Weight discussion

[Mike Hester]

Probably perception, would be my thought. Realities are often quite different than perception, especially with these types of planes and what we're doing with them.

-Mike
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 10:31 AM
  Subject: Weight discussion 


  One more thought on the seemingly endless debate of light vs. heavy pattern planes. I still don't believe that  "... a 'heavy' plane flies better in the wind..." Granted it will tend to bounce a little less, but it depends on how the pilot manages those bounces, because once it starts moving, it keeps going.

  In my experience and observation, the better pilot will fly a lighter plane better. A couple years ago Pete Collinson flew my 10 lb Alliance is heavy crosswind at Ocala, and most everyone there was amazed at the plane's ability in the hands of a competent pilot, in that kind of wind. Pete's flying was effortless it seemed, especially when you consider that the webra was highly detuned in its early life. As I recall some didn't fly due to the wind, not wanting to chance a mishap at the end of the contest.

  Let's not be confused with a plane that is too light; that exists also, but is rare. I agree with Buddy's observation of 1 pound per 100 sq in rule of thumb, and a significant departure to the low side, say 3/4lb/100 sq in, is probably too light for windy conditions. Not so for calm tho.

  Is the meat of the argument making the point that a fat plane will allow its pilot more latitude in heavy wind? Or is that simply the perception? If one THINKS he has an advantage, he does.

  MattK

  In a message dated 2/24/2005 11:31:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, Rcmaster199 at aol.com writes:
    Well, Ocala is right around the corner, so why not fly the pig in the sunshine? Then you'll know fer shure. It always blows in Ocala.

    Better yet, fly the same plane at its standard weight and then increase its weight by 15% and fly another round heavy> I'll hold Ernie back so he won't weigh you (ahem, I meant your plane)

    Matt

    In a message dated 2/24/2005 11:19:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, jivey61 at bellsouth.net writes:
      Matt
      The 12.5 lb dead pig in the sunshine will get better scores because it doesn't appear antsy.
      Like Dave L says the bigger  the plane the better. I agree here.I also agree if you keep the same wing area and raise the weight the wing loading changes.You can keep the same 2meter limits with more wing area and have the bigger plane Dave talks about. None of these suppositions were in the original thread.>
      If Bob has 2 of the same type planes, same wing area one 9.5 lbs and the other 12.5 lbs I still say the 12.5 would have the advantage of being smoother in the wind(blows at every contest).Does this make it illegal? Only if the CD weighs you.

      Jim Ivey 
      > From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com
      > Date: 2005/02/24 Thu PM 11:04:15 EST
      > To: discussion at nsrca.org
      > Subject: Re: Weight rules discussion ( my opinion)
      > 
      >  
      > Jimmy, I've read Don Lowe's columns for years and his rationale (one that I  
      > agree with) is that a light plane bounces more but damps quicker than the 
      > heavy  plane. 
      >  
      > I don't doubt that increasing the DR wing loading by 15% as you  did in your 
      > experiment, would likely result in better flying fro that plane. It  would be 
      > more interesting to know what the wing loading was and is before and  after 
      > the change.
      >  
      > Now translate that to a 2 meter job and see what happens. Try increasing  the 
      > weight of your standard pattern model by 15% and see what it does. How does  
      > the wing loading compare to your DR b4 and after the changes? 
      >  
      > I'd be interested in that experimental result
      >  
      > Matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050225/cbca9f33/attachment.html