[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Wed Jun 3 18:26:00 AKDT 2009

Its not about not wanting to see E succeed.  Its about the ramifications of ANY rule change.   

It fundementally changes the equipment. I agree with Dave L on that, and that change is VERY expensive.   
The small growth we're experiencing in pattern now ( and there does seem to be some signs of that) is partially due to the large availability of GOOD used aircraft lowering the barrier to entry.  A rule change would wipe that out.  If you don't think so, than look around at how many planes from before the engine limit change are still flying.   None. 

Prior to that change we had the same large number of good, if outdate aircraft. But when the rules changed, there was an immediate draught. Both of used planes, and new ARC/ARF designs.  No one wants to make a mainstream kit that will be immediately outdated.  The consistency of our rules have allowed people to invest the time and recoup that investment in designing and kitting airplanes. 

I agree with the idea of a takeoff weight guideline, but hesitate on any rule changen and especially hesitate for a new technology.   The next one will be someone wanted to run a gasser but only the very best builders will be able to make weight. 

Start all over again. 

When E is cheaper and lighter, it will dominate. When 2 strokes were stronger ... They dominated. When 4-strokes caught up, they dominated.  

All sports of this nature have people that try new stuff. But we don't change the rules to help them.   Dave Von linsowe tried to run electric 15 years ago but couldn't make both weight and power. Should we have changed the rules then?  Its only because E is gaining ground and more are able to make it work that its an issue. 

I like the Bipes, but the same problem exists ... Hard to make weight. So guess what, most don't fly them. Or even try them. 

It'll always be something. 

--------------------------
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: Wed Jun 03 22:09:56 2009
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

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