similar design
Anne & Xavier
xavier.mouraux at sympatico.ca
Thu Nov 14 03:02:39 AKST 2002
Have you count how many different looking airplanes there is at contests ?
Imac: Extra, Cap, Sukkoi, Studaker, Edge, Giles, Ultimate and maybe a few
more.
Pattern: Alliance, Synergy, Smarrag, Angel's Shadow, Caprise, Carrera,
Chaos, Elan, EMC2, Facination, Fashion, Finesse, Hydeout, Jekyll, LA1,
Larimar, Legend, Meridian, Nova , Odyssey, Olympian, Omen, Patriot,
Prophecy, Python, Runaround, Runaway, Saturn, Sequel, Storm, Summit,
Temptation, Tracer, Typhoon, USA Star, Vector, Enigma, Venus, Aresti, Zen,
Tai Ji, Focus, etc.
I agree they have some similar look and there is some similar design with
defferent names and some old ones, but the same apply to the scale planes.
Xavier
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tomanek, Wojtek" <tomanekw at saic-abingdon.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 9:52 AM
Subject: RE: rumor
> "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