[NSRCA-discussion] Electric/IC ...was ArmingPlug/Receptacle Problem

Tue Feb 10 09:02:14 AKST 2009

You're right Bill, there have been many advances.  What I have noticed  
though, the rules change to require more power as more power becomes  
available.  Before turnaround a .60 was all one needed to fly  
pattern.  In the early sixties it had better be a Lee Custom but by  
the time they were available to everyone you needed a Webra with a  
tuned pipe.  And so it goes to this day.  When the current patterns  
can be performed with available engines, they will be made tougher to  
require more power.  And by the nature of IC vs. Electric (as defined  
to include batteries), IC will always have a better power to weight  
ratio.

Jim O

On Feb 10, 2009, at 6:26 AM, billglaze wrote:

> Changing rules for conditions/advancement of the sport, and  
> recognizing the emergence of new technology is also reasonable.  If  
> we were still using the rules that I  flew by when I started, we'd  
> have 3 classes:  Rudder only, Class 2, (single channel, anything you  
> can make one channel do, also known as Mickey Mouse) and multi- 
> channel.  (just about anything you can cook up with a radio.)   
> Engines were pretty much self-limiting at that time; the largest  
> viable engine was the Fox .59, as an example.  And, of course, as  
> spelled out in the rules at that time, (both AMA and FCC) we were  
> limited to 27.255, 435 mc. (UHF) and of course licensed Amateur  
> Radio folks could use any frequency on which they were allowed to  
> operate.
> Rules should meet the changing conditions of the times, as well as  
> the desires of those involved.
> Or so I see it.  Of course, people being people, there will always  
> be those who desire the rules be enacted that would serve them, and  
> possibly give them an edge.  We see that every day; just look at  
> Congress.
> Bill
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com 
> >
> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 10:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric/IC ...was ArmingPlug/ 
> Receptacle Problem
>
>
>> Agree ... But were not talking about safety here (the 55 limit).   
>> That would be my only contradiction.
>>
>> Changing a sport for safety happens all the time.
>> --------------------------
>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
>> >
>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Mon Feb 09 22:21:45 2009
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric/IC ...was Arming Plug/ 
>> Receptacle Problem
>>
>> I would suggest that factoring in the REASON for a rule change, could
>> grossly change the idea of "ruining" every sport.  Four strikes and  
>> you're
>> out?  Five downs and out?  55 mph for a national speed limit?  I'd  
>> suggest
>> that all rules should be continuously looked at in their context.  
>> Whimsical
>> changes?  No.  favoring somebody or some group?  No.  Rules changed  
>> for
>> changing conditions?  Yes.   Or so I see it.  Maybe I'm just old  
>> school.
>> Very, very old school.<G>
>> Bill
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com 
>> >
>> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 10:10 PM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric/IC ...was Arming Plug/ 
>> Receptacle
>> Problem
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Can someone explain to me why we care if the rules favor something?
>>> They're the rules.  If I wanted to fly Turbine because I think  
>>> it's the
>>> best option, should they change the rules to accommodate my  
>>> choice??  I
>>> thought we MAKE our choice based on how it fits the rules...not  
>>> the other
>>> way around.   We have always designed our planes to fit the rules,  
>>> not
>>> altered the rules to fit our planes.  Why does this change suddenly
>>> because a new power plant is getting close to being viable (it's  
>>> already
>>> there)??   Makes no sense.
>>>
>>> If new batteries came out that weighed 1/3 as much with twice the
>>> capacity, suddenly the rules would grossly "favor" electric...and  
>>> you know
>>> what?  We would all change, because we pick our equipment to be
>>> competitive.
>>>
>>> Changing the rules ruins almost every game, every sport.  If  
>>> eliminates
>>> the ability to plan.  It limits product selection because  
>>> manufacturers
>>> are even LESS sure of the market.  Old products are obsoleted that  
>>> much
>>> quicker...etc.
>>>
>>> Ok...I'm done.   Can I fly Turbine pattern now??
>>>
>>> -Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Richard Strickland" <pamrich47 at hotmail.com>
>>> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, February 9, 2009 4:02:59 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada  
>>> Central
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric/IC ...was Arming Plug/ 
>>> Receptacle
>>> Problem
>>>
>>> The rules already favor IC--but we've been down that road...
>>> RS
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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