Weight Limit

Wed Nov 13 09:09:45 AKST 2002

Tom:
Last I heard, IMAC has a larger membership than NSRCA.  where did you get your
figures?  I happened to be RD for the SE when we first broke 1K.
Bill Glaze

"Thomas C. Weedon" wrote:

> GeorgeF,
> You are WAAAAY off base with your membership in IMAC. IMAC has less members
> than we do. IMAA, repeat, IMAA has about 10,000 members. IMAA is NOT, repeat
> NOT the same as IMAC!!!!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of GeorgeF.
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 11:02 AM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: Weight Limit
>
> A key point he made was the fact that IMAC is marketing itself to the Sport
> Pilots.  And about 4-5 months ago I had mentioned on this forum about NSRCA
> should do a better job marketing itself to the sport pilot.   But instead
> of getting any meaningful feedback I just got a bunch of crap from the
> NSRCA president.
>
> I had offered suggestions but was pretty much told by the President that
> "we're already doing that and I have a plan for the NSRCA".  However we
> never did learn what that plan was....
>
> It appears the NSRCA is trying to cater to the wrong group. We need to do a
> better job of marketing our sport to the sport pilot which is a market
> share of nearly 100,000 pilots.   The way I see it it appears the NSRCA is
> trying to cater and market itself to the IMAC crowd whos market share is
> only about 10,000 pilots.  What is wrong with this picture???   The
> IMAC'ers already have a "special interest" in this hobby and don't need
> another one (ie: pattern).   The sport pilot (guy boring holes in the sky
> with their .40's, .60's and 1.20's) has yet to develop a "special
> interest", it should be the job of the entire membership (including its
> elected officials) to sway the sport pilot to our ranks.  I think it would
> be easier to sway a sport pilot our way then it would be to sway an IMAC'er
> our way.
>
> George
> "the thorn with a point to make"
>
> At 10:16 AM 11/12/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> >Larry..
> >      Boy oh BOY...  I hope members do a hard read of what you posted. You
> > address many of the issues that do stifle growth of pattern. I also
> > walked many miles in those moccasins of no help or guidance from anyone
> > and no list to learn from either. Others apparently have little or no
> > idea of the obstacles some of us have to deal with just to get a plane up
> > and working reliably. When you have local experience and expertise it
> > becomes a whole lot easier. Making it more difficult or change the type
> > of technology isn't going to stimulate pattern growth.  I look back at
> > the change to 2 meter designs and how many insisted that the ole 60 size
> > would still be competitive and a viable way to fly. Granted I was
> > eventually able to win a couple of contests but best I place at the Nats
> > when it wasn't breezy was 7th.  When the wind was blowing I was scoring
> > in the 20th plus place. The bouncy around was getting me nailed by the
> > judges even though the book says that they aren't to do that. Look at how
> > many left when it went to turnaround.
> >     Very well thought out and worded post.
> >
> >      Del K. Rykert
> >      AMA - 8928
> >      NSRCA - 473
> >      Kb2joi - General
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <mailto:jed241 at email.msn.com>Larry Diamond
> >To: <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>discussion at nsrca.org
> >Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 7:50 AM
> >Subject: Re: Weight Limit
> >
> >Keith,
> >
> >There are many differing opinions on the topic...Here is mine...
> >
> > >>recruiting new members, growing pattern
> >
> >If you look at the survey on RC Universe, I believe it confirm what some
> >already knew. Participation is lacking because of local interest as the #
> >1 hitter...So, ask why is pattern not popular...One conclusion could be
> >made that, to be competitive, you need a good plane with good equipment.
> >This cost much more than an average sport flyer wishes to put out.
> >
> >There are some that say IMAC don't seem to have this problem. I'm not an
> >IMAC'r, but I believe they are doing a great job in marketing there sport
> >to the average sport flyer.
> >
> >Flying fields may get to be an issue with larger planes. Some fields may
> >start to limit size that we fly contest at. If this happens it would be a
> >direct hit on local interest. I am about 150 miles to the closest contest
> >over the last couple years. Hopefully this next year can be different.
> >This has been part of the reason I have not been attending contest. Family
> >Time Vs Contest Time. The closest Pattern fliers to my area is 2 or 3
> >hours away. By nature, I'm a very competitive person. Golf was very
> >frustrating to me and I couldn't get my scores below 90. I sold everything
> >and vowed to never to play golf again....I forgot to mention that my score
> >is for 9 holes <VBG>...Ever try to teach yourself something you don't
> >know, and then try to set up a plane to fly well which you don't have that
> >level of experience...It's taken two years to learn what I have. Mostly
> >from this discussion group.
> >
> > >>advancing designs and technology
> >
> >The material that we see in pattern today are very light weight material
> >and perhaps stronger. Engines are bigger and lighter with more HP.
> >Titanium Push Rods, CF push rods, CF/ Kevlar Kits Vs Fiberglass. How many
> >of those technologies would have made it in pattern if Size and Weight was
> >not a limiting factor.
> >
> >I work in the Electronics Industry and manage very cutting edge products
> >that push the limits of manufacturing. This leads to new ways of
> >manufacturing. I managed a program a couple of years ago where we put a
> >.018 inch cube electronic device on a .008 inch PCB board at over 100K
> >assemblies per month. This would not have been necessary if the size of
> >the product was increased. Comparing size and performance of electronics
> >could be compared to advancing technology in Pattern Plane design. We
> >would not be where we are today if cost and space was not a concern for
> >electronic consumers. Everyone would have a PC the size of a closet and
> >working on a 286 Turbo w/ EGA. Very high power for the consumer in the
> >mid-late 80's.
> >
> >So, if we have gone as far as we can in advancing technologies with
> >Pattern Design and Performance. I would agree to change the limit, -but
> >not remove it-. I just don't think we are at that point.
> >
> >Again, Twisted perception from a twisted mind.
> >
> >Larry
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <mailto:tkeithb at attbi.com>Keith Black
> >To: <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>discussion at nsrca.org
> >Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 12:14 AM
> >Subject: Re: Weight Limit
> >
> >Larry,
> >
> >Honestly I haven't decided which side of this issue I'm on. Could you
> >explain why you think increasing the weight limit would negatively effect
> >the goal of recruiting new members, growing pattern and advancing designs
> >and technology? I don't see the correlation.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Keith
>
> ______________________________________________________
>            I make Over $5000 per Week on eBay!
>          Make eBay(tm) Your Job and Earn BIG $$$
>        ---->http://www.licensed4fun.com/ebay<----
> ______________________________________________________
>
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
>
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #

=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#