[NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.

[Bob Wilson]

Personally, I’m for a weight increase, whether it’s a pound or two or even
unlimited as Dave advocates.  I think it would be good for the NSRCA by
driving interest and new technology.



I’m having a little problem understanding the logic of some of the
anti-weight arguments.  If you are one that feels a pattern plane performs
best with a YS 1.60 at 11 lbs then, by all means, continue to compete with
that setup.  However, the weight increase would allow others to take a hard
look at alternate power sources whether it be gas or electric.



Remember, we are talking a weight limit increase and not a size increase.  The
2-meter rule insures that the aircraft won’t escalate in cost like we see at
IMAC.  However, if someone wants to design a new biplane design to
compensate for the added weight…so be it…go for it.



The added weight would probably also drive new muffler, accessories,
airplane designs, and put pressure on suppliers to provide lighter weight
and more powerful gas engines.  The electric boys could expand their battery
alternatives.  All are exciting prospects for the NSRCA, which is admittedly
hurting for new blood and interest.



As to cost, I think that argument is a non-starter.  When you factor in the
cost of glow fuel versus gas or electric power, 30% nitro is roughly 10
times more expensive than gasoline.  Do the math…a season of 100-200 flights
with gasoline is going to offset any perceived increase in equipment costs.
Savings in fuel also rapidly offsets the higher electric costs.



Finally, the 5kg (11 lb) limit was established back in the 1930’s for Free
Flight airplanes.  Within the FAI/CIAM both RC Scale and RC Helicopters
recognized the need to change the rules.  Both did that with increases to
7kg and 6kg respectively.  Certainly, pattern deserves the same
consideration.


Bob Wilson

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Gordon Anderson <GAA at owt.com> wrote:

> Mike,
>
> Well said, I totally agree with your comments. I am one of the people who
> rarely comment.
>
> --Gordon
>
>
> mike mueller wrote:
>
>> I have a hard time with a lot of the feedback that circulates on this
>> email list. It's too limited by the amount of people who respond and the
>> ones who do are usually the same guys.  I find some of the ones that respond
>> a lot to be closed minded and are never swayed by a good argument.
>>  I would warn people that asking for an opinion here may have a very
>> different response than say RCU where you get a broader audience to sample
>> from.  I wish there was a way to get more people to respond with opinions. I
>> fear many have been drivin away.
>>  I also wish we would all not be so quick to shoot down these opinions as
>> it results in less people asking for one and sharing any thoughts with us.
>>  I enjoy an open discusssion with a lot of people chiming in.
>>  I respect the opinions of everyone and do what I can to listen to the
>> points of both sides to form an opinion.  Often the responses kill the
>> debate.
>>  Listening is a skill.
>>  There are times when some of you could be wrong.
>>  Thanks for letting me share my thoughts.
>>  Mike Mueller
>>
>>
>>      _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091212/319fac75/attachment.html>