[From nobody Sun Nov 21 21:40:29 2004 Received: from mc4-f12.law16.hotmail.com ([65.54.237.147]) by mc4-s21.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Sun, 10 Nov 2002 08:53:21 -0800 Received: from mail.nxs.net ([198.144.160.60]) by mc4-f12.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Sun, 10 Nov 2002 08:53:20 -0800 Received: from vs.mail.nxs.net (unverified [198.144.160.64]) by nxs.net (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.4) with SMTP id <B0043456410@mail.nxs.net> for <discussion@nsrca.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:53:47 -0500 Received: from mx1b.mail.nxs.net ([198.144.167.163]) by vs.mail.nxs.net (NAVGW 2.5.2.12) with SMTP id M2002111011472215680 for <discussion@nsrca.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:47:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 16122 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2002 16:53:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (207.68.165.75) by mx1b.mail.nxs.net with SMTP for <discussion@nsrca.org>; 10 Nov 2002 16:53:10 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 08:53:03 -0800 Received: from 205.188.209.105 by sea2fd.sea2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 16:53:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.209.105] From: "Buddy Brammer" <buddybrammer35@hotmail.com> To: discussion@nsrca.org Bcc: Subject: Re: Weight Limit Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 10:53:03 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: <F75wC6z4Va6eRHpk1nY0000455b@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Nov 2002 16:53:03.0841 (UTC) FILETIME=[A2AE5510:01C288D9] Reply-To: discussion@nsrca.org Sender: discussion-request@nsrca.org Return-Path: middletn@cfw.com <html><div style='background-color:'><DIV> <P>Ron and Georgie <BR>Good point! Except before any conclusions can be made reguarding weather raising the weight limit while keeping the 2 meter size will result in larger airplanes and increasing cost you must first study&nbsp;the limitations of a high performance pattern airplane.</P> <P>If you accept the fact a high performance pattern plane will have a wing loading of&nbsp;100 sq. in. per pound then a 13 lb airplane will have a 1300 sq. in. wing area&nbsp;. Lighter loading will result in less than&nbsp;acceptable fligh charesticts especially in higher wind conditions and I think that we will all agree that heavier wing loading will degrade performance. </P> <P>Adding a fatter and taller fuse&nbsp;and larger wings will certainly add weight.If you run the numbers this will be about a 15% increase in airframe weight for the 1300 sq. in. size.</P> <P>I personally think that increasing the airframe size/ weight 15% will have little effect on cost.</P> <P>Now if you increase size (Keeping the Maximum 2 meters limit ) you may need more power!&nbsp; and that will possibly result in engine design changes or the ability to adapt gasoline engines to pattern. If a gasoline engine can be used then it's a no brainer the cost of flying&nbsp;will be reduced&nbsp;. the more you fly with gas the more the average cost of pattern is lowered. If you &nbsp;fly 8 flights per gallon @ $16.00 per gallon the cost is $2.00 per flight. Gasoline @ $2.00 per gallon 25 cents per flight a savings of $1.75 per flight. The savings there&nbsp; could reduce the cost of flying pattern by 30% </P> <P>As a designer and builder of pattern airplanes given the current 2 meter limit&nbsp; I think the only reason for me to consider a larger design would be to cut my cost&nbsp; since I can find no other reason to go larger. If anyone has a valid reason speak up I am listening. </P> <P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;And we have the age old argument that raising the limit will make many of the current near 2 meter size ARF's legal for pattern and bring more people into pattern at a reasonable cost. I think that&nbsp; may be true, and once they are hooked they will opt for a true pattern design. </P> <P>Buddy<BR></P></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV>&gt;From: "Wade &amp; Barbara Akle" <WB_AKLE@MSN.COM> <DIV></DIV>&gt;Reply-To: discussion@nsrca.org <DIV></DIV>&gt;To: <DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG> <DIV></DIV>&gt;Subject: Re: Weight Limit <DIV></DIV>&gt;Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 07:11:30 -0800 <DIV></DIV>&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt;I built an Alliance, Prodigy and Focus all within 11 Lbs; and an Exactitude which came at 12.5 Lbs and the verticals suffered. <DIV></DIV>&gt;Wade <DIV></DIV>&gt; ----- Original Message ----- <DIV></DIV>&gt; From: Buddy Brammer <DIV></DIV>&gt; To: discussion@nsrca.org <DIV></DIV>&gt; Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 7:08 AM <DIV></DIV>&gt; Subject: Re: Weight Limit <DIV></DIV>&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; In the 2 meter or near 2 meter size, what kit's or ARF's are they? <DIV></DIV>&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; Buddy <DIV></DIV>&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt;From: "Wade &amp; Barbara Akle" <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt;Reply-To: discussion@nsrca.org <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt;To: <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt;Subject: Re: Weight Limit <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt;Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 04:14:19 -0800 <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt;If we just went to 6 Kg (13.2 Lbs) my 3 Webras would be just obsolete! so, I gain nothing. There are plenty of kits/ARFs in the 11 Lbs range. <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt;Wade <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; ----- Original Message ----- <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; From: Larry Diamond <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; To: discussion@nsrca.org <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 9:00 PM <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; Subject: Re: Weight Limit <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; Depends on what the main goal is... <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; If the end goal is to fly larger and more expensive planes...Then yes, it's progress... <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; If the goal is to recruit new members, grow pattern, and advance designs and technology...Then IMHO this would be called regression and not progressing into the future. <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; It's not as challenging for designers and manufactures to just make planes bigger by removing limitations of size and / or weight... <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; I would suggest that we are using carbon fiber and other light weight materials specifically because of the size and weight limitations. If the limitations are simply cast aside, there would be no need to develop new ways of using various technologies or advancing technologies. Just one example of how limitations actually help advance Vs stall progress. <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; Twisted perception from a twisted mind... <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; Larry <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; ----- Original Message ----- <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; From: Buddy Brammer <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; To: discussion@nsrca.org <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 5:35 PM <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; Subject: RE: Weight Limit <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; Also by some called Progressing into the future. <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; Buddy <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;From: "Wade &amp; Barbara Akle" <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;Reply-To: discussion@nsrca.org <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;To: discussion@nsrca.org <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;Subject: RE: Weight Limit <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 21:51:55 +0000 <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;Ron, <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;What you stated is called the rule of UnIntended Consequences! <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;Wade <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;From: ronlock <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;Reply-To: discussion@nsrca.org <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;To: discussion@nsrca.org <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;Subject: RE: Weight Limit <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 12:01:35 -0500 <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;If we remove the weight limit, nothing dramatic happens in the <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;short term. <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;The few pilots with ll lb and a few ounces birds will be relieved, <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;and that's <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;nice. Overall, there is little impact. <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;Over the longer term, our models will get larger. There is room in <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;a 2 meter <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;box to stick in a lot more airplane than we currently have. And our <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;designers <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;will do that, since bigger is better. <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;Fuselages will get taller and thicker. Wing area will grow to carry <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;the extra, <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;to about how much more? 1,400, 1,600 squares? Since we don't <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;have engine rules, getting larger engines is just a matter of <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;letting the <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;manufacturers catch up. Props and landing gear gets bigger. So do <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;exhaust <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;systems, batteries, servos, etc. We probably get more scale <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;appearance. <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;Every time we let models get bigger, they fly better, present to <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;judges <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;better, and judges seem to score them better. So most of us will <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;feel it's <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;necessary to go larger to stay competitive. <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;Larger in general, means more money and time to buy, build, <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;maintain, <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;and transport. Does the existing active pattern community want <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;that? <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;Is it good for recruiting and pattern participation in the future? <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;Ron Lockhart <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;_________________________________________________________________ <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;===================================== <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;# To be removed from this list, send a message to # <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;discussion-request@nsrca.org <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body. <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; &gt;# <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt;---------------------------------------------------------------------------- <DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. <DIV></DIV>&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt;------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <DIV></DIV>&gt; The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* <DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>The new <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMCEN/2018">MSN 8:</a> smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* </html> ]