Weight rules discussion ( my opinion)

[Jim Ivey]

Bob
 I assume you want to disregard the 11 lb limit. You will have advantage over the 9.5 lb plane. The 12.5 lb plane will be much more stable in the wind than the 9.5 lb plane. The engines of today will handle the heavier plane just as well as the 9.5 lb plane.   The difference is you're more stable because of your weight. Now if you throw in the weight limit 11 lbs that makes you not legal.
I have a 6.25lb Daddy Rabbit that I had to add 1 lb lead to the CG to calm the plane down so I could fly it smoothly . 
Same thing.  
Don't know if this is a rational reason to be legal or not,but there is an advantage to a heavier plane.

Jim Ivey
> 
> From: "Bob Pastorello" <rcaerobob at cox.net>
> Date: 2005/02/24 Thu PM 10:19:36 EST
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: Weight rules discussion ( my opinion)
> 
> Let's say I decide, for my own reasons, that I want to fly a 12.5lb (dry) 2M pattern airplane against 9.5 lb (dry) 2M pattern airplanes in Masters class.
> 
> Somebody, anybody, give me a rational reason why I should NOT be "legal" to fly at a sanctioned event?
> 
> Bob Pastorello
> NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
> rcaerobob at cox.net
> www.rcaerobats.net
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: David Lockhart 
>   To: discussion at nsrca.org 
>   Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:09 PM
>   Subject: Re: Weight rules discussion ( my opinion)
> 
> 
>   Buddy,
> 
>   Do the rules of aerodynamics include things like wing loading and power loading?  Both of those will be dramatically effected by a change in the weight limit (up or down).  With unlimited displacement and 2x2m maximum dimensions available, weight is very much a design factor.
> 
>   Dave
> 
> 
> 
>   "Lance 
>   In my evaluation the rules need to apply to Pattern as a whole. With the two meter size limit builders will utilize the rules of aerodynamics to achieve the optimum design and weight becomes a moot issue for all classes.
>   Buddy "
>     ----- Original Message ----- 
>     From: BUDDYonRC at aol.com 
>     To: discussion at nsrca.org 
>     Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 8:56 PM
>     Subject: Re: Weight rules discussion ( my opinion)
> 
> 
>     In a message dated 2/24/2005 7:25:59 PM Central Standard Time, patterndude at comcast.net writes:
>       Buddy,
>       One good idea that I didn't see in your list was the onelwhere the weight limit for the Advanced-thru-FAI classes remains the same but the limit for Sportsmand/Intermediate is raised.  This really makes sense to me.  We are all comfortable with advancing difficulty in sequences.  Well, building light is also a learned skill and sometimes requires more $$ comittment.  Pilots grow in flying, building, trimming skills.  Why subject sportsman to FAI building rules?
>       --Lance
> 
>         ----- Original Message ----- 
>         From: BUDDYonRC at aol.com 
>         To: discussion at nsrca.org 
>         Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 1:33 PM
>         Subject: Weight rules discussion ( my opinion)
> 
> 
>         Since the whole message was to large to post following is my opinion.
> 
>         After a thorough weighted comparison of the items listed in my previous post I have arrived at the following conclusions.
> 
>          It is most important that we strive to make pattern an inclusive sport, which I feel is necessary to increase participation in the future. In order to do that one of the first item that should be addressed is that of eliminating the illegitimate double standard in the weight rule. There are two possible solutions; the first would be to enforce all rules, which many agree in this case would not be in patterns best interest. That leaves us with only one solution and that is to change the rule.        
> 
>          In doing that we must consider the overall impact of such a change to insure that it serves to protect all the other aspects concerned as much as possible. After careful review and acknowledging that maintaining the two-meter rule is in fact the limiting design criteria for pattern I suggest that a change in the rule upward to twelve pounds or in light of current FAI considerations, to 5.5K would be an appropriate solution.
> 
>         This change could possibly effect other aspects of pattern design in the future but given the known requirements some of which are listed in my previous post that are necessary and practiced extensively today I have little fear that this change will result in any major design changes that would present a problem or afford anyone an unfair advantage in the near future.
> 
>          If you study the items in my previous post it will also become apparent that there are many listed that offer the potential to increase our participation and make pattern more inclusive. 
> 
>         Should anyone have any other items to offer that I should include which may require further evaluation concerning my conclusions and suggested weight change please forward them to me.
> 
>         Buddy Brammer
> 
>          
> 
> 
> 
>     Lance
>     In my evaluation the rules need to apply to Pattern as a whole. With the two meter size limit builders will utilize the rules of aerodynamics to achieve the optimum design and weight becomes a moot issue for all classes.
>     Buddy
> 


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