FAI Weight Thread

[Dean Pappas]

Hi Eric ...
I believe the term you were looking for is jaded. 
The 5 Kg is the "real" limit. It was recognized that 2M was not the real limit (except for heavy builders)because the 2M size was chosen, in some part, in response to the~ 9 lb 2M/60 two-stroke ship flown by one of the German Team members to a top 5 finish at the European Continentals in something like '88. What annoys me is that I can't remember his name! The size was deemed practical, and it was recognized that without a weight limit, the planes would become "huge" inside a 2M box. Remember, with the right spinner, my TOC 30% Ultimate was 71" span, and just under 78" long. Rojecki's was 19 lbs with a very tricked out Tartan twin. It did not fly like a slug, at all, and at 150M even geriatric judges had no visibility concerns to complain about. It would actually fit in my van in one piece ... Hmmm.
 
Remember that the 2M rule happened in the same stroke as the elimination of displacement limits. The sub-committee realized that displacement was the "real" limit back then, and now we have the situation where sometimes it's 2M, and other times it's weight that is the "real" limit. You know ... I think that means that they got it "right" the first time! It's just rough to be one of those guys up against the weight. Designers ... how about some top-notch designs in a 72" span, designed to go like mad with a muffled 140 2-C or 140 FZ?
 
Deep in my heart, I still want the planes kept small, for cost reasons.
 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: discussion-request at nsrca.org on behalf of Grow Pattern 
	Sent: Wed 2/23/2005 5:58 PM 
	To: discussion at nsrca.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: FAI Weight Thread
	
	
	Dean,
	            Do you happen to know the original rationale behind having that weight limit? I think you were there when modern pattern was invented :-)
	 
	It seems to me that history might have a more than futuristic answer ! 
	 
	If not we can just live with competition irredentism and become extinct.
	 
	Regards,
	 
	Eric.

		----- Original Message ----- 
		From: Dean Pappas <mailto:d.pappas at kodeos.com>  
		To: discussion at nsrca.org 
		Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 5:12 PM
		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 Pappas <mailto:d.pappas at kodeos.com>  
				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
					 
					 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 11410 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050224/018733d1/attachment.bin