[NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing

[J N Hiller]

AH just when I was starting to contemplate the prospect of adding some kind
of 'liquid fuel ballast' to an electric.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 11:15 AM
To: General pattern discussion
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