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

brian young brian_w_young at yahoo.com
Sun Dec 13 07:55:08 AKST 2009 

Mike, the point I don't see is why did the mfr make the Fatty so FAT. They know the rules, its conventional construction and can be light enough if they pay attention to their manufacturing process. I bet you got a good deal on it because it was heavy. ;-)  And ........Where did you get a Pletti for $300 ??????????

There is no doubt in my mind that heavier in our case would mean bigger, and bigger costs more. 

Some of the more finese proposals to adjust weight in AMA class may be fine, really any adjustent to AMA may have little impact due to overiding by the FAI rules as many have pointed out.

Brian


________________________________
From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sun, December 13, 2009 9:40:52 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.

Honestly Dave Burton I can't see anything wrong with your logic. 
I'll give an example of what it cost me to get my Sickle/Fatboy to make weight for last season.
The plane with cheaper but still very competitive equipment like a AxiF3A motor and a castle HV85 controller as it came out of the box would have weighed in at 11 lbs 14 ounces. Some may say that's too heavy. Well it's not and my friend has one that flys great at that weight.
So what did it cost me to get the plane to comform to the rules?
A boatload!!!
Pletty motor +$300
YGE controller +$150
New lighter CF wingtube + $70
New lighter CF landing gear +$60
Rasa CF prop +$70
Really there were a myriad of changes that were expensive to get to weight. Lots of carving out in the fuse too.
The wing on the plane has a lot of squares and I'll bet it would fly better at say 11.5 lbs. It's still lighter than the average glow at takeoff.
Chad made a point that the rules are set by the FAI and we all kind of follow them. In the end I will always abide by those rules even though I prefer to fly in a AMA class. If the rules change it will help a lot of flyers in my situation.
It's a great debate with no real set in wool answers. You just can't make blanket statemants that increasing the weight limit would be more expensive. It doesn't always hold water. Thanks, Mike Mueller

--- On Sat, 12/12/09, Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net> wrote:

> From: Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Saturday, December 12, 2009, 6:19 PM
> 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
> 


      
_______________________________________________
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/20091213/2db3f627/attachment.html>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list