Weight Limit

[Wade & Barbara Akle]

If we just went to 6 Kg (13.2 Lbs) my 3 Webras would be just obsolete! so, I gain nothing. There are plenty of kits/ARFs in the 11 Lbs range.
Wade
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Larry Diamond 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 9:00 PM
  Subject: Re: Weight Limit


  Depends on what the main goal is...

  If the end goal is to fly larger and more expensive planes...Then yes, it's progress...

  If the goal is to recruit new members, grow pattern, and advance designs and technology...Then IMHO this would be called regression and not progressing into the future.

  It's not as challenging for designers and manufactures to just make planes bigger by removing limitations of size and / or weight...

  I would suggest that we are using carbon fiber and other light weight materials specifically because of the size and weight limitations. If the limitations are simply cast aside, there would be no need to develop new ways of using various technologies or advancing technologies. Just one example of how limitations actually help advance Vs stall progress.

  Twisted perception from a twisted mind...

  Larry
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Buddy Brammer 
    To: discussion at nsrca.org 
    Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 5:35 PM
    Subject: RE: Weight Limit


    Also by some called  Progressing into the future.

    Buddy



    >From: "Wade & Barbara Akle" 
    >Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org 
    >To: discussion at nsrca.org 
    >Subject: RE: Weight Limit 
    >Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 21:51:55 +0000 
    > 
    >Ron, 
    >What you stated is called the rule of UnIntended Consequences! 
    >Wade 
    > 
    > 
    >>From: ronlock 
    >>Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org 
    >>To: discussion at nsrca.org 
    >>Subject: RE: Weight Limit 
    >>Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 12:01:35 -0500 
    >> 
    >>If we remove the weight limit, nothing dramatic happens in the 
    >>short term. 
    >> 
    >>The few pilots with ll lb and a few ounces birds will be relieved, 
    >>and that's 
    >> 
    >>nice. Overall, there is little impact. 
    >> 
    >>Over the longer term, our models will get larger. There is room in 
    >>a 2 meter 
    >> 
    >>box to stick in a lot more airplane than we currently have. And our 
    >>designers 
    >> 
    >>will do that, since bigger is better. 
    >> 
    >>Fuselages will get taller and thicker. Wing area will grow to carry 
    >>the extra, 
    >> 
    >>to about how much more? 1,400, 1,600 squares? Since we don't 
    >> 
    >>have engine rules, getting larger engines is just a matter of 
    >>letting the 
    >> 
    >>manufacturers catch up. Props and landing gear gets bigger. So do 
    >>exhaust 
    >> 
    >>systems, batteries, servos, etc. We probably get more scale 
    >>appearance. 
    >> 
    >>Every time we let models get bigger, they fly better, present to 
    >>judges 
    >> 
    >>better, and judges seem to score them better. So most of us will 
    >>feel it's 
    >> 
    >>necessary to go larger to stay competitive. 
    >> 
    >>Larger in general, means more money and time to buy, build, 
    >>maintain, 
    >> 
    >>and transport. Does the existing active pattern community want 
    >>that? 
    >> 
    >>Is it good for recruiting and pattern participation in the future? 
    >> 
    >>Ron Lockhart 
    > 
    > 
    >_________________________________________________________________ 
    >The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* 
    >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail 
    > 
    >===================================== 
    ># To be removed from this list, send a message to # 
    >discussion-request at nsrca.org 
    ># and put leave discussion on the first line of the body. 
    ># 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20021110/c1b62141/attachment.html