[NSRCA-discussion] Header Brace now turned smaller planes and vehicles

[Tommy Scarmardo]

Dean,
  I carry my 2 meter airplane in a 2005 Chevy 1/2 ton extended cab pickup with a fiberglass
  bed cover and it fits with about 1 inch to spare. There is room to carry two airplanes and
  field equipment, canopy, cooler etc. An unexpected benefit of the fiberglass bed cover is
  it keeps the airplane surprisingly cool in the summer.
   
  tommy s
  

Ed Miller <edbon85 at charter.net> wrote:
  >From a practical standpoint what has been going on in auto industry is 180 
degrees to what pattern has done, we have grown BIG, Guppy like 2M planes 
while cars and trucks are getting smaller. I've been out recently looking 
at a replacement ( about 2 or 3 years away ) for my 2001 Astro van which 
easily fits 2 - 2M planes and could carry 4 just as easily along with a 
driver and passenger. In light of GM and Ford's decision to stop producing 
minivans and the demise of the Astro van in '05, it looks like domestic 
full size vans/pickup trucks or foreign minivans is all that will be left. 
I chose the Astro in '01 to carry 2 - 2M planes with support gear AND it's 
ability to tow more than a paperweight. An Astro van set up like mine 
easily tows my 6x12 enclosed trailer with my Harley dresser inside ( approx. 
2600 lbs ) AND it has also towed an 1800 lb flat trailer with 6 Harley's on 
it over 250 miles several times, figure a total weight of approximately 5500 
lbs. With tape measure in hand I have been measuring P/U beds and it seems 
the GM full size "short bed" is 80" from inside the forward wall to the 
inside of the tailgate. To me the fwd minivan offerings, though they make 
great people and plane movers, cannot tow anything more than 1,000 lbs 
reliably over the long haul, so they are not an option at least for me. 
Besides, as long as I can I will buy from one of the big 2, I consider 
Chrysler a foreign company now. I'd hate to "downsize" from the 2M planes 
as they fly much better than their older, smaller counterparts but it would 
be nice to be able to buy smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles to transport 
them. Is anyone out there using an extended cab ( 2 rear mini suicide 
doors ) GM P/U with the standard 6.5ft bed to transport 2M planes ?? I know 
the same truck is available with the 8ft but it is really too 
looonnnggg.........
Ed M.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean Pappas" 
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" 
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:39 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 

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


 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070104/a722c356/attachment.html