<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE type=text/css>DIV {
MARGIN: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18854"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Ryan:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Well, my Integral didn't last long enough to really
find out. I suspect they would be just fine though To put it in
perspective, we've got a number of "hollow point' pattern wings flying that hold
up just fine. My Prestige wing is nothing but a thin balsa/FG laminate
with a little bit of CF inside. I've yet to damage it in 4 seasons.
One thing that Bob Hunt suggested to toughen up the LE was to add a thin spruce
strip in there. It probably isn't necessary and though it's not much added
weight, I will probably not use it on the next one I build.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>BTW, I did a brief description with some pictures
in a previous Kfactor article. It's easy to do.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Ed</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=smaragdz@bellsouth.net href="mailto:smaragdz@bellsouth.net">Ryan
Smith</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> Sunday, December 13, 2009 3:53
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This
email list is flawed in my opinion.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>Brian,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think that $300 figure was meant to be $300 over an Axi.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ed, how do the molded leading edges hold up compared to a traditional LE?
It's certainly intriguing to me. Thanks!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ryan<BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> brian young <<A
href="mailto:brian_w_young@yahoo.com">brian_w_young@yahoo.com</A>><BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> General pattern discussion <<A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists..nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists..nsrca.org</A>><BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Sun, December 13, 2009 11:55:06
AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.<BR></FONT><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>Mike, the point I don't see is why did the mfr make the Fatty so FAT.
They know the rules, its conventional construction and can be light enough if
they pay attention to their manufacturing process. I bet you got a good deal
on it because it was heavy. ;-) And ........Where did you get a
Pletti for $300 ??????????</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There is no doubt in my mind that heavier in our case would mean bigger,
and bigger costs more. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Some of the more finese proposals to adjust weight in AMA class may be
fine, really any adjustent to AMA may have little impact due to overiding by
the FAI rules as many have pointed out.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Brian</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> mike mueller
<mups1953@yahoo.com><BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> General pattern discussion
<nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Sun, December 13, 2009 9:40:52
AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my
opinion.<BR></FONT><BR>Honestly Dave Burton I can't see anything wrong with
your logic. <BR>I'll give an example of what it cost me to get my
Sickle/Fatboy to make weight for last season.<BR>The plane with cheaper but
still very competitive equipment like a AxiF3A motor and a castle HV85
controller as it came out of the box would have weighed in at 11 lbs 14
ounces. Some may say that's too heavy. Well it's not and my friend has one
that flys great at that weight.<BR>So what did it cost me to get the plane to
comform to the rules?<BR>A boatload!!!<BR>Pletty motor +$300<BR>YGE controller
+$150<BR>New lighter CF wingtube + $70<BR>New lighter CF landing gear
+$60<BR>Rasa CF prop +$70<BR>Really there were a myriad of changes that were
expensive to get to weight. Lots of carving out in the fuse too.<BR>The wing
on the plane has a lot of squares and I'll bet it would fly better at say 11.5
lbs. It's still lighter than the average glow at takeoff.<BR>Chad made a point
that the rules are set by the FAI and we all kind of follow them. In the end I
will always abide by those rules even though I prefer to fly in a AMA class.
If the rules change it will help a lot of flyers in my situation.<BR>It's a
great debate with no real set in wool answers. You just can't make blanket
statemants that increasing the weight limit would be more expensive. It
doesn't always hold water. Thanks, Mike Mueller<BR><BR>--- On Sat, 12/12/09,
Dave Burton <<A href="mailto:burtona@atmc.net" rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:burtona@atmc.net">burtona@atmc.net</A>> wrote:<BR><BR>>
From: Dave Burton <<A href="mailto:burtona@atmc.net" rel=nofollow
target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:burtona@atmc.net">burtona@atmc.net</A>><BR>> Subject:
Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.<BR>> To:
"'General pattern discussion'" <<A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>
Date: Saturday, December 12, 2009, 6:19 PM<BR>> Hi Mark,<BR>> You are of
course correct in that I want to fly a state of<BR>> the art plane and I'll
spend the money to do so as I'd like<BR>> to take it to the Nats. However,
I kinda think this example<BR>> proves my point that the weight limit
drives the cost up and<BR>> not down. If we just eliminate the weight limit
we won't be<BR>> chasing it again in three years.<BR>> I'll repeat my
question for someone to answer - What is the<BR>> purpose of a weight
limit?<BR>> IMO it certainly can't be to reduce or limit cost.<BR>>
Great discussion going on!<BR>> Dave Burton<BR>> <BR>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow
target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
[mailto:<A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow
target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>]<BR>>
On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark<BR>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 6:53
PM<BR>> To: '<A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow
target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>'<BR>>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed<BR>> in my
opinion.<BR>> <BR>> No, your spending an extra $500 because you want to
fly a<BR>> state of the art airplane below weight. Fly a
hydeout<BR>> (former state of the art) and weight would be no problem.
<BR>> <BR>> Raise the weight, and you'll still be chasing the weight
in<BR>> 3 years, only the base airframe will likely be even more<BR>>
expensive. <BR>> --------------------------<BR>> Sent
from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ----- Original
Message -----<BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow
target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
<<A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow
target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <<A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>
Sent: Sat Dec 12 18:57:27 2009<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This
email list is flawed<BR>> in my opinion.<BR>> <BR>> OK, so how come I
got to spend about $400.00+ more to lose<BR>> 4-5 ounces from my Integral?
(lighter servos, replacement CF<BR>> gear and wing tube, LiPo
battery,)<BR>> <BR>> My wife says 5K isnt limiting MY cost.<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow
target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
[mailto:<A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow
target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>]<BR>>
On Behalf Of Dave<BR>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 6:48 PM<BR>>
To: 'General pattern discussion'<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This
email list is flawed<BR>> in my opinion.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> Dave B,<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> At this point, it IS
limiting the cost.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Regards,<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Dave L<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> ________________________________<BR>> <BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow
target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
[mailto:<A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow
target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>]<BR>>
On Behalf Of Dave Burton<BR>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 6:38
PM<BR>> To: 'General pattern discussion'<BR>> Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed<BR>> in my opinion.<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Dave,<BR>> <BR>> What is the purpose of
the 5K limit? Is it to limit cost? <BR>> <BR>> Dave Burton<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow
target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
[mailto:<A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow
target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>]<BR>>
On Behalf Of Dave<BR>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 6:05 PM<BR>>
To: 'General pattern discussion'<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This
email list is flawed<BR>> in my opinion.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> Im having a little problem understanding the logic of some<BR>> of
the anti-weight arguments. If you are one that<BR>> feels a pattern
plane performs best with a YS 1.60 at 11 lbs<BR>> then, by all means,
continue to compete with that<BR>> setup. However, the weight
increase would allow others<BR>> to take a hard look at alternate power
sources whether it be<BR>> gas or electric.<BR>> <BR>>
*************Electric IS being flown nowand multiple<BR>> gasoline engines
have been used (and still could be, and<BR>> maybe are by some).<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Remember, we are talking a weight limit
increase and not a<BR>> size increase.<BR>> <BR>> *************Bigger
flies better. Pythons, Elans,<BR>> Prophecies, Arch Nemesis, etc..all
were/are 2M planes (ok,<BR>> the Elan was only 76), and none are
competitive today. <BR>> Why? Because the 2M today is bigger
(and cost more)<BR>> because the displacement limited was lifted. The
2M<BR>> plane today is limited by weightremove the weight limit,
and<BR>> the 2M plane will again get bigger (and more expensive).<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The added weight would probably also drive
new muffler,<BR>> accessories, airplane designs, and put pressure on
suppliers<BR>> to provide lighter weight and more powerful gas<BR>>
engines. The electric boys could expand their battery<BR>>
alternatives. All are exciting prospects for the<BR>> NSRCA, which is
admittedly hurting for new blood and<BR>> interest.<BR>> <BR>>
*************Save the electrics (which dont need any help<BR>> in my
opinion), this is the exact same discussion made by<BR>> proponents for
removing the engine limit. And the<BR>> cheaper engines and gasoline
engines for pattern never<BR>> materializedthe OS and YS simply got bigger
(more expensive)<BR>> and the planes got bigger (more expensive).<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> As to cost, I think that argument is a
non-starter. <BR>> When you factor in the cost of glow fuel versus gas
or<BR>> electric power, 30% nitro is roughly 10 times more
expensive<BR>> than gasoline. Do the matha season of 100-200
flights<BR>> with gasoline is going to offset any perceived increase
in<BR>> equipment costs. Savings in fuel also rapidly offsets<BR>>
the higher electric costs.<BR>> <BR>> *************What is cheaper to
buy and run a 50cc or 100cc<BR>> gas engine? There are viable gas
engines now if that<BR>> is your preference.<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> There are ZERO instances in pattern history I know of
where<BR>> increasing any limit resulted in anything other than an<BR>>
increase in cost.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Regards,<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Dave Lockhart<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
________________________________<BR>> <BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow
target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
[mailto:<A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow
target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>]<BR>>
On Behalf Of Bob Wilson<BR>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 11:29
AM<BR>> To: General pattern discussion<BR>> Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed<BR>> in my opinion.<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Personally, Im for a
weight increase, whether its a pound<BR>> or two or even unlimited as Dave
advocates. I think it<BR>> would be good for the NSRCA by driving
interest and new<BR>> technology.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
Im having a little problem understanding the logic of some<BR>> of the
anti-weight arguments. If you are one that<BR>> feels a pattern plane
performs best with a YS 1.60 at 11 lbs<BR>> then, by all means, continue to
compete with that<BR>> setup. However, the weight increase would
allow others<BR>> to take a hard look at alternate power sources whether it
be<BR>> gas or electric. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
Remember, we are talking a weight limit increase and not a<BR>> size
increase. The 2-meter rule insures that the<BR>> aircraft wont
escalate in cost like we see at IMAC. <BR>> However, if someone wants
to design a new biplane design to<BR>> compensate for the added weightso be
itgo for it.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The added weight would
probably also drive new muffler,<BR>> accessories, airplane designs, and
put pressure on suppliers<BR>> to provide lighter weight and more powerful
gas<BR>> engines. The electric boys could expand their
battery<BR>> alternatives.. All are exciting prospects for
the<BR>> NSRCA, which is admittedly hurting for new blood and<BR>>
interest.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> As to cost, I think that
argument is a non-starter. <BR>> When you factor in the cost of glow
fuel versus gas or<BR>> electric power, 30% nitro is roughly 10 times more
expensive<BR>> than gasoline. Do the matha season of 100-200
flights<BR>> with gasoline is going to offset any perceived increase
in<BR>> equipment costs. Savings in fuel also rapidly offsets<BR>>
the higher electric costs.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Finally,
the 5kg (11 lb) limit was established back in the<BR>> 1930s for Free
Flight airplanes. Within the FAI/CIAM<BR>> both RC Scale and RC
Helicopters recognized the need to<BR>> change the rules. Both did
that with increases to 7kg<BR>> and 6kg respectively. Certainly,
pattern deserves the<BR>> same consideration.<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> Bob Wilson<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> On Sat,
Dec 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Gordon Anderson <<A href="mailto:GAA@owt.com"
rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:GAA@owt.com">GAA@owt.com</A>><BR>> wrote:<BR>>
<BR>> Mike,<BR>> <BR>> Well said, I totally agree with your comments.
I am one of<BR>> the people who rarely comment.<BR>> <BR>>
--Gordon<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> mike mueller wrote:<BR>>
<BR>> I have a hard time with a lot of the feedback that<BR>> circulates
on this email list. It's too limited by the<BR>> amount of people who
respond and the ones who do are usually<BR>> the same guys. I find
some of the ones that respond a<BR>> lot to be closed minded and are never
swayed by a good<BR>> argument.<BR>> I would warn people that
asking for an opinion here may<BR>> have a very different response than say
RCU where you get a<BR>> broader audience to sample from. I wish
there was a<BR>> way to get more people to respond with opinions. I fear
many<BR>> have been drivin away.<BR>> I also wish we would all not
be so quick to shoot down<BR>> these opinions as it results in less people
asking for one<BR>> and sharing any thoughts with us.<BR>> I enjoy
an open discusssion with a lot of people chiming<BR>> in.<BR>> I
respect the opinions of everyone and do what I can to<BR>> listen to the
points of both sides to form an opinion. <BR>> 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>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> <A
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR>> <A href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
<A href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
rel=nofollow
target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR>> <A href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
<A href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
rel=nofollow
target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> <A
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
<A href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
rel=nofollow
target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>
<BR><BR><BR>
<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow
target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" rel=nofollow
target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR></DIV></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV><!-- cg1.c204.mail.gq1.yahoo.com compressed/chunked Wed Dec 9 20:14:23 PST 2009 --></DIV>
<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>