SPAM Re: Rules Survey

Tue Feb 8 17:26:14 AKST 2005

Hi Jeff,

  I flew a webra 1.45 my last season.. it worked well for a while but it 
was temperamental and its going over the hill during a contest put me 
out the rest of the season. I have owned a ST 2300 and couldn't get it 
to run like I wanted ( I guess I was one of the unlucky ones). I Like 
two strokes but it seems that as you push an engine it pushes back. I 
like the wide body  designs due to the fact I can see it. The larger 
size pushes the lighter engines to a breaking point. If the wt limit is  
adjusted the possibilitys of airframe innovation are widened a bit and 
there would be a much larger range of practical engine/airframe 
combinations. 

  I like the 2 meter limit as it keeps me from having to buy a trailer 
and a larger vehicle to haul it. The 2M size is great but the FAI's 11 
lbs it keeps us in a tough power plant range both budget and reliability 
wise. I guess I have to cook up a  super $$$ airframe just to have a 
reasonably priced power plant that laughs at danger and daring do. I 
would trust the heavier engine enough to risk the $$$ bucks but as it is 
right now I can't justify the expense. This point alone backs up the 
case for an inflow of new pattern junkies. If it gets more affordable to 
fly a WB 2M then the field might fill up.Then the issue of do I fly a 
smaller plane and risk the "he's not really serious or hard core" when 
in front of his peers or judges ( just plain ole human nature) or am I 
gonna fly bigger and not be handicapped in my own mind or others.

Regards
Bill

Jeff Hughes wrote:

> 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.
>
>

=================================================
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.