[NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.
mike mueller
mups1953 at yahoo.com
Sun Dec 13 06:55:40 AKST 2009
Mickey's mods are all in my Integral. 0 mixing! Really it's near perfect and light. Too bad the Mick doesn't want to build anything now. He's taking a brake. I'l continue to beat him into submission and get him back to building.
He lost his source for good foam too. Mike
--- On Sat, 12/12/09, Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com> wrote:
> From: Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Cc: "Bob Hunt" <robinhunt at rcn.com>
> Date: Saturday, December 12, 2009, 8:28 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list