<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;">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 color="#0000bf" face="comic sans ms" 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><jnhiller@earthlink.net></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><br>From: J N Hiller <jnhiller@earthlink.net><br>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<br>To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><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 ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>[mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" href="/mc/compose?to=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 ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>[mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" href="/mc/compose?to=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 ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>[mailto:<a
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" href="/mc/compose?to=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 ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>[mailto:<a
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" href="/mc/compose?to=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 ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" href="/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>[mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" href="/mc/compose?to=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">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 ymailto="mailto:jnhiller@earthlink.net" href="/mc/compose?to=jnhiller@earthlink.net">jnhiller@earthlink.net</a>><br>To: <a ymailto="mailto:jpavlick@idseng.com" href="/mc/compose?to=jpavlick@idseng.com">jpavlick@idseng.com</a>, "General pattern discussion"<br><<a ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" href="/mc/compose?to=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 ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" href="/mc/compose?to=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 ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" href="/mc/compose?to=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 ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
href="/mc/compose?to=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 ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" href="/mc/compose?to=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 ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" href="/mc/compose?to=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 ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" href="/mc/compose?to=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><br>