Weight rules discussion ( my opinion)
BUDDYonRC at aol.com
BUDDYonRC at aol.com
Thu Feb 24 19:09:58 AKST 2005
In a message dated 2/24/2005 9:45:04 PM Central Standard Time,
jivey61 at bellsouth.net writes:
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.
Jim
Why are most all top pilots flying airplanes that they claim weigh in the
neighborhood of nine and a half pounds. This is the first time I have heard
that heavy fly's better, at least in respect to pattern performance, explain to
me how this can be true.
Buddy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050225/40ee63cd/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list