Weight Limit

[David Lockhart]

Bill,

I've reprinted some of your text with inserts bracketed by **************

" 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.
*********Correct.  We are talking about weight only, and that is at this
time the only factor that matters very much because it is the single factor
that has the biggest influence on the cost of our planes
today.**************

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."
********Again, I believe you are correct in that building any of the current
day planes any amount heavier does not equate to a competitive advanatage.

The performance level of the pattern aircraft of just a few years ago
(Prophecy, Hydeout, Arch Nemesis, Elan, many of the Typhoons, etc) has been
eclipsed by the current generation of planes.  If you were to freeze
advancements in specific pattern designs and engines specifically designed
for pattern, increasing the weight limit (a limited amount) would likely
have little other effect than allow the currently illegal current day
designs to compete legally at the Nats and allow some of the close to 11 lb
sport planes compete.  Nothing bad about that at all.  The detriment and
negative comes in with the new iteration of designs that will be triggered
by allowing heavier planes - the new designs will eclipse the performance of
the current day stuff, and all the designs and engines specifically designed
for the new weight limit will cost more than the current day versions.  I
really don't think we want to obsolete the equipment we have to allow a
Goldberg sport planes you reference into our event (especially considering
they are commonly allowed within the existing rules at the discretion of the
CD).

In practice, the sport plane that is close to meeting the pattern rules is
allowed in the contest by the CD.  We don't need to increase the weight rule
to accomplish what CD's discretion is already doing - if we did, we would
find ourselves subject yet again to unintended consequences - and I bet we
would lose more current day pattern pilots due to change (and obsoleting
their equipment) than we gained by allowing a sport flier a go at pattern
with his 12 lb Goldberg/Midwest/DPM Extra/Ultimate/Yak whatever.

And FWIW - I think the added historical perspective strengthens my
position - pattern guys will continue to design, develop, and expand the
boundaries of performance as far as they can inside the limits of the class.

Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Glaze" <billglaze at triad.rr.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Weight Limit


> 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


=================================================
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.