[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

[Richard Strickland]

As Ron pointed out--the decision to weigh "with batteries" was probably someone's very strict interpretation.  Do we have any idea who that is/was--and could it just be re-interpreted?  This is just flat not logical.
RS 
> From: mjfrederick at cox.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:04:52 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> It's not so much that the designs are obsolete, people just feel 
> embarrassed showing up with an old airplane. A friend of mine who 
> designs airplanes has designed 3 airplanes in the last 3 years. The 
> main reason for the new designs is changes in F3A schedules. His older 
> designs going back to the mid to late 90's are still highly 
> competitive. His new designs are not for AMA pattern, they're for f3a. 
> If you choose to buy a design that is more than you need, that's your 
> choice but don't look for a rules change to fix AMA pattern when 
> there's nothing broke. Keeping up with the Joneses in f3a is not a 
> valid reason for a rule change.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jun 4, 2009, at 7:45 AM, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > "designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"
> > Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're competitive and 
> > always looking for better and different. Truth be known I look 
> > forward to a new plane in the Spring that I planned and prepared for 
> > a year or so. It's part of what appeals me to pattern and I do this 
> > on a lower budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this. 
> > It's all about will and determination and innovation to get what I 
> > want with as little as I have to work with. Money and building 
> > talents lacking I still put down a competitive piece each year. No 
> > sponsors either. Now that's actually pretty funny sorry.....
> > Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and that the 
> > pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the time. I'm saying 
> > that I think designs for the truly competitive have a rather short 
> > lifespan and that's not going to change anytime soon.
> > Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that work well with 
> > IC. What about the Passport? Osmose? Integral? It's only been a year 
> > or so that the newer generation of planes have been introduced that 
> > are dedicated for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E. 
> > Addiction E. and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were meant 
> > for IC and we adapted them to fit E.
> > Mike
> >
> > --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 7:10 AM
> >> I agree with Paul. Remove the
> >> weight limit and keep the 2 meter size
> >> limit. If someone wants to fly a 15 lb biplane
> >> powered with a DA-50
> >> more power too them. Sure our current planes may be
> >> obsolete but all
> >> designs are obsolete in 2-3 years.
> >>
> >> I'm an intermediate pilot and my biggest concern is the
> >> selection of
> >> designs available. Right now other than the Focus II
> >> or the Black Magic
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_________________________________________________________________
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/e1206fe9/attachment.html>