[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

[krishlan fitzsimmons]

It penetrates the wind better. I wouldn't think of flying and of my sailplanes unballasted in the wind. They don't "fly" as good. 

Chris          

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net> wrote:

From: Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 6:49 AM

A heavier plane doesn't necessarily flybetter in the wind. The design is a moreimportant 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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/f828d54c/attachment.html>