<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Buddy, </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">I like opinions that are backed up with data and not just perceptions. My experience as a designer, like yours, leads me to the conclusion that there is a limit on how much airframe volume can exist in a 2m box and still have a precision aircraft. This limit may be larger than what we have today, but not much larger. A cubic airplane will not have the same stability as a monoplane or biplane. Also, a heavy plane with a bigger engine won't necessarily fly better either. As you state, there is a wing loading target that must be maintained.</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> The cost of "exotic" materials in an airframe is not the expensive part. Too many people focus on this and forget where their money really goes. AeroSlave has carbon fiber planes for the same price or less than other manufacturers glass planes. I think the prices paid for carbon fiber exhaust systems have much more of a price premium than the premiums assessed on airplane kits. The emergence of digital servos has also upped the ante.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Thanks for the numbers,</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">--Lance</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">===============================</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Ron and Georgie </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">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 the limitations of a high performance pattern airplane.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">If you accept the fact a high performance pattern plane will have a wing loading of 100 sq. in. per pound then a 13 lb airplane will have a 1300 sq. in. wing area . Lighter loading will result in less than acceptable fligh charesticts especially in higher wind conditions and I think that we will all agree that heavier wing loading will degrade performance. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Adding a fatter and taller fuse 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.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">I personally think that increasing the airframe size/ weight 15% will have little effect on cost.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Now if you increase size (Keeping the Maximum 2 meters limit ) you may need more power! 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 will be reduced . the more you fly with gas the more the average cost of pattern is lowered. If you 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 could reduce the cost of flying pattern by 30% </font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">As a designer and builder of pattern airplanes given the current 2 meter limit I think the only reason for me to consider a larger design would be to cut my cost since I can find no other reason to go larger. If anyone has a valid reason speak up I am listening. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> 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 may be true, and once they are hooked they will opt for a true pattern design. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Buddy</font>