<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>“</span></font>I’m having a
little problem understanding the logic of some of the anti-weight
arguments. If you are one that feels a pattern plane performs best with a
YS 1.60 at 11 lbs then, by all means, continue to compete with that
setup. However, the weight increase would allow others to take a hard
look at alternate power sources whether it be gas or electric.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>*************Electric IS being flown now…and multiple gasoline
engines have been used (and still could be, and maybe are by some).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>“Remember, we are talking a weight limit increase and not a size
increase.”<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>*************Bigger flies better. Pythons, Elans, Prophecies,
Arch Nemesis, etc…..all were/are 2M planes (ok, the Elan was only 76”),
and none are competitive today. Why? Because the 2M today is bigger
(and cost more) because the displacement limited was lifted. The 2M plane
today is limited by weight…remove the weight limit, and the 2M plane will
again get bigger (and more expensive).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>“The added weight would probably also drive new muffler,
accessories, airplane designs, and put pressure on suppliers to provide lighter
weight and more powerful gas engines. The electric boys could expand
their battery alternatives. All are exciting prospects for the NSRCA,
which is admittedly hurting for new blood and interest.”<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>*************Save the electrics (which don’t need any help in my
opinion), this is the exact same discussion made by proponents for removing the
engine limit. And the cheaper engines and gasoline engines for pattern
never materialized…the OS and YS simply got bigger (more expensive) and
the planes got bigger (more expensive).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>“As to cost, I think that argument is a non-starter. When
you factor in the cost of glow fuel versus gas or electric power, 30% nitro is
roughly 10 times more expensive than gasoline. Do the math…a season
of 100-200 flights with gasoline is going to offset any perceived increase in
equipment costs. Savings in fuel also rapidly offsets the higher electric
costs.”<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>*************What is cheaper to buy and run… a 50cc or 100cc gas
engine? There are viable gas engines now if that is your preference.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>There are ZERO instances in pattern history I know of where increasing
any limit resulted in anything other than an increase in cost.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Dave Lockhart<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <b><span style='font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Bob Wilson<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Saturday, December 12, 2009
11:29 AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">General
pattern discussion</st1:PersonName><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
This email list is flawed in my opinion.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Personally, I’m for a weight increase, whether it’s a pound
or two or even unlimited as Dave advocates. I think it would be good for
the NSRCA by driving interest and new technology.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I’m having a little problem understanding the logic of some of
the anti-weight arguments. If you are one that feels a pattern plane
performs best with a YS 1.60 at 11 lbs then, by all means, continue to compete
with that setup. However, the weight increase would allow others to take
a hard look at alternate power sources whether it be gas or electric. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Remember, we are talking a weight limit increase and not a size increase.
The 2-meter rule insures that the aircraft won’t escalate in cost like we
see at IMAC. However, if someone wants to design a new biplane design to
compensate for the added weight…so be it…go for it.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The added weight would probably also drive new muffler, accessories,
airplane designs, and put pressure on suppliers to provide lighter weight and
more powerful gas engines. The electric boys could expand their battery
alternatives. All are exciting prospects for the NSRCA, which is admittedly
hurting for new blood and interest.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>As to cost, I think that argument is a non-starter. When you
factor in the cost of glow fuel versus gas or electric power, 30% nitro is
roughly 10 times more expensive than gasoline. Do the math…a season
of 100-200 flights with gasoline is going to offset any perceived increase in
equipment costs. Savings in fuel also rapidly offsets the higher electric
costs.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Finally, the 5kg (11 lb) limit was established back in the 1930’s
for Free Flight airplanes. Within the FAI/CIAM both RC Scale and RC
Helicopters recognized the need to change the rules. Both did that with
increases to 7kg and 6kg respectively. Certainly, pattern deserves the
same consideration.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Bob Wilson<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Gordon Anderson <<a
href="mailto:GAA@owt.com">GAA@owt.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Mike,<br>
<br>
Well said, I totally agree with your comments. I am one of the people who
rarely comment.<br>
<font color="#888888"><span style='color:#888888'><br>
--Gordon</span></font><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
mike mueller wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I have a hard time with a lot of the feedback that circulates on this
email list. It's too limited by the amount of people who respond and the ones
who do are usually the same guys. I find some of the ones that respond a
lot to be closed minded and are never swayed by a good argument.<br>
I would warn people that asking for an opinion here may have a very
different response than say RCU where you get a broader audience to sample
from. I wish there was a way to get more people to respond with opinions.
I fear many have been drivin away.<br>
I also wish we would all not be so quick to shoot down these opinions as
it results in less people asking for one and sharing any thoughts with us.<br>
I enjoy an open discusssion with a lot of people chiming in.<br>
I respect the opinions of everyone and do what I can to listen to the
points of both sides to form an opinion. Often the responses kill the
debate.<br>
Listening is a skill.<br>
There are times when some of you could be wrong.<br>
Thanks for letting me share my thoughts.<br>
Mike Mueller<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">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>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">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><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>