<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16825" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Careful, the old guard will call you a heretic!
LOL</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>FWIW I agree, totally. I have the capability to
build a 9 lb VF3 but I will tell you fast, I don't want it. I flew the prototype
at many weights and configurations from 9.5 lbs to 10.7 and I will say without
blinking I prefer it in the mid-moderately high 10s. I just can't find any ill
effects, except a few certain areas in the F patterns where it digs slightly
more. But add wind to the equation and it feels like a foamy under 10 lbs.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Older designs and engines/power systems, yeah
lighter was ALWAYS better. Nowadays I'm not nearly as convinced.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Of course this is personal preference. I know for a
fact a few people whom I have a LOT of respect for will call this "wrong
thinking" or maybe "ignorance". Nope, I'm not still searching for what I like, I
found it. And it weighs about 10.5 lbs =) But I won't try and convince anyone
else of it. It ALL comes down to personal preference. They aren't wrong
either.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>And of course that brings up a valid counter point
for electrics.....ASSuming that a particular glow plane did fly better with a
dry weight of closer to 11 lbs, take off weight would be in the 12+ range. With
the electric version of the same plane limited to a take off weight of 11 lbs,
the comparable weight would be close to a 9.25 lb glow plane. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So the question becomes, is that good or
bad?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-Mike</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=homeremodeling2003@yahoo.com
href="mailto:homeremodeling2003@yahoo.com">krishlan fitzsimmons</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">General pattern discussion</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:53
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Weight</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>It penetrates the wind better. I wouldn't think of flying
and of my sailplanes unballasted in the wind. They don't "fly" as good.
<BR><BR>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face="comic sans ms" color=#0000bf size=3>Chris
</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR><BR>--- On <B>Thu, 6/4/09, Matthew Frederick
<I><<A
href="mailto:mjfrederick@cox.net">mjfrederick@cox.net</A>></I></B>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From:
Matthew Frederick <<A
href="mailto:mjfrederick@cox.net">mjfrederick@cox.net</A>><BR>Subject:
Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>To: "General pattern discussion"
<<A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>Date:
Thursday, June 4, 2009, 6:49 AM<BR><BR>
<DIV id=yiv600423729>
<DIV>A heavier plane doesn't necessarily fly</DIV>
<DIV>better in the wind. The design is a more</DIV>
<DIV>important factor in windy conditions than </DIV>
<DIV>anything else.<BR><BR>Sent from my iPhone</DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Jun 3, 2009, at 8:36 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons <<A
href="/mc/compose?to=homeremodeling2003@yahoo.com" target=_blank
rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:homeremodeling2003@yahoo.com">homeremodeling2003@yahoo.com</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD
style="FONT-FAMILY: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-stretch: inherit"
vAlign=top>Where it isn't fair is in takeoff weight, or even
landing weight. A glow plane can put a 40 ounce tank in if
they want, they could fly at 13 lbs if they want to help
ballast the plane for heavy wind conditions. They could land
at 12 lbs. Where does a 11 lb weight matter with that?
Doesn't seem right to me. Does this mean I can add a fuel tank
to my 10.5 lb Electric and ballast it where I want it???? It
would help me tremendously at the nats in the wind!!! This
argument is silly. There should be a takeoff weight rule.
<BR>If you fly glow, and your plane is right at 11 lbs, and
you can't make the takeoff rule weight, then I guess you would
be in the same boat as the E guys are now.. The only people
that seem to have a problem with change, mostly seem to be the
glow guys. <BR>IMO, there is no advantage to either in flight.
I world class flyer could beat us all with either. <BR><BR>For
those that think the size would increase with a weight change,
then go to a takeoff weight rule. I doubt it would happen
then. <BR><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face="comic sans ms" color=#0000bf
size=3>Chris </FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR><BR>--- On <B>Wed, 6/3/09, J N Hiller
<I><<A href="/mc/compose?to=jnhiller@earthlink.net"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:jnhiller@earthlink.net">jnhiller@earthlink.net</A>></I></B>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From:
J N Hiller <<A
href="/mc/compose?to=jnhiller@earthlink.net" target=_blank
rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:jnhiller@earthlink.net">jnhiller@earthlink.net</A>><BR>Subject:
Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>To: "General pattern
discussion" <<A
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>Date:
Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 5:02 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>OH not me. I would vote against a
weight increase. I'm not a high tech guy<BR>and fly pattern
on the cheap. This is still mostly about flying
and<BR>considering my flying ability I don't feel I can buy
enough points at any<BR>price to justify it, besides I like
to build. I fly a home made 1.20 size<BR>72" wood airplane
around 9 pounds with maybe an all up cost of about
$500<BR>(excellent pattern trainer in all classes).<BR>I
might be able to make weight with a 2 ci glow now. I just
thought that if<BR>the weight limit was removed we would see
12-14 pound airplanes with big gas<BR>burners (IMAC
crossover) and I would probably indulge, and yes a single
2m<BR>wing will easily carry the weight of a 50 cc but what
about a DA 100? Twins<BR>run smooth.<BR>The real cost is
traveling in both time away from home and $$, even for
us<BR>non-competitive old guys, always has been, but I can't
kick the habit.<BR>Besides pattern fliers make good
friends.<BR>If I wasn't flying pattern I would be flying
IMAC. Probably will anyway.<BR>Jim<BR><BR><BR>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: <A rel=nofollow></A><A
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>[mailto:<A
rel=nofollow></A><A
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>]On
Behalf Of Dave<BR>Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:24
PM<BR>To: 'General pattern discussion'<BR>Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR><BR>Jim,<BR><BR>Monoplanes are
at 74" span now, and about 900 squares because that is
where<BR>the current schedules have pushed the designs
to. The wings don't need to<BR>be any bigger for the
11 lb weight limit. But at 74" and 900 squares,
there<BR>is plenty of room to grow the monoplane bigger if
the weight limit is<BR>increased.<BR><BR>The bottom line
doesn't change - bigger bipe, bigger monoplane, bigger
any<BR>plane will increase costs.<BR><BR>If you think
pattern needs more cost and complexity, whether it be
biplanes<BR>or monoplanes, submit a
proposal.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>Dave<BR><BR><BR><BR>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: <A rel=nofollow></A><A
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>[mailto:<A
rel=nofollow></A><A
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>]
On Behalf Of J N Hiller<BR>Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009
2:03 PM<BR>To: General pattern discussion<BR>Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR><BR>A monoplane will have
higher wing loading. How high is too
high?<BR>Jim<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: <A
rel=nofollow></A><A
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>[mailto:<A
rel=nofollow></A><A
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>]On
Behalf Of Dave<BR>Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:57
AM<BR>To: 'General pattern discussion'<BR>Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR><BR><96 db, <2M, <11
lbs, and it is legal. Your challenge is to meet
those<BR>specs with whatever equipment you
choose.<BR><BR>Raise any of those limits, and the cost and
complexity of pattern goes up.<BR>If you think what pattern
needs is more cost and complexity, submit
the<BR>proposal. And as Duane notes, the new breed of
monoplanes will obsolete<BR>your DA-50
Bipe.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>Dave<BR><BR><BR>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: <A rel=nofollow></A><A
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>[mailto:<A
rel=nofollow></A><A
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>]
On Behalf Of J N Hiller<BR>Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009
1:46 PM<BR>To: General pattern discussion<BR>Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR><BR>I was thinking pattern
legal DA-50.<BR>Jim<BR><BR>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: <A rel=nofollow></A><A
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>[mailto:<A
rel=nofollow></A><A
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>]On
Behalf Of Duane Beck<BR>Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06
AM<BR>To: General pattern discussion<BR>Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR><BR><A
href="http://www.mini-iac.com/" target=_blank
rel=nofollow></A><A href="http://www.mini-iac.com/"
target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://www.mini-iac.com/</A><BR>DA-50's and
larger biplanes very common. Have at it.
:-)<BR><BR>Duane<BR><BR>----- Original Message
-----<BR>From: "J N Hiller" <<A rel=nofollow></A><A
href="/mc/compose?to=jnhiller@earthlink.net" target=_blank
rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:jnhiller@earthlink.net">jnhiller@earthlink.net</A>><BR>To:
<A rel=nofollow></A><A
href="/mc/compose?to=jpavlick@idseng.com" target=_blank
rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:jpavlick@idseng.com">jpavlick@idseng.com</A>,
"General pattern discussion"<BR><<A rel=nofollow></A><A
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>Sent:
Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada
Eastern<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Weight<BR><BR><BR>Interesting discussion. I always felt the
weight limit replaced the<BR>displacement limit prevent the
use of very large engines.<BR><BR>Remove it now and we will
see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to<BR>build one
for a long time.<BR><BR>Bring it on.<BR><BR>Jim
Hiller<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR><A rel=nofollow></A><A
href="/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
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 rel=nofollow></A><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR><A rel=nofollow></A><A
href="/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
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 rel=nofollow></A><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR><A rel=nofollow></A><A
href="/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
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 rel=nofollow></A><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR><A rel=nofollow></A><A
href="/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
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 rel=nofollow></A><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR><A rel=nofollow></A><A
href="/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
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 rel=nofollow></A><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR><A rel=nofollow></A><A
href="/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
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 rel=nofollow></A><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN>_______________________________________________</SPAN><BR><SPAN>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list</SPAN><BR><SPAN><A
href="/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target=_blank
rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A></SPAN><BR><SPAN><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>-----Inline
Attachment Follows-----<BR><BR>
<DIV
class=plainMail>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR><A
href="/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></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>