<!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 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #8000ff; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 bgColor=#ffffff leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>You are on the right track Terry, the weight being
increased and still keeping the plane 2x2 meter, to support the added weight the
plane is going to get fatter in that 2 meter box, most of the current wing
designs in the 960-1000 sq in range will handle 12 lbs at the desired slow
flight speeds although after adding the width of the fuse on the wide bodys the
squares are probably closer to 1050.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>I </FONT><FONT color=#000000>have read most of this
thread and have not seen anything about the fuse side area needed to
support the added weight and where the side area is located in reference to the
CG. Some of the older design fuses looked like pencils and doing controled knife
edge at slow speeds was not possible with out a 45 degree angle of attack.I feel
that is why more pilots are not flying these in competition much when slow
flight speeds and keeping in the box are in demand for decent scores.
There is no height limit to the fin, canopy etc., to get the fuse loading
down to fly slow and in close is going to take more side area which makes the
plane a sail in heavy cross wind conditions. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>Every change is a trade off but most current
designs are very balanced wing area to side area and a joy to fly if
the weight is in the 10-11 lb range. It will be interesting to see where this
whole thing is going and what we will be flying a few years from now. Is the
reason for all this about power options i.e.,</FONT><FONT color=#000000>electric
and gas? I do not understand why the limit is being changed to begin
with.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>Earl Vincent</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><B>From:</B> <A title=tbrox@cox.net href="mailto:tbrox@cox.net">Terry
Brox</A> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, February 25, 2005 7:13
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Weight limit
discussion</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>One must remember history to help here. Has any past
changes ever brought the cost of pattern down? I believe it has always made it
more expensive such as what happened with engine displacement.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000> I am envisioning
a new pattern plane for the new weight.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>It will be a monoplane, 78" ws, 78" length, fuse
height 18", fuse width 10", wing root 25", wing tip15", 15degree sweep at the
quarter chord, 12% airfoil making the wing root 3" thick, stab 28" and nearly
2" thick. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000> I hope it doesnt
look exagerated, but I would be afraid this would be the trend. Obviously I
dont know to what extent the poor flying quality of this kind of design would
be, but who knows what could happen. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000> Classic case of
opening one door into a room full of doors.
</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>