[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

[Bill Glaze]

Gee--could I have my airplane weighed without batteries?  I mean the 1500 mil pack I use to power the radio and accessories?  Bill
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Strickland 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:25 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


  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. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20090604/c9d7a506/attachment.html>