*SPAM* Re: Rules Survey

[Nat Penton]

Yes and you could be flying a $200 (sale )Excelleron and win in any class. 
Nat
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Thompson III" <mrandmrst at comcast.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey


> Very true, Nat.
>
> A 600.00 plane or a 6000.00 plane, I'll still be flying Sportsman this 
> year, :-)
>
> Ken
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Nat Penton" <natpenton at centurytel.net>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 8:21 PM
> Subject: Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
>
>
>> Some of you are over estimating the importance of the airplane and 
>> underestimating the potential of the pilot.                   Nat
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Bill Southwell" <bnbsouthwell at bellsouth.net>
>> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 8:56 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date: 1/17/2005
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date: 1/17/2005
>>
>> =================================================
>> 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.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date: 1/17/2005
>
> 



-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date: 1/17/2005

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