[SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
Bill Southwell
bnbsouthwell at bellsouth.net
Tue Feb 8 20:04:01 AKST 2005
I can say "yes" to the lack of experince in pattern engines, I am a
victim of tweaking too hard. My other engines (OS's 2C's) were a bit
more forgiving. I didn't relize it but fell into the "why is it not
turning up like so and so's engine. Not hard to do...heck it was easy!:>)
I guess a lot of my perceptions are based on "other than" pattern
engines and the sucess I have had with them.I had mokis and gas engines
and liked them. My comments are based on the frustrations I have had
with the Webra and all the dead sticks I have seen at pattern meets. A
deadstick with a $150 sport model vs a 2K pattern ship is a lot bigger
deal. I really apreciate you comments and see the picture better. Maybe
the OS 1.60 would be a good choice........
Regards
Bill
David Lockhart wrote:
>Bill,
>
>Granted, purchase price of the pattern mills might be expensive (exception
>being the OS 160 which is infinitely workable) - but -
>
>2). The only pattern engines that require high $$$ fuel are the YS 4Cs.
>3). They may be less tolerant of poor running/tuning technique, but maybe
>it is also a lack of experience with the pattern engines? Any engine can be
>ruined by a bad needle setting.
>4). I've run K&B, OS, and Webra 2Cs - if the engines are not pinging and
>not eating dirt, very little in the way of parts is needed. Granted the
>stock bearings (if not stainless steel) might not last long, but stainless
>steel replacements are good for as much as 500+ flights - which is about
>when I start looking at rod and piston/ring/sleeve - not many people put
>that many flights on in a season on any engine.
>5). The pipes/mufflers/props are about being quiet as much as they are
>about making more power. Sport engines will need the same to be quiet.
>
>On a given weekend at my field, I see far more deadsticks from the sport
>fliers than the pattern guys, and the pattern guys are probably putting up
>more flights. The modern day pattern engine might be expensive initially,
>but considering the power output, low noise, durability (2C), and
>reliability (2C), I think they are doing pretty good.
>
>Dave
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bill Southwell" <bnbsouthwell at bellsouth.net>
>To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 12:28 AM
>Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
>
>
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>=================================================
>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