<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<div>
<p>
I think this whole weight thing started because of a single post about
an F3A FAI rumor. Even if FAI changes it, AMA <b>does not have to</b>
. That, of course, is a completely DIFFERENT issue.
</p>
<p>
I have ALWAYS been a proponent (as many of you probably recall with
distaste) of rasing the 11lb wieght limit to 12 lbs, and keeping
everything else the same.
</p>
<p>
My rationale has always been the same - make the wood roach 2 Meter
ARFS easily legal, and open up those really great performing airframes
and engines to those with more limited budgets who really WANT a truly
competitive airplane to play the game with.
</p>
<p>
But the voices of the masses has stopped that change (I speculate that
it is not an 'acceptable' change, because there are so few who have
NOT paid the high $$ for the lighter-weight special airframes. Isnt'
logical for them to want to vote in a rule that means their extra cost
investments weren't needed.).
</p>
<p>
UNLIMITED *anything* in this game is a BAD PLAN. Yes, Dave L., you had
persuaded me with history...when the engine limits were removed
(basically), the Game got more expensive. UNLIMITED weight would be a
REALLY BAD PLAN.
</p>
<p>
<br>
---- Chad Northeast <chad@f3acanada.org> wrote:<br>>"I'm not
gonna spend wads of cash on a mega dollar bipe just to win a $5<br>
>piece of wood."<br>><br>>Are you flying a 2 meter today?
Or a 60 powered Jekyll?<br>><br>>Looking back into the past of what
I know, opening up the rules to allow<br>>bigger planes/engines etc.
has always driven up the cost...and although<br>>it may start at an
international competition level it seems to have<br>>always filtered
down to every class. You hardly see the old school 60's<br>>anymore.<br>
><br>>In time guys would spend big cash on bipes if thats the direction it<br>
>went....otherwise you would not be competitive. The ones that could<br>
>afford it would, the rest would leave. Current 2 meters didnt happen<br>
>overnight......but they did happen.....and so will big ass bipes if the<br>
>rules are opened up.<br>><br>>Chad<br>><br>>Robert Mairs
wrote:<br>><br>>>I find your argument to be somewhat out there.
Personally I don't care<br>>>one way or the other about the weight
rule. Your whole assumption is<br>>>everyone is gonna jump on the big
bipe wagon, it's gonna raise the<br>>>cost exponentially, and everyone
is gonna quit or not get involved at<br>>>all. I don't share that view.<br>
>>How about this view.<br>>>It would encourage the traditional building
techniques of the wood<br>>>roaches as they're so fondly called now.
Put my glow or electric motor<br>>>in it and not have to worry whether
I'm 3 oz over 11 lbs. This is prob<br>>>a good thing as I feel that
one of the biggest drawbacks to getting<br>>>into pattern is anyone
not familiar with this aspect of flying<br>>>believes you have to have
a carbon/fiberglass fuse, and have to paint<br>>>it. Which up to a
point is true, all you have to do is ck the<br>>>flightline at any
contest to make this assumption or view the planes<br>>>everyone posts
on the forums. Majority are this type construction.<br>>>Take a guy
whos been flying for several years, is bored with plowing<br>>>holes
in the sky, and looking for something to channel his competitive<br>
>>energy into. This guys background is gonna be practically all<br>
>>traditional materials. Now he has to build a composite airframe, yuck!<br>
>>He knows ho to use monokote, now he has to do all that painting,<br>
>>yikes! He doesn't know anything about this type construction, not a<br>
>>huge fan of $2000 arfs, he'll look elsewhere unless he's really<br>
>>motivated to get into pattern. That may be why the focus was so<br>
>>popular, price wasn't stellar and they understood the construction<br>
>>techniques.<br>>>This rule change could also help us return to
a simpler less expensive<br>>>road. Encourage more suppliers to go
back to the traditional type<br>>>construction. If someone wants to be
competitive on a world level then<br>>>they can persue the more
complex, higher dollar route. I'm not gonna<br>>>spend wads of cash on
a mega dollar bipe just to win a $5 piece of<br>>>wood. I'm nowhere
convinced they will fly better just because they'll<br>>>be bigger.
The designs available now fly pretty good.<br>>>----- Original Message
-----<br>>><br>>>*From:* Dave Lockhart
<mailto:davel322@comcast.net><br>>>*To:* 'NSRCA Mailing List'
<mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>>>*Sent:* Monday,
May 15, 2006 12:21 AM<br>>>*Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight
limits for electrics?<br>>><br>>>Yes, Some of the pattern guys
would go to the hassle of a bipe to<br>>>get the competitive advantage
of the bigger plane – and the rest<br>>>of us would be less
competitive unless we chose to spend more time<br>>>and more money
(assuming we had the time and money to spend – and<br>>>some
don’t and will drop the event).<br>>><br>>>Yes 96db is a
challenge for gas, 94 (FAI) is even more of a<br>>>challenge. Both can
be easily done – it only takes $$$$<br>>><br>>>Restructure
the rules so that the most competitive airframes are<br>>>more
expensive, more complex, and require more time, and the<br>>>numbers
interested in the event will drop (as it has every single<br>>>time in
the past when rules allowed escalation of the airframes).<br>>><br>
>><br>>>Dave<br>>><br>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>>><br>>>*From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<br>
>>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of<br>
>>*Robert Mairs<br>>>*Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 11:59 PM<br>
>>*To:* NSRCA Mailing List<br>>>*Subject:* Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?<br>>><br>>>The
IMAC guys don't want to deal with it, but pattern guys would?<br>
>>Only motors that would support bipes in that size are gas. 96db at<br>
>>3 meters? Now there's a hassle. The skys not falling.<br>>><br>
>>----- Original Message -----<br>>><br>>>*From:* Dave
Lockhart <mailto:davel322@comcast.net><br>>><br>>>*To:*
'NSRCA Mailing List'<br>>><mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>
>><br>>>*Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 10:19 PM<br>>><br>
>>*Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?<br>
>><br>>>Yes they are a PIA and I don’t want to spend the extra time<br>
>>either.<br>>><br>>>IMAC essentially has no limits, excepting the
AMA 55 lb limit<br>>>which is not really a factor.<br>>><br>
>>Bigger flies better, period. If an IMAC guy went through the<br>>>fuss
to build the monstrous bipe with wingspan similar to the<br>>>big
monoplanes, it would be “bigger” and it would fly better.<br>
>>No one wants to deal with that hassle and expense.<br>>><br>>>A
2M bipe is bigger than a 2M monoplane. The 2M being bigger<br>>>will
fly better, period. And it will be more expense and it<br>>>will
result in some number of current day pattern competitors<br>>>leaving
the event.<br>>><br>>>Regards,<br>>><br>>><br>
>>Dave Lockhart<br>>><br>>>DaveL322@comcast.net<br>>><br>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>><br>>>*From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<br>
>>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf<br>
>>Of *Robert Mairs<br>>>*Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 9:26 PM<br>
>>*To:* NSRCA Mailing List<br>>>*Subject:* Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?<br>>><br>>>I
don't buy into the bipe theory. Bipes are a PIA. I wouldn't<br>>>want
to spend a half hour setting up and tearing down every<br>>>day I went
out flying. If bipes are so dominating why don't<br>>>you see them on
the IMAC circuit? They don't have any size or<br>>>weight restrictions
and they strive for the same type<br>>>performance we do, yet they're
a rarity. They're nice to see<br>>>and may show up, but a flight line
full of bipes, I doubt it.<br>>><br>>>----- Original Message
-----<br>>><br>>>*From:* Stuart Chale
<mailto:schale@optonline.net><br>>><br>>>*To:* 'NSRCA
Mailing List'<br>>><mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>
>><br>>>*Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 8:57 PM<br>>><br>
>>*Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?<br>
>><br>>>Any time a limit has been relaxed; there has been a change<br>
>>in airplane size and or design. It is not necessarily<br>>>immediate
but technology seems to adapt to the new limits.<br>>>Just try to fly
one of your 2M designs with a piped 60, or<br>>>even a 120 4C. When 4C
limits were increased to 1.2 cubic<br>>>inches nothing changed. Some
brave folks tried 4C but it<br>>>didn’t work until YS came out with a
4C engine that was<br>>>more powerful than a 60 2C engine. Then the
planes took a<br>>>step larger and heavier. When the engine limit was
removed<br>>>planes got larger again. 120 AC engines were now only good<br>
>>for the beginner classes. (An oversimplification). Right<br>>>now the
weight limit works. Yes it is a bit harder to make<br>>>a 2M pattern
plane come in under 5 kg when made electric<br>>>but it can be done. A
gas engine 2M may be even more<br>>>difficult. Relaxing the weight
limit will make it easier<br>>>for an electric conversion to make
weight and make a gas<br>>>powered version more feasible. But new
designs will now<br>>>show up pushing the new limits. The obvious
direction is a<br>>>2 M bipe. A 14 pound 2 M bipe may present better
than a<br>>>monoplane, maybe not. If it does then everyone will “need”<br>
>>or at least want one. If people want to try something new<br>>>and
bigger then scrap the weight limit. If not then<br>>>relaxing the
weight limit to fit today’s problems will<br>>>have undesirable
effects tomorrow J<br>>><br>>>Stuart Chale<br>>><br>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>>><br>>>*From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<br>
>>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] *On<br>
>>Behalf Of *vicenterc@comcast.net<br>>>*Sent:* Sunday, May 14,
2006 8:06 PM<br>>>*To:* NSRCA Mailing List; NSRCA Mailing List<br>
>>*Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?<br>>><br>
>>I understood that the definition of model airplane states<br>>>that
weigh has to be below 5 Kg. That is consider<br>>>international. The
only exception is the scale that is a<br>>>little higher. I am not
sure if this single reason is<br>>>going to make difficult to change
the rule for F3A. For<br>>>sure is going to help the gas engines. I
don't think<br>>>electric power plants are having a weigh problem.<br>
>><br>>>Vicente Bortone<br>>><br>>>-------------- Original
message --------------<br>>>From: "John Ferrell"
<johnferrell@earthlink.net><br>>><br>>>Yummy! Big Biplanes
are coming in quantity!<br>>><br>>>John Ferrell W8CCW<br>
>>"My Competition is not my enemy"<br>
>>http://DixieNC.US <http://dixienc.us/><br>>><br>
>>----- Original Message -----<br>>><br>>>*From:*
Bdrtschiger Urs<br>>><mailto:baertschiger-tai@bluewin.ch><br>
>><br>>>*To:* NSRCA Mailing List<br>
>><mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>>><br>
>>*Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 5:17 AM<br>>><br>
>>*Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits<br>>>for
electrics?<br>>><br>>>This subject has been adressed officially.
Based<br>>>on what I have been told, the weight limit for F3A<br>
>>will be dropped with the next rules changes. What<br>>>will
remain however, is the 2M by 2M box.<br>>><br>>>Urs<br>>><br>
>>NSRCA #3069<br>>><br>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>>><br>>>_______________________________________________<br>
>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
>>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>>><br>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>><br>>>_______________________________________________<br>
>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
>>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>>><br>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>>_______________________________________________<br>>>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<br>>>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>>><br>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>><br>>>_______________________________________________<br>
>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
>>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>>><br>
><br>><br>>_______________________________________________<br>
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br><br>--<br>Bob
Pastorello, El Reno, OK, USA<br>rcaerobob@cox.net<br>www.rcaerobats.net<br>
</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>