*SPAM* Re: Rules Survey

[Gray E Fowler]

Archie

Very true. Chuck will be playing by the same rules which is why you will 
not witness his great talent at the NATS this year unless his grandmother 
dies and and leaves him a few grand. There is alot to learn and absorb 
about pattern, and IF he had only known to ask that particular question, 
then I guess this would not be an issue, but he is in the same boat as 
most newer guys. Most  us do not have budgets that can afford such 
mistakes, and at the local level no one cares about his 0.5 overweight 
plane, and he is just glad to have a pattern plane at all. I guess the 
real problem here is that this guy really could do well at the NATS, but 
not until he gets another plane, or somehow can spend XXX$$$ to buy 
expensive components to bring his weight down. 



Gray Fowler
Principal Chemical Engineer
Composites Engineering




"Archie Stafford" <rcpattern at comcast.net>
Sent by: discussion-request at nsrca.org
02/08/2005 05:16 PM
Please respond to discussion

 
        To:     <discussion at nsrca.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey


I think in this case Chuck needs to be more careful in purchasing his 
airplane in the first place.  I have no problems with being lenient on the 
rules to get the person hooked in Sportsman, but I do believe that when 
you start having a National Championship, then everyone needs to be 
playing by the same rules.  I think is someone wants to move up to 
Intermediate then they are already interested in pattern.  And if they are 
careful and ask the right questions, then they will be able to find a 
slightly used pattern plane that is legal.
 
I also believe that take offs and landings in the AMA classes should be 
scored.  They are both maneuvers that need to be executed well to be 
considered a successful flight. 
 
Arch
 
 

From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Gray E Fowler
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 4:26 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: RE: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
 

Here comes the dreaded weight debate again.... 

Consider this-Anyone in the upper level classes would not be too smart to 
have a plane heavier than it needs to be.  But, lets pretend there is a 
hot new Sportsman named uh lets see..... Chuck. Chuck tears up 401 after 3 
contests, and he is flying his best airplane that most FAI guys would 
consider a toy (and I do not mean the "foamie toys" pictured in last 
months Model Aviation being held by  a guy named "Chuck")  and so moving 
up to Intermediate halfway thru his first season, last 3 contests were 
quite a challenge, BUT he places in 402 anyway! 
In the off season, he saves his pennies, keeps his wife happy and gets a 
used REAL pattern plane, built by someone who has a slight heavy hand, and 
alas it weighs 11.5 lbs. Now this here Chuck is good and pumped up and I 
would place money that this theoretical person could place at the NATS, 
but his plane is over weight!!!!! one more ! 

Sorry Chuck, even though you are flying at a disadvantage, we will not let 
you play at the NATS........Oh unless you can spend $2k more on another 
plane. 

The story you have just read is about to be true, once we do not let Chuck 
fly at this years NATS. But at least the French FAI rule makers are happy. 

Consider a weight change. It does not need to be across the board and for 
the life of me I cannot imagine why it needs to align with FAI.  Chuck 
will have a 5Kg plane BY THE TIME HE REACHES FAI-and the French can be happy then.



Gray Fowler
Principal Chemical Engineer
Composites Engineering 


 
"Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> 
Sent by: discussion-request at nsrca.org 
02/08/2005 01:47 PM 
Please respond to discussion 
        
        To:        <discussion at nsrca.org> 
        cc:         
        Subject:        RE: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey



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. 
  
Now, with unlimited engine size...weight, and in some cases size, has 
become the constraining factor. 
  
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. 
  
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.   
  
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".   
  
-Mark 
-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of DaveL322 at comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:01 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey

Buddy, 
 
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. 
 
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. 
 
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. 
 
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? 
 
Regards, 

Dave Lockhart 
DaveL322 at comcast.net 
 
-------------- Original message -------------- 
In a message dated 2/8/2005 8:02:54 AM Central Standard Time, 
donramsey at cox-internet.com writes: 
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? 
  
Email me offline at donramsey at cox-internet.com with your ideas. 
  
Don 
  
  
Don 
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 not 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. 
Buddy   
  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050208/6de06528/attachment.html