[SPAM] Re: SPAM Re: Rules Survey

Wed Feb 9 04:48:09 AKST 2005

Sorry this is long but this issue is an important one.
At one time I was all in favor of an increase in weight limit to 11.5 or 12 pounds. Today, I'm leaning towards leaving the 11 pound limit in place. I built an EMC after flying Dave's EMC's and let me tell you, to build a large 2M plane using conventional ( read low cost ) materials like fiberglass, foam, plywood and balsa can be a challenge. It requires careful planning to put only what is really required in the plane for structure and durability and careful selection of fixed items like hardware, radio gear, engine, pipe, etc. Painting has to be closely monitored. But the 11 pound limit is very doable. My current EMC is down to 10 pounds 9 ounces and I believe the second one I can build at maybe 10 pounds 6 ounces. That's a $400 basic kit with maybe $200 worth of wood/plywood/endgrain balsa, etc. in the structure. Where the real $$ is spent is in "lite" versions of fixed hardware like CF wing and stab tubes, CF landing gear, CF tuned pipe, Mintor head and Perf Specialties AAC piston/liner assembly ( my OS 140 RX weighs 26.3 ounces ), special batteries, etc. I have a Hanson rotomount in my EMC that weighs less than 3 ounces with hardware, no extra $$ spent there but a lot of labor. So, the 11 pound limit is achievable with a "conventional material" kit of a large 2M plane at a relatively low cost for the airframe. It still requires higher $$ hardware to outfit the plane to ensure an 11 pound or under result, the same higher $$ hardware one typically outfits a composite airframe with also. The newer composite airframes such as Dave's Vivat's are from the get go, lighter and as such open up the possibility of electric power ( a 12 ounce penalty over glow power ) OR a super light, under 10 pound glow powered large 2M plane. Would I notice the flying difference between a 9.75 pound EMC over a 10.5 pound EMC ??? Yes, I think so. Would I be able to capitalize on that ?? Would I be now be a threat in Master's ?? Doubtful. The top of the heap like the Lockhart's, Hyde's, Newman's, etc. are so very close they need every tiny bit of advantage they can beg, borrow or steal. The more "average" Joe pattern guy just needs to make the weight limit as 3/4 pound of extra airframe weight is the least of our worries. 
At this point in the game, to me, an increase in the weight limit MAY help the pattern newbie "buy an off the shelf ARF" and assemble with the best value accessories which may result in an over 11 pound plane, a plane that newbie will be plenty competitive with until their eyes, thumbs and fingers get to that top of the heap plateau. 
The problem is the current best of the best potentially will leverage that weight limit increase into yet an even higher level of cost and complexity that the rest of us, over time will be chasing. I believe we've experienced that scenario though the 90's and it is at least partially responsible for the dwindling interest in our sport. 
Ed M. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David Lockhart 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 10:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey

  Todd,

  Always nice to see some quantified data.

  As a point of reference, I built a pair of Dick Hanson EMCs a few years ago - full 2M planes.  Glass fuse with balsa crutch, clear canopy with pilot and details, aluminum landing gear w/ FG wheelpants, foam/balsa wings.  CF pipe and wingtube, and 2 6v720mah Nimh batteries w/ 2 switches, all flushmount / hidden hatches/fasteners.  10.75 lbs.  Plenty strong to make it through 1500 flights of FAI sequences.  If I built them again, I think with a little work I could get them down to 10.25 lbs, maybe 10 even.

  I am currently flying a pair of Vivats which are basically a FG/balsa/FG composite with limited CF and Kevlar reinforcement.  My #2 plane uses an aluminum pipe and 2 Nimh batteries and 2 switches - it is 9 lbs 13 oz and all paint.  I think I could trim it down to 9.5 lbs if I wanted to.

  If the 11 lb envelope is being pushed (and I think it is for some of the planes out there), it is a result of allowing unlimited displacement engines.  So from this point -
  - do nothing and accept the idea that competitors will always push the limits, or,
  - increase the weight limit, and watch the cost and complexity escalate another level and eventually push the new limits, or,
  - re-instate a displacement limit, and reduce the cost and complexity, and push the displacement limit which is arguably a safer limit to push.

  It makes sense to me.

  Regards,

  Dave Lockhart
  DaveL322 at comcast.net

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Todd Schmidt 
    To: 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 
      To: 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

        -------------- 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 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  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050209/01a092fa/attachment-0001.html