<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV>"I could run an OS 1.60 at a fraction of the cost of either a YS or electric." </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- I already do! LOL</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>John Pavlick<BR><BR>--- On <B>Thu, 6/4/09, Jon Lowe <I><jonlowe@aol.com></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From: Jon Lowe <jonlowe@aol.com><BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 1:58 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>Since inexpensive 2 strokes are at a disadvantage to expensive 4 strokes and electrics, we ought to have a minimum weight of 11.5 lbs for them, and allow 2 strokes to weigh under 11. Or maybe make 4 strokes run on FAI fuel. Makes as much sense as increasing the allowable weight for electrics. I could run an OS 1.60 at a fraction of the cost of either a YS or electric. :<BR><BR>Jon Lowe<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Dave <<A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=DaveL322@comcast.net" ymailto="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A>><BR>Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:20 AM<BR>To: 'General pattern discussion' <<A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR><BR>Maybe they actually figured
the future would bring very powerful and<BR>lightweight electric motors and batteries, and that even at 11 lbs with<BR>batteries electrics would take over.....and thusly decided weigh electrics<BR>with batteries in an attempt to not immediately obsolete glow.<BR><BR>Give electrics more advantage now, and the death of glow will be accelerated<BR>(and guys will still build overweight electrics - limits are always pushed<BR>in competitive events, and occasionally they are exceeded).<BR><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>Dave<BR><BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: <A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>[mailto:<A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>] On Behalf Of<BR><A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=verne@twmi.rr.com" ymailto="mailto:verne@twmi.rr.com">verne@twmi.rr.com</A><BR>Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:01 PM<BR>To: General pattern discussion<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR><BR>The only logic I can see in the decision would be that electric motors are<BR>inherently lighter than glow motors so the batteries were thrown in as a<BR>means to balance things out. I doubt that anyone at the time was aware that<BR>less robust airframes would also be an added benefit to electric vs glow.<BR>Having said all that, I believe the formula is deficient. To me, the most<BR>logical approach is to take the batteries out of the equation and require a<BR>"dry" weight for electrics that takes into account the fact that an electric<BR>motor is inherently lighter than a glow motor.
The arguments that a fuel<BR>tank isn't required doesn't wash because the counter argument is that an<BR>electric requires a speed control that is much heavier than a throttle<BR>servo. All of those arguments are just that, arguments. A "dry" weight of<BR>8.75 pounds fixes everything in my opinion.<BR><BR>Verne<BR><BR><BR>---- Richard Strickland <<A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=pamrich47@hotmail.com" ymailto="mailto:pamrich47@hotmail.com">pamrich47@hotmail.com</A>> wrote: <BR>> <BR>> As Ron pointed out--the decision to weigh "with batteries" was probably<BR>someone's very strict interpretation. Do we have any idea who that<BR>is/was--and could it just be re-interpreted? This is just flat not logical.<BR>> RS <BR>> > From: <A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mjfrederick@cox.net" ymailto="mailto:mjfrederick@cox.net">mjfrederick@cox.net</A><BR>> > To: <A
href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>> > Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:04:52 -0500<BR>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>> > <BR>> > It's not so much that the designs are obsolete, people just feel <BR>> > embarrassed showing up with an old airplane. A friend of mine who <BR>> > designs airplanes has designed 3 airplanes in the last 3 years. The <BR>> > main reason for the new designs is changes in F3A schedules. His older <BR>> > designs going back to the mid to late 90's are still highly <BR>> > competitive. His new designs are not for AMA pattern, they're for f3a. <BR>> > If you choose to buy a design that is more than you need, that's your <BR>> > choice but don't look for a rules change to fix AMA pattern when <BR>> > there's nothing
broke. Keeping up with the Joneses in f3a is not a <BR>> > valid reason for a rule change.<BR>> > <BR>> > Sent from my iPhone<BR>> > <BR>> > On Jun 4, 2009, at 7:45 AM, mike mueller <<A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mups1953@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:mups1953@yahoo.com">mups1953@yahoo.com</A>> wrote:<BR>> > <BR>> > ><BR>> > > "designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"<BR>> > > Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're competitive and <BR>> > > always looking for better and different. Truth be known I look <BR>> > > forward to a new plane in the Spring that I planned and prepared for <BR>> > > a year or so. It's part of what appeals me to pattern and I do this <BR>> > > on a lower budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this. <BR>> > > It's all about will and determination and innovation to get what I <BR>>
> > want with as little as I have to work with. Money and building <BR>> > > talents lacking I still put down a competitive piece each year. No <BR>> > > sponsors either. Now that's actually pretty funny sorry.....<BR>> > > Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and that the <BR>> > > pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the time. I'm saying <BR>> > > that I think designs for the truly competitive have a rather short <BR>> > > lifespan and that's not going to change anytime soon.<BR>> > > Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that work well with <BR>> > > IC. What about the Passport? Osmose? Integral? It's only been a year <BR>> > > or so that the newer generation of planes have been introduced that <BR>> > > are dedicated for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E. <BR>> > > Addiction E. and the Sickle. Before that
all the designs were meant <BR>> > > for IC and we adapted them to fit E.<BR>> > > Mike<BR>> > ><BR>> > > --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Ron Hansen <<A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rcpilot@wowway.com" ymailto="mailto:rcpilot@wowway.com">rcpilot@wowway.com</A>> wrote:<BR>> > ><BR>> > >> From: Ron Hansen <<A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rcpilot@wowway.com" ymailto="mailto:rcpilot@wowway.com">rcpilot@wowway.com</A>><BR>> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>> > >> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <<A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>> > >> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 7:10 AM<BR>> > >> I agree with Paul. Remove the<BR>> > >> weight limit
and keep the 2 meter size<BR>> > >> limit. If someone wants to fly a 15 lb biplane<BR>> > >> powered with a DA-50<BR>> > >> more power too them. Sure our current planes may be<BR>> > >> obsolete but all<BR>> > >> designs are obsolete in 2-3 years.<BR>> > >><BR>> > >> I'm an intermediate pilot and my biggest concern is the<BR>> > >> selection of<BR>> > >> designs available. Right now other than the Focus II<BR>> > >> or the Black Magic<BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > <A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>> > <A href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>> <BR>> _________________________________________________________________<BR>> Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that's right for you.<BR>> <A href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290" target=_blank>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290</A><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR><A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR><A href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR><A
href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR><A href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR><A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR><A href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table>