FAI Weight Thread

[David Lockhart]

John,

Interesting point - but I don't think it really applies to pattern because of HUGE difference between pylon and pattern - pylon has a displacement limit, pattern doesn't.  In pattern adding weight will not level the playing field or allow the heavy planes to compete (at the rare contests where weight is checked) - because the engines will also get bigger, and the planes have plenty of room to get bigger (the bipe you mention).  My bet would be that the "new" bipes would develop and evolve and push the weight limit - until the weight limit was raised until at least 16+ pounds - adding weight to the big bipe beyond that would start to become counter productive - just like adding weight to an 11 lb current day pattern model.

You are absolutely correct that hindsight clearly shows the resulting unintended consequences of multiple iterations of rule changes that ultimately lead to the larger more expensive models.  I find it rather interesting that people seem to have no qualms about implementing new rules that will obsolete the current equipment - but only when the new rule allows escalation and not the other way around.

Dave



----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Pavlick 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:44 PM
  Subject: RE: FAI Weight Thread


  Guys,
   Has anyone looked at any Pylon racing forums? They have a MINIMUM weight requirement. Everyone works DOWN to achieve the goal. Guess what they're arguing about? The same thing that we are - they want to raise the weight limit to allow more planes to be competitive. The reasoning is that some of the ARFs are heavier than MINIMUM weight (sound familiar?). They figure that by adding weight to light airplanes to make them "legal", while leaving the heavy ones alone, everyone will be even again. The points and counterpoints are exactly the same ones we have. 
   The problem we're having is because everyone knows the RIGHT thing to do (I think), but it's too late. If the rules were worded differently from the beginning, we wouldn't be discussing this now. It would not be a good idea to make someone's airplane illegal overnight (make the glow fuel weight include fuel) even though it's technically the correct thing to do. Keep in mind the new rules don't go into effect immediately. In retrospect, I think as long as the size is limited, the weight will stay in line because we're all trying to build lighter airplanes, aren't we? The down side of limiting just the size and not the weight of course has one loophole: biplanes. Think about it. Speak now or deal with it later...
   Now would probably be a good time to look at your plane and see if you can lighten it up SAFELY. The worst thing that will happen is it might fly a little better. If 99% of us could make weight with a full tank, it might put an end to this for a while. Maybe this isn't even possible today, but by the time the rules go into effect, it probably will be.
  John Pavlick
  http://www.idseng.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 6:43 PM
  To: discussion at nsrca.org
  Subject: Re: FAI Weight Thread


    5.5Kg or by my calculations 12 pounds 1+ ounce is fine for glow with fuel and electric with batteries. If that levels the playing field, if it needs leveling, those are numbers I can live with. In fact at 12 pounds, a conventional glass/foam/balsa/ply large 2 meter plane ( like the EMC ) can be built with electric power and make weight. But I wonder do we really need to mess with the weight issue ?? There was a time I was all for raising the 5Kg limit, not so anymore. Although the prospect of building an E power EMC is enticing. The real issue is do we ( USA AMA ) continue to follow FAI should they adopt an absurd rule that obsoletes all our toys overnight ??? I hope not. 
    Ed M.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050225/6f245bb4/attachment.html