[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Thu Jun 4 04:45:16 AKDT 2009

"designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"
 Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're competitive and always looking for better and different. Truth be known I look forward to a new plane in the Spring that I planned and prepared for a year or so. It's part of what appeals me to pattern and I do this on a lower budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this. It's all about will and determination and innovation to get what I want with as little as I have to work with. Money and building talents lacking I still put down a competitive piece each year. No sponsors either. Now that's actually pretty funny sorry.....
 Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and that the pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the time. I'm saying that I think designs for the truly competitive have a rather short lifespan and that's not going to change anytime soon.
 Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that work well with IC. What about the Passport? Osmose? Integral? It's only been a year or so that the newer generation of planes have been introduced that are dedicated for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E. Addiction E. and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were meant for IC and we adapted them to fit E.
                                        Mike

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com> wrote:

> From: Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 7:10 AM
> I agree with Paul.  Remove the
> weight limit and keep the 2 meter size
> limit.  If someone wants to fly a 15 lb biplane
> powered with a DA-50
> more power too them.  Sure our current planes may be
> obsolete but all
> designs are obsolete in 2-3 years.
> 
> I'm an intermediate pilot and my biggest concern is the
> selection of
> designs available.  Right now other than the Focus II
> or the Black Magic
> all other designs are geared more toward electrics. 
> I'm concerned that
> the newer designs are skimping on durability in order to
> reduce weight.
> As an intermediate pilot I don't want to buy a 2- $3000
> airplane that
> isn't going to standup to the occasional rough landing.
> 
> I bet if you made the top 10 FAI pilots from last years
> NATs fly a Focus
> and let the next 10 FAI pilots fly any design they want the
> results
> would not change that much.  Success is in the fingers
> not so much in
> the design.
> 
> Ron
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of Ron Van
> Putte
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:19 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> As one of the guys who is often called on to weigh
> airplanes at the  
> Nats, I agree that routine weighing of airplanes is
> impractical.  We  
> have to build a plywood barricade around the weighing area
> at the  
> Site 1 pavilion or do the weighing in an enclosed area like
> the  
> garage by the AMA farmhouse or inside the big trailer out
> at Site 4.   
> That's doable for the top five or six in the classes, but
> not for the  
> entire group.
> 
> What's a furnace?  <VBG>
> 
> Ron
> 
> On Jun 3, 2009, at 10:11 PM, Verne Koester wrote:
> 
> > Paul,
> >
> > Weighing a plane right before flight at the Nats is
> impractical at  
> > best. The slightest breeze will wreak havoc on the
> scales. I  
> > actually have to wait for my furnace blower to kick
> off when I'm  
> > trying to weigh my wings in the shop and that breeze
> is  
> > significantly less than anything we typically see at
> the Nats.
> >
> >
> >
> > Verne
> >
> >
> >
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca- 
> > discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of Paul LaChance
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:24 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> >
> > I do not think we should look at it as a glow versus E
> discussion,  
> > but a way to make it fair for both.  I agree
> neither really has an  
> > advantage everything else being equal.  I can see
> the argument from  
> > both sides.  The weight issue will never be a
> truly EQUAL thing.   
> > The glow gets to weigh without fuel , but the plane
> becomes lighter  
> > throughout the flight.  This can create a
> disadvantage or  
> > advantage.  The E has to make weight WITH
> batteries in place, but  
> > the weight stays the same the entire flight. This can
> also create a  
> > disadvantage or advantage.
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe the answer is keep the size and sound
> restrictions as they  
> > are and remove the weight limit.  There is only
> so much the planes  
> > can weight before glow or E will both start to lose
> massive  
> > performance.
> >
> >
> >
> > Just a thought but seems it is the only way things can
> become fair  
> > either direction.
> >
> >
> >
> > As someone else mentioned (I think Chris)  the
> planes should be  
> > weighed BEFORE the flights in the finals.  It
> kind of defeats the  
> > purpose of making weight if the planes are weighed
> AFTER the flight  
> > and they remove items to make weight.  The
> advantage was still  
> > there to assist with the wind if the plane was
> overweight during  
> > the flight.
> >
> >
> >
> > Like I said, these are just thoughts.
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version
> of virus
> signature database 4130 (20090604) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>