[NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference

[Ron Van Putte]

I like the way Dave is thinking.  Who would want to fly a heavy  
airplane?  On the other side, the really lightweight airplanes cost $$ 
$ to make them light.  A lower weight limit does make sense.

I have been against $$$ being a big driver in competition since I was  
beaten in the Soapbox Derby by a kid whose father could afford to buy  
many sets of wheels, from which he could pick the best set.

Ron

On Aug 20, 2010, at 7:13 PM, Dave Burton wrote:

> OK, I got it now.
>
> Change the rule back to a 10cc engine limit and all our problems  
> will be solved.
>
> Airplanes will be smaller and cost less, engines will cost $150- 
> $175, planes cost under $200, you will only need a 4 channel $150  
> radio.
>
> I think your logic of why cost escalated is flawed.
>
> What drove cost up was the change to turn around pattern. The  
> primary reason for turnaround style as I remember from the time was  
> to reduce the noise footprint. This change started the development  
> of new planes designed for the new style which demanded more power  
> to fly well. It’s the 2 meter limit and the noise limit that keeps  
> cost down or we would be flying 40% gas powered planes that weigh  
> 45 lbs and cost 4 times what our 2M ships cost. The 5kg limit only  
> drives cost up. Lighter stuff cost more than heavy stuff in every  
> component of the planes we fly.
>
> The 2M limit also limits the practical weight of the planes in  
> order to be competitive. An 11 lb. Plane is going to fly better  
> than a 14 lb plane. So why would you care if someone brings a 14 lb  
> plane to a contest? If you really want to level the playing field   
> then a minimum weight would be a better way.
>
> NSRCA really needs to be looking at ways to be more inclusive and  
> attract new contestants. Keeping the rules as they are will insure  
> that pattern keeps getting more expensive and a shrinking event.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 5:55 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
>
>
>
> Just noticed this didn’t make it to the list the first time……was  
> too big with all the RE:RE:RE:RE (trimmed now).  And…I’m off to a  
> contest!  J
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> From: Dave [mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:17 AM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
>
>
>
> This whole discussion is one where history really does speak volumes –
>
>
>
> In short, there has always been a limiting factor (whether size,  
> weight, power, noise).  That limit has always been pushed by the  
> top level competitors, and the top level stuff is always the most  
> expensive, and it offers a competitive advantage over cheaper  
> setups.  And the masses (certainly 90+% anyway) follow the guys at  
> the top.
>
>
>
> In short, everytime a limiting factor has been increased (for  
> whatever reasons), the size, cost, expense, etc has increased.   
> Cheaper options are available now, and they are not as  
> competitive.  Change the rules, and cheaper options will still be  
> available and still not be as competitive as the new standard that  
> will be achieved by the top level competitors that push the new  
> limits.  In the last 20 or so years, I’ve seen this cycle about 4  
> times.  There is no magical rule or formula that will change this  
> for open competition…the cycle will repeat every time a limit is  
> raised.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:55 AM
> To: NSRCA List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
>
>
>
>
> I should have checked my building noes first - it was actually 10  
> lbs 4 oz.  But I'm not a professional builder either.  Point is, it  
> can be done within the existing rules.  You just have to get past  
> the idea that it can't be done.
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3083 - Release Date:  
> 08/20/10 02:35:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion