Weight limit discussion

[Atwood, Mark]

What's amazing to me is that they're willing to admit that their his father....whew.
 
VBG :)
 

________________________________

From: discussion-request at nsrca.org on behalf of Nat Penton
Sent: Sun 2/27/2005 8:39 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Weight limit discussion


I sure can't argue with you guys I know I'm not his father.                          Nat

	----- Original Message ----- 
	From: Ron Lockhart <mailto:ronlock at comcast.net>  
	To: discussion at nsrca.org 
	Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 6:41 PM
	Subject: Re: Weight limit discussion

	And all this time, I thought I was George's father.   Hmmmmmm    <G>
	Ron Lockhart

		----- Original Message ----- 
		From: Ron Van Putte <mailto:vanputte at cox.net>  
		To: discussion at nsrca.org 
		Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 4:31 PM
		Subject: Re: Weight limit discussion

		I am "George's father".
		
		Ron Van Putte
		
		On Feb 27, 2005, at 11:58 AM, David Lockhart wrote:
		
		

			Bill,
			 
			I think you make an interesting point regarding differentiation.  I would point out that by competitive definition the majority in any competitive event will not be "top notch".  I think I see some other differentiations as well.
			 
			I see a group of flyers (let's collectively call them George for purposes of this discussion) that have been in the event for a substantial length of time.  George is/was a top pilot, or maybe never was and never will be - but common to George is the long duration spent in pattern.  George has seen a number of rules changes and observed the motive/basis/desire that drove the rule change (almost always with best intentions), and George has seen the unintended consequences that resulted.  George is maybe trying to keep the mistakes in the past from repeating.  Maybe George is tired of throwing away perfectly good equipment that has been made obsolete by yet another misguided rules change.  Maybe George misses those that left the event to never return because of the specific rule changes, or the resulting added expense to compete in the event that was the unintended result of changing the rules.
			 
			I see a second group of flyers (let's call them Fred) who appear to be unaware of the history of rules changes, unaware of unintended consequences (in the past), or have not considered what effects changes to the current rules might have beyond what is intended.  I see a ton of enthusiasm from Fred, and believe Fred is truly interested in making pattern more accessible to the masses.  I see Fred on the average as new to pattern, or having less experience in pattern than George, and Fred may be the future of pattern (no new additions, the event will die).  But I see Fred covering a pretty big range of demographics - experienced pilot (or not), flying lower or higher classes in pattern, have a history in pattern, or being relatively new to pattern - and it is not uncommon for Fred to achieve better than average results in contests.
			 
			George is correct about history - and George has posed several questions that have gone unanswered (to the best of my knowlegde) such as -
			- When has a rules change resulted in pattern being less costly?
			- Why are the readily available planes that are easy to complete under 11 lbs by any builder not being used in pattern by "Fred".  Not only are these planes easy to build under 11 lbs, in many instances they are also less costly.
			 
			George is very passionate about the event and the rules that shape the event.  So is Fred.  George has watched the last few rules changes and has unhappily been in the position to say "I told you so" when unintended consequences came to fruition.  Fred is primed to say "I told you so" when the weight limit is increased (lets assume 2007).  Fast forward to 2007 - it is the ONE year when heavier sport engines and the slightly overweight (11.25 - 11.5 lbs) current designs will be legal and reasonably competitive with the stuff the top guys are flying (the same current designs, but at 10 lbs).  In 2007, Fred is the happiest guy in pattern.  Late in 2007, after seeing a couple 2008 protypes that take full adavantage of the increased weight limit, George is comtemplating changes - leave behind the current designs and equipment that will be obsolete in 2008 (at any weight), or pack up and leave the event.  George is unhappy about being able to say "I told you so yet again" in 2008 - assuming George stays in the event.  In 2008, George may not be around to talk to Fred about why Fred's plane is no longer competitive.  And maybe Fred, like George, will leave the event, recognizing their equipment is obsolete and not wanting to remain in the event uncompetitively, or at the expense of upgrading all new equipment that is at a more costly level.
			 
			"I am George".
			 
			Regards,
			
			
			Dave Lockhart
			DaveL322 at comcast.net
			 
			 
			----- Original Message -----
			
			From: Bill Glaze 
			To: discussion at nsrca.org 
			Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 2:18 PM
			Subject: Re: Weight limit discussion
			
			I am still failing to see how widening the pool of available designs, the use of which are optional, is going to add to the expense, when these airplanes are of less expense.  Nobody of any knowledge is going to opt for a heavier airplane if they can afford to buy a lighter airplane, true.  If availability of the better airplane alone is the only consideration, then I can certainly see how it could become a money race.  (sound familiar?)  But, the state of the art equipment belongs, and is a must-have, as I see it, only in the upper classes.  And, even with some top of the line stuff in the hands of a lesser flyer, I believe we'll find the more practiced person will always have the advantage.  We've all seen that again and again.
			Does anyone notice the differentiation here between the handful of extremely top-notch flyers, and the (by far) majority of us?
			
			John Ferrell wrote:
			
			This one gets an "Amen"!
			 
			John Ferrell   
			http://DixieNC.US
			We need to start catering to the lower classes more and helping grow the sport that way, not making large rules changes that in the end are just going to drive up the cost even more.
			
			Arch
			
			

	
________________________________


	

	Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
	Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
	Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005
	

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 9388 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050228/34180ae6/attachment.bin