[NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference

Sat Aug 21 08:36:57 AKDT 2010

I disagree.  If you are in the upper echelon of Masters with aspirations to
try FAI then you will likely be buying airplanes that meet the FAI
requirements.  That is your choice.  What FAI does or doesn't do should have
no effect on NSRCA and vice versa.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Fuqua
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:37 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference

Food for thought.  Unless we want to have an FAI F3A event with only a few
dedicated participants like some control line and free flight events now,
you need to provide for growth and pathways to the top.   If AMA diverges
from what FAI does very much then that is the path we would be on.   If we
as a community decide that we do not care about F3A and world championships
than we could go down any path but expect division within the ranks.

 For those that keep pounding weight please look at the proposal RCA
11-10CP-1 (which passed the interim vote and will likely pass the final)
which will allow more weight in  the classes below Masters.   I think this
will address most (not all but most) of the issues this latest thread has
discussed.   AS to the cost and participation, I have heard the same
arguments for the last 20 years and guess what - They NEVER go away no
matter what is done.    I remember when we allowed Novice (Sportsman) to fly
anything.  Resulted in nothing positive (except maybe scaring everyone).
We have tried different things but everyone really wants to fly what the big
dogs fly cause that is the competiveness in our nature.   

If you add up the expense of going to contests I would argue that the cost
of the equipment is not that out of line.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Burton
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 7:13 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference

OK, I got it now. 

Change the rule back to a 10cc engine limit and all our problems will be
solved.

Airplanes will be smaller and cost less, engines will cost $150-$175, planes
cost under $200, you will only need a 4 channel $150 radio.

I think your logic of why cost escalated is flawed.

What drove cost up was the change to turn around pattern. The primary reason
for turnaround style as I remember from the time was to reduce the noise
footprint. This change started the development of new planes designed for
the new style which demanded more power to fly well. It's the 2 meter limit
and the noise limit that keeps cost down or we would be flying 40% gas
powered planes that weigh 45 lbs and cost 4 times what our 2M ships cost.
The 5kg limit only drives cost up. Lighter stuff cost more than heavy stuff
in every component of the planes we fly.

The 2M limit also limits the practical weight of the planes in order to be
competitive. An 11 lb. Plane is going to fly better than a 14 lb plane. So
why would you care if someone brings a 14 lb plane to a contest? If you
really want to level the playing field  then a minimum weight would be a
better way.

NSRCA really needs to be looking at ways to be more inclusive and attract
new contestants. Keeping the rules as they are will insure that pattern
keeps getting more expensive and a shrinking event. 

Dave

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 5:55 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference

Just noticed this didn't make it to the list the first time..was too big
with all the RE:RE:RE:RE (trimmed now).  And.I'm off to a contest!  J

Dave

  _____  

From: Dave [mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net] 
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:17 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference

This whole discussion is one where history really does speak volumes -

In short, there has always been a limiting factor (whether size, weight,
power, noise).  That limit has always been pushed by the top level
competitors, and the top level stuff is always the most expensive, and it
offers a competitive advantage over cheaper setups.  And the masses
(certainly 90+% anyway) follow the guys at the top.

In short, everytime a limiting factor has been increased (for whatever
reasons), the size, cost, expense, etc has increased.  Cheaper options are
available now, and they are not as competitive.  Change the rules, and
cheaper options will still be available and still not be as competitive as
the new standard that will be achieved by the top level competitors that
push the new limits.  In the last 20 or so years, I've seen this cycle about
4 times.  There is no magical rule or formula that will change this for open
competition.the cycle will repeat every time a limit is raised.

Regards,

Dave

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:55 AM
To: NSRCA List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference

I should have checked my building noes first - it was actually 10 lbs 4 oz.
But I'm not a professional builder either.  Point is, it can be done within
the existing rules.  You just have to get past the idea that it can't be
done.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3083 - Release Date: 08/20/10
02:35:00

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5383 (20100820) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100821/5ee9de8a/attachment.html>