[SPAM] Re: SPAM Re: Rules Survey

Wed Feb 9 05:54:22 AKST 2005

As one of those Former kit manufacturers...I have to agree.  There's another component though and that's shelf life.   When I was making the Nemesis kits (and subsequent Arch Nemesis) the modification to the kit year to year were small.  RULE CHANGES cause a LOT of work.  When we changed the displacement rules...Suddenly the top classes were flying VERY big airplanes.  The Nemesis was no longer competitive as it was designed to handle the .61 long stroke motors and weigh about 8lbs.  

This is an expensive undertaking for a cottage company...re-designing, test flying, redesigning again...and again....and again....then finally you get something you like.  You have to make all new plugs, new molds, new drawings, new instructions....oh...and order new boxes to ship in.   A LOT of cost when you may only hope to sell dozens, maybe a hundred of the new kit.

Even with that...those designs lasted a few years...  Now...you're lucky if they last through the year.   We talk about WEIGHT changes???  Everyone is saying that the SIZE of the plane wouldn't change...I'm here to tell you, it certainly would.  My Arch was 78in by 78in...FULL 2m...and yet it looks quite small compared to what's flying today.   You could easily EASILY build an Arch under 10lbs.   So why aren't the lower class flyers building and flying these full 2M birds?????    My guess is they're considered tooo small...and out of date.

Raising the weight limit would only turn Dave's Vivat into my Arch Nemesis...out of date, and too small...and still 2M.

Ok...I'm done venting....lol  Sorry.

Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Gray E Fowler
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 9:36 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey

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:  <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> Atwood, Mark 
To:  <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org> 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 
 <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net> 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  <mailto:donramsey at cox-internet.com> 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/df9db6fa/attachment-0001.html