber for wing and tail tubes; the fuses are a fiberglass/balsa mix and the wings are all wood.  My new Proteus has minimal carbon lamination on some wood formers and the wood portion of the landing gear mount, and the rest is fiberglass over foam with balsa wings.  Our National Champion easily met weight, and no one can argue that his plane was unsafe or uncompetitive because he didn't use exotic materials.

The bottomline IMHO is that weight has become a moot point and I find it hard to believe it is still being brought up as an issue.  In the early days of electrics people had trouble making weight because of battery technology and the fact that most of the available airplanes were designed for fuel power.  Now that planes are being designed from the outset for electric, they are no longer being over designed for the shaking and banging of fuel power.  

My biggest concern is that historically as F3A goes, so goes AMA pattern.  Rules changes always have unintended consequences as Dave pointed out, and increasing weight would have the same.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Lockhart <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
To: f3a-discussion <f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us>
Sent: Thu, Mar 14, 2013 6:59 pm
Subject: Re: [F3A-Discussion] FAI rules proposals

If nothing substantial has been changed in 20 years....why not fly the same
equipment you were flying 20 years?

I would be interested to know your definition of fundamental change....to
recall, in 1992 - 
60 2C / 120 4C was the displacement limit
5 kg weight limit
No size limit
98 db @ 3 meters

I'd argue substantial rule changes have occurred in the last 20 years, and
with respect to the ones that increased displacement limits, substantial
increases in cost followed with each one.  Delving further back, every
single time the rules changed to allow growth, the average cost of the plane
on the flight line has increased in the long term.  With every rules change
that has allowed a competitor the option to go bigger (and more expensive),
without fail, the competitors choose to go bigger (and more expensive).  The
performance bar is not set by what "average" performance options could be
obtained within a set of rules, but by the maximum performance that could be
squeezed into the rules...that is simply the nature of the most competitive
in an event, and it is the most competitive that drive the event.  What is
so different about "now" compared to the past?  Has the nature of the
competitor changed?

The basic premise for the proposal to increase the weight limit to 5500
grams is grossly flawed in that it inaccurately states the 2x2M size rule
limits the growth of planes.  This is simply not the case as history very
clearly shows.  I don't know a single person that would argue a Prophecy is
the same size as Wind S.  Further, the additional premises of the proposed
weight increase are to promote innovation, alternatives, as well as stronger
and safer planes.  Did I miss something, or has the goal of F3A changed from
precision aerobatics to innovation and diversity?  Electrics are the biggest
innovation / alternative in recent history, and was this prompted by a rules
change?  Historically, the unlimited engine displacement rule was to promote
engine diversity, gasoline engines, low nitro engines, etc......how well did
that work?  (BIG FAIL).  Aircraft today that are weak or unsafe are in that
condition because the owner has chosen to build/assemble them in that
condition, very likely in the interest of gaining a competitive advantage.
If that were not the case, they could have very easily built a smaller sized
plane with as many reinforcements and safety gizmos as they wanted and still
been within the current limits.  Increasing the limit to 5500 grams may in
the short term allow additional safety and structural enhancements to
existing aircraft, but in the long term, there will be new planes that are
bigger and more expensive (and they will be, as they have always grown), and
there will again be a cry to increase the 5500 gram limit to allow more
safety items that were omitted in favor of a aircraft that was built for
competitive advantage.  The whole safety issue as a mechanism for changing
the weight limit is utter BS....if safety is really a problem, add safety
requirements to the rules...as has been done with rules for spinner nuts,
wing LE radius, etc.

The long term of the sport is best served by a stable set of rules which
promotes longer product life cycles and cheaper prices.  Change costs money.
There is no example of a rules change in pattern that has resulted in a
lower average price of plane on the flightline.

Regards,

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us
[mailto:f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us] On Behalf Of Michael S.
Harrison
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:32 PM
To: f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us
Subject: Re: [F3A-Discussion] FAI rules proposals

We haven't had a fundamental model size/weight/engine displacement rule
change in probably 20 years, yet there has been massive R&D, replacement of
equipment, cost changes(actually in many respects the costs have diminished
because of all the R&D.  So using the change of weight as the scapegoat for
rising costs doesn't hold a drop water.  It will have absolutely no effect
on any other classes unless the competitor chooses to do so.  I challenge
any of you that are opposed to the weight change to present at the next
competition with the equipment  you were flying with 10 years ago.  So I
strongly support a weight change for the betterment of the sport and to keep
our flyers and grow the number of competitors.  It will make it easier to
have a stronger safer craft as well.  
Mike 

-----Original Message-----
From: f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us
[mailto:f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:57 PM
To: f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us
Subject: Re: [F3A-Discussion] FAI rules proposals

I think we're strong in favor of changing the unknown K-factor schedule
minimum from 74 down to 70.  That proved to be silly to implement at the
nats this past year.  That's likely to pass.  I'm personally not a fan of
the weight change rules given the concerns we've raised through our forums
as to how disruptive it will be to designs and current equipment which have
all be evolved to support the current rules.  It may help the very top end
of pattern, but it will most certainly hurt the sport in the middle ranks as
the costs increase across the board to support new R&D and a likely
replacement for all of our current equipment over a few years time (much
like when the engine displacement limit was removed).

Also not personally a fan of the "Barrel Roll" as the maneuver is highly
subjective in I ot's execution and judging compared to most of out current
maneuvers, but it is what it is.

Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Direct: 440-229-2502
Fax: 440.684.3102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>  |
www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>

On Mar 14, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Derek Koopowitz
<derekkoopowitz at gmail.com<mailto:derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>> wrote:

Everyone,

Attached is the agenda and all the rules proposals that are to be voted on
at the Plenary meeting next month.  I'd appreciate any/all feedback on them.
Just as a point of note... I've submitted a couple of proposals to bring the
F3M rules more in line with IMAC in hopes that we can get IMAC participation
to at least buy into the FAI concept.  During the next rules cycle I am
going to put a proposal in to adopt the IMAC rule of 1 point per 10 degree
deviation instead of the current 1 point per 15 degree.

Thanks!
<CIAM 2013 Plenary Meeting - Agenda R_C Aerobatics.pdf><Annex 7h - F3A
Schedule A-16 F3 Aero S-C.pdf><Annex 7i - F3A Schedule A-16 Aresti F3 Aero
S-C.pdf><Annex 7j - F3A Schedule F-17 F3 Aero S-C.pdf><Annex 7k - F3A
Schedule F-17 Aresti F3 Aero S-C.pdf><Annex 7l - F3A Schedule P-17 F3 Aero
S-C.pdf><Annex 7m - F3A Schedule P-17 Aresti F3 Aero S-C.pdf><Annex 7n - F3P
Schedule AP-15 F3 Aero S-C.pdf><Annex 7o - F3P Schedule AP-15 Aresti F3 Aero
S-C.pdf><Annex 7p - F3P Schedule AF-15 F3 Aero S-C.pdf><Annex 7q - F3P
Schedule AF-15 Aresti F3 Aero S-C.pdf><Annex 7r - F3P Schedule AP-15 Aresti
FRA.pdf><Annex 7s - F3P Schedule AF-15 Aresti FRA.pdf><Annex 7t - F3S Annex
5 F3 Aero S-C.pdf>_______________________________________________
F3A-Discussion mailing list
F3A-Discussion at lists.f3a.us<mailto:F3A-Discussion at lists.f3a.us>
http://lists.f3a.us/mailman/listinfo/f3a-discussion

_______________________________________________
F3A-Discussion mailing list
F3A-Discussion at lists.f3a.us
http://lists.f3a.us/mailman/listinfo/f3a-discussion

_______________________________________________
F3A-Discussion mailing list
F3A-Discussion at lists.f3a.us
http://lists.f3a.us/mailman/listinfo/f3a-discussion

_______________________________________________
F3A-Discussion mailing list
F3A-Discussion at lists.f3a.us
http://lists.f3a.us/mailman/listinfo/f3a-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/f3a-discussion/attachments/20130315/51ccea6c/attachment.html>