[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Thu Jun 4 08:17:24 AKDT 2009

Mike,

Do I qualify as old guard???  I think it was 1992 when Rick Allison said I
was the old guy in the top of the Masters class at the NATs because I was
the only one who was legal to drink (just barely at that).

It is not about weight..it is about design and wing loading (and fuse
loading, with the huge fuses of current day designs).  I think the Vivat was
(and is) a great flyer in the wind.and it has about 1050 squ and 76" span
(and builds at 10 - 10.25 lbs glow).  Hebert designs are certainly not shy
on wing, and also fly well in the wind.

I've yet to see "too light", but I've seen plenty of planes with too little
wingloading (for a particular design, or one built very lightly compared to
the designer's intent).  It was also in 1992 that I clipped the wingspan on
my Dash Five to increase the wingloading - at that time the "thinking" by
some (me included) was that somewhere around 100-110 squares of wing per
pound was the "sweet spot".  As the planes have gotten bigger (more
aerodynamic efficiency), horsepower has increased (easier to maintain speed
on the tops of maneuvers), and the schedules have changed (shifting to more
complex rolling and snapping maneuvers), the "sweet spot" for wing loading
has effectively increased - probably in the area of 85-95 squares per lb.

I think the reason many people prefer a ballasted plane, is because they've
not tried flying the same plane with a smaller wing - I think what is
actually preferred is the higher wing loading.  Given the relative ease of
adding weight (compared to cutting or changing the wing), adding weight is
understandable for some in some instances.

Regards,

Dave

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hester
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:13 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Careful, the old guard will call you a heretic! LOL

FWIW I agree, totally. I have the capability to build a 9 lb VF3 but I will
tell you fast, I don't want it. I flew the prototype at many weights and
configurations from 9.5 lbs to 10.7 and I will say without blinking I prefer
it in the mid-moderately high 10s. I just can't find any ill effects, except
a few certain areas in the F patterns where it digs slightly more. But add
wind to the equation and it feels like a foamy under 10 lbs. 

Older designs and engines/power systems, yeah lighter was ALWAYS better.
Nowadays I'm not nearly as convinced.

Of course this is personal preference. I know for a fact a few people whom I
have a LOT of respect for will call this "wrong thinking" or maybe
"ignorance". Nope, I'm not still searching for what I like, I found it. And
it weighs about 10.5 lbs =) But I won't try and convince anyone else of it.
It ALL comes down to personal preference. They aren't wrong either.

And of course that brings up a valid counter point for
electrics.....ASSuming that a particular glow plane did fly better with a
dry weight of closer to 11 lbs, take off weight would be in the 12+ range.
With the electric version of the same plane limited to a take off weight of
11 lbs, the comparable weight would be close to a 9.25 lb glow plane. 

So the question becomes, is that good or bad?

-Mike

----- Original Message ----- 

From: krishlan <mailto:homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>  fitzsimmons 

To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:53 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

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/> 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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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/20090604/52c1ffe5/attachment.html>