[SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey

[Jeff Hughes]

Bob,
I think what keeps biplanes out of it for most people is complexity. Just not enough advantage right now with the weight restrictions. But who knows with another couple of pounds allowance?  Though I do believe it doesn't take exotic mateials to build a 2M using your 1.60 or a St and still make weight. NOw if your talking putting a 4 pound gasser on there, that's another story.
Jeff

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Pastorello 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 8:55 PM
  Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey


  Jeff, good points... but... the "big bipe" theory has been tried, dropped, and nobody blinked.  It did NOT work for "pattern" (maybe somebody can correct me if wrong).  How many do you see?
      Regards engine weights - I'd like to run my cheap, reliable and powerful OS 1.60 and not be burdened by the extra weight "penalty".  So exotic, difficult to buy, awkward to work materials that are COSTLY must be used on the airframe.  No reason to do that except weight.  Period.
      Regards "90 size plane competitive in the first three classes".... AGREED!  My Excelleron will be absolutely competitive - performance-wise - in Masters, and probably would be in F3A.  But I'd bet a dollar to a donut that it will not WIN, no matter how well I fly with it.
      The Advanced, Masters, and FAI class ARE - beyond a shadow of a doubt - SIZE biased.

  (The above represents my opinion;  quite similar to my post on the Bud commercial)

  Bob Pastorello
  NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
  rcaerobob at cox.net
  www.rcaerobats.net


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Jeff Hughes 
    To: discussion at nsrca.org 
    Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 7:48 PM
    Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey


    I remember DIck Hanson weighing in (a little pun there) on this subject. He said if there was no weight limit, he'd be designing a 1,600 square inch biplane to fit the 2M box. It's never ending. Something in the rules is always the limit that will drive cost to achieve an edge.  If people are worried about cost, a 90 size plane is competitive in the first 3 classes. 
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: HankPajari at aol.com 
      To: discussion at nsrca.org 
      Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 8:24 PM
      Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey


      I agree with Bill.  We can keep all the other parameters but raise the weight limit to allow the use of a gas engine. Besides I already have a ZDZ40 ;>)

      Gas engines are powerful, easy to tune, once set you almost never have to touch the needles, last forever, and are very reliable.  Gives the lower classes one less thing to worry about.  Not to mention gas is one heck of a lot cheaper than fuel.  The initial cost is comparable to a top of the line YS.

      If a guy is going to move up to FAI he is probably going to buy a new rig (every year) anyway so, as long as we stay close to the FAI specs, I don't see how we are diverging in a drastic way.

      But, I am a newbie to pattern and don't know all the arguments for both sides of the issue.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050209/1f93c38c/attachment.html