*SPAM* Re: Rules Survey

Jeff Hughes jeffghughes at comcast.net
Tue Feb 8 16:55:16 AKST 2005 

Bill,
You ought to change to a two stroke if your facing constant engine problems. 
I built and flew an Arch Nemisis (wood 2M) using a ST2300 on the stock 
muffler with no pump. Plane weighed well under 11 pounds (and I am no pro 
builder, infact just the opposite). Worked fine for intermediate and 
advanced (probably masters also if I flew Masters). We are our own worst 
enemies with complications and expense. The Nemesis had a square wood fuse 
with a fiberglass top. Simple to build, nothing complicated or exotic and 
flew great.
Jeff

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Southwell" <bnbsouthwell at bellsouth.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey


>
>    Tom, I agree with you that if there are no limitations it becomes the 
> IMAC model. I am saying just 16 ounces in the wt limit. No other rule 
> changes. I don't have the vision I once had and "size does matter"  in 
> that respect to me at least. I think the wt limit at 2 meter size is out 
> of date and makes YS and the others money (especially in parts sales). You 
> can't have your cake and eat it too. If a powerplant is being pushed hard 
> and yet can't add mass for a more reliable construction it it will fail. 
> Every part of a high dollar powerplant is doing all it can do. The wt has 
> to be kept down so that the whole system ( airframe and engine ) can make 
> the weight requirment. If the reliability goes up and cost go down you 
> have a better mouse trap...not a money pit in the sky (sorry) :>)  The 
> widebody designs "present" better and for my vision are a big help to 
> allowing me to compete.
>
>  Nat you are right about the pilot. The more I can afford to fly the 
> better I get. The more confidence in my equipment I have the better I fly. 
> Every contest I have been to there are always engine run troubles...but 
> the top classes seem to have less problems ( experince with the touchy 
> things possibly?). If the reliabilty gets better for the newbie and he can 
> concentrate on the manuver, not where his dead stick will end up, the 
> pilot really will matter more than equipment..... :>)
>
>
> Regards
> Bill
>
>
> Tom Shaw wrote:
>
>> Bill,
>>
>> I guess I'm thinking about the scale planes.  Big motors, big planes, 
>> expensive strong servos plus a lot more of them.  Trailers to transport 
>> your gear.
>>
>> Where does it end?  Are we trying to be just like the scale guys?  If we 
>> are, why not just join them and stop all this discussion?
>>
>> I realize that change is inevitable.  I just hate for us to do something 
>> that may cause some to shy away.
>>
>> I'm building a 60 size plane for sportsman.  I'm confident that will be 
>> ok in that class.  I may even be competative in intermediate.  I know I 
>> will have a lot less money in it than if I build a 2 meter plane.  (I am 
>> not sugesting that we go back to smaller planes here).
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Southwell" 
>> <bnbsouthwell at bellsouth.net>
>> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 9:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
>>
>>
>>> Tom how so?  If there are available engines that actually hold up but 
>>> are a bit more porky....but also a lot cheaper to own both in intial 
>>> purchase and in up keep how can it lead to a more expensive airplane. 
>>> Cost of the present designs are due to the materials and mathods of 
>>> production required tokeep the weight down. A little more room would 
>>> make more pedestrian material like balsa , ply. and foam to come back or 
>>> at least make the average builder have hope.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom Shaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> You guys need to leave well enough alone.  With the unlimited engines a 
>>>> higher weight limit is just going to ecourage larger more expenseive 
>>>> airplanes.  That will amount to fewer flyers.
>>>>
>>>>     ----- Original Message -----
>>>>     *From:* Gray E Fowler <mailto:gfowler at raytheon.com>
>>>>     *To:* discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
>>>>     *Sent:* Tuesday, February 08, 2005 4:25 PM
>>>>     *Subject:* RE: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Here comes the dreaded weight debate again....
>>>>
>>>>     Consider this-Anyone in the upper level classes would not be too
>>>>     smart to have a plane heavier than it needs to be.  But, lets
>>>>     pretend there is a hot new Sportsman named uh lets see..... Chuck.
>>>>     Chuck tears up 401 after 3 contests, and he is flying his best
>>>>     airplane that most FAI guys would consider a toy (and I do not
>>>>     mean the "foamie toys" pictured in last months Model Aviation
>>>>     being held by  a guy named "Chuck")  and so moving up to
>>>>     Intermediate halfway thru his first season, last 3 contests were
>>>>     quite a challenge, BUT he places in 402 anyway!
>>>>     In the off season, he saves his pennies, keeps his wife happy and
>>>>     gets a used REAL pattern plane, built by someone who has a slight
>>>>     heavy hand, and alas it weighs 11.5 lbs. Now this here Chuck is
>>>>     good and pumped up and I would place money that this theoretical
>>>>     person could place at the NATS, but his plane is over weight!!!!!
>>>>     one more !
>>>>
>>>>     Sorry Chuck, even though you are flying at a disadvantage, we will
>>>>     not let you play at the NATS........Oh unless you can spend $2k
>>>>     more on another plane.
>>>>
>>>>     The story you have just read is about to be true, once we do not
>>>>     let Chuck fly at this years NATS. But at least the French FAI rule
>>>>     makers are happy.
>>>>
>>>>     Consider a weight change. It does not need to be across the board
>>>>     and for the life of me I cannot imagine why it needs to align with
>>>>     FAI.  Chuck will have a 5Kg plane *BY THE TIME HE REACHES FAI-*and
>>>>     the French can be happy then*.*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> =================================================
>>> To access the email archives for this list, go to
>>> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
>>> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
>>> and follow the instructions.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> =================================================
>> To access the email archives for this list, go to
>> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
>> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
>> and follow the instructions.
>>
>>
>
> =================================================
> To access the email archives for this list, go to
> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
> 

=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list