[NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?

Mon May 15 05:21:07 AKDT 2006

I think this whole weight thing started because of a single post about an F3A FAI rumor. Even if FAI changes it, AMA does not have to . That, of course, is a completely DIFFERENT issue.
I have ALWAYS been a proponent (as many of you probably recall with distaste) of rasing the 11lb wieght limit to 12 lbs, and keeping everything else the same.
My rationale has always been the same - make the wood roach 2 Meter ARFS easily legal, and open up those really great performing airframes and engines to those with more limited budgets who really WANT a truly competitive airplane to play the game with.
But the voices of the masses has stopped that change (I speculate that it is not an 'acceptable' change, because there are so few who have NOT paid the high $$ for the lighter-weight special airframes. Isnt' logical for them to want to vote in a rule that means their extra cost investments weren't needed.).
UNLIMITED *anything* in this game is a BAD PLAN. Yes, Dave L., you had persuaded me with history...when the engine limits were removed (basically), the Game got more expensive. UNLIMITED weight would be a REALLY BAD PLAN.

---- Chad Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org> wrote:
>"I'm not gonna spend wads of cash on a mega dollar bipe just to win a $5
>piece of wood."
>
>Are you flying a 2 meter today? Or a 60 powered Jekyll?
>
>Looking back into the past of what I know, opening up the rules to allow
>bigger planes/engines etc. has always driven up the cost...and although
>it may start at an international competition level it seems to have
>always filtered down to every class. You hardly see the old school 60's
>anymore.
>
>In time guys would spend big cash on bipes if thats the direction it
>went....otherwise you would not be competitive. The ones that could
>afford it would, the rest would leave. Current 2 meters didnt happen
>overnight......but they did happen.....and so will big ass bipes if the
>rules are opened up.
>
>Chad
>
>Robert Mairs wrote:
>
>>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 <mailto:davel322 at comcast.net>
>>*To:* 'NSRCA Mailing List' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>*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 <mailto:davel322 at comcast.net>
>>
>>*To:* 'NSRCA Mailing List'
>><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
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>*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 <mailto:schale at optonline.net>
>>
>>*To:* 'NSRCA Mailing List'
>><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] *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 <http://dixienc.us/>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>
>>*From:* Bdrtschiger Urs
>><mailto:baertschiger-tai at bluewin.ch>
>>
>>*To:* NSRCA Mailing List
>><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
>>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
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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

--
Bob Pastorello, El Reno, OK, USA
rcaerobob at cox.net
www.rcaerobats.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060515/d89060b8/attachment-0001.html 