FAI Weight Thread

[David Lockhart]

John,

Definitely an interesting parallel you presented.

Quite honestly, I think the pattern rules were the safest, easiest to
enforce, and least controversial when either the 60 displacement or 60 2C /
120 4C displacement rules were in effect.  The 2x2m and 5 kg weight limit
rarely were factors and any of the planes pushing those limits weren't
competitive anyway.  I preferred the era of the 60 2C displacement rule
because the overall cost of the planes was cheaper making the event more
accessible to a larger number of potential competitors.

Given the current state of the rules, it might be very interesting indeed to
give something new a try - along the lines of pylon - a displacement limit
and minimum weight.  Practically, I think this would be close to impossible
to do with the complexities in assessing "equivalent" power levels for glow,
gas, and electric.  It could maybe be done with a constantly adjusted
formula relating currently used glow, gas, and electric power plants, but
that would do little to encourage further development of any of those forms
of motivation - any advances would simply be met with a "penalty" to bring
them back in line.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart
DaveL322 at comcast.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick at idseng.com>
To: "NSRCA Discussion" <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:33 PM
Subject: RE: FAI Weight Thread


> Dave,
>  Yeah, apples to oranges but the point is it's the same arguement even
> though the requirements are totally opposite. We have a MAX weight rule,
> they have a MIN weight rule. We're both trying to build lighter airplanes
> AND make it easier to attract participants (ARFs). That's the part I found
> interesting.
> John Pavlick
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On
> Behalf Of David Lockhart
> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 8:43 PM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: FAI Weight Thread
>
>
>   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
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03
>
> =================================================
> 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.