[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Wed Jun 3 18:09:59 AKDT 2009

Well, before each finals flight at the nats would be fine. I mean we do a sound test before them now. Wouldn't be to hard to weigh them.  Locals don't weigh anyway. 
Get used to building light, it'll never change. Glow folk don't want to see E succeed. I can't blame em. 

Chris          

--- On Wed, 6/3/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 6:58 PM

I would
support a maximum takeoff weight rule but as mentioned earlier it may be
difficult to manage. Might need a scales in the ready box. 

Jim 

-----Original
Message-----

From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of krishlan fitzsimmons

Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009
6:36 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Weight

  Where
  it isn't fair is in takeoff weight, or even landing weight. A glow plane can
  put a 40 ounce tank in if they want, they could fly at 13 lbs if they want to
  help ballast the plane for heavy wind conditions. They could land at 12 lbs. 
  Where does a 11 lb weight matter with that? Doesn't seem right to me. Does
  this mean I can add a fuel tank to my 10.5 lb Electric and ballast it where I
  want it???? It would help me tremendously at the nats in the wind!!! This
  argument is silly. There should be a takeoff weight rule. 

  If you fly glow, and your plane is right at 11 lbs, and you can't make the
  takeoff rule weight, then I guess you would be in the same boat as the E guys
  are now.. The only people that seem to have a problem with change, mostly
  seem to be the glow guys. 

  IMO, there is no advantage to either in flight. I world class flyer could
  beat us all with either. 

  For those that think the size would increase with a weight change, then go to
  a takeoff weight rule. I doubt it would happen then. 

  Chris  

  --- On Wed, 6/3/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
  wrote: 

  From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

  To: "General pattern discussion"
  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

  Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 5:02 PM 
  OH not me. I would vote against a weight increase. I'm
  not a high tech guy

  and fly pattern on the cheap. This is still mostly about flying and

  considering my flying ability I don't feel I can buy enough points at any

  price to justify it, besides I like to build. I fly a home made 1.20 size

  72" wood airplane around 9 pounds with maybe an all up cost of about
  $500

  (excellent pattern trainer in all classes).

  I might be able to make weight with a 2 ci glow now. I just thought that if

  the weight limit was removed we would see 12-14 pound airplanes with big gas

  burners (IMAC crossover) and I would probably indulge, and yes a single 2m

  wing will easily carry the weight of a 50 cc but what about a DA 100? Twins

  run smooth.

  The real cost is traveling in both time away from home and $$, even for us

  non-competitive old guys, always has been, but I can't kick the habit.

  Besides pattern fliers make good friends.

  If I wasn't flying pattern I would be flying IMAC. Probably will anyway.

  Jim

  -----Original Message-----

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org

  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On
  Behalf Of Dave

  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:24 PM

  To: 'General pattern discussion'

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

  Jim,

  Monoplanes are at 74" span now, and about 900 squares because that is
  where

  the current schedules have pushed the designs to.  The wings don't need
  to

  be any bigger for the 11 lb weight limit.  But at 74" and 900
  squares, there

  is plenty of room to grow the monoplane bigger if the weight limit is

  increased.

  The bottom line doesn't change - bigger bipe, bigger monoplane, bigger any

  plane will increase costs.

  If you think pattern needs more cost and complexity, whether it be biplanes

  or monoplanes, submit a proposal.

  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 2:03 PM

  To: General pattern discussion

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

  A monoplane will have higher wing loading. How high is too high?

  Jim

  -----Original Message-----

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org

  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On
  Behalf Of Dave

  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:57 AM

  To: 'General pattern discussion'

  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

  _______________________________________________

  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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/fa7fad78/attachment.html>