[NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?
Rex LESHER
trexlesh at msn.com
Sun May 14 19:48:43 AKDT 2006
Ya, I'm all jiggy with that.... Keep smiling, the weather report down here doesn't show anything bad. I'll do my dance.
I'm sure that Gordon will help out with the consumption contest. He's feeling all pent up and needs a little relief!!!!
Rex
----- Original Message -----
From: Chad Northeast<mailto:chad at f3acanada.org>
To: NSRCA Mailing List<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?
Hey Rex,
There are 4 of us coming from Calgary....should have a good turnout.
Weather forecast does not look too promising though! Might have time to
drink a few beers :)
Chad
Rex LESHER wrote:
> The only thing I've seen that stopped the spread of the Double Vision,
> was the cost. $2600 for the kit was a bit extreme. Then you have to
> build it. Especially when you have all the ready made planes
> available for about half that price.
> Hey Chad, See you at the DAM next weekend.... Looking forward to it.
> Looks like we'll bring 4-6 flyers up for it...
>
> Rex
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Chad Northeast <mailto:chad at f3acanada.org<mailto:chad at f3acanada.org>>
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 7:44 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?
>
> Lest we not forget that bipes placed 2nd and 4th at the 2005 World
> Champs......they are not everywhere....yet....increasing the weight
> limit will only open the door for their development.
>
> Chad
>
> jivey61 at bellsouth.net<mailto:jivey61 at bellsouth.net> <mailto:jivey61 at bellsouth.net<mailto:jivey61 at bellsouth.net>> wrote:
>
> > Dave
> > I agree and didn't Chip do this and it didn't take hold and stay
> > around for long.
> > Jim Ivey
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Dave Lockhart <mailto:davel322 at comcast.net<mailto:davel322 at comcast.net>>
> > *To:* 'NSRCA Mailing List'
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> > *Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 10:19 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?
> >
> > Yes they are a PIA and I don’t want to spend the extra time
> either.
> >
> > IMAC essentially has no limits, excepting the AMA 55 lb limit
> > which is not really a factor.
> >
> > Bigger flies better, period. If an IMAC guy went through the
> fuss
> > to build the monstrous bipe with wingspan similar to the big
> > monoplanes, it would be “bigger” and it would fly better. No one
> > wants to deal with that hassle and expense.
> >
> > A 2M bipe is bigger than a 2M monoplane. The 2M being bigger
> will
> > fly better, period. And it will be more expense and it will
> result
> > in some number of current day pattern competitors leaving
> the event.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > Dave Lockhart
> >
> > DaveL322 at comcast.net<mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net> <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net<mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>>
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>>
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of
> > *Robert Mairs
> > *Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 9:26 PM
> > *To:* NSRCA Mailing List
> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?
> >
> > I don't buy into the bipe theory. Bipes are a PIA. I
> wouldn't want
> > to spend a half hour setting up and tearing down every day I
> went
> > out flying. If bipes are so dominating why don't you see them on
> > the IMAC circuit? They don't have any size or weight
> restrictions
> > and they strive for the same type performance we do, yet
> they're a
> > rarity. They're nice to see and may show up, but a flight line
> > full of bipes, I doubt it.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > *From:* Stuart Chale <mailto:schale at optonline.net<mailto:schale at optonline.net>>
> >
> > *To:* 'NSRCA Mailing List'
> > <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> >
> > *Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 8:57 PM
> >
> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for
> electrics?
> >
> > Any time a limit has been relaxed; there has been a
> change in
> > airplane size and or design. It is not necessarily immediate
> > but technology seems to adapt to the new limits. Just try to
> > fly one of your 2M designs with a piped 60, or even a
> 120 4C.
> > When 4C limits were increased to 1.2 cubic inches nothing
> > changed. Some brave folks tried 4C but it didn’t work
> until YS
> > came out with a 4C engine that was more powerful than a
> 60 2C
> > engine. Then the planes took a step larger and heavier. When
> > the engine limit was removed planes got larger again. 120 AC
> > engines were now only good for the beginner classes. (An
> > oversimplification). Right now the weight limit works.
> Yes it
> > is a bit harder to make a 2M pattern plane come in under
> 5 kg
> > when made electric but it can be done. A gas engine 2M
> may be
> > even more difficult. Relaxing the weight limit will make it
> > easier for an electric conversion to make weight and make a
> > gas powered version more feasible. But new designs will now
> > show up pushing the new limits. The obvious direction is
> a 2 M
> > bipe. A 14 pound 2 M bipe may present better than a
> monoplane,
> > maybe not. If it does then everyone will “need” or at least
> > want one. If people want to try something new and bigger
> then
> > scrap the weight limit. If not then relaxing the weight
> limit
> > to fit today’s problems will have undesirable effects
> tomorrow J
> >
> > Stuart Chale
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>>
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf
> > Of *vicenterc at comcast.net<mailto:*vicenterc at comcast.net> <mailto:*vicenterc at comcast.net<mailto:*vicenterc at comcast.net>>
> > *Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 8:06 PM
> > *To:* NSRCA Mailing List; NSRCA Mailing List
> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for
> electrics?
> >
> > I understood that the definition of model airplane
> states that
> > weigh has to be below 5 Kg. That is consider international.
> > The only exception is the scale that is a little higher.
> I am
> > not sure if this single reason is going to make difficult to
> > change the rule for F3A. For sure is going to help the gas
> > engines. I don't think electric power plants are having a
> > weigh problem.
> >
> > Vicente Bortone
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> > From: "John Ferrell" <johnferrell at earthlink.net<mailto:johnferrell at earthlink.net>
> <mailto:johnferrell at earthlink.net<mailto:johnferrell at earthlink.net>>>
> >
> > Yummy! Big Biplanes are coming in quantity!
> >
> > John Ferrell W8CCW
> > "My Competition is not my enemy"
> > http://DixieNC.US<http://dixienc.us/> <http://dixienc.us/<http://dixienc.us/>>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > *From:* Bdrtschiger Urs
> > <mailto:baertschiger-tai at bluewin.ch<mailto:baertschiger-tai at bluewin.ch>>
> >
> > *To:* NSRCA Mailing List
> > <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> >
> > *Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 5:17 AM
> >
> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for
> > electrics?
> >
> > This subject has been adressed officially. Based on
> > what I have been told, the weight limit for F3A will
> > be dropped with the next rules changes. What will
> > remain however, is the 2M by 2M box.
> >
> > Urs
> >
> > NSRCA #3069
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060515/590c66a6/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list