<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2737.800" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bill,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>When it comes to this topic, a lot can be learned
from the history of the event. </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>The limiting
can be done with weight, displacement, or dimensions. The 5 or 10% of top
competitors/designers/innovators have always aggressively pushed right to one or
more of the limits - and the majority of others in the event follow as fast as
they can afford to - that is the very nature of competition. Without going
into a comprehensive review of historical rule changes and the effects, I'd
strongly suggest the best way to limit size/expense is with displacement (of
course electrics throw a big wrench into that one). Simple FACT - Without
exception, every single time a limit has been removed or raised, the average
cost of the plane on the flightline at a pattern contest has gone
up.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>For a long time, the 2x2m limit was meaningless
because it wasn't the factor that limited the size of the planes. The
2x2m limit has a limited impact (and no, that is not a CompArf Impact on a diet)
on the size of the planes today - most are at 2m length, but few are at 2m
wingspan. For a long time, the displacement was the only real limit -
and when that was recklessly thrown away, the planes got bigger (and more
expensive) in response to the available power. Now the limiting factor is
weight. Throw that away (or raise it) and the planes will get bigger again
(and more expensive). How much bigger? Depends on how high the
weight limit is raised.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>At 12 lbs - The guys that don't build light will
have the same stuff that is marginally over 11 lbs. And some guys will
stuff Moki's into pattern planes and find out they don't fly really well with
heavier engines that they were not designed for. And both will be at
a disadvantage because you will see some HUGE monoplanes with DA50s that make
the current day stuff look infinitely affordable. Double Vision Bipes that
are not fragile will be easy to do (an a major PITA to transport back and forth
to the field, assemble, maintain, etc). Fragile bipes bigger than the
Double Vision will arrive on the seen. Under Chips watchful eye, I put a
few minutes on one of the Double Vision Bipes a while back - maybe it isn't an
advantage in Sportsman, Intermediate, Advanced, or even Masters. But in a
sequence full of rolling circles, rolling loops, and integrated loop/roll
segments, it is an advantage (as long as the horsepower is available, which it
would be if the weight limit went up). And what wins the top class, is
what the majority will shift to. The reason the Double Vision has not
caught on more in pattern yet, is because the plane is fragile at 11 lbs, and it
does require a strong powerplant to adequately power the plane (especially at 94
db).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If no weight limit - How about a 30% Ultimate
style Bipe - give or take 70" span, 78" long, 1700 squ, and maybe 20
lbs??? Anyone who doesn't have a deeper checkbook, full sized stretch van
or model model trailer, and model trailer will be at a disadvantage. Check
some IMAC kits - the numbers jive. Minimally you will be adding 4
more servos (to maintain pattern standards of servo power to surface), and a
monster cost increase in engine, muffler, softmount, prop, spinner for your DA50
or GT80 twin. Increased cost of the kit, building, transporting, setup,
and maintenance should be obvious enough.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Something that I think that has been overlooked in
this thread is the "fourth" limiting factor in our event - noise - 96 db for
AMA, 94 db for FAI. In my opinion, 94 db is the real number because any
manufacturer who wants to sell to the pattern market is going to want to be able
to market/target FAI. Displacement unchecked equals more noise.
Heavier planes require more power which equals more noise. Unless of
course additional money is spent on exhaust systems to keep things quiet.
And more and more the prop noise is diminished by going to 3 or 4 blade props
(quieter, but less efficient, so now more power is needed again). Very few
large displacement sport engines (gas or glow) are equal to or quieter than a
pattern setup (and most YS DZs running in their power band are also above 94 db)
because of the larger displacement and larger diameter prop (increased tip
speed). Add up the costs for the quality exhaust systems, softmounts, and
props to keep the DA50 quiet and I think you'll find a 140RX to be quite
cheap.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><BR>Dave Lockhart</DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A></DIV>
<DIV></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: "Bill Southwell" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:bnbsouthwell@bellsouth.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>bnbsouthwell@bellsouth.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: <</FONT><A
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>discussion@nsrca.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 11:47
PM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: [SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules
Survey</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> <BR>> <BR>> Hi Dave,<BR>> <BR>> How
do you mean bigger plane? Are you refering to a little more sq <BR>>
in? Didn't the older designs during the fourstroke 120-140 change adapt <BR>>
too the power and wt with a bigger wing? We can't go any bigger if the <BR>>
2M requirment is in play. I am not trying to be difficult but the wt <BR>>
problem at least in my mind ( what a crazy place that is!) is that the <BR>>
power plants are doing all they can do due to the airframe size. The <BR>>
larger slower turning engines might cause some evolutionary changes
<BR>> but not a huge change in airframe layout. The
airframes are optimized <BR>> for the 2M size the engines are tapped
out. No beef to them! If the <BR>> power becomes easy to
manage $$$ and more reliable to the average guy <BR>> then we
have more interest and a lot more fun flying. Another thought
<BR>> ...My Moki' 1.80 on a 20" prop were pretty quiet with very little in
the <BR>> way of a muffler. The bigger disk made a great brake on down
lines and <BR>> landings and the engine ran like a sewing machine. Change is
good! <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> David Lockhart wrote:<BR>> <BR>>
>Bill,<BR>> ><BR>> >The current set of rules basically establish
a performance level that is a<BR>> >target to shoot for. I believe
you are correct in that the current<BR>> >performance level might be
easier to approach if a 12 pound plane were<BR>> >allowed. BUT - if
the 12 pound plane is allowed, the performance level will<BR>> >increase
and you will be in the same situation then as you are now, but we<BR>>
>all will be paying for the added expense of the bigger plane - and
the<BR>> >planes will get bigger if the weight limit is increased - bigger
planes do<BR>> >fly better and competitors will seek that
advantage.<BR>> ><BR>> >Regards,<BR>> ><BR>> >Dave
Lockhart<BR>> >DaveL322@comcast.net<BR>> ><BR>> >-----
Original Message -----<BR>> >From: "Bill Southwell" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:bnbsouthwell@bellsouth.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>bnbsouthwell@bellsouth.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>><BR>>
>To: <</FONT><A href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>discussion@nsrca.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>><BR>>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 9:56 PM<BR>> >Subject: Re: *SPAM* Re:
Rules Survey<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > <BR>> ><BR>>
>>Tom how so? If there are available engines that actually hold up
but<BR>> >>are a bit more porky....but also a lot cheaper to own both
in intial<BR>> >>purchase and in up keep how can it lead to a more
expensive airplane.<BR>> >>Cost of the present designs are due to the
materials and mathods of<BR>> >>production required tokeep the weight
down. A little more room would<BR>> >>make more pedestrian material
like balsa , ply. and foam to come back or<BR>> >>at least make the
average builder have hope.<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>>
>><BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >>Tom Shaw
wrote:<BR>> >><BR>> >> <BR>>
>><BR>> >>>You guys need to leave well enough alone.
With the unlimited engines<BR>> >>>a higher weight limit is just
going to ecourage larger more expenseive<BR>> >>>airplanes.
That will amount to fewer flyers.<BR>> >>><BR>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>>
>>> *From:* Gray E Fowler <</FONT><A
href="mailto:gfowler@raytheon.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>mailto:gfowler@raytheon.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>> >>> *To:* </FONT><A
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>discussion@nsrca.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2> <</FONT><A
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>mailto:discussion@nsrca.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 08,
2005 4:25 PM<BR>> >>> *Subject:* RE: *SPAM* Re:
Rules Survey<BR>> >>><BR>> >>><BR>>
>>> Here comes the dreaded weight debate
again....<BR>> >>><BR>> >>> Consider
this-Anyone in the upper level classes would not be too<BR>>
>>> smart to have a plane heavier than it needs to
be. But, lets<BR>> >>> pretend there is a
hot new Sportsman named uh lets see..... Chuck.<BR>>
>>> Chuck tears up 401 after 3 contests, and he is
flying his best<BR>> >>> airplane that most FAI
guys would consider a toy (and I do not<BR>> >>>
mean the "foamie toys" pictured in last months Model Aviation<BR>>
>>> being held by a guy named "Chuck")
and so moving up to<BR>> >>> Intermediate halfway
thru his first season, last 3 contests were<BR>>
>>> quite a challenge, BUT he places in 402
anyway!<BR>> >>> In the off season, he saves his
pennies, keeps his wife happy and<BR>> >>> gets a
used REAL pattern plane, built by someone who has a slight<BR>>
>>> heavy hand, and alas it weighs 11.5 lbs. Now this
here Chuck is<BR>> >>> good and pumped up and I
would place money that this theoretical<BR>> >>>
person could place at the NATS, but his plane is over weight!!!!!<BR>>
>>> one more !<BR>> >>><BR>>
>>> Sorry Chuck, even though you are flying at a
disadvantage, we will<BR>> >>> not let you play at
the NATS........Oh unless you can spend $2k<BR>>
>>> more on another plane.<BR>>
>>><BR>> >>> The story you have just read
is about to be true, once we do not<BR>> >>> let
Chuck fly at this years NATS. But at least the French FAI rule<BR>>
>>> makers are happy.<BR>> >>><BR>>
>>> Consider a weight change. It does not need to be
across the board<BR>> >>> and for the life of me I
cannot imagine why it needs to align with<BR>> >>>
FAI. Chuck will have a 5Kg plane *BY THE TIME HE REACHES FAI-*and<BR>>
>>> the French can be happy then*.*<BR>>
>>><BR>> >>><BR>> >>><BR>>
>>><BR>> >>><BR>>
>>> <BR>> >>><BR>>
>>=================================================<BR>> >>To
access the email archives for this list, go to<BR>>
>>http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<BR>> >>To be
removed from this list, go to </FONT><A
href="http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> >>and follow the instructions.<BR>> >><BR>>
>> <BR>> >><BR>> ><BR>>
>=================================================<BR>> >To access the
email archives for this list, go to<BR>>
>http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<BR>> >To be removed
from this list, go to </FONT><A
href="http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> >and follow the instructions.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
> <BR>> ><BR>> <BR>>
=================================================<BR>> To access the email
archives for this list, go to<BR>> </FONT><A
href="http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/</FONT></A><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>> To be removed from this list, go to </FONT><A
href="http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> and follow the instructions.<BR>> </FONT></BODY></HTML>