SPAM Re: Rules Survey

Tue Feb 8 15:42:10 AKST 2005

Gray,
I'm behind you on this one.  No answer that I've heard, against raising the weight limit, makes a bit of sense to me.  I know that I'm a newbie, however, common sense still plays a major part in my theoretical revelations.( What do you think about that term?)  The only reason I have heard against the limit change was that "someone with enough money could make the weight limit change work in their favor, making all of us chase them, again."  Are you kidding me?  Those with the money are already doing that.  To have a competitive plane for the upper end of Masters or FAI it already costs somewhere between 4 and 6 grand, and that's probably conservative.  The main group of Pattern fliers are going to keep their planes as light as possible.  A half pound of extra weight isn't going to make the plane less safe, only fly heavier.  So what!

Ken Thompson
NSRCA 3646
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gray E Fowler 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 6:50 PM
  Subject: RE: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey

  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/20050209/d4619557/attachment.html