<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Who mentioned a triplane :)<br>
<br>
Joe Lachowski wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:SNT104-W17D50FAEE74F06173A8A6DBB4B0@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>Speaking of Integral wings. I have 3 composite sets laying
around if any one is interested.<g><br>
<br>
> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 06:40:21 -0700<br>
> From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mups1953@yahoo.com">mups1953@yahoo.com</a><br>
> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jpavlick@idseng.com">jpavlick@idseng.com</a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> All good points John but let me say this. It's nearly impossible
to build a light composite wing. If you make them too light they risk
blowing apart in the air. i have seen some recent examples of Extreme
Composite planes doing such. Composite ARF does a great job with there
stuff today and seem to have a good compromise between strength and
weight. There's a lot of guys flying them who made E. weight like
Jason, Chad and Andrew.<br>
> Wist and Jaroslav Mach do the best job I've seen with composite
wings making weight but they are a little hard to get. Also they are
not as good a deal money wise as the Integral. My Integral has a foam
wing and yes it seems silly but it did result in a pretty awesome plane
and it's light. I offset the costs by selling the composite wings from
the kit. Mike<br>
> <br>
> --- On Thu, 6/4/09, John Pavlick <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jpavlick@idseng.com"><jpavlick@idseng.com></a> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> > From: John Pavlick <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jpavlick@idseng.com"><jpavlick@idseng.com></a><br>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<br>
> > To: "General pattern discussion"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><br>
> > Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 8:18 AM<br>
> > Part of the reason why Pattern<br>
> > planes become "obsolete" is due to the fact that<br>
> > the airframe rules for ALL classes are the same. The higher<br>
> > classes schedules change and that requires design changes.<br>
> > This is not a bad thing. It's part of any good<br>
> > competitive sport / hobby. Since the airframe rules<br>
> > apply to all classes, you only have one definition of a<br>
> > "legal" airplane which could be flown in any<br>
> > class. That would be like allowing a Grand National Stock<br>
> > car to run in the Street Stock class. How many people would<br>
> > be willing to try to enter the sport on a low budget with an<br>
> > old Chevelle? My guess is - none! <br>
> > <br>
> > I don't know how we could change this without<br>
> > causing more problems but it's something to think about.<br>
> > Personally I think a 90 size / 1.5 meter Sportsman<br>
> > class would do more to grow pattern than messing with the<br>
> > weight rules.<br>
> > <br>
> > Going back the the weight issue, I really<br>
> > don't think raising the weight limit will attract more<br>
> > people to Pattern. I just don't see how. Who<br>
> > actually weighs airplanes at a local contest? If we were<br>
> > weighing planes at every contest I bet a lot of glow planes<br>
> > would be "illegal". Probably more than the number<br>
> > of electrics at any given contest. Why? Because most of the<br>
> > guys building electrics have learned to pay close attention<br>
> > to weight. That's because of the current rules.<br>
> > That's a good thing. <br>
> > <br>
> > Something else to think about: many of you guys are<br>
> > paying top dollar for high end airframes that are basically<br>
> > overweight to start with. Sure you can try to get things<br>
> > under control by using smaller airborne batteries, lighter<br>
> > servos, etc. but if I were you I'd be a bit upset<br>
> > if I paid for a "competition" airplane<br>
> > that needed a lot of finessing to meet the weight<br>
> > requirements. <br>
> > <br>
> > Many of you guys like the Integral. This is a perfect<br>
> > example of what I'm talking about. Have you felt how<br>
> > heavy the wings are on some of those? For the money they<br>
> > charge, they should be able to build something lighter. You<br>
> > shouldn't have to custom cut a set of foam<br>
> > wings to replace the ones in your kit. That's just<br>
> > silly.<br>
> > <br>
> > It does NOT require "zen" building<br>
> > techniques to build an airplane that makes weight. OK, that<br>
> > doesn't hurt but all you need to do is pay close<br>
> > attention to what everything weighs as you build. EVERY<br>
> > time I see an airplane that's<br>
> > "overweight", I can pick out at least 3 things<br>
> > that are just plain absurd. I've only been doing this<br>
> > for a few years. Some of you guys have been flying Pattern<br>
> > longer than I've been alive. If I can do it anyone<br>
> > can. My first 2-meter build (Black Magic V2.2 w/ OS 160)<br>
> > came out at 10lbs, 6.9 oz. I don't have the<br>
> > "zen" building technique down just yet so I'd<br>
> > have to say this should be possible for most people. I'm<br>
> > going to build an electric VF-3 this winter. I bet anyone<br>
> > that it will come in under weight. And I don't<br>
> > have a ton of money to throw at it. In fact I'll<br>
> > probably buy used stuff to save some money so I<br>
> > can buy good batteries. :)<br>
> > <br>
> > John Pavlick<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > --- On Thu, 6/4/09, mike mueller<br>
> > <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mups1953@yahoo.com"><mups1953@yahoo.com></a> wrote:<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > From: mike mueller <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mups1953@yahoo.com"><mups1953@yahoo.com></a><br>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<br>
> > To: "General pattern discussion"<br>
> > <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><br>
> > Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 8:45 AM<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > "designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"<br>
> > Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're<br>
> > competitive and always looking for better and different.<br>
> > Truth be known I look forward to a new plane in the Spring<br>
> > that I planned and prepared for a year or so. It's part<br>
> > of what appeals me to pattern and I do this on a lower<br>
> > budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this.<br>
> > It's all about will and determination and innovation to<br>
> > get what I want with as little as I have to work with. Money<br>
> > and building talents lacking I still put down a competitive<br>
> > piece each year. No sponsors either. Now that's actually<br>
> > pretty funny sorry.....<br>
> > Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and<br>
> > that the pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the<br>
> > time. I'm saying that I think designs for the truly<br>
> > competitive have a rather short lifespan and that's not<br>
> > going to change anytime soon.<br>
> > Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that<br>
> > work well with IC. What about the Passport? Osmose?<br>
> > Integral? It's only been a year or so that the newer<br>
> > generation of planes have been introduced that are dedicated<br>
> > for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E. Addiction E.<br>
> > and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were meant for<br>
> > IC and we adapted them to fit E.<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > Mike<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----<br>
> > <br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
> > <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
> > <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>
<hr>Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009"
target="_new">Check it out.</a>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>