FAI Weight Thread (gas)

Thu Feb 24 06:26:17 AKST 2005

I am new to Pattern and I have not read all the post but I would like to toss
in my 2 cents worth. I have come over to pattern because I think we will place
a 2X2 Gas plane in the air this spring. just my thought from a new member If
you just keep the 2mX2m in tack all the rest will fall in place I just can't
see a 13# and up plane flying that well against a 10# to 11# pounder so the
weight will take care of it self.

Pat Hewitt
Paola, Kansas

PS. go to www.rcaerobats.net and check out our new project

------ Original Message ------
Received: 05:55 PM CST, 02/23/2005
From: "Doug Cronkhite" <seefo at san.rr.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Subject: RE: RE: FAI Weight Thread

Well then that's the trade-off isn't it. If you build a heavy airplane you
pay the penalty of it flying poorly. The airplanes will not get bigger so
long as the 2m x 2m box remains.

I agree with what was said earlier that electrics suffer from a definition
problem more than anything else. I personally like changing the weight limit
for F3A to a 'wet' limit but with a change such that no existing airframe
combinations suddenly become illegal. That would be counter-productive at
best, and outright stupid at worst.

-Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org 
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jim Ivey
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 3:50 PM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: RE: FAI Weight Thread
> 
> Ken
>  By necessity the planes will have to get bigger or they will 
> fly like Eric says(jello on a plate). I liked that one.
> 
> Jim Ivey
> > 
> > From: "Ken Thompson III" <mrandmrst at comcast.net>
> > Date: 2005/02/23 Wed PM 06:14:37 EST
> > To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> > 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.

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.