[NSRCA-discussion] Enticing beginners(wasRe: Header Brace)

[Fred Huber]

if the newbie is the target... make the planes smaller and go back to the 
.60 2-stroke engine limit (and an equivilent thrust producing electric 
allowed... base it on static thrust and pitch speed.)

Limiting it back to the power and size of the planes when Sig's King Kobra 
was a top of the line airpane will bring costs WAY down (until the kit and 
engine makers get into seriously working on making planes to EXACTLY meet 
the rules but exceed performance of everything else n the market)

Lower cost of entry with a plane equal to the best being used by anyone 
anywhere... could bring in the beginners.

***********

Note that such an event essentially exists already... its called Nostalgia 
Pattern (we'd just be eliminating thier age of design rule... and using the 
turn-around sequences)

Now... how popular is the Nostalgia event with under 50 yr old flyers?  If 
the answer is "Not at all"... the idea of making the max aircraft size 
smaller is DOA.

FHH

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean Pappas" <d.pappas at kodeos.com>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Header Brace


>
>
> Hi Ron,
> I get the message. I also admire Don Quixote.
>
> It's just that I remember a lot of the discussion from back then. (almost 
> 18 years ago)
>
> For one thing, back when the 2-meter rule was proposed, there was a point 
> of argument that larger ships would help transform Pattern into more of a 
> spectator event. Boy I sure am glad that panned out so well!
> We never will be a spectator sport: because we don't televise well. It's 
> because of the "tiny dot lost in the sky" problem. On the other hand, one 
> fixed camera mount (maybe 2) can adequately cover a bowling match, turning 
> that event into a televised money sport. Good for them.
>
> 2 meters was not a magic number. Some guy in Germany ( I really should 
> remember his name!) had built a 2 meter ship with an OS 61, and even 
> though it was generally agreed to be underpowered in the wind, and even 
> though the 120 four-stroke ships of the day had not yet reached 2 meters, 
> the rule got written that way because it didn't make sense to make 
> existing planes illegal. As a result, the dimension was padded or rounded 
> up a bit. If we always follow that precedent, I guess that means that our 
> planes can only ever grow in size.
>
> Maybe the people voting on it were all thinking of their aging eyesight.
>
> In any case, the question is not how we could implement it. The real 
> question is whether the event would benefit. I genuinely don't know, 
> though I suspect that greater travel convenience and cost reduction could 
> only benefit the event.
>
> Back when there was a displacement limit, we built airplanes at sizes 
> dictated by the available horsepower. Now, there is a 2-m box and a weight 
> limit. With either careful wood building or expensive composites the real 
> limit is the 2-m rule. As we all know, the physics favors the bigger 
> airplane for a variety of reasons.This forces everyone to build right up 
> to the limit, so the only way to make smaller planes competitive is to 
> make all of them smaller. So now I am back to the original question: will 
> legislating plane size downward improve participation? Don't answer for 
> yourself, as many of you have. Put yourself in the shoes of the 
> prospective newbie. The newbie is the target.
>
> later,
> Dean
>
> "I wish I was in de land ob cotton....."
>
>
> Ron Van Putte
>
>
>
>
>


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


> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


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


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.4/615 - Release Date: 1/3/2007