[NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.
Ed Alt
ed_alt at hotmail.com
Sun Dec 13 07:28:07 AKST 2009
Mike:
Did you also reduce the excessive engine downthrust by 1/8" at the bottom of
the spinner cone? BTW, Bob Hunt talked at length with Mickey, which is how
he got the same mods into his templates. The nice thing is that Bob will do
an entire set including the stab & rudder, and you can ger considerable
weight reduction from that as well.
Another nice touch is that Bob produces the cores using the molded leading
edge technique. It's yet another weight savings technique and it gets the
leading edges dead nuts true with no extra effort (they're 1/16" balsa
sheeted). You need to make a mold buck for an additional set of LE cores
that Bob provides, soak some balsa sheet in ammonia water and form it around
the mold. Wrap it with an Ace bandage and leave it for a day. You then
glue the molded LE balsa sheet to the cores in the shucks, just as if you
were sheeting the entire wing. The difference is that you use the remainder
of the 1/16" sheeting only as a spacer for the 1st step of gluing the LE
sheet. Then, you go back and lay up the rest after the LE pasrt has cured.
Takes a little more time while waiting for glue to cure, but it's less
overall work compared to gluing/carving/sanding LE stock the traditional
way.
He will also do convential LE cores if the sheeted LE method does not have
appeal.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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