JR,
Does this mean I am the difficult one? Just kidding, but seriously I am not trying to attack or flame you in any way but I do believe in a free and open market where the limits are not set by the manufacturers but at the same time I do not want an even smaller group (EC) with very little or no experience in a given area setting the limits either.
I guess what I really do not understand is why the sharper manufacturer's are not building engines that weigh less and have more power, at the upper end of the market, not the lower or middle of it.
It has already been done as far as I can tell. Some of the highest performance (normally aspirated) engines on the planet can be found on the modern day Indy car. They are able to obtain around 5 HP per cubic inch! That is very impressive by anyone’s standards. Before the slowing of the DF era in the late 90’s, BVM’s search for higher speeds and more power brought about the BVM .91 R. This engine has an astonishing 4.95 HP! So yes the technology is or was here.
I do not understand why someone is not building lighter, stronger airframes.
Cost. Period. Again using the products from BVM as an example lets take a look at a very highly composite, strong, lightweight airframe such as his F 100. This type of model is not simple or cheap to manufacture. It sells to a very limited market when compared to the rest of RC. If for example you wanted to sell1/3 scale warbirds of this type of construction so that we can “squeeze” into the existing weight limit the market will suffer. Here is how. A 1/3 scale Mustang (man this is huge) designed and constructed using the latest and greatest technology could probably be produced to come in under the 55-pound weight limit.
And the technology is here now; my company is very capable of doing this. But at what price? I would spend about a year of time an untold amount of money (actually I have a good idea as to the cost) and since I am in business it would be wise to determine if I could recoup the initial investment. The cost of such a kit with gear would approach if not exceed 10,000 dollars. Now I would have to determine if I think today’s market would support such a product. What do you think? Seems as though the market for that model just imposed its own limit!
Same with the very high performance glow engines. Why are there not many of the BVM 91 R ducted fan set ups flying these days? Because the total cost of a high performance DF package is approaching 1,500. When compared to turbines (which is ultimately where a large portion of jet modelers want to end up) the cost is too excessive. Market limits.
O.S. Make a very high performance, fuel injected 1.60 glow engine. How many guys do you know that will pony up the 700 bucks over a big gasser? Cost drives the market. There are other limits as well. As these glow engines get bigger, they begin to consume fuel geometrically ( I have always wanted to use that word in a sentance). Considerations for fuel load are called into question not to mention cost. How many guys do you know that would pay 20 dollars for a gallon of fuel and then put that entire amount into the model for a single flight? Much less go to the hobby store and by fuel by the cases. Ten flights a week - 200 bucks. I don't think so. Modelers want cheaper, cheaper, cheaper - Thanks ARF's
You mention the following
Somewhere a line between models and their full size counterparts must be drawn. I do not think it is the province of the manufacturer's to draw that line.
Yes but the question is who or what draws this line? I believe that it must be up to modelers – the market. I don’t think we are going to see guys making 300 mile and hour ¼ scale F-14s capable of (favorite catastrophe here)! Guys that have never designed, built, owned and flown very heavy complex models have never seen what it takes to make and fly these models. They have self limiting devises already built in. Cost, Complexity, size, transportation and a hundred other items will keep the masses flying smaller models. I don’t see the average modeler running out to buy a 20 foot trailer to haul is 1/3 scale B-25 to field so that he can meet his “Team” that assembles and pre-flights the model.
I for one am not looking for the AMA to open up the weight limit to the sky. But why not give a little room and see where things go. IF things take a turn for the worse, then lets pull back and re-examine the situation BUT to stifle a fraction of modeling based upon a big “WHAT IF” is just wrong. Even though the horse is dead I am going to give it another whack here. What evidence is there that suggest that larger models will cause any disturbance in the system. We have already seen where the majority of claims are “Slip and Fall” types of accidents. Why in the hell do we want to bury or heads in the sand and or look the other way?
The comment about the "walking Waiver" (very funny by the way) was more than just poking fun at the way the AMA works. For those that have never read the requirments and test questions for a turbine waiver that is a very accurate comparison. I getting long here so I'll go away for a while.
Regards.