Weight rules discussion ( my opinion)

[BUDDYonRC at aol.com]

In a message dated 2/24/2005 9:11:03 PM Central Standard Time,  
DaveL322 at comcast.net writes:

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_ (mailto:BUDDYonRC at aol.com)  
To: _discussion at nsrca.org_ (mailto: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_ (mailto: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_ (mailto:BUDDYonRC at aol.com)  
To: _discussion at nsrca.org_ (mailto: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 




Dave
I agree considering optimum design within the two meter limit, performance  
will be determined by the design. Optimum weight is included in the  equation. 
If weight is increased the design must change to obtain optimum  performance. 
Today design weight is in the neighborhood of one pound  per one hundred 
square inches of wing area. In the past patterns dictated an  eleven hundred square 
inch wing area. Optimum design is now at about nine  hundred and eighty 
square inches due to requirements brought about by  the current patterns we fly, 
and in reality that is the driving force in the  current design equation 
required to obtain optimum performance and always will  be.
Considering a twelve pound weight limit, a two meter maximum size limit and  
the fact that power requirements increase exponentially as size, drag and 
weight  increase, I don't see how a designer would attempt to purposely consider 
such a  challenge and expect optimum performance with the possible exception of 
a  biplane design and that option has always been out there, tried a few 
times and  excluding Chip's effort has never been accepted. 
In fact look at IMAC where anything is possible and the swing is back  toward 
monoplanes and away from biplanes, I wonder why?
Considering all the possibilities I still think a weight change is the way  
to go.     
 Buddy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050225/9310f91e/attachment-0001.html