My plan and Another Idea (weight limit)

[Bill Glaze]

Buddy:
An idea worth discussing.  I'm sure there would be a few who would build 
with the extended weight in mind, thus, perhaps unwittingly, 
handicapping themselves.
But worth a consideration, anyhow.  Bill Glaze

BUDDYonRC at aol.com wrote:

> OK fellows
> I'm going to fess up. A few weeks ago I accepted a position on the 
> rules committee, and after some thought decided to float a trial 
> balloon out here to try and establish some consensus about what the 
> general feelings were concerning changing the weight rule.
> After collecting about 100 opinions (some from the same people trying 
> to make their point) from this list, and I purposely slanted my 
> opinion toward a change as I thought this was necessary to get the 
> responses from both sides of the issue, I sat down and reread them 
> all. I know that this sampling is not representative of the whole 
> pattern group but it does give me a general Idea of your feelings and 
> identifies the problem areas.
> I also slanted the issue toward change in light of the possibility of 
> an FAI weight rule change and we all need to be thinking about the 
> effects of that should it come to pass.
> My review indicates that there are three main opinion groups.
> 1. Those who oppose the change mainly due to the effects which will 
> result in design changes and additional cost which will occur because 
> of it.
> 2. Those who are for the change to allow the use of gas engines, lower 
> cost items such as exhaust systems and leveling the playing field 
> between IC and electric power.
> 3. Those who favor a moderate change to allow for the use of less 
> costly hardware items and the use of less costly models mainly of the 
> ARF variety.
> All of these positions have merit, but none of them in my opinion will 
> garner enough support to result in a change in the rules either way.
> I would like to float another trial balloon in an effort to try to 
> satisfy as many positions as possible and solve this dilemma.
>   The main problem as I see it are the cases where someone ends up 
> with an airplane that is slightly over weight that requires them to 
> spend a lot of money to it get under the 11lb limit. This can also 
> occur due to repairs required to repair damage or even changing props 
> which vary in weight by as much as 2 or 3 ounces or using one of the 
> many ARF's available that are marginal due to weight variations which 
> occur during manufacturing , [-e.g], You go to the Nat's and your 
> airplane weight is 10lb and 14oz. Wind comes up and you need to change 
> props now your airplane weighs 11lb and 1/2oz and you are 
> disqualified. Two years ago I saw one pilot disqualified at the Nat's 
> due to using a very heavy spring to hold his wings on he was in 
> compliance at the courtesy weigh in but had changed props and his 
> margin of overweight could have been corrected simply by using a 
> lighter spring.
> What would be the pros and cons of providing a weight rule which 
> allowed a fixed margin of overweight to handle this problem say 2% or 
> 2-1/2% which would be about 3-1/2 to 4-1/2 ounces? That way the basic 
> intent of the rule is maintained but it also allows room for those who 
> experience such issues. 
> Buddy       

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050226/9efb4416/attachment-0001.html