[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Thu Mar 15 09:36:06 AKDT 2012

I certainly will .. But i wont be taking advantage i will be using the rules as written......Hope the weight thing doesn't pass!!!

G
Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 15, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Mark Atwood <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

> Hey John,
> 
> Two quick points.  A) don't disagree at all that we're in a Buy rather than Build market.  My point was simply to counter Jim's statement that "only those with access to expensive tooling and equipment to produce composite models can build an electric powered airplane to meet the weight requirements"   That part just wasn't true.
> 
> Point 2 is to consider something as simple at the Contra Engine set up.  Not a aircraft design change, but something that requires a good deal of effort to get in under weight today.  Up-ing the weight limit could make something like that (or some other major change) a perceived requirement (I say perceived in the same way the flying a 40% aircraft is perceived to be required to be competitive in IMAC) and that CLEARLY ups the cost to compete by a LOT.  That's just one known example (that may or may not catch on regardless of weight).   But the issue is simply that if you give the top competitors in Masters room to work with that they don't have now, they'll figure out a way to take advantage of it.  They have either the skill or the means to make weight today.   They are the ones that will..and are...pushing the envelope.  Not the guy in Advanced that is trying to fly with a used aircraft and wants to use inexpensive heavy batteries.  Thus the additional weight tolerance that was approved last year.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -Mark
> 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  |  www.paragon-inc.com
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 15, 2012, at 1:07 AM, John Gayer wrote:
> 
> Mark,
> 
> I agree that the BEST way to have a light airplane is build your own but it not the easiest. Those of us who competed back in the dark ages know how to build and finish  a balsa builtup or balsa/foam wing and work with a raw fiberglass fuse. 
> 
> We now have a lot of participants who not only do not have a clue about building a wing or finishing a raw epoxyglass fuse, they are even reluctant to assemble one of the current breed of ARFs. If they tear out the gear, they need help getting back in the air. Options are more limited for these folks and they do not all have unlimited resources. They are part of our pattern community and are some of our more avid pattern competitors. They have a lot of respect for those who can build but they are not willing to put in the hours through the years we spent acquiring those skills.
> 
> While there are many, myself included, who could build pattern planes today we choose instead to buy. This is  often a time vs money decision where my time is more valuable to me than the dollars I send to the Chinese. For others, it is not a choice- buying is a necessity. If you don't know how to build light and straight, you certainly do not know how to repair light either. It is this part of our pattern community that I would like to help with an increase in the AMA only weight limit. If you like, it is  those just starting out and those that are financially challenged that need help with a weight allowance, not you and me. And those are the flyers we need to help if we are to have any chance to make pattern grow.
> 
> It seems very clear that the world-wide pattern airframe industry is driven by the FAI weight and size limit. That we here in the US increase our weight limit, as other countries have, will not impact the designs and airframes commonly available at a reasonable cost. Who is going to design a heavy airframe and expect to sell it? 50cc biplanes? go ahead and build your labor of love that has no market. If I practice every hour you spend designing, building, modifying and testing such a beast, I will be way ahead. There is no magic bullet in any airframe much less a heavy one regardless of power plant. There are many planes that will execute a wonderful pattern if straight, light and properly trimmed. That is a fact of life and not a rule.
> 
> Being able to have the freedom to raise our weight limit is only made possible by the FAI specifications of a pattern model. If the FAI, in its infinite wisdom, were to raise either the size or the weight I will be right there helping to fight it as that change would bring on all the airframe change and added expense that many are concerned about.
> As a point of interest, the Intermediate and Advanced class attendance at the 2011 Nats increased by about 50%. Was this caused by the 115 gram allowance for those classes? I don't know but I very much doubt it hurt. for comparison, Masters was up 34% and F3A 21%.
> 
> Cheers
> John(another grumpy old man)
> maybe because we don't build enough anymore?
> or still have ambroid and dope withdrawals?
> 
> On 3/14/2012 6:35 AM, Mark Atwood wrote:
>> 
>> Hey Jim,
>> 
>> Not to be confrontational but some of that is simply not true.  The EASIEST way to make weight right now is building your own with traditional materials and techniques.  A simple built up balsa wing will save more than half a POUND (10oz) over a composite wing.  A balsa/foam wing is slightly heavier but still saves a full 8oz.     We've been building fiberglass Fuses since well before I started in this in the late 80's and the only change to the fuselages is layering some carbon in to stiffen the nose and gear area.  Nothing magical there.
>> 
>> The issue is somewhat the opposite of what you present.  People don't WANT to build, they want to BUY.   
>> 
>> But even that is no longer a real issue.  Are there some heavy planes?  Sure.  But a lot of the current planes on the market today make weight without issue for electric and anything glow seems to not be part of the discussion even though those aircraft are perfectly viable.  
>> 
>> Bottom line is that weight is a constraining factor.  BY DESIGN.  Without the constraint, designs and equipment WILL change, and that change will cost money and that will eventually be passed on to everyone.   
>> 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  |  www.paragon-inc.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:42 AM, James Oddino wrote:
>> 
>> I have not read all the comments regarding weight increase proposals but Michael Harrison articulated the best reason to increase the weight limit in some private emails we shared not long ago.  Excuse me if this has been covered in this thread.  In the old days all the top pilots designed and built their own airplanes.  Now only those with access to expensive tooling and equipment to produce composite models can build an electric powered airplane to meet the weight requirements.  The current, arbitrary limit stifles development.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120315/ca3a6c6e/attachment.html>