[NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.

Sat Dec 12 15:30:36 AKST 2009

Agree its a good discussion. 

The real discussion thpough, and the division in thoughts is this:  Will "State of the Art" change if the rules change?

I say Abslutely. Your position is that it won't. 

History favors my view (heavily) for an FAI rule change.  We've never had an all AMA rule change like this to look back on.  Thus the debate. 
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

----- Original Message -----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sat Dec 12 19:19:14 2009
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.

Hi Mark,
You are of course correct in that I want to fly a state of the art plane and I'll spend the money to do so as I'd like to take it to the Nats. However, I kinda think this example proves my point that the weight limit drives the cost up and not down. If we just eliminate the weight limit we won't be chasing it again in three years.
I'll repeat my question for someone to answer - What is the purpose of a weight limit?
IMO it certainly can't be to reduce or limit cost.
Great discussion going on!
Dave Burton

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 6:53 PM
To: 'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.

No, your spending an extra $500 because you want to fly a state of the art airplane below weight.  Fly a hydeout (former state of the art) and weight would be no problem. 

Raise the weight, and you'll still be chasing the weight in 3 years, only the base airframe will likely be even more expensive.   
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

----- Original Message -----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sat Dec 12 18:57:27 2009
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.

OK, so how come I got to spend about $400.00+ more to lose 4-5 ounces from my Integral? (lighter servos, replacement CF gear and wing tube, LiPo battery,)

My wife says 5K isnt limiting MY cost.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 6:48 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.

Dave B,

At this point, it IS limiting the cost.

Regards,

Dave L

________________________________

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Burton
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 6:38 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.

Dave,

What is the purpose of the 5K limit? Is it to limit cost? 

Dave Burton

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 6:05 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.

Im having a little problem understanding the logic of some of the anti-weight arguments.  If you are one that feels a pattern plane performs best with a YS 1.60 at 11 lbs then, by all means, continue to compete with that setup.  However, the weight increase would allow others to take a hard look at alternate power sources whether it be gas or electric.

*************Electric IS being flown nowand multiple gasoline engines have been used (and still could be, and maybe are by some).

Remember, we are talking a weight limit increase and not a size increase.

*************Bigger flies better.  Pythons, Elans, Prophecies, Arch Nemesis, etc..all were/are 2M planes (ok, the Elan was only 76), and none are competitive today.  Why?  Because the 2M today is bigger (and cost more) because the displacement limited was lifted.  The 2M plane today is limited by weightremove the weight limit, and the 2M plane will again get bigger (and more expensive).

The added weight would probably also drive new muffler, accessories, airplane designs, and put pressure on suppliers to provide lighter weight and more powerful gas engines.  The electric boys could expand their battery alternatives.  All are exciting prospects for the NSRCA, which is admittedly hurting for new blood and interest.

*************Save the electrics (which dont need any help in my opinion), this is the exact same discussion made by proponents for removing the engine limit.  And the cheaper engines and gasoline engines for pattern never materializedthe OS and YS simply got bigger (more expensive) and the planes got bigger (more expensive).

As to cost, I think that argument is a non-starter.  When you factor in the cost of glow fuel versus gas or electric power, 30% nitro is roughly 10 times more expensive than gasoline.  Do the matha season of 100-200 flights with gasoline is going to offset any perceived increase in equipment costs.  Savings in fuel also rapidly offsets the higher electric costs.

*************What is cheaper to buy and run a 50cc or 100cc gas engine?  There are viable gas engines now if that is your preference.

There are ZERO instances in pattern history I know of where increasing any limit resulted in anything other than an increase in cost.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

________________________________

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Wilson
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 11:29 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.

Personally, Im for a weight increase, whether its a pound or two or even unlimited as Dave advocates.  I think it would be good for the NSRCA by driving interest and new technology.

Im having a little problem understanding the logic of some of the anti-weight arguments.  If you are one that feels a pattern plane performs best with a YS 1.60 at 11 lbs then, by all means, continue to compete with that setup.  However, the weight increase would allow others to take a hard look at alternate power sources whether it be gas or electric.  

Remember, we are talking a weight limit increase and not a size increase.  The 2-meter rule insures that the aircraft wont escalate in cost like we see at IMAC.  However, if someone wants to design a new biplane design to compensate for the added weightso be itgo for it.

The added weight would probably also drive new muffler, accessories, airplane designs, and put pressure on suppliers to provide lighter weight and more powerful gas engines.  The electric boys could expand their battery alternatives.  All are exciting prospects for the NSRCA, which is admittedly hurting for new blood and interest.

As to cost, I think that argument is a non-starter.  When you factor in the cost of glow fuel versus gas or electric power, 30% nitro is roughly 10 times more expensive than gasoline.  Do the matha season of 100-200 flights with gasoline is going to offset any perceived increase in equipment costs.  Savings in fuel also rapidly offsets the higher electric costs.

Finally, the 5kg (11 lb) limit was established back in the 1930s for Free Flight airplanes.  Within the FAI/CIAM both RC Scale and RC Helicopters recognized the need to change the rules.  Both did that with increases to 7kg and 6kg respectively.  Certainly, pattern deserves the same consideration.

Bob Wilson

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Gordon Anderson <GAA at owt.com> wrote:

Mike,

Well said, I totally agree with your comments. I am one of the people who rarely comment.

--Gordon

mike mueller wrote:

I have a hard time with a lot of the feedback that circulates on this email list. It's too limited by the amount of people who respond and the ones who do are usually the same guys.  I find some of the ones that respond a lot to be closed minded and are never swayed by a good argument.
 I would warn people that asking for an opinion here may have a very different response than say RCU where you get a broader audience to sample from.  I wish there was a way to get more people to respond with opinions. I fear many have been drivin away.
 I also wish we would all not be so quick to shoot down these opinions as it results in less people asking for one and sharing any thoughts with us.
 I enjoy an open discusssion with a lot of people chiming in.
 I respect the opinions of everyone and do what I can to listen to the points of both sides to form an opinion.  Often the responses kill the debate.
 Listening is a skill.
 There are times when some of you could be wrong.
 Thanks for letting me share my thoughts.
 Mike Mueller

     _______________________________________________
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