[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

[Mark Hunt]

That may be true....until Naruke starts designing Imac planes.....

-mark
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: krishlan fitzsimmons 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 20:48
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


        Actually Dave, if we could fly large IMAC planes, our airframe cost would go down.  Top of the line 40% IMAC planes cost less than an Oxai. 


        Chris 





        --- 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, 1:24 PM


          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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/ad4d2f3a/attachment.html>