Rules Survey Bigger cheaper?

Wed Feb 9 07:54:24 AKST 2005

Lots of us are concened about the high cost of competing at the top levels, and the medium and lower levels too.  That concern is part of my rationale to not raise weight limits.

But.... raising weight limits only a little (1 lb??)  could allow an existing pattern bird design that got a little heavy in construction, or subsequent repairs, to remain in use and save the bucks for a new bird.   Or save the bucks for carbon parts.   Or allows use of a cheaper but heaver OS1.60.   So what's the problem with that?   Nothing in the short term.   In the longer term, designers will use the extra weight allowance for a second wing, or larger fuselage side area, etc.   The slightly larger bird will present better, likely fly better, etc.  A look at history shows the pattern community will gravitate to the bigger bird.   At that point, were back to the present quandry, but with a bigger bird.   (and we loose consistency with F3A)   
A couple of years ago when the weight limit was last debated, someone in this forum referred to it as Un Intended consequences.   That person still here??

Later, Ron Lockhart
-------------- Original message -------------- 

Bob,

Take off that flame suit so I can give you a hug.  That is exactly how I feel about this.  This sport is already prohibatively expensive to compete at the top levels.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Bob Pastorello 
To: discussion at nsrca.org 
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey

Rules of our event can either be made to be "inclusive" or "exclusive", and can be written to guarantee costs of operation that Joe Average GOOD Aerobatic pilot (the guy that we DESPERATELY want in the game) simply will not afford, given his two job, two kids, two mortgage, two car lifestyle demands.

We either face the perception (notice my choice of words, gentlemen, please!!!!) of being "exclusive" (read "prohibitively costly") or "inclusive" (read the Joe Average Aerobat can afford to play).

Unfortunately, it is OUR choice, and that means a choice from within the game, and that means it probably will not change, because we are corporately POSITIVELY, ABSOLUTELY *BLIND* to the perceptions that are out there.

I expect practically none of you to agree.  But perhaps you will ponder to possible factuality of my statements.
    Thanks for reading.  Flame suit on.

Bob Pastorello
NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
rcaerobob at cox.net
www.rcaerobats.net

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Nat Penton 
To: discussion at nsrca.org 
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey

Gray, you're making me cry.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Gray E Fowler 
To: discussion at nsrca.org 
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 3:25 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.

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   

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050209/5002eac4/attachment-0001.html