Weight Limit

[Bill Glaze]

Dave:
Please understand; I'm not advocating anything like the Extra at 14 lbs. 
But, unlike you, I can remember the top of the heap being a 6 lb.Bonner 
Smog Hog with a Fox 35 engine, no ailerons, rudder/elevator, 2 speed 
engine.  I had one.  THAT was the top of the heap; won the Dallas Nats 
in 1956.  In 1957, almost simultaneously, in came Fred Dunn's Astro Hog, 
(completely new airplane), K& B .45 with exhaust baffle and throttle 
control, and Orbit 8 channel on reeds, (ailerons and infinite throttle 
added, instead of just a 2 speed.)  In one year, virtually everything 
changed.
Some tried to compete, some didn't.  Again, I remember very well in 1957 
or so, we had 50 contestants, give or take, at just our monthly club 
contests.  (BTW: my new Orbit radio cost me $250 with no servos, 
batteries--in fact, nothing but the radio.  That's a full week pay, back 
then).  In my job, I went from prop driven DC-6 to 767 wide body jet.  
So, I'm well acquainted with change.
And yes, I'm sure there would be unintended consequences.  Good and/or 
bad, my crystal ball won't let me see.  Probably depends on perspective.
 So, here I am now, rather a small mix of Fred and George.  But, 
remember in this rather lengthy discussion, we're talking about weight 
only, here.
And I still fail to see how allowing somebody to build an airplane like 
the Focuses (Foci?) or the Hydeout at a pound heavier would threaten me 
or pattern.  It would allow the newer "budget" airplanes, such as the 
new Goldberg, on the line.  I fail to see how that would threaten either 
George or Fred.
I'd be glad to see that Goldberg owner out at a contest, rather than on 
the sidelines, or out sport flying, or something else. 
And, I admire Buddy's approach, and Eric's too, looking at new ideas, 
compromises, new concepts, and leaving everything possible on the 
table.  It all needs to be looked at.  I do think that Buddy's idea 
(call it marginal overweight) would find people using it as the new de 
facto weight.  And?

Meanwhile, our numbers diminish almost on a daily basis.  As John said:  
Would the last person t leave, please turn out thelights?

Bill Glaze

David Lockhart wrote:

>Mark,
>I agree 100%.
>
>Bill,
>Quite simply, the answer is this - unlike your Extra/Moki, pattern is driven
>by the designs flown by those at the top of the discipline which are
>designed to push the limits of the event (weight, displacement, size) - and
>then the majority follow that lead.  In the days of old, the top level was a
>2C 60 7.5 lb plane (pushing the limits of available power).  Now it is 78"
>long, 74" span widebody designed for the available power (from engines
>targeting 11 lb and under airframes) and to squeak under the weight limit.
>Compare the costs of the two planes (time, expense, maintenance, contest
>vehicle, etc).
>
>Allow a 14 lb weight limit (like your Extra) and a new design cycle will be
>triggered exactly as outlined by Mark.  YS, Webra, OS, and the electric
>manufacturers (Hacker, Plettenberg, AXI) are currently building powerplants
>that supply power for 11 lb airframes will build bigger, more expensive
>engines/motors to power the 14 lb planes which the designers will produce.
>The resulting pattern designed plane with pattern oriented engines will
>render the performance of your Extra as woefully lacking in comparison to
>the new 14 lb pattern designs.  Needless to say few engines on the market
>cost more per weight/output than pattern engines - of course virtually none
>rival the combination of power to weight and reliability.
>
>Dave
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 8:49 PM
>Subject: RE: Weight Limit
>
>
>Bill... I'm sure Dave will chime in, but in the meantime, I'll take a
>stab.
>
>I don't think Dave is trying to imply that a slight weight change
>"Costs" more to build.  The added cost is more complicated.  Increasing
>the weight limit will start a whole cycle (as it did when we changed
>displacement rules) of redesigning aircraft.  New designs cost
>money...It's like R&D...and those cost manifest in higher kit costs.
>New designs means new setups.  For the advanced modeler, that means
>buying multiple sets of Props, plugs, fuels, blah blah blah to figure
>out the new "Hot" set-up.  In addition, it makes all of the "back-up"
>supplies we carry obsolete.  All costs MORE money.
>
>Any idea how many 11x7 3/4 Rev Up props I have in the basement?? Spares
>for when the Supertigers where the hot setup?  How about pairs of
>retracts?? Glow plugs? Or APC 12x12's for my YS 61 long strokes...  Have
>any old Hatori 650 tuned pipes laying around?  Offset headers?  Silicone
>couplers? Can't imagine how much money is in "spare parts" that I never
>used because we changed setup.
>
>That's for the advanced Pattern geek...   For the newbie, the cost is
>worse because the "used" aircraft market becomes non-existent
>UNLESS...they're willing to fly an outdated airframe...something that
>clearly they don't wish to do or this whole discussion would be moot and
>they'd be flying Prophecy's...
>
>So on one side...the beginner has to spend more because there's very
>little "used" fare on the market...and on the other side...the advanced
>modeler "Eats" even more cost because his old plane no longer has the
>value it had prior to the change.
>
>More money, more money, and more money.
>
>Lastly...it puts some of our cottage manufactures out of business...it's
>too expensive for some of them to change designs weekly.  They can't
>sell enough of one plane to recover the design and molding costs.  That
>one I have personal experience with.
>
>So yes...it's not specifically the weight that will add cost...it's
>simply the CHANGE that will increase cost...across the board.
>
>-Mark
>Well Dave??  How'd I do? :)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
>On Behalf Of Bill Glaze
>Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 6:58 PM
>To: NSRCA Discussion
>Subject: Weight Limit
>
>Dave:
>I hold no particular opinion on a weight limit change; at least, not
>yet.  But, I have rather gained interest in the discussion as a
>bystander.
>So, I am curious.  You seem to equate weight with cost, as if we were
>buying these airplanes like a Sirloin steak, on a per pound basis.
>Now, I have a couple of 14 pound Extra 300's that are powered by Moki's.
>Both of them (at 80 inch wingspans, similar to pattern size wise) cost
>less than any of my pattern airplanes, have greater performance, and fly
>
>very well.  I have no doubt that I could have spent more money, but it
>would not have improved the breed.  I did, of course, build them from
>kits.  I could have built them heavier, but that, too, would be
>pointless.
>If, and I stress if, all other factors are to remain the same except
>weight, how can you come up with weight equating to cost?  Particularly
>now, that Y.S. has upped the ante with their new 1.60?  Which, arguably,
>
>is aimed at the pattern market.
>I perhaps missed the message in this thread that explained your stand.
>Interested to see it again.
>Thanks
>
>Bill Glaze
>
>=================================================
>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.
>
>
>=================================================
>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.