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

Sat Dec 12 17:27:58 AKST 2009

There are probably a couple of sources for foam cores.  I got mine from Bob Hunt: 
robinhunt at rcn.com; 

The cores that Bob produces have some minor mods that Mickey Losardo figured out to reduce/eliminate roll coupling with rudder.

CA doesn't make anything but ARFs.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dave Burton 
  To: 'General pattern discussion' 
  Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 8:57 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.

  Ed, actually a majority of the contest board would have to be for it. I doubt that will happen this cycle

  Does CA have a factory foam wing available? Only thing I have seen info about was other suppliers of foam cores and build myself.

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
  Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 7:56 PM
  To: General pattern discussion
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.

  Actually less.  You can either paint the factory wings or cover the foam ones.  The foam core with monokote is considerably less than a PPG Concept painted wing, since you can go out and by the parts from CA (see previous post).  I've done it. Anyway, the point is, you can make weight and you don't need to order a $4000, or even a $2000 ARF to do it.  The Integral is just one way to do it that I happen to know about. 

  This discussion is really academic anyway, since there is just one person you need to sway, and that would be your RC Aerobatics Board Rep.

  Ed

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

    From: Dave Burton 

    To: 'General pattern discussion' 

    Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 7:26 PM

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

    Yes, that too would solve the problem. Same $400 more however. (Foam cores, wing tube, contest balsa, covering, etc.)

    From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
    Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 7:17 PM
    To: General pattern discussion
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.

    It really just needs foam wings/tail. Lighter LG helps, not mandatory.

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

      From: Dave 

      To: 'General pattern discussion' 

      Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 7:02 PM

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

      Dave (and Mrs. Burton <G>),

      There are many examples of the Integral that are close to the weight limit.  It is no secret that care must be taken to keep them <11 lbs.  So my question to you (which leads to the answer to your question), is why did you buy the Integral to begin with (and why are so many others buying planes that need to be built with care to stay <11 lbs)?

      Lest anyone think I am bashing the Integral, I am not, it is a good flying plane, electric or glow (and one of the best values out there in terms of $$$ for amount of prefab), and it is not the only plane for which care needs to be taken to stay <11 lbs electric.

      Regards,

      Dave

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

      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 6:57 PM
      To: 'General pattern discussion'
      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 isn't 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.

      "I'm 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 now.and 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 weight.remove 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 don't 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 materialized.the 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 math.a 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, I'm for a weight increase, whether it's 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.

      I'm 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 won't escalate in cost like we see at IMAC.  However, if someone wants to design a new biplane design to compensate for the added weight.so be it.go 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 math.a 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 1930's 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

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

  _______________________________________________
  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/20091213/784c9d24/attachment.html>