[NSRCA-discussion] weight difference

Thu Aug 19 11:56:57 AKDT 2010

Thx.  I have a rare opportunity to answer during the day so pardon if this is too far out.  The correctness between a representative governance or populist should be revisited from time to time. Generally a voting hierarchy exists when rules/laws have excruciating detail or a concern of letting one constituency have bully influence. Do you think pattern fits either of these descriptions (or both)?  We get less than 20% response on most surveys, this nsrca list is vocal but a small minority, rcu and others have a different following and there are the silent majority. Having a cb member accept the responsibility to aggregate all the inputs is an attempt to more fairly represent the will of the people. Also these members commit to dealing with the details. 
In fact the weight issue has been in several surveys and consistently been answered. In the current process we are now trying how to implement the will of the members, not if. There are 4 cross proposals on the subject and these are the result of many others input. The differences between them are subtle and discussion forums may have difficulty vetting them without swinging in favor of the people able to make more posts than the other thoughtful person that may have a busy day in progress and unable to comment. Having a consistent group to vet ideas gives comfort to many that a consistent standard is being applied. 
   I think different structures are right for different organizations and if we can get rid of half our members than a full member vote on wveyrhing would probably be better but I'm hoping for the opposite

For a practical guy I think I strained a theoretical muscle. Anyone able to offer me a theoretical cure?

Lance

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 19, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Tim Taylor <timsautopro at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Lance, first off let me apologize for ruffling feathers it was not meant as a slam on those that freely give of their time and effort. I know you guys want whats best for our sport.
>  
> This one CB member I had the run in with was years ago, in fact decades ago. I didn't take kindly to the rebuff. In fact it made me hopping mad at the time. It wasn't the subject matter at hand either but the fact he wouldn't even discuss it as he is required to do.
>  
> I applaud the NSRCA for leading the charge in the rules process for our sport.
>  
> My problem is we have 11 guys with votes that count without a recourse to the general membership, I think this is wrong. What happens if the general membership wants change XXX but the CB member votes against XXX? There is no requirement for the CB member to vote the wishes of his district.
>  
> The CB is not voted into or out of office but appointed by the DVP. Which can lead to a almost lifetime appointment. 
>  
> I don't mind getting my hat handed to me at times, I was on the wrong side of the subject back then with this CB member, I'm likely to be wrong now.
>  
> Tim
> 
> --- On Thu, 8/19/10, Pete Cosky <pcosky at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> From: Pete Cosky <pcosky at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, August 19, 2010, 9:46 AM
> 
> Well stated....I have seen limiting rules changed in other hobbies of mine over the years to help make it easier for people to competehave the exact opposite effect.
> 
> I am one of those lower class guys who whould like to see pattern become less expensive and eliminating a limiting rule IMO is not the way.
> 
> Just my $1.98 (2 cents inflation adjusted)
> 
> Pete Cosky
> sent from my mobile device
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 9:05 AM
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> 
> The challenge here is that rules of this nature, limiting rules, be it in Pattern, Sailing, Stock car, whatever, are NOT in place to restrict the average guy, they're in place to restrict the innovator.  The guys that push the limit.
> 
> In our sport, the "average" guy is stuck pushing the limit because he's trying to copy and follow the innovators.  We all want the triple volumetric 2 meter bird because that's what Chip/Andrew/Quique and company have pushed the boundary's too.  A prophecy still makes weight with nooooo problem.
> 
> So the problem is simple.  IF the rules change, it clearly will help the average guy for a year or two.  But then the innovators will once again push the limits (they wouldn't BE limits if no one was pushing) and we would see new designs that the average guy can't easily keep within the rules.
> 
> Bipes have not really caught on because they're too difficult to make weight with.  Only the very best builders with very few limits on funding for all the best and lightest equipment have made them work.  Add a pound and that will very likely change...to where all the top guys can make them work, which will then push the average guy to try and make them work.   At the end of the day, all it adds is cost as we obsolete a whole generation of viable aircraft to the dumpster.
> 
> All one needs to do for confirmation on that is to review the evolution of aircraft that occurred when we removed the LAST limiter...engine displacement.   Prior to that, weight was only a secondary limiter because displacement restricted how big of a plane you could carry around.  Once removed, we had 10 years of growing aircraft and growing engines.  All costing more, NOT just because the new stuff was more expensive...that's just natural inflation and evolution, but because the lifespan of a model was shorter.   Designs changed SIGNIFICANTLY every year.
> 
> Finally, we're back to a semi stable development cycle which has aircraft like the Integral enjoying a 5-6 year run and is still considered competitive even in FAI (I believe that's what Pete Collinson flew in the finals this year).
> 
> It's not that we're not listening...  We're simply trying to avoid mistakes from the past and make as sure as we can that the rule changes won't have disastrous unintended consequences.
> 
> The rule change that is currently on the ballot provides a sizeable variance for those in the lower classes to help accommodate aging aircraft (which seem to gain weight magically), repaired used aircraft, and beginning builders....without changing the goal (and therefore the designers goal) of maintaining a 5KG weight limit.
> 
> Ok...off my soapbox.  Sorry for the diatribe.
> 
> -Mark
> CB for Dist 3
> 
> Mark Atwood
> Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
> 5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
> Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
> mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>  |  www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dr Mike
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:42 AM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> 
> Lance,
> Regarding the CB, I agree with you that those generalities are anal comments.  Most of the guys are giving freely of their time and we are lucky to have them.  On the weight issue, the 11 pounds is a bit restricting.  When that rule was made, planes had a 60 inch span, were 48 inches long and weighed 7 lbs.  now they are volumetrically double or triple so the wing loading is the same or lighter.  Needs to go up at least a pound or two.
> Mike
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Patterndude
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 8:35 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> 
> I have a 10 lb e-symphony, there are low 10 lb Evo's and both these planes are super rigid an tough. There are e planes that I'm afraid to touch because of fragility and they cost more too. Point is, the consumer has choices and don't need to fly a dangerous airframe. They choose to. Remember the glow Impacts that lost their tail in a snap but hundreds were sold AFTER this fact was known on this list?
> 
> As a CB guy I don't like being generalized against. I ask for input all the time. Even call people and tell people where my head is at  all the time without preaching.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Aug 18, 2010, at 8:11 PM, Tim Taylor <timsautopro at yahoo.com<mailto:timsautopro at yahoo.com>> wrote:
> We can always ignore it, we've done that for years unless you're in the top 3-5 at the Nats.
> 
> In this day and age of instant communication we no longer need a Contest Board to decide what we do or not. With all due respect to the CB we don't need you guys anymore, we can poll the membership directly and set the rules. Far more representative that way.
> 
> The only time I ever tried to talk to a CB member about a rules proposal in person I got the old "I know better than you and I'm going to do what I want so we don't need to discuss it."  He then refused to even talk about anything at that point. Left a very bad taste I tell you.
> 
> Tim
> --- On Wed, 8/18/10, Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net<mailto:burtona at atmc.net>> wrote:
> 
> From: Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net<mailto:burtona at atmc.net>>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> Date: Wednesday, August 18, 2010, 7:53 PM
> The rules proposal to eliminate the weight limit didn't make the first CB
> vote. Too bad IMO!
> Dave
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf Of Ron Hansen
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:35 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> 
> I'm concerned that these new electric only planes that are designed to make
> weight won't hold up to the normal wear and tear of an average intermediate
> or advanced pilot or flying off of a rough grass runway.  Is this a valid
> concern?  I think so but maybe I'm over reacting.  That is why I'm in favor
> of eliminating the weight limit altogether.  The proposal to slightly raise
> the weight limit won't allow someone to fly an electric Focus II for
> example.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:17 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> 
> I've been following this with interest. E-power is looking better all the
> time and I probably will make the change. I like to build prefer a wood
> airplane. About how much total weight is in a suitable E-power system or
> empty airframe ready for radio etc? Any numbers readily available would be
> helpful in understanding the distribution of weight.
> Thanks
> Jim Hiller
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>]On Behalf Of Dave
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 9:02 AM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> 
> And to recall.....that is the Spark with custom wings and stabs, which saves
> substantial weight?  There are very few unmodified kits available that are
> RTF electric at 10.25.  There are some airframe examples for which glow /
> electric are similar weight, but that is not the norm - not yet anyway - my
> opinion.
> 
> My electric Bravo was 10 lbs even at the 2009 NATs (only 4 oz more than the
> Vivat I flew in 2005) and I would be scared of the structure if it were any
> lighter.  Of course it could be lighter still IF I went from 5000 to 4350
> lipos (~6 oz) and ditched the dual RX batts and Vregs (~2 oz) and used
> lighter ESC and wiring (~ 2 oz).
> 
> Point being....even tho 10 lb electrics are possible, and becoming more
> common, it is still pretty easy to build electrics at 11+ lbs without
> careful planning and attention to detail.  I think it will become a
> non-issue soon enough.....even in Europe and Asia electrics are coming on
> strong.....so the glow kits will become increasingly scarce.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 10:06 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> 
> I would argue that you can't "disregard" the airframe given that an all
> electric airframe is much lighter.
> 
> My answer to the question?  There is almost no difference.   I'm flying a
> full 2M plane that weighs 10lbs 4oz with light batteries, 10lbs, 8oz with
> very heavy batteries.   My two Black Magics with glow weighed 10lbs 6oz and
> 10lbs 8oz RTF minus CDI (add approx 4oz for that).
> 
> I believe we're just now seeing full electric designs that are optimized for
> weight and are coming in light.   Prior to that, many of the designs still
> had unnecessary structure as a legacy from Glow.  I'm pretty sure that
> evolution is not complete yet either.
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Atwood
> Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
> 5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
> Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
> mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>  |  www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com>
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 9:58 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> 
> Tough question.  Will you insist on using 30C lipos, when 20C lipos
> are much lighter?  Do you plan on using a particular motor?  Motor
> weights vary substantially.  Some ESCs are a lot heavier than others.
> 
> My guess would be that the weight difference between a complete
> electric-power system and a complete glow-power system, disregarding
> the airplane, would be 10-16 ounces.
> 
> Ron
> 
> On Aug 17, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Dr Mike wrote:
> 
> > Ok so I am going to ask the question again... in your estimation
> > what is the
> > difference in weight between the complete electric power system and
> > the
> > complete glow system-disregarding the airplane?
> > Mike
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf Of Ron
> > Van Putte
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 8:30 AM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> >
> > Dave WAS trying to show the difference between glow and electric.
> >
> 
> 
> [The entire original message is not included]
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100819/98320f47/attachment.html>