[NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing

[Mike Hester]

Like a radius guage for the leading edges? =)

I'm just sayin.....we aren't checkin everything anyway, like Ron said.

-Mike

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Van Putte" <vanputte at cox.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing


>I am getting a bit impatient with this discussion about size and  
> weight measurement for everyone's airplanes before competition and  
> the conducting of random spot checks.  OK.  Let's do that, but how  
> about if we enforce EVERY rule in the rule book.  What about the  
> rules against gyros and autopilots?  Shouldn't we also check every  
> airplane for them before flying commences?  How about random spot  
> checks after flights to make sure no gyros and autopilots were added  
> after the original verification?
> 
> There are other rules already in the rule book that we don't verify  
> for compliance..  Do we want to go down that road?  How about  
> considering competitors as honorable as a start and only check the  
> size and weight measurement for the finalists.  Otherwise, we need to  
> check everyone's airplanes for complying with all the rules.
> 
> Ron VP
> 
> On Aug 4, 2009, at 10:33 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:
> 
>> If someone wants/needs to "cheat" with an overweight plane, I have  
>> no problem letting them.
>>
>> If someone wants/needs to "cheat" with preprogrammed sequencing or  
>> a larger airframe than 2 X 2 m, a different story
>>
>> MattK
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Tue, Aug 4, 2009 9:50 am
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
>>
>> #AOLMsgPart_3_9ae5f3a0-a5b0-4046-b74a-8c614ebbcf50 DIV {margin:0px;}
>> I agree, trying to compare ourselves to any other AMA NATS event is  
>> a slippery slope. Let's clean our own house and not worry about  
>> anybody else.
>>
>> Since I fall squarely in the "social" NATS category I would  
>> certainly volunteer to tech inspect aircraft prior to any official  
>> flying. I'm not going to gain much by getting a few last practice  
>> fllights in.
>>
>> As for the possibility of cheating, well, we can only do so much.   
>> A quick check to insure the batteries installed at measurement time  
>> are capable of a full flight for whatever class the pilot has  
>> entered.  I can't imagine saving much weight with a smaller tank  
>> for nitro planes, but same thing goes.
>>
>>
>> Bob Kane
>> getterflash at yahoo.com
>>
>>
>> From: Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 9:32:09 AM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
>>
>> Joe Lachowski wrote:
>>>
>>> #AOLMsgPart_3_9ae5f3a0-a5b0-4046-b74a-8c614ebbcf50 .hmmessage P 
>>> {margin:0px;padding:0px;}#AOLMsgPart_3_9ae5f3a0-a5b0-4046- 
>>> b74a-8c614ebbcf50 body.hmmessage{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion