[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

[Matthew Frederick]

My patriot is a half pound under weight
and at a recent contest where winds were
very high I had a distinct advantage due
to design and setup. The heavier planes
had no advantage whatsoever. In fact due
to the size of their fuselages they were at
a disadvantage. Comparing a pattern plane
to a sailplane is naive at best.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 4, 2009, at 8:53 AM, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com 
 > wrote:

> 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 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
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090604/2e2e9f2c/attachment.html>