[NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.
mike mueller
mups1953 at yahoo.com
Sun Dec 13 14:20:15 AKST 2009
BRian the pletty cost an additional $300 over the AXI I had and could get. It's additional costs I've calculated. The issue with weight is the manufacturers problem but mine when I bought it. Mike
--- On Sun, 12/13/09, brian young <brian_w_young at yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: brian young <brian_w_young at yahoo.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, 10:55 AM
> 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
>
>
>
>
> -----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