SPAM Re: Rules Survey

Wed Feb 9 15:32:21 AKST 2005

Bill,

I'm had not considered the point you and others are trying to make regarding 
gas engines.  I'm not that familiar with them.  If what you all say is true 
about thier reliability, ease of operation and cost I have to admit that I 
now understand where you are coming from.

Being a newbie to this sport, one that is strugling with the financial and 
time expense required, I'm am a bit concerened about change that could 
potentially drive costs higher.  This looks as though it could help hold 
cost down for some.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Southwell" <bnbsouthwell at bellsouth.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey

>
>    Tom, I agree with you that if there are no limitations it becomes the 
> IMAC model. I am saying just 16 ounces in the wt limit. No other rule 
> changes. I don't have the vision I once had and "size does matter"  in 
> that respect to me at least. I think the wt limit at 2 meter size is out 
> of date and makes YS and the others money (especially in parts sales). You 
> can't have your cake and eat it too. If a powerplant is being pushed hard 
> and yet can't add mass for a more reliable construction it it will fail. 
> Every part of a high dollar powerplant is doing all it can do. The wt has 
> to be kept down so that the whole system ( airframe and engine ) can make 
> the weight requirment. If the reliability goes up and cost go down you 
> have a better mouse trap...not a money pit in the sky (sorry) :>)  The 
> widebody designs "present" better and for my vision are a big help to 
> allowing me to compete.
>
>  Nat you are right about the pilot. The more I can afford to fly the 
> better I get. The more confidence in my equipment I have the better I fly. 
> Every contest I have been to there are always engine run troubles...but 
> the top classes seem to have less problems ( experince with the touchy 
> things possibly?). If the reliabilty gets better for the newbie and he can 
> concentrate on the manuver, not where his dead stick will end up, the 
> pilot really will matter more than equipment..... :>)
>
>
> Regards
> Bill
>
>
> Tom Shaw wrote:
>
>> Bill,
>>
>> I guess I'm thinking about the scale planes.  Big motors, big planes, 
>> expensive strong servos plus a lot more of them.  Trailers to transport 
>> your gear.
>>
>> Where does it end?  Are we trying to be just like the scale guys?  If we 
>> are, why not just join them and stop all this discussion?
>>
>> I realize that change is inevitable.  I just hate for us to do something 
>> that may cause some to shy away.
>>
>> I'm building a 60 size plane for sportsman.  I'm confident that will be 
>> ok in that class.  I may even be competative in intermediate.  I know I 
>> will have a lot less money in it than if I build a 2 meter plane.  (I am 
>> not sugesting that we go back to smaller planes here).
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Southwell" 
>> <bnbsouthwell at bellsouth.net>
>> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 9:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
>>
>>
>>> Tom how so?  If there are available engines that actually hold up but 
>>> are a bit more porky....but also a lot cheaper to own both in intial 
>>> purchase and in up keep how can it lead to a more expensive airplane. 
>>> Cost of the present designs are due to the materials and mathods of 
>>> production required tokeep the weight down. A little more room would 
>>> make more pedestrian material like balsa , ply. and foam to come back or 
>>> at least make the average builder have hope.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom Shaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> You guys need to leave well enough alone.  With the unlimited engines a 
>>>> higher weight limit is just going to ecourage larger more expenseive 
>>>> airplanes.  That will amount to fewer flyers.
>>>>
>>>>     ----- Original Message -----
>>>>     *From:* Gray E Fowler <mailto:gfowler at raytheon.com>
>>>>     *To:* discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
>>>>     *Sent:* Tuesday, February 08, 2005 4:25 PM
>>>>     *Subject:* RE: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Here comes the dreaded weight debate again....
>>>>
>>>>     Consider this-Anyone in the upper level classes would not be too
>>>>     smart to have a plane heavier than it needs to be.  But, lets
>>>>     pretend there is a hot new Sportsman named uh lets see..... Chuck.
>>>>     Chuck tears up 401 after 3 contests, and he is flying his best
>>>>     airplane that most FAI guys would consider a toy (and I do not
>>>>     mean the "foamie toys" pictured in last months Model Aviation
>>>>     being held by  a guy named "Chuck")  and so moving up to
>>>>     Intermediate halfway thru his first season, last 3 contests were
>>>>     quite a challenge, BUT he places in 402 anyway!
>>>>     In the off season, he saves his pennies, keeps his wife happy and
>>>>     gets a used REAL pattern plane, built by someone who has a slight
>>>>     heavy hand, and alas it weighs 11.5 lbs. Now this here Chuck is
>>>>     good and pumped up and I would place money that this theoretical
>>>>     person could place at the NATS, but his plane is over weight!!!!!
>>>>     one more !
>>>>
>>>>     Sorry Chuck, even though you are flying at a disadvantage, we will
>>>>     not let you play at the NATS........Oh unless you can spend $2k
>>>>     more on another plane.
>>>>
>>>>     The story you have just read is about to be true, once we do not
>>>>     let Chuck fly at this years NATS. But at least the French FAI rule
>>>>     makers are happy.
>>>>
>>>>     Consider a weight change. It does not need to be across the board
>>>>     and for the life of me I cannot imagine why it needs to align with
>>>>     FAI.  Chuck will have a 5Kg plane *BY THE TIME HE REACHES FAI-*and
>>>>     the French can be happy then*.*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> =================================================
>>> 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.
>
> 

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