Weight Limit

[Ed Miller]

Look at it this way. By raising the weight limit will we ( NSRCA ) attract 
and RETAIN more long term pattern enthusiasts ( flying over 11lb ARF's ) 
than we will LOOSE of the existing long time pattern enthusiast who are 
finally fed up with the constant change that obsoletes his under 11lb. self 
built plane of the week ??? Frankly, with the changes in the rules that have 
occurred over the last dozen or so years which directly affect planes size, 
we have attracted no one LONG TERM and surely lost many. It seems in many 
aspects of today's world we need to find a reason the cater to the LCD at 
the expense of everyone else. This has gotten so ridiculous, how many out 
there use the criteria of fitting a current 2M by 2M pattern plane into a 
vehicle before you will consider it's purchase. I think we need to allow 
electric at 11lb MINUS batteries OR find a WET/LOADED weight for both glow 
and electric that does not compromise today's 5Kg standard. The 5.5Kg number 
was floated, that might be it. Still it would just be cleaner to allow 
electrics weight without batteries at 5Kg.
Ed M.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Lockhart" <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: Weight Limit


> 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.
> 

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