*SPAM* Re: Rules Survey

[Tom Shaw]

Bill,

I guess I'm thinking about the scale planes.  Big motors, big planes, 
expensive strong servos plus a lot more of them.  Trailers to transport your 
gear.

Where does it end?  Are we trying to be just like the scale guys?  If we 
are, why not just join them and stop all this discussion?

I realize that change is inevitable.  I just hate for us to do something 
that may cause some to shy away.

I'm building a 60 size plane for sportsman.  I'm confident that will be ok 
in that class.  I may even be competative in intermediate.  I know I will 
have a lot less money in it than if I build a 2 meter plane.  (I am not 
sugesting that we go back to smaller planes here).
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Southwell" <bnbsouthwell at bellsouth.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey


> Tom how so?  If there are available engines that actually hold up but are 
> a bit more porky....but also a lot cheaper to own both in intial purchase 
> and in up keep how can it lead to a more expensive airplane. Cost of the 
> present designs are due to the materials and mathods of production 
> required tokeep the weight down. A little more room would make more 
> pedestrian material like balsa , ply. and foam to come back or at least 
> make the average builder have hope.
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom Shaw wrote:
>
>> You guys need to leave well enough alone.  With the unlimited engines a 
>> higher weight limit is just going to ecourage larger more expenseive 
>> airplanes.  That will amount to fewer flyers.
>>
>>     ----- Original Message -----
>>     *From:* Gray E Fowler <mailto:gfowler at raytheon.com>
>>     *To:* discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
>>     *Sent:* Tuesday, February 08, 2005 4:25 PM
>>     *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*.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> =================================================
> 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.
>
> 


=================================================
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.