[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

[J N Hiller]

Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.
Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
build one for a long time.
Bring it on.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of John Pavlick
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:50 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

The bottom line is this: the current rules encourage you to build a lighter
plane no matter what power system you use. What's wrong with that? If you
change the rules to allow heavier airplanes (of any type), then things will
get weird. Right now the glow and electric airplanes are competitive with
each other and both can make weight if you pay attention to details.
Personally I don't like the way the rules are written because yes, there is
a disparity between the electric vs. glow requirements but as I said, the
bottom line is the current rules encourage you to build lighter. I don't see
a problem with that.

John Pavlick

--- On Wed, 6/3/09, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:

From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 11:30 AM
Bill,

Starting from the position of a well designed plane (with proper wing
loading), adding weight will not provide an advantage.  What the weight
limit rule does is limit the size the plane - larger planes will fly better
which does provide an advantage.

The historical vs current perspective on this discussion point (which is
well covered in the archives) boils down to this -
- in the mid 1990s, planes with 2M wingspans and fuse length were common,
and none are competitive today.
- there is a difference between a skinny 2M plane of the past and a large 2M
plane of today...the larger plane flies better.
- allow the weight of planes to increase, and you will see even larger 2M
planes (increased cost and complexity) that will obsolete the current crop
of planes.  This would not seem to be favored by anyone, and making the
event more expensive will further limit those that can afford the event, and
reduce numbers in the event.

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists
.nsrca.org>
[mailto: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists
.nsrca.org> ] On Behalf Of Bill's Email
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

I guess I should make a couple of things clear. First, I am not really
trying to argue one way or the other, it was just something that struck
as interesting. I left out structural weight and such for the sake of
simplicity.

I have no personal ax to grind, I fly an electric that is absurdly light
so I am not trying to do anything there.

I guess the real question is, what is the objective of the weight limit
rule in the first place? Is there an advantage in being heavier??



_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.o
rg>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.o
rg>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/fe6ada28/attachment.html>