Weight rules discussion ( my opinion)

[BUDDYonRC at aol.com]

In a message dated 2/24/2005 7:25:59 PM Central Standard Time,  
patterndude at comcast.net writes:

Buddy,
One good idea that I didn't see in your list was the  onelwhere the weight 
limit for the Advanced-thru-FAI classes remains the same  but the limit for 
Sportsmand/Intermediate is raised.  This really makes  sense to me.  We are all 
comfortable with advancing difficulty in  sequences.  Well, building light is 
also a learned skill and sometimes  requires more $$ comittment.  Pilots grow in 
flying, building, trimming  skills.  Why subject sportsman to FAI building 
rules?
--Lance
 

----- Original Message ----- 
From:  _BUDDYonRC at aol.com_ (mailto:BUDDYonRC at aol.com)  
To: _discussion at nsrca.org_ (mailto:discussion at nsrca.org)  
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 1:33  PM
Subject: Weight rules discussion ( my  opinion)


Since the whole message was to large to post following is my  opinion.
 
 
After a thorough weighted comparison of the items  listed in my previous post 
I have arrived at the following  conclusions. 
It is most important that we strive  to make pattern an inclusive sport, 
which I feel is necessary to increase  participation in the future. In order to do 
that one of the first item that  should be addressed is that of eliminating 
the illegitimate double standard  in the weight rule. There are two possible 
solutions; the first would be to  enforce all rules, which many agree in this 
case would not be in patterns  best interest. That leaves us with only one 
solution and that is to change  the rule.          
In doing that we must consider the  overall impact of such a change to insure 
that it serves to protect all the  other aspects concerned as much as 
possible. After careful review and  acknowledging that maintaining the two-meter rule 
is in fact the limiting  design criteria for pattern I suggest that a change 
in the rule upward to  twelve pounds or in light of current FAI 
considerations, to 5.5K would be an  appropriate solution. 
This change could possibly effect other aspects of  pattern design in the 
future but given the known requirements some of which  are listed in my previous 
post that are necessary and practiced extensively  today I have little fear 
that this change will result in any major design  changes that would present a 
problem or afford anyone an unfair advantage in  the near future. 
If you study the items in my previous  post it will also become apparent that 
there are many listed that offer  the potential to increase our participation 
and make pattern more inclusive.   
Should anyone have any other items to offer that I  should include which may 
require further evaluation concerning my  conclusions and suggested weight 
change please forward them to  me. 
Buddy Brammer 





Lance
In my evaluation the rules need to apply to Pattern as a whole. With the  two 
meter size limit builders will utilize the rules of aerodynamics to achieve  
the optimum design and weight becomes a moot issue for all classes.
Buddy 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050225/79cb9ffc/attachment.html