[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

[vicenterc at comcast.net]

Del,

Do you mean that F3A is more realistic?  Conclusion, leave the AMA rules as it is so they will be more realistic.

Regards,

--
Vicente "Vince" Bortone

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Del K. Rykert" <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com> 

the more realistic approach they would take is to build and fly what is F3A legal in AMA events they choose to enter. 

    Del

----- Original Message ----- 
From: vicenterc at comcast.net 
To: NSRCA Mailing List ; NSRCA Mailing List 
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits


I agree with Dan,  leave it alone.  I have a question:  What will happen with a Masters pilot that wants to switch to F3A?  Using the current rules he can do it because the rule is 5 Kg for both AMA and FAI-F3A.  If we increase AMA alone he won't be able to use his equipment to fly F3A.  

--
Vicente "Vince" Bortone

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Dan" <warrior523 at mchsi.com> 




"After reading all the responses on this issue, John Fuqua has decided to amend his draft rule change proposal to require that electric-powered airplanes be weighed with battery, but be given 4 oz relief from the 5 KG (11 lb) maximum weight .  His logic is that, even the Intermediate/Advanced glow-powered airplanes use about 10 oz of fuel in a flight and 10 oz of fuel weighs about 8 oz.  So, halfway through the flight, a glow-powered airplane in the Intermediate/Advanced class, which barely makes the weight limit, is likely to weigh about 11 lb 4 oz.   The guys in the Master class would still be at a disadvantage, but a 4 oz relief is still better than a stick in the eye." 


Ron Van Putte



I have really wanted to stay out of this thread but after reading the above posting, I could no longer bite my tongue. There is "no" logic in the so called amended draft rule change.  This would be a major rule change, that by concensus, would have a very good chance of having a huge negative impact on or sport and this so called logic is based on conjecture and on entry level planes that might be on the heavy side.  Fly electric, fly glow, fly rubber power but leave the weight and size rules alone.  The balance in the cost and the performance of the planes in our sport is very good but it could very easily be lost and to do so unnecessarily would be a tragic mistake.  Electric is viiable now and we are told it will get even more so as time passes, fine.  If those among us want to do the work and spend the dollars to use electrics (when other options are available) then so be it.  They can meet the rules now so ! there i s no valid reason for change at this time.  I wanted to go el
ectric in the worst way, awhile back, I did the math and it was very apparant, with the amount of flying that I do, that electric flight was way of of my league.  As the prices come down (not enough) I will continue to evaluate them.  However if the cost was not a factor I am sure I could meet the requirements of the rules just as many others have done to date, and it would would never enter my mind ask for a rule change to be passed if I couldn't do it or just to make it easier for one power source to be used.  

Dan Curtis   

Dan Curtis



_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070626/f71c873e/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Del K. Rykert" <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:34:55 +0000
Size: 717
Url: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070626/f71c873e/attachment.mht