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

[Bill Southwell]

Hi Dave,

    How do you mean bigger plane? Are you refering  to a little more sq 
in? Didn't the older designs during the fourstroke 120-140 change adapt 
too the power and wt with a bigger wing? We can't go any bigger if the 
2M requirment is in play. I am not trying to be difficult but the wt 
problem at least in my mind ( what a crazy place that is!) is that the 
power plants are doing all they can do due to the airframe size. The 
larger  slower turning  engines might cause some evolutionary changes 
but  not a  huge change in airframe layout.  The airframes are optimized 
for the 2M size  the engines are tapped out. No beef to them!   If the 
power becomes  easy to manage $$$ and more  reliable to the average guy 
then we have  more interest and  a lot more fun flying.  Another thought 
...My Moki' 1.80 on a 20" prop were pretty quiet with very little in the 
way of a  muffler. The bigger disk made a great brake on down lines and 
landings and the engine ran like a sewing machine. Change is good! 


David Lockhart wrote:

>Bill,
>
>The current set of rules basically establish a performance level that is a
>target to shoot for.  I believe you are correct in that the current
>performance level might be easier to approach if a 12 pound plane were
>allowed.  BUT - if the 12 pound plane is allowed, the performance level will
>increase and you will be in the same situation then as you are now, but we
>all will be paying for the added expense of the bigger plane - and the
>planes will get bigger if the weight limit is increased - bigger planes do
>fly better and competitors will seek that advantage.
>
>Regards,
>
>Dave Lockhart
>DaveL322 at comcast.net
>
>----- 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.