rumor
Tomanek, Wojtek
tomanekw at saic-abingdon.com
Mon Nov 11 05:52:37 AKST 2002
"A larger diversity would help this visual appeal even more."
In reality all designs will eventually gravitate to a very similar or the
same look or shape. This is inevitable with a one purpose type performance.
IMAC, pylon, control line stuff, gliders they are all relatively the same
within the same grouping because of a single purpose.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Glaze [SMTP:billglaze at triad.rr.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 12:22 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: rumor
John's approach is interesting. The similar appearance of pattern
airplanes,
(all of which I personally considered rather ugly) kept me out of
pattern for
several years. Now the airplanes seem very attractive. Possibly my
view has
changed, or, more probably, the new approach toward airplanes that
look like
airplanes has more visual appeal.
A larger diversity would help this visual appeal even more.
One of the major problems would seem to be design research (probably
would have
to be rather empirical, which is slow and costly) while new designs
are being
made competitive. Few would intentionally use an airplane in a
contest if they
knew they were handicapped going in. Except, of course, in a "run
whatcha
brung" contest setting.
Anyway, certainly worthy of thought.
Bill Glaze
John Ferrell wrote:
> The specs we are currently using has led to airplanes that are
only slightly
> different in outward appearance. In some circumstances they may be
counter
> productive.
>
> It appears to me that a weight increase at the Nats level might
bring a few
> more contestants in the Intermediate & Advanced classes. It would
certainly
> bring about Biplanes & bigger engines in Masters!
>
> Here is something to ponder:
> Keep the current size & weight but give Biplanes a 15%(?) bonus on
their raw
> score.
>
> The advantages:
> Some new airplanes to work with.
> Greater spectator appeal?
> Slower, close in flying more practical.
>
> John Ferrell
> 6241 Phillippi Rd
> Julian NC 27283
> Phone: (336)685-9606
> Dixie Competition Products
> NSRCA 479 AMA 4190 W8CCW
> "My Competition is Not My Enemy"
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tomanek, Wojtek" <tomanekw at saic-abingdon.com>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:34 AM
> Subject: RE: rumor
>
> > Bob
> >
> > "Plus - and for me (and others) - the most important aspect of
the weight
> > rule is that it has NO meaning. A "minimum" weight would make
so much
> more
> > sense."
> >
> > Not sure that a minimum weight is a good thing since many of the
new
> design
> > are not the full 2m span and the weights are 9 - 9.5 lb. If
someone wants
> > to fly smaller and lighter plane that should not be discouraged
or
> > prevented.
> >
> > But, I agree that setting an upper weight limit is pointless
since that
> > hinders performance of the plane by itself, however if the point
is to
> > prevent bi-planes lets exclude the bi-planes (with weight limit
eliminated
> I
> > am sure we will see some), or if the point is to exclude gas
engines lets
> do
> > that.
> >
> > Wojtek
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Pastorello [SMTP:rcaerobob at cox.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:21 PM
> > To: discussion at nsrca.org
> > Subject: Re: rumor
> >
> > The practical component of the weight rule is ???
> >
> > And out of the hundreds and hundreds of contests since the 5 kg
> > rule,
> > exactly how many airplanes have EVER been weighed at local
events?
> > CD's - for the most part that's US pattern fliers/club
members -
> > absolutely will not screw with trying to weigh
> > airplanes....logistically, it
> > is an investment with no return.
> > Plus - and for me (and others) - the most important aspect
of
> > the weight
> > rule is that it has NO meaning. A "minimum" weight would make
so
> > much more
> > sense.
> >
> > Not to be confused with the 2M rule - doorways, practically the
> > world over,
> > are 2 m...or very close...just a thought...
> > Weight rule - until I can be shown a practical, meaningful
and
> > competition-related reason for it's existence, I'm one of those
who
> > will
> > support it - but never be interested in checking a plane at a
> > contest again.
> >
> > Oh - BTW - Yes, I **DID** do it once as a CD...NEVER, EVER,
again
> > will I try
> > that little trick at a local event, even if it WAS the "regional
> > championships"....
> >
> > Bob Pastorello
> > NSRCA 199, AMA 46373
> > rcaerobob at cox.net
> > www.rcaerobats.net
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <s.vannostrand at kodak.com>
> > To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 3:05 PM
> > Subject: Rd: rumor
> >
> >
> > > Last year there were two VERY active threads on the weight
limit.
> > One I
> > > started. I saved all the emails. Both threads concluded that
> > letting
> > > someone fly an airplane over 11 lbs was to his detriment, and
the
> > rules
> > > shouldn't prevent someone disadvantaging themselves. Most felt
> > raising the
> > > limit to 12-14 lbs was better than eliinating it (I'm skipping
all
> > the
> > > details on purpose - this is a general conclusion). However,
the
> > member
> > > survey did not produce the same conclusive results so no
change
> > has been
> > > proposed.
> > >
> > > I'm a full believer in the democratic process, so I've dropped
the
> > issue
> > > and I'm on board with the current rule. However, with our
noise
> > and size
> > > limitations firmly in place, the weight rule will constantly
be
> > viewed by
> > > many as simply unnecessary.
> > >
> > > Even though this was rejected at CIAM and NSRCA this year, it
is
> > likely to
> > > continue to resurface until it is removed.
> > >
> > > --Lance
> > >
> > > This was rejected for F3A at the 2002 CIAM meeting.
> > >
> > > It will probably be proposed again in the future.
> > >
> > > Harry
> > >
> > >
> > > |---------+---------------------------->
> > > | | "Anthony Romano" |
> > > | | <anthonyr105 at hotm|
> > > | | ail.com> |
> > > | | Sent by: |
> > > | | discussion-reques|
> > > | | t at nsrca.org |
> > > | | |
> > > | | |
> > > | | 11/07/2002 08:19 |
> > > | | AM |
> > > | | Please respond to|
> > > | | discussion |
> > > | | |
> > > |---------+---------------------------->
> > >
> >
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------------------------------------|
> > > |
> > |
> > > | To: discussion at nsrca.org,
> > pattern at rcmailinglists.com
> > |
> > > | cc:
> > |
> > > | Subject: rumors
> > |
> > >
> >
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------------------------------------|
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Saw this while learking on the Imac list. Can anyone
substantiate?
> > >
> > > Anthony
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > "mini-iac at yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > <mini-iac at yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > From: dick hanson <dhmodels at concentric.net>
> > > > > Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 06:08:27 -0700
> > > > > Subject: [SA] rumors
> > > > >
> > > > > I just heard a rumor that 6KG is being
> > > > > considered as the weight
> > > > > limit in 2004 - for FAI- This from overseas (out
> > > > > of the US).
> > > > > The object -to allow use of the newer gasoline
> > > > > engines -
> > > > > (Which work at 5 KG also- but is not as easy to
> > > > > do ).
> > > > > For the mathimatically disinfranchised --thats
> > > > > just a year away -
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Dick Hanson
> > > > > 801-261 1402
> > > > > 5269 Lucky Clover Lane
> > > > > Murray, Ut 84123
> > > > > web site address
> > > > > http://www.concentric.net/~Dhmodels/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Subscribe: mini-iac-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Unsubscribe: mini-iac-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > > This list is in no way affiliated with IMAC or it's
> > > > > membership. Views discussed here should not be
> > > > > construed as official news or views.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >__________________________________________________
> > > >Do you Yahoo!?
> > > >U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
> > > >http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
> > >
> > >
> > >
_________________________________________________________________
> > > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 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.
> > > #
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > =====================================
> > > # 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.
> > > #
> > >
> > >
> >
> > =====================================
> > # 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.
> > #
> > =====================================
> > # 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.
> > #
> >
>
> =====================================
> # 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.
> #
=====================================
# 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.
#
=====================================
# 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.
#
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list