This past February, I submitted a proposal to the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) in the United States of America (US) to amend the P-30 rules to effectively ban multi-function P-30 models. More specifically, under the revised P-30 rules the wing, stab, and fin(s) must remain fixed throughout each official flight except upon triggering of a dethermalizer (DT). This would eliminate the use of variable incidence tail (VIT), wing wiggler, and auto-rudder in AMA sanctioned P-30 contests in the US. Successful multi-function P-30 designs have already been published. P-30 models with VIT have demonstrated significantly enhanced peak altitude versus locked down P-30 models.
The original intent of the P-30 rules, as drafted by the San Diego Orbiteers (SDO) free flight club in the late 1970's, was to provide for an entry level outdoor rubber powered free flight event which was still challenging for experienced fliers. Our club does not want the event to progress to the point where you have to purchase a $1,000 (US) auto-function P-30 model built in Eastern Europe in order to be competitive. Fliers can purchase $3,000 multi-function F1B (Wakefield) models and $1,000 multi-function F1G (Coupe) models if they want to pursue rubber powered outdoor free flight at the highest level.
Currently, I can scratch-build a locked down P-30 model for about $10 - $12 (US) in parts and materials. It will be very competitive except against multi-function P-30 models.
My proposal will be reviewed by the AMA sometime after March 15, 2026 and may, or may not, be enacted. I am interested in how other members of this new HPA website feel about this proposal. Please post your comments if you are willing to do so. Thank you.
I often wonder why some classes, clearly intented to attract newcomers or beginners, eventually turn into hi-end specilalist's events...
The situation you describe for P-30 is a very good example.
Fully agree with what you wrote and with your proposal. At some point it simply gets too much...
George
I don't fly any competitive stuff at all. Such things would only embarrass my poor efforts in my more youthful incarnation. But it looks like this event should be split into two categories/sub-categories, rather than eliminating one or the other.
ian
So many 'entry level' events in just about any kind of competition seem to get expanded so much that it's not entry level anymore.
I have never competed but do remember when P-30 was relatively new. I have to agree with Calgoddard that the rules should be amended so P-30 remains a gateway to competitive flying, not a barrier.
PB_Guy does make an interesting point of having different classes but the way free flight has been in decline we should be removing barriers to entry. Simple, inexpensive, fairly easy to build and competitive was the original intent for P-30 and I think it should remain so.
Stuart
I agree with calgoddard and Flygrimm. The P30 class should remain as it was originally conceived. This way, beginners have access to simple yet high-performance models, and experienced model builders can still incorporate and implement their ideas in custom designs within the rules.
It reminds me of years ago (the 60s to the 80s), when modular kits and custom-built models in the A2 and GM classes (now FAI F1A and F1B) were popular with people at the regional, national, and even international levels. Impossible today!
How are we supposed to recruit new talent here when costs exceed 1,000 Swiss francs per model? No teenager can afford that.
Peter
I also think P30 should stay the simple format that was originally proposed. Coupe is available for those who wish to fly more sophisticated models with programed surfaces.
John
While keeping the models simple is one part of the solution (and one that I fully support), I think that those who have reached a certain proficiency in an "entry level" class should be ineligible for future competitions.
I suggest that a win and a place in open field competition is sufficient to show that someone has reached the proficiency level that means that they should move on. Otherwise it's like the big kids staying in the paddling pool rather than getting on with learning how to swim properly. It also discourages newcomers from getting in!
If those "promoted"in this way want to stay involved in 'entry level' events, they can organise comps, be available to time keep and provide help and advice to those who are striving to make their way.
It also helps to keep adding competitors to other classes if people aren't allowed to stay in classes which they have "outgrown".
Jmk89, those are some good points you've raised. They need to be looked into.
Timekeepers are always in short supply at competitions.
Peter
I found an autobiography from Larry Kruse on the AMA website. Larry was a prolific builder, designer and writer for many years. In his autobiography he writes "... and small rubber jobs like the P-30, which remains amazingly intriguing despite (or perhaps because of) its inherent limitations.
An interesting quote from 10 or so years ago. I say keep it as it is and if someone wants to create a more advanced category go right ahead. P-30 is simple, relatively inexpensive and a good gateway drug to other types of flying.
On the inexpensive note, I keep seeing magazine covers and YouTube thumbnails with crazy big multi thousand dollar jets. They're cool but way out of the range of probably 99% of modelers. I think it's a definite turn off for most kids.
Stuart
Mike, that is a good direction for the event. The next step is to recognize the difficulty of getting light balsa today versus 50 years ago. I think one European country has changed the minimum weight to 50 grams. I believe that is a good way to keep it in the entry level position of building it from balsa and tissue versus purchasing a carbon fiber and mylar model. The exceptional builders will still have an advantage with a well constructed model that can carry a GPS beacon to aid retrieval but still allow a level playing field for the beginners.
David -
Your suggestion of raising the minimum weight to 50 grams is a good one. Thank you. Yes, I have also heard that some countries have adopted a 50-gram minimum weight for the P-30 class.
I have built at least ten P-30 models and only a couple came out under 40 grams. They were pretty fragile. Unless you build with increasingly scarce lightweight balsa, your P-30 will turn out to weigh at least 44-45 grams.
Including an RDT and a locator beacon, both with batteries, adds about 6 grams to the weight of the model. So a beginner can build a 50+ gram P-30 without electronics. An experienced modeler can build a durable 44 gram P-30 and add the electronics to bring it up to the increased minimum weight.
Another advantage of raising the minimum weight is that there will be a better chance of keeping P-30 models flying on the designated field.
If the AMA adopts my rule change to ban auto-functions in the P-30 event, I will consider submitting a proposal to raise the minimum weight to 50 grams.
If my current proposal is rejected, then the AMA is probably not amenable to rule changes for the P-30 event. In that case, I would be inclined not to bother submitting a proposal to the AMA to raise the minimum weight in the P-30 event to 50 grams.