FAI Weight Thread

Fri Feb 25 03:41:58 AKST 2005

How would those of us who come up owing the Judges pay our debt???

Steve Byrum 

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of Joe Dunnaway
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:11 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: FAI Weight Thread

    How about a handicap system.  Say a 10% deduction off your score for

every half pound over 11 lbs.   If you want to fly a heavy plane you
will 
still be legal but it would be to your advantage to get it under 11 lbs.

Joe Dunnaway

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Lockhart" <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: FAI Weight Thread

> John,
>
> Definitely an interesting parallel you presented.
>
> Quite honestly, I think the pattern rules were the safest, easiest to
> enforce, and least controversial when either the 60 displacement or 60
2C 
> /
> 120 4C displacement rules were in effect.  The 2x2m and 5 kg weight
limit
> rarely were factors and any of the planes pushing those limits weren't
> competitive anyway.  I preferred the era of the 60 2C displacement
rule
> because the overall cost of the planes was cheaper making the event
more
> accessible to a larger number of potential competitors.
>
> Given the current state of the rules, it might be very interesting
indeed 
> to
> give something new a try - along the lines of pylon - a displacement
limit
> and minimum weight.  Practically, I think this would be close to 
> impossible
> to do with the complexities in assessing "equivalent" power levels for

> glow,
> gas, and electric.  It could maybe be done with a constantly adjusted
> formula relating currently used glow, gas, and electric power plants,
but
> that would do little to encourage further development of any of those 
> forms
> of motivation - any advances would simply be met with a "penalty" to
bring
> them back in line.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave Lockhart
> DaveL322 at comcast.net
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick at idseng.com>
> To: "NSRCA Discussion" <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:33 PM
> Subject: RE: FAI Weight Thread
>
>
>> Dave,
>>  Yeah, apples to oranges but the point is it's the same arguement
even
>> though the requirements are totally opposite. We have a MAX weight
rule,
>> they have a MIN weight rule. We're both trying to build lighter
airplanes
>> AND make it easier to attract participants (ARFs). That's the part I 
>> found
>> interesting.
>> John Pavlick
>>
>>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org 
>> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On
>> Behalf Of David Lockhart
>> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 8:43 PM
>> To: discussion at nsrca.org
>> Subject: Re: FAI Weight Thread
>>
>>
>>   John,
>>
>>   Interesting point - but I don't think it really applies to pattern
> because
>> of HUGE difference between pylon and pattern - pylon has a
displacement
>> limit, pattern doesn't.  In pattern adding weight will not level the
> playing
>> field or allow the heavy planes to compete (at the rare contests
where
>> weight is checked) - because the engines will also get bigger, and
the
>> planes have plenty of room to get bigger (the bipe you mention).  My
bet
>> would be that the "new" bipes would develop and evolve and push the 
>> weight
>> limit - until the weight limit was raised until at least 16+ pounds -
> adding
>> weight to the big bipe beyond that would start to become counter
>> productive - just like adding weight to an 11 lb current day pattern
> model.
>>
>>   You are absolutely correct that hindsight clearly shows the
resulting
>> unintended consequences of multiple iterations of rule changes that
>> ultimately lead to the larger more expensive models.  I find it
rather
>> interesting that people seem to have no qualms about implementing new
> rules
>> that will obsolete the current equipment - but only when the new rule
> allows
>> escalation and not the other way around.
>>
>>   Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03
>>
>> =================================================
>> 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. 

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