rumor
Bill Glaze
billglaze at triad.rr.com
Mon Nov 11 16:22:48 AKST 2002
Wojtek:
One of the prime reasons in the similarity of these designs is because they must
be made to fit a series of restrictive rules. Example: Q500--limits in wing
size, and in cu. in. (Some racing clubs restrict the engines to not only the
same displacement, but the same manufacturer.) Pylon--leads to "one design"
airplanes. In fact, until a couple of years ago, most of the Formula racers
were made by a builder near San Diego, at least for the guys who could afford to
have this individual build for them. (Sadly, he passed away several years
ago.) Gliders--lots of restrictive rules.
Relaxation of rules would tend toward further experimentation. Then, probably,
the unique formula for the best "working" airframe would be settled on.
That means then, that once again it would be time for re-inspection and possible
modification of the rules. Progress--or regression. I really don't know. I do
know that the fastest growing organization in model aerobatics is quite fast in
response to rules changes.
It pays to constantly re-inspect all aspects of what we're doing.
Bill Glaze
"Tomanek, Wojtek" wrote:
> "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.
> #
=====================================
# 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