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

[Gray E Fowler]

Todd

You said and are right on the money, literally. As a kit manufacturer, I 
can tell you that there was more money to be made in the solid laminate 
fuselage of 1999 era. The large body planes such as the Symphony could not 
use solid glass laminate technology and be stiff enough. To make it stiff 
enough would require much more weight. So we are forced to fabricate 
sandwich structure, vacuum bagged, primed in the mold airplanes that use 
materials that are orders of magnitude more expensive than fiberglass and 
require more than double the time.....and everyone wonders what happen to 
the US kit manufacturers. I know what happened, the smart ones exited the business.



Gray Fowler
Principal Chemical Engineer
Composites Engineering




"Todd Schmidt" <tschmidt at classicnet.net>
Sent by: discussion-request at nsrca.org
02/08/2005 09:14 PM
Please respond to discussion

 
        To:     <discussion at nsrca.org>
        cc: 
        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/20050209/63b2688d/attachment.html