[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

Mike Hester kerlock at comcast.net
Fri Jun 22 12:42:54 AKDT 2007


LOL you ain't kiddin Tommy!!!

-Mike

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tommy Scarmardo 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 4:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits


  If we are going to change the rules because our airplanes have gotten too expensive
  man...have I got a list of things we can change.

  DwayneNancy <dwaynenancy at suddenlink.net> wrote:
    Just think, 30 years ago the average modeler could afford to fly Class III.  Of course if he wanted to he could fly Class I or II.  Everyone thought retracts would cost too much but the average modeler found a way to have them too.  It was a lot of fun with your "every day" plane, one that did not need to be pampered from lack of use but flown all the time.  Remember back then, you only had one radio and one airplane.  The second airplane was on the bench being built or being "research" so it could be built for next year.  Vintage Pattern or the Senior Pattern Association is trying to get the average modeler back to pattern but today he has too many choices, too many roads to be traveled and only so much time.  Do you remember the times when all pattern contests had 50 to 70 entrants?  I do.  But I can't live in the past, too many roads are now open and I've got to have a radio for each pathway.  The average modeler wants to try all the different venues.  Again, remember 30 years ago all that was available was Class I, II, III or Scale.  The average modeler just flew his sport planes be they pattern type or scale.  How many of you have seen a Galloping Ghost airplane fly?  But, I digress.  Sorry.  Dwayne

    -----Original Message-----
    From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Lockhart
    Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:54 AM
    To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

    Ron / John,

    Point taken.  And no offense, but so what?  As a kid, I was never the biggest guy on the playing fields..but I loved to play anyway and never asked for a head start, an extra kick, or an extra swing.  I'm still not the "biggest kid", and some of the most fun I've had was whooping up on the "superior" equipment back when I couldn't afford the latest greatest Skippy Propnut TurboZoot 9000 XL MkVII Touring edition limited SE with the add-ons.


    The average guy can't afford many things...like the Naruke edition Astral flown by McMurtry at the 2006 NATs?  Or even the Oxai version...or even the Xtreme version.

    Your argument could be extended to many things...2C vs 4C (as if you could get a consensus on which is "better").....analog vs digital servos.....guys flying electrics w/ NIcd or Nimh because they can't afford lipos...and on an on.

    Pattern competition is a competitive event with some broad limits (weight, size, noise).  You have your choices, you pick what is most competitive for your available budget, you practice, you compete.  You win, or you lose.

    If you / John don't think electric is competitive under the current rules, fly glow.

    Others think electric is competitive and are flying electric.

    Again, electric is in its infancy..make a rule now that favors electrics and you will ensure unquestionable electric dominance in the very near future.  Just remember the 120 4C..it was to allow parity between a piped 60 2C and allow a quieter powerplant.  Very shortsighted rule as the 120 4C became dominant rapidly.  Clearly the gap (if there is one) between electric and glow today is nothing like the 2C / 4C gap was in ~1988 (when 2C 60s dominated 120 4Cs) or now (when a 120 4C dominates 60 2Cs).

    By definition, the average guy will never be able to afford the highest level setup.  And that has never prevented something like a humble wooden Focus from winning the NATs...at any level.

    Regards,

    Dave



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

    From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
    Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 10:27 AM
    To: NSRCA Mailing List
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

    It is said that you can't understand a person's problems until you've walked a mile in their shoes. John and I didn't understand what the problems were regarding making weight with electric-powered airplanes until he decided to compete with one. I am still competing with a glow-powered Focus.

    John's airplane is under 5 Kg, but not by much. Due to an extensive weight-saving building job on his Black Magic by Mike Hester and John's careful selection and installation of radio, batteries, ESC, prop, motor, spinner, et al, his airplane is OK with weight, even in the kind of winds we often see at the Nats. He's thinking about the guys who can't afford as much $$$ as he has invested in his setup. The average guy probably can't build an electric-powered 2 meter airplane that makes weight and is competitive with the kind of budget required for a glow-powered version of the same airplane. 

    Ron Van Putte

    The learning curve is very steep. 
    On Jun 21, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Keith Black wrote:

    I fly electric but still would be against this proposal. 
    John F. makes some good points in his justification, however, I simply think that Dave's counter points out "weigh" John's points.
    I think if you read Dave's post with an open mind and not a pre-conceived "position" you feel you have to protect you'll find his logic very compelling. 
    BTW, I find this change of heart by you and John quite amusing. This is probably unfair but it almost sounds as if one of you can't get your new e-plane to make weight with the current rules. I'm sure that's not true, but from the outside it certainly appears that way.
    I hope the real reason for "floating" this idea was to get people opinions. If so I'm beginning to see a trend.
    Keith Black 
    ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Ron Van Putte 
      To: NSRCA Mailing List 
      Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 7:38 PM
      Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

      I was also not aware that glow-powered airplanes needed the handicap they already have. I agree that, with innovative design and $$$, electric-powered airplanes can compete with glow-powered airplanes. The ones who suffer from the weight inequity are those who can't afford the $$$ to overcome the weight inequity. 

      Ron Van Putte

      On Jun 21, 2007, at 6:59 PM, John Ferrell wrote:

      I did not realize that the Electrics were in need of a handicap. They seem to be doing just fine against the recips under current rules. 
      If you really think they need a little help by all means give them a rule book boost!
      John Ferrell W8CCW
      "Life is easier if you learn to plow 
      around the stumps"
      http://DixieNC.US
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Ron Van Putte 
        To: NSRCA Mailing List 
        Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:44 PM
        Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

        I just got this response from John Fuqua.

        Ron Van Putte

        The guys are missing the point. It is not about what can be achieved on weight. It is what is permitted by the rules. They are not arguing the logic of what the rules allow (in most cases) but examples of what has been achieved. Please make that point. 
        John


        From: Ron Van Putte [mailto:vanputte at cox.net] 
        Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 1:18 PM
        To: Fuqua John D Mr CTR USAF 697 ARSF/EN
        Subject: Fwd: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Electric Weight Proposal Logic and Rationale


      _______________________________________________
      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




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
  in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. 


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


  _______________________________________________
  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/20070622/f72d2720/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list