[NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?

Sun May 14 22:00:55 AKDT 2006

I find your argument to be somewhat out there.  Personally I don't care one way or the other about the weight rule.  Your whole assumption is everyone is gonna jump on the big bipe wagon, it's gonna raise the cost exponentially, and everyone is gonna quit or not get involved at all.  I don't share that view.  

How about this view.  

It would encourage the traditional building techniques of the wood roaches as they're so fondly called now.  Put my glow or electric motor in it and not have to worry whether I'm 3 oz over 11 lbs.  This is prob a good thing as I feel that one of the biggest drawbacks to getting into pattern is anyone not familiar with this aspect of flying believes you have to have a carbon/fiberglass fuse, and have to paint it.  Which up to a point is true, all you have to do is ck the flightline at any contest to make this assumption or view the planes everyone posts on the forums.  Majority are this type construction.  Take a guy whos been flying for several years, is bored with plowing holes in the sky, and looking for something to channel his competitive energy into.  This guys background is gonna be practically all traditional materials.  Now he has to build a composite airframe, yuck!  He knows ho to use monokote, now he has to do all that painting, yikes!   He doesn't know anything about this type construction, not a huge fan of $2000 arfs, he'll look elsewhere unless he's really motivated to get into pattern.  That may be why the focus was so popular, price wasn't stellar and they understood the construction techniques.

This rule change could also help us return to a simpler less expensive road.  Encourage more suppliers to go back to the traditional type construction.  If someone wants to be competitive on a world level then they can persue the more complex, higher dollar route.  I'm not gonna spend wads of cash on a mega dollar bipe just to win a $5 piece of wood.  I'm nowhere convinced they will fly better just because they'll be bigger.  The designs available now fly pretty good.

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dave Lockhart 
  To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 
  Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:21 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?

  Yes, Some of the pattern guys would go to the hassle of a bipe to get the competitive advantage of the bigger plane - and the rest of us would be less competitive unless we chose to spend more time and more money (assuming we had the time and money to spend - and some don't and will drop the event).

  Yes 96db is a challenge for gas, 94 (FAI) is even more of a challenge.  Both can be easily done - it only takes $$$$

  Restructure the rules so that the most competitive airframes are more expensive, more complex, and require more time, and the numbers interested in the event will drop (as it has every single time in the past when rules allowed escalation of the airframes).

  Dave

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: 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 11:59 PM
  To: NSRCA Mailing List
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?

  The IMAC guys don't want to deal with it, but pattern guys would?  Only motors that would support bipes in that size are gas.  96db at 3 meters?  Now there's a hassle.  The skys not falling.

    ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: Dave Lockhart 

    To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 

    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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: 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 

      To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 

      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] On Behalf Of 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> 

        Yummy! Big Biplanes are coming in quantity!

        John Ferrell    W8CCW
        "My Competition is not my enemy"
        http://DixieNC.US

          ----- Original Message ----- 

          From: Bdrtschiger Urs 

          To: NSRCA Mailing List 

          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
      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
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060515/3d01507d/attachment-0001.html 