[NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.
mike mueller
mups1953 at yahoo.com
Sun Dec 13 14:17:10 AKST 2009
Yes Ed your right I forgot about that. That's a great source. Too bad that Carf is discontinuing the Integral. It's an incredible design. Mike
--- On Sun, 12/13/09, 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>
> Date: Sunday, December 13, 2009, 10:28 AM
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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