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

Sat Dec 12 18:49:36 AKST 2009

Why don't we just increase or remove the weight limit as proposed?

I believe the proposal was just for the AMA classes.  That is not including
F3A.

Those people who want to fly F3A still have to meet the 5kg weight limit
since that weight is specified by FAI.

We can have more people flying pattern as long as their plane fits within
the square box of 2m x 2m.   Noise limit should still be there to have some
kind of limit on engine displacement.  I don't think anyone will want to fly
a plane that weighs around 20 pound even if it fits within the box.    Some
planes designed for IMAC can also be flown.   

For manufacturers, they may produce more pattern planes as long as it fits
in the box.  They won't have to spend so much for light weight material(s).
Most of us will be able to fly those.  Some will come with lower priced
planes, some will come at higher prices.  

With the weight limit increased/removed, those of us who don't plan for F3A
anytime soon will enjoy.

How much to spend depends on us.  If I like it, I don't have to look so hard
as long as the plane fits in the 2m x 2m box.

On a given wing span and length fatter or heavier plane flies better?  It
may or may not.

However, I don't wish for it to happen, but doing this (removing/increasing
the weight limit) may divide the pattern in two groups.  FAI pilots and AMA
pilots.

Ihncheol

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Lisa n Larry
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 9:12 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.

OK, here is the paradox.

Let's just suppose for the moment that we increased the weight limit to 12
pounds. Now the fuse is larger and wider than the current design to create
even more drag, the wings have a bit more squares, and the engine is plenty
powerful.We all know lighter flies better.

The paradox."Wouldn't you still spend the extra for lighter servos, wing
tube, LiPos, etc.to the tune of $400+." If true it contradicts your logic in
that you would spend the same $$$ for the same reason regardless of the
weight limit.

I believe the answer is "Yes".

Paradox, or perhaps a bit circular in logical reasoning.IMHO

Larry Diamond

  _____  

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 5:57 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091213/7cad15d1/attachment.html>