Weight limit discussion

[Terry Brox]

I was, but only to a point. Something along those lines I believe would happen, and if it does, like you said, would need a large engine to fly it. That is where you made my point. As you said, weightless balsa or in other words, composites, or in other words money. I too, could have benefited from a higher weight as my original Patriot came out 11lb 7oz. I was able to trim it to 10lb 14.5oz. as weighed at the NATS. But I must say, I do not believe changing the weight limit will help. Look what the engine displacement change do, only a handful are taking advantage of cheaper, larger 2strokes. But even they are using more expensive servos and other epuipment than just the engine. I may not be 100% against a change in weight, but I am 99% against it. I just have no answer, other than placing more limits of some kind, to lower costs. Terry
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: BUDDYonRC at aol.com 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 6:44 PM
  Subject: Re: Weight limit discussion


  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 
      To: 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 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/ecfc266f/attachment.html