[NSRCA-discussion] Smaller Models

Thu Jan 4 09:27:31 AKST 2007

While early 4-stroke may have needed 50% more displacement to produce the same useful thrust as 2-stroke... the difference is closer to 25% now.  A .91 OS FS-II has a HUGE power advantage over an OS FX .61 and with the stock mufflers, the .91 4-stroke comes out LIGHTER. (That 2-stroke muffler is HEAVY)  

A .72 4-stroke is now a near even match in useable power to a .61 2-stroke.  The 4-stroke swings a larger diameter prop at a lower rpm and that is inherantly more efficient at converting the engine's power into thrust for the model.

********

As to putting a minimum weight restriction on... you may as well just set the rules and say that its a one-design contest. "You Will fly a Sig King Kobra" (or some other kit or ARF)  And even then you won't be stopping the high tech competition trend.  

Quickie 500 pylon was SUPPOSED to be a low cost event.  The aircraft design and engines allowed were specified to a point where they thought it would prevent the tech-war and it would be a bunch of identical models with identical engines and identical radio systems... but people looking for every advantage possible found out how to work within the rules and build high tech palens that cost a bundle just to get 0.5 mph advantage over the inexpensive wood structure modelt the event was INTENDED to use.

You can overspecify and even make the competitors all put the planes together from a specific ARF, using a specific engine and a specific radio system... and you still won't prevent the "tech war" aspect of any competition.  Someone's going to choose to use different hinges... different control horns..different pushrods.... ANYHING they can to get that tiny advantage.

FHH
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jay Marshall 
  To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 
  Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 9:18 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Smaller Models

  I like the idea of .60 2C / .90 4C. I also think that there should be a minimum weight to keep the hi-tech, high cost, composites at a minimum.  I believe that we would see more manufacturers producing aircraft in this range if there was a potentially larger - sport flyers -  market than just pattern flyers. The current cost of a maxed out pattern setup of $5000+ is ridiculous. Even the lowest cost setup is greater than $1K. 

  -----Original Message-----
  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of ronlock at comcast.net
  Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 9:51 AM
  To: NSRCA Mailing List; NSRCA Mailing List
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Smaller Models

  The field is level now at 2 meter span/length & 11 lb limit.

  It could also be level at 1.7 meters similiar as it was years ago using

  a .60 displacement limit.

  Personally, I found the commaraderie, sportsmanship, competition,

  and such that make pattern a joy for me, were same then as now.  But

  required less money, time, shop & vehicle space. Less investiment might

  assist in attracting new folks and maybe in keeping already active pilots.   

  Then there is the huge issue of transitioning from the present equipment.

  Ron Lockhart

    -------------- Original message -------------- 
    From: "Keith Hoard" <khoard at gmail.com> 
    I know everyone says "Larger models fly better". . . Well, if smaller models are hard to fly, then wouldn't that naturally level the playing field a little?

    On 1/3/07, Ron Lockhart <ronlock at comcast.net> wrote: 

    Yea, smaller has a number of advantages.   

     A reduction in money, time, hassle factor, etc., of models is a thought toward increased participation.

    (Yea, I know the established pilots, and new pilots, are allowed to fly smaller models right now.  But we have a 

    lot of history  that shows Dean's comment "Given that everyone will build or buy up to the maximum size limit" is true. 

    How does that Dixie thing go?....<G>

    Ron Lockhart

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

      From: Dean Pappas 

      To: NSRCA Mailing List 

      Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 4:51 PM

      Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Header Brace

      Hi John,

      A year or so ago, I puit together an Excelleron 90 for a review and eventual sale to a newbie.

      Boy! Was it nice to drop a plane into the minivan in one piece!

      It was almost as good as when a Phoenix 8 would fit into the back of a hatchback Camaro in one piece.

      Given that everyone will build or buy up to the maximum size limit,

      is there a good enough reason to push on the rules bodies to legislate Pattern plane sizes back down?

      How about 1.6 or 1.7 meters square?

      Will this affect cost and complexity enough to have a beneficial effect on participation?

      Or am I just whistling Dixie?

      later,

      Dean

      Dean Pappas 
      Sr. Design Engineer 
      Kodeos Communications 
      111 Corporate Blvd. 
      South Plainfield, N.J. 07080 
      (908) 222-7817 phone 
      (908) 222-2392 fax 
      d.pappas at kodeos.com 

        -----Original Message-----
        From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org ]On Behalf Of John Ferrell
        Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:07 PM
        To: NSRCA Mailing List
        Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Header Brace

        There seems to be a growing trend toward smaller airplanes among a lot of folks. I sure am enjoying the 90 size Boxer I bought from Ed Miller last summer. Less hassle to transport, assemble and fly. That means I can fly more! 

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

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

      _______________________________________________
      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 

    -- 

    Keith Hoard
    Collierville, TN
    khoard at gmail.com

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

  _______________________________________________
  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: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.5/616 - Release Date: 1/4/2007
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070104/9231f9c8/attachment-0001.html 