[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

[mike mueller]

 All good points John but let me say this. It's nearly impossible to build a light composite wing. If you make them too light they risk blowing apart in the air. i have seen some recent examples of Extreme Composite planes doing such. Composite ARF does a great job with there stuff today and seem to have a good compromise between strength and weight. There's a lot of guys flying them who made E. weight like Jason, Chad and Andrew.
 Wist and Jaroslav Mach do the best job I've seen with composite wings making weight but they are a little hard to get. Also they are not as good a deal money wise as the Integral. My Integral has a foam wing and yes it seems silly but it did result in a pretty awesome plane and it's light. I offset the costs by selling the composite wings from the kit. Mike

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com> wrote:

> From: John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 8:18 AM
> Part of the reason why Pattern
> planes become "obsolete" is due to the fact that
> the airframe rules for ALL classes are the same. The higher
> classes schedules change and that requires design changes.
> This is not a bad thing. It's part of any good
> competitive sport / hobby. Since the airframe rules
> apply to all classes, you only have one definition of a
> "legal" airplane which could be flown in any
> class. That would be like allowing a Grand National Stock
> car to run in the Street Stock class. How many people would
> be willing to try to enter the sport on a low budget with an
> old Chevelle? My guess is - none! 
>  
> I don't know how we could change this without
> causing more problems but it's something to think about.
> Personally I think a 90 size / 1.5 meter Sportsman
> class would do more to grow pattern than messing with the
> weight rules.
>  
> Going back the the weight issue, I really
> don't think raising the weight limit will attract more
> people to Pattern. I just don't see how. Who
> actually weighs airplanes at a local contest? If we were
> weighing planes at every contest I bet a lot of glow planes
> would be "illegal". Probably more than the number
> of electrics at any given contest. Why? Because most of the
> guys building electrics have learned to pay close attention
> to weight. That's because of the current rules.
> That's a good thing. 
>  
> Something else to think about: many of you guys are
> paying top dollar for high end airframes that are basically
> overweight to start with. Sure you can try to get things
> under control by using smaller airborne batteries, lighter
> servos, etc. but if I were you I'd be a bit upset
> if I paid for a "competition" airplane
> that needed a lot of finessing to meet the weight
> requirements. 
>  
> Many of you guys like the Integral. This is a perfect
> example of what I'm talking about. Have you felt how
> heavy the wings are on some of those? For the money they
> charge, they should be able to build something lighter. You
> shouldn't have to custom cut a set of foam
> wings to replace the ones in your kit. That's just
> silly.
>  
> It does NOT require "zen" building
> techniques to build an airplane that makes weight. OK, that
> doesn't hurt but all you need to do is pay close
> attention to what everything weighs as you build. EVERY
> time I see an airplane that's
> "overweight", I can pick out at least 3 things
> that are just plain absurd. I've only been doing this
> for a few years. Some of you guys have been flying Pattern
> longer than I've been alive. If I can do it anyone
> can. My first 2-meter build (Black Magic V2.2 w/ OS 160)
> came out at 10lbs, 6.9 oz. I don't have the
> "zen" building technique down just yet so I'd
> have to say this should be possible for most people. I'm
> going to build an electric VF-3 this winter. I bet anyone
> that it will come in under weight. And I don't
> have a ton of money to throw at it. In fact I'll
> probably buy used stuff to save some money so I
> can buy good batteries. :)
>  
> John Pavlick
> 
> 
> --- On Thu, 6/4/09, mike mueller
> <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> To: "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 8:45 AM
> 
> 
> 
> "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
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion