similar design
Woodward James R Civ 416 FLTS/TPS
James.Woodward2 at edwards.af.mil
Thu Nov 14 07:11:18 AKST 2002
HI Nik,
Intresting points. For US kits available that are new designs, there is the
Temptation, Phase One, Phenom, Aries, Quest, Tony's, someone chime-in if I
missed anything - not intentionally. I've asked a number of people
"in-the-know" about kit building/designing/kitting, and what I've been told
is that it really comes down to American labor being too high priced, to get
the quality and volume we'd expect - and comparing it to the quality of the
euro stuff, and timing that with a "hot" design. When I look at the pics of
the PL Prod and ZN Line workshops, and the planes they have lined up for
customers with custom paint jobs and such, I wonder how they pay their
employees. Either we would need those type of facilities here, or we import
the kits (with shipping, US dollar = over $1000/kit). YOu usually get a lot
for it though, wings sheeted and all. Piedmont has found ways around that
high price. Anyway, I've been told that the major prohibitor is US labor
costs, concerning fiberglass type planes. What is coming around, again, are
balsa/foam type of planes: ie. Focus. Dennis Hunt of Zimpro has produced
some pattern designs (TN, USA), around the ARC concept: Viper FAI, Viper
202, and out in spring, Phase One with some revisions from what I flew at
the US Nationals.
Jim W.
-----Original Message-----
From: Nik Middleton [mailto:middletn at spinmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:31 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: RE: similar design
Interesting list, one thing stands out though, there don't seem to be that
many new US designs these days. Not trying to be contentious here, merely
making an observation. At this year's Euro champs, I didn't see one US
designed plane out of 150 aircraft, yes I know it's Europe, but you would
have thought there'd be one or two.
I'm aware that the Focus is a great flying plane, functional etc, but no one
could say it was stylish. Where have all the good looking US designs gone?
I'm not saying there aren't any out there, but how many new for this year?
There seems to be a tremendous growth in the manufacture and design in
Europe, PL and ZN seem to be releasing at least two new designs every year,
and they're been sold as quickly as they're been made.
Comments?
-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Anne & Xavier
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 12:03 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: similar design
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.
#
=====================================
# 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