FAI Weight Thread

Wed Feb 23 15:11:31 AKST 2005

It has been pointed out by many on this list that the planes can get much
"bigger" within the 2x2m box if the weight limit was raised or eliminated.
Mark Atwood and Gray Fowler were both kind enough to relate how "their" 2x2m
kits dropped out of favor when 74" span "widebodies" came into favor -
clearly larger planes, but smaller in a 2x2m box.

All pattern planes will always look the same to the casual observer.  Many a
weekend sport flyer can't distinguish between pattern, 3D, and IMAC style
planes.  Not too long ago, more than one sport flyer at my local fields
easily confused my Prophecy (4C, retracts) with my Hydeout (2C and fixed
gear) - yes, they did have the same paint scheme.

If I think about the history of pattern - about 20 years of competing and I
have knowledge of maybe the past 30 years -
- the addition of tuned pipes to the event was big - the planes got bigger
(and more expensive) and much slicker - things like Bootleggers and
Deceptions.
- the rules were stable with the 60 2C for many years - and to someone
knowledgeable about pattern, the planes were not at all stagnant - look at
Prettner alone - with the Curare, Magic, and Calypso - all very different
planes with very little change in schedules.
- turnaround caused a big change in airplane designs.
- the 120 4C caused a big change - bigger and more expensive planes, but not
much change in the designs.
- unlimited displacement caused a big change - again bigger and more
expensive, but similar designs.
- bigger fuses were the result of increasing schedule difficulty (from F3A,
A through E schedules) - slower pace needed, more emphasis on roll/snap
combos.
- smaller wings were again the result of increasing schedule difficulty
(from F3A, P/F 01/03/05 schedules) - slower pace again, integrated
looping/rolling manuevers.

Take a look at the current 40, 60, and 90 sized planes labeled some variety
of pattern / F3A / 3D - the designs are very different than the 40 and 60
designs of pattern when the 60 2C was king.  The same 60 2C is still
around - but the designs changed because the manuever schedules changed.
Variety of schedules is more than enough stimulus to keep pattern planes
from appearing stagnant - if you actually think pattern designs ever reached
that point - I think the majority of pattern flyers who have been in the
event long enough to have heard "all pattern planes look the same" also
realize that even when 2 designs may LOOK the same - they actually fly much
differently because of subtle design changes that only a pattern guy will
appreciate.

I think the current rules allow plenty of room for creative designers.  And
builders can choose to power planes with 2C, 4C, glow, gas, or electric and
be well under 11 lbs - just don't expect to do it with a super guppy sized
widebody made of fiberglass and polyster resin using a Zenoah for power
while maintaining 94 db.  Small high performance gassers and electrics are
both still relatively new - give the designers some time and they will make
the product that is suited for the average guy that wants to go the electric
or small gasser route - it is already happening, and will continue to do so.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart
DaveL322 at comcast.net

----- Original Message -----
From: <tony at radiosouthrc.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: RE: FAI Weight Thread

> How about Bipes, Triplanes and such?  ....
>
>
> Tony Stillman
> Radio South
> 3702 N. Pace Blvd.
> Pensacola, FL 32505
> 1-800-962-7802
> www.radiosouthrc.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Thompson III" <mrandmrst at comcast.net>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 5:14 PM
> Subject: Re: RE: FAI Weight Thread
>
>
> > Jim,
> > The size wouldn't change, just the weight limit.  You can only go so
heavy
> > with a 2x2 airframe before the wing loading gets so high the plane flies
> > like crap.  That will be the controlling factor, wing load.
> >
> > Ken
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jim Ivey" <jivey61 at bellsouth.net>
> > To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 5:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: RE: FAI Weight Thread
> >
> >
> >> Guys
> >> So you raise it to 5.5 or even 12 lbs,where will it end. In 2 years
> >> someone will want 14 lbs so they can run their gas engine,then we can
go
> >> unlimited and be like IMAC where the sky is the limit with weight. Then
> >> we move the box out another 50 yards and make it unlimited width to
> >> accomodate the bigger planes.
> >> I think leave well enough alone.
> >>
> >> Jim Ivey
> >>>
> >>> From: "Dean Pappas" <d.pappas at kodeos.com>
> >>> Date: 2005/02/23 Wed PM 05:12:55 EST
> >>> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> >>> Subject: RE: FAI Weight Thread
> >>>
> >>> Hi Ed,
> >>> OK, so you agree.  5.5 Kg should be fine, no?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dean Pappas
> >>> Sr. Design Engineer
> >>> Kodeos Communications
> >>> 111 Corporate Blvd.
> >>> South Plainfield, N.J. 07080
> >>> (908) 222-7817 phone
> >>> (908) 222-2392 fax
> >>> d.pappas at kodeos.com
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> >>> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ed Miller
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:39 PM
> >>> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> >>> Subject: Re: FAI Weight Thread
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 5Kg including fuel for glow planes will eliminate 2 of the 3 pattern
> >>> ships now I have, including my newest 2M ship as I doubt I can fly the
> >>> Master's schedule on 7 ounces of fuel. Should it happen I guess I'll
> >>> just sport fly my planes and another NSRCA member and pattern flyer
will
> >>> be lost. I suspect over 90% of existing glow ships would now be
> >>> technically illegal. If we keep screwing with rules that outdate or
make
> >>> planes overnight illegal, pattern will be a very, very small crowd in
a
> >>> very short time. I certainly don't care for the thought that my
> >>> substantial $$ and time investment could be wiped out by a rule that
> >>> accomplishes what ???
> >>> Ed M.
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: Dean  <mailto:d.pappas at kodeos.com> Pappas
> >>> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:27 AM
> >>> Subject: RE: FAI Weight Thread
> >>>
> >>> Hi Bob,
> >>> Generally, the desireability of a quieter event is recognized. E-power
> >>> suffers from a definition problem: we weigh without fuel, but with
> >>> batteries. A change to "ready for takeoff" will even the playing field
> >>> ... maybe even tilt it E-ward. Do you kake the present day ships pass
a
> >>> 5 Kg standard with fuel, or do you give everyone an additonal 1/2 Kg
for
> >>> fuel and or battery.
> >>>
> >>> While my druthers would be to make everyone meet 5Kg wet/batteried, I
> >>> suspect that there would be resistance to making existing legal
> >>> airplanes suddenly illegal. That's where 5.5 Kg might come from. A
total
> >>> removal of the weight limit is exceedingly unlikely. Has anyone spoken
> >>> to Chris Lakin or Ron Chidgey, lately?
> >>>
> >>> Regards to All,
> >>>         Dean
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dean Pappas
> >>> Sr. Design Engineer
> >>> Kodeos Communications
> >>> 111 Corporate Blvd.
> >>> South Plainfield, N.J. 07080
> >>> (908) 222-7817 phone
> >>> (908) 222-2392 fax
> >>> d.pappas at kodeos.com
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> >>> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bob Pastorello
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 9:07 PM
> >>> To: NSRCA
> >>> Subject: FAI Weight Thread
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Over on RCU - apparently some Europeans are under the impression that
> >>> the FAI will consider a proposal to either remove the weight limit, or
> >>> significantly raise it.
> >>>
> >>> Anybody know what's up with that?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Bob Pastorello
> >>> NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
> >>> rcaerobob at cox.net
> >>> www.rcaerobats.net
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> =================================================
> >> 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.