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

[Bill Southwell]

Hi Jeff,
  No doubt you can get a 2M under the wt if you use the typical "Pattern 
Only"  ie.  expensive and less reliable,  for the job. If you put a 
Gasser or a larger more robust (reliable) Moki 1.8 into the mix it would 
take a very good builder to make the 11 lb cut off if at all. Its about 
a wider  range of engines to choose from instead of the 3-4  engines 
that cost a lot in :

1. purchase price
2. fuel expense ( hi nitro content)
3. any mistakes by a nebie in set up or needle settings  and its piston 
and bearing time or worse
4. bearings and other parts not lasting a season  much less several 
airplanes
5. special pipes and props, pumps needed to reach the power to wt 
required. all add even more expense




Jeff Hughes wrote:

> I guess I'm just not getting it. all balsa 2M planes under 11 pounds 
> are common and easy to build. My Focus II was about 10lbs. 4 oz with 
> an OS1.40 and bolly muffler. I'm hearing some of the exotic composite 
> planes coming in well under ten.
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Todd Schmidt <mailto:tschmidt at classicnet.net>
>     *To:* discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, February 08, 2005 10:14 PM
>     *Subject:* [SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
>
>     I really don't see how raising the weight limit to 12 or 12.5
>     would increase the cost of pattern as long as the size limitations
>     are in place. As stated by several, the materials used in today's
>     ships to keep them underweight is driving the cost up.  
>      
>     *Standard Glass Cloth Composite Construction* ($5-$7 per yard)
>     You cannot make a 2M fuse strong *AND* light enough to make weight
>     using this stuff. You can probably come close, but it'll be a
>     noodle that won't last and *in the long run *will cost simply
>     because you're plane won't last.
>      
>     So, now you see 2M planes made with Kevlar ($44 per yard) and
>     Carbon ($80 per yard) in order to keep weight down. Not only are
>     these materials more expensive, they're harder to work with, which
>     increases labor costs. No wonder ZN and PL kits are so expensive.
>      
>     I make my own composite fuselages using a mixture of glass,
>     Kevlar, carbon and foam much like the ZN and PL kits. The material
>     cost for one fuselage will run between $200 to $250 and take
>     approx.12 hours of labor to lay-up. I'd hate to try and make a
>     living in the US making these things!
>      
>     The latest is the TAVS fuselage.  Light, Stiff, and *FRAGILE*. 
>     This is a new technology driven by the weight limit IMO. Some are
>     failing and we the consumer bare the price and inconvenience of
>     being the R&D for the manufactures. 
>      
>     Bottom line, the 11 pound weight limit is the same as when our
>     birds were much smaller. I think we have pushed this envelope to
>     its limit and it proving to be costly and unsafe.  Just my opinion.
>      
>     Todd Schmidt
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>     ----- Original Message -----
>
>         *From:* Atwood, Mark <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>         *To:* discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
>         *Sent:* Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:47 PM
>         *Subject:* RE: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
>
>         I have to agree 100% with Dave on this one.  I'd also like to
>         add that in addition to raising the cost...it doesn't acheive
>         the objective.  Any and all sports that have limitations of
>         this type (Sailing comes to mind with complex formulas that
>         define the class of boat) ALWAYS have one critical limiting
>         factor.  For us it USE to be the engine.  We had a weight
>         restriction...but it was meaningless because you couldn't
>         approach it with the power options that we had. 
>          
>         Now, with unlimited engine size...weight, and in some cases
>         size, has become the constraining factor.
>          
>         In all cases...there are always those with the talent and
>         money to take the rules to the limit.  We will always be
>         chasing them, and trying to acheive what they acheive.   It's
>         great to say that raising the weight limit will allow more
>         "stock" models to compete...   But my bet is that someone
>         creative and talented will make use of that rule in a way that
>         others can't easily follow...and will again have competitive
>         advantage.    And as Dave so aptly pointed out...it will cost
>         the rest of us more money.
>          
>         Steve Maxwell has made the best suggestion to date.   I for
>         one have NEVER seen a sportsman pilot denied admission to an
>         event based on the weight of their plane.  Size, yes (we
>         turned away a few 30% planes for safety reasons) but never
>         just on weight.  In fact...I've never seen ANYONE weight a
>         plane at any event other than the Nat's finals.   So I think
>         we could EASILY acheive the objective with a simple statement
>         that alters the current "intent" from one where the CD CAN
>         change the rule...to one that implies the CD USUALLY changes
>         the rule. 
>          
>         I dont recall Steve's language, but it was simple and to the
>         point so I'll paraphrase... " CD's often/usually alter (or
>         wave) the weight restriction for the sportsman class...please
>         contact them for details". 
>          
>         -Mark
>         -----Original Message-----
>         *From:* discussion-request at nsrca.org
>         [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]*On Behalf Of
>         *DaveL322 at comcast.net
>         *Sent:* Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:01 PM
>         *To:* discussion at nsrca.org
>         *Subject:* *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
>
>         Buddy,
>          
>         Deliberately segregating FAI and AMA is counterproductive.  We
>         need all the pattern fliers we can get, and we need a common
>         target for the limited number of manufacturers and suppliers
>         we have.  I would never suggest AMA pattern rules blindly
>         follow FAI, but there would have to be a huge benefit to US
>         pattern before I would advocate moving away from the FAI in
>         the US.
>          
>         FAI pilots in the US have made many contributions to AMA
>         pattern in the US and I think most pattern pilots in the US
>         would agree that the FAI pilots are a resource to all of
>         pattern in the US.  Cutting FAI pilots out of AMA pattern
>         issues is losing a resource.  And I think you'd have a hard
>         time doing it in practice - many pilots bounce back and forth
>         between FAI and Masters - there is no rule against it as they
>         are different systems with common elements.
>          
>         If there is no valid reason to oppose an increase in the
>         weight limit, it seems strange to me that the majority has
>         repeatedly voted to keep the weight limit as is.  Anyone who
>         chooses to look at the history of the "limiting" rules for
>         pattern (weight, size, displacement) can pretty easily see
>         what the net result has been anytime the limits have been
>         increased.  For those not familiar with the rules history of
>         pattern, the most basic of points I am alluding to is cost -
>         any increase in the limits results in an increase in the cost
>         of the average pattern plane - not something that is
>         productive for our event.
>          
>         This list and numerous other publications have contained many
>         ideas, rationales, and discussions opposed to increasing the
>         weight limit for close to 20 years (that I know of).  Perhaps
>         you could share your thoughts as to why those ideas,
>         rationales, and discussions are not valid?
>          
>         Regards,
>
>         Dave Lockhart
>         DaveL322 at comcast.net <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>
>          
>
>             -------------- Original message --------------
>             In a message dated 2/8/2005 8:02:54 AM Central Standard
>             Time, donramsey at cox-internet.com writes:
>
>                 Ok everyone, here's your chance.  What would you like
>                 to see changed in the regulations for precision
>                 aerobatics?  Up the weight limit, change the box,
>                 score takeoff and landings, etc?
>                  
>                 Email me offline at donramsey at cox-internet.com
>                 <mailto:donramsey at cox-internet.com> with your ideas.
>                  
>                 Don
>                  
>
>              
>             Don
>             As an after thought it would be interesting for those who
>             oppose a weight change to state their reasons for opposing
>             it so the benefits to pattern can be evaluated for each
>             case.  I cannot come up with a valid reason *not *To
>             change the rule. It would also be interesting to know if
>             opposition comes from a specific group. Since this change
>             does not apply to FAI it is my opinion that votes from
>             those in that group should not be used to sway the vote in
>             Any NSRCA survey that would effect the submission of an
>             AMA rules change proposal since these do not apply to FAI
>             rules changes.
>             Buddy  
>              
>

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