[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

[Jon Lowe]

Amen.  The theory was, when they went to 2 meters, unlimited engines 
and 11 lbs that things would get cheaper because they could use larger, 
less finicky engines than the .61's at the time.  Yeah, right.  My YS 
is fuel injected, supercharged, CDI, and running on 30%.  The planes 
will change to fit ANY new rules,and cost will likely rise along with 
it.

My attitude is that both fuel and electric airplanes are weighed 
without fuel.  My fuel weighs a lot, electric fuel doesn't weigh 
anything.   Electrics just have a heavy fuel tank.  They are at a 
definite advantage in many cases because they never weigh more than 11 
lbs in flight, while a fuel airplane often does.

Dave is right, the cost curve is starting to favor electrics, assuming 
you have no current investment in either technology.  The Zippy packs 
will get better and better, and the cost of electric continues to come 
down.  Go to hobbycity.com and look around at their motors, speed 
controllers, batteries and chargers if you don't believe me.  The only 
advantage for me right now with YS's other than the fact I have 
invested in them, is that I get get two practice sequences per flight.  
Plus, they don't try to burn my house down.  ;)

Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:57 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight










<96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
specs with whatever equipment you choose.

Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes 
up.
If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
your DA-50 Bipe.

Regards,

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N 
Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

http://www.mini-iac.com/
DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)

Duane

----- Original Message -----
From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


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
_______________________________________________
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