Weight limit discussion

[BUDDYonRC at aol.com]

In a message dated 2/25/2005 6:39:27 PM Central Standard Time,  
wgalligan at goodsonacura.com writes:

I think he was being facetious Buddy.
 
WG
 

----- Original Message ----- 
From:  _BUDDYonRC at aol.com_ (mailto:BUDDYonRC at aol.com)  
To: _discussion at nsrca.org_ (mailto:discussion at nsrca.org)  
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 6:29  PM
Subject: Re: Weight limit  discussion



In a message dated 2/25/2005 6:13:19 PM Central Standard Time, 
_tbrox at cox.net_ (mailto:tbrox at cox.net)   writes:

One must remember history to help here. Has any  past changes ever brought 
the cost of pattern down? I believe it has  always made it more expensive such 
as what happened with engine  displacement.
       I am  envisioning a new pattern plane for the new weight.
It will be a monoplane, 78" ws, 78" length, fuse  height 18", fuse width 10", 
wing root 25", wing tip15", 15degree sweep at  the quarter chord, 12% airfoil 
making the wing root 3" thick, stab 28" and  nearly 2" thick. 
       I hope it  doesnt look exagerated, but I would be afraid this would be 
the trend.  Obviously I dont know to what extent the poor flying quality of 
this kind  of design would be, but who knows what could happen. 
       Classic case  of opening one door into a room full of doors.  



Terry
You know more about pattern design than that. The engine required to  pull 
that monster will surely weigh in at four pounds add gear, radio  exhaust system 
for another four pounds and covering or paint of a half pound  that means the 
airframe will have to be three and a half pounds. you better  start looking 
for weightless balsa. Be sure to install giant control  surfaces so you will be 
able to use it as a fun fly and all your effort wont  be wasted
Buddy   




I know he was
Buddy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050226/a4733f93/attachment.html