[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Fri Jun 5 05:01:25 AKDT 2009

Great idea Stu but you'd never make weight with 3 integral wings! (Sorry I couldn't resist).

John Pavlick

--- On Fri, 6/5/09, Stuart Chale <schale at optonline.net> wrote:

From: Stuart Chale <schale at optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Friday, June 5, 2009, 8:10 AM

Who mentioned a triplane :)

Joe Lachowski wrote: 

#yiv1486160090 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv1486160090 {
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

Speaking of Integral wings. I have 3 composite sets laying around if any one is interested.<g>

> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 06:40:21 -0700
> From: mups1953 at yahoo.com
> To: jpavlick at idseng.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out. 
_______________________________________________
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/20090605/a113e06b/attachment.html>