<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Todd</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">You said and are right on the money, literally. As a kit manufacturer, I can tell you that there was more money to be made in the solid laminate fuselage of 1999 era. The large body planes such as the Symphony could not use solid glass laminate technology and be stiff enough. To make it stiff enough would require much more weight. So we are forced to fabricate sandwich structure, vacuum bagged, primed in the mold airplanes that use materials that are orders of magnitude more expensive than fiberglass and require more than double the time.....and everyone wonders what happen to the US kit manufacturers. I know what happened, the <b>smart </b>ones exited the business.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Gray Fowler<br>
Principal Chemical Engineer<br>
Composites Engineering</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Todd Schmidt" <tschmidt@classicnet.net></b></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: discussion-request@nsrca.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">02/08/2005 09:14 PM</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to discussion</font>
<br>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> To: <discussion@nsrca.org></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> cc: </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> Subject: [SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey</font></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">I really don't see how raising the weight limit to 12 or 12.5 would increase the cost of pattern as long as the size limitations are in place. As stated by several, the materials used in today's ships to keep them underweight is driving the cost up. </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial"><b>Standard Glass Cloth Composite Construction</b> ($5-$7 per yard) You cannot make a 2M fuse strong <b>AND</b> light enough to make weight using this stuff. You can probably come close, but it'll be a noodle that won't last and <b>in the long run </b>will cost simply because you're plane won't last.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">So, now you see 2M planes made with Kevlar ($44 per yard) and Carbon ($80 per yard) in order to keep weight down. Not only are these materials more expensive, they're harder to work with, which increases labor costs. No wonder ZN and PL kits are so expensive.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">I make my own composite fuselages using a mixture of glass, Kevlar, carbon and foam much like the ZN and PL kits. The material cost for one fuselage will run between $200 to $250 and take approx.12 hours of labor to lay-up. I'd hate to try and make a living in the US making these things!</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">The latest is the TAVS fuselage. Light, Stiff, and <b>FRAGILE</b>. This is a new technology driven by the weight limit IMO. Some are failing and we the consumer bare the price and inconvenience of being the R&D for the manufactures. </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Bottom line, the 11 pound weight limit is the same as when our birds were much smaller. I think we have pushed this envelope to its limit and it proving to be costly and unsafe. Just my opinion.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Todd Schmidt</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3>----- Original Message ----- </font>
<br><font size=3><b>From:</b> </font><a href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com"><font size=3 color=blue><u>Atwood, Mark</u></font></a><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3><b>To:</b> </font><a href=mailto:discussion@nsrca.org><font size=3 color=blue><u>discussion@nsrca.org</u></font></a><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:47 PM</font>
<br><font size=3><b>Subject:</b> RE: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">I have to agree 100% with Dave on this one. I'd also like to add that in addition to raising the cost...it doesn't acheive the objective. Any and all sports that have limitations of this type (Sailing comes to mind with complex formulas that define the class of boat) ALWAYS have one critical limiting factor. For us it USE to be the engine. We had a weight restriction...but it was meaningless because you couldn't approach it with the power options that we had. </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Now, with unlimited engine size...weight, and in some cases size, has become the constraining factor.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">In all cases...there are always those with the talent and money to take the rules to the limit. We will always be chasing them, and trying to acheive what they acheive. It's great to say that raising the weight limit will allow more "stock" models to compete... But my bet is that someone creative and talented will make use of that rule in a way that others can't easily follow...and will again have competitive advantage. And as Dave so aptly pointed out...it will cost the rest of us more money.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Steve Maxwell has made the best suggestion to date. I for one have NEVER seen a sportsman pilot denied admission to an event based on the weight of their plane. Size, yes (we turned away a few 30% planes for safety reasons) but never just on weight. In fact...I've never seen ANYONE weight a plane at any event other than the Nat's finals. So I think we could EASILY acheive the objective with a simple statement that alters the current "intent" from one where the CD CAN change the rule...to one that implies the CD USUALLY changes the rule. </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">I dont recall Steve's language, but it was simple and to the point so I'll paraphrase... " CD's often/usually alter (or wave) the weight restriction for the sportsman class...please contact them for details". </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">-Mark</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma">-----Original Message-----<b><br>
From:</b> discussion-request@nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org]<b>On Behalf Of </b>DaveL322@comcast.net<b><br>
Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:01 PM<b><br>
To:</b> discussion@nsrca.org<b><br>
Subject:</b> *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey<br>
</font>
<br><font size=3>Buddy,</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3>Deliberately segregating FAI and AMA is counterproductive. We need all the pattern fliers we can get, and we need a common target for the limited number of manufacturers and suppliers we have. I would never suggest AMA pattern rules blindly follow FAI, but there would have to be a huge benefit to US pattern before I would advocate moving away from the FAI in the US.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3>FAI pilots in the US have made many contributions to AMA pattern in the US and I think most pattern pilots in the US would agree that the FAI pilots are a resource to all of pattern in the US. Cutting FAI pilots out of AMA pattern issues is losing a resource. And I think you'd have a hard time doing it in practice - many pilots bounce back and forth between FAI and Masters - there is no rule against it as they are different systems with common elements.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3>If there is no valid reason to oppose an increase in the weight limit, it seems strange to me that the majority has repeatedly voted to keep the weight limit as is. Anyone who chooses to look at the history of the "limiting" rules for pattern (weight, size, displacement) can pretty easily see what the net result has been anytime the limits have been increased. For those not familiar with the rules history of pattern, the most basic of points I am alluding to is cost - any increase in the limits results in an increase in the cost of the average pattern plane - not something that is productive for our event.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3>This list and numerous other publications have contained many ideas, rationales, and discussions opposed to increasing the weight limit for close to 20 years (that I know of). Perhaps you could share your thoughts as to why those ideas, rationales, and discussions are not valid?</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3>Regards,</font>
<br><font size=3><br>
Dave Lockhart</font>
<br><a href=mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net><font size=3 color=blue><u>DaveL322@comcast.net</u></font></a>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3>-------------- Original message -------------- </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#8000ff face="Arial">In a message dated 2/8/2005 8:02:54 AM Central Standard Time, donramsey@cox-internet.com writes:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Ok everyone, here's your chance. What would you like to see changed in the regulations for precision aerobatics? Up the weight limit, change the box, score takeoff and landings, etc?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Email me offline at </font><a href="mailto:donramsey@cox-internet.com"><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial"><u>donramsey@cox-internet.com</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Arial"> with your ideas.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Don</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#8000ff face="Arial"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#8000ff face="Arial">Don</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#8000ff face="Arial">As an after thought it would be interesting for those who oppose a weight change to state their reasons for opposing it so the benefits to pattern can be evaluated for each case. I cannot come up with a valid reason <b>not </b>To change the rule. It would also be interesting to know if opposition comes from a specific group. Since this change does not apply to FAI it is my opinion that votes from those in that group should not be used to sway the vote in Any NSRCA survey that would effect the submission of an AMA rules change proposal since these do not apply to FAI rules changes. </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#8000ff face="Arial">Buddy </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#8000ff face="Arial"> </font>
<br>
<br>