[SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey

[Bill Southwell]

   If the weight is raised a bit the present high dollar engines won't 
be as all important to the combination.  If  you have to spend big bucks 
to play stays a " well healed only need apply"  appearing SIG and the 
low numbers to go with it..  If you allow  more possibility of 
participation by the interested rather than say hey you wanna 
play...PAY, The ranks would swell. I have a plane that makes wt. I 
bought it used off an upper class flier. I got lucky but I still have to 
run a touchy, fuel and $$$ eating engine. Most of the guys out there do 
not run a 1.40 -1.60  high end engine for there everyday engine...nor 
would I. but I have had several Moki's that make a typical  pattern big 
bore look pretty weak. All while running on low nitro fuel and with 
utter, absolute reliability. I doubt most would even be able to tell if 
a wide body pattern ship had a 1/2 to 3/4 pounds added to it. But if you 
get to the nats then you would.

  Guess I am saying that in the day .60's were common place and the 
average joe had a couple to use at any one time. That made entry into 
our fine sport a lot more likely  and harder to say "I can't do 
that!"and contest numbers and frequency showed it. Today our wt. limit 
has moved us away from the sport market into a costly and cantankerous 
corner that most don't want or can afford to fool with. If they have a 
off the shelf dual purpose engine to fly with that cuts 40-50% off the 
start up cost. Plus you can fly it a lot more if it is not off for 
repairs or burning your discretionary fund buy the gallon.  There are 
many fine choices for airframes and engines that given a little more 
room in the weight department would start to show up at meets. I 
couldn't afford to purchase a wonder bird when the precision bug bit me, 
but I could fly what I had available in IMAC. Thats what got my dollars 
and interest. They were inclusive!

    I wonder how many that are capable of scratch building /designing 
might try it if there were a little more margin? I remember new designs 
popping up almost monthly when there was no chance you would exceed 
11lbs in a 60 size airframe. Open up the doors again. 11lbs is 
antiquated! Going to 12 lbs might make spin and snap entrys a lot easier 
or more consistent?

    How many guys fly FAI vs the rest of the classes and then how many 
of the FAI actually will make it to a worlds situation?   The size limit 
is  the control on the airframe ie.  if you get too heavy your not 
competitive and you can only add so many squares to keep wing loading 
down with in a defined area. If you keep adding wing area it become a 
fun fly and again not competitive. I say raise it and let some fresh air 
into the system....I remember something about how horrible turnaround 
was going to be and all the nay sayers.

I have really thought about hanging it up due to cost of the equipment. 
I have the 3 kids , house payment, and all the happy expense's for all 
that, Its hard to justify  spending it for such limited use and lousy 
re-sale market.  I think the  engine companys would be the only losers. 
I am tired of worrying that my **"Ferrari"  state of tune engine is 
about to take the season away from me..... again. If I could get a 
gasser or Moki to work( via a wt. increase) I would be home free. I 
never could wear one out! 

Sorry for the ramble!

Regards
Bill

Gray E Fowler wrote:

>
> 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_ <mailto: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_ 
> <mailto: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  
>  
>

=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.