[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Thu Jun 4 05:49:50 AKDT 2009

A heavier plane doesn't necessarily fly
better in the wind. The design is a more
important factor in windy conditions than
anything else.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2009, at 8:36 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com 
 > wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090604/56c1792b/attachment.html>