[NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference

[Ron Hansen]

No one that flys FAI wants the weight to increase or be eliminated because
it won't have any effect on its popularity or cost.  NSRCA is a different
story.  I firmly believe I am spending a lot more money for a light airplane
that is not going to fly significantly better than a heavier airplane.  All
these airplanes fly better than I can already.  Why are people buying
Integrals and tossing the wings and building lighter ones.  That cost money
and should not be necessary.  If you feel that spending 3-$4000 for a 10.5
lbs electric airplane makes you more competitive then by all means go for
it.  Just don't make me do it.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Tim Taylor
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 8:25 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference



Dave,
 
One minor detail that throws a wrench into the history and today.
 
All 4 of those changes that made huge changes in our sport were from the top
down.
 
 FAI made those changes and we have what we have today.
 
The change we're talking about only effects the US in AMA classes, not FAI.
 
There are no pattern kits currently being designed and built in mass in the
USA. Even if they were they'd likely be designed by guys in FAI. They will
NOT design an airplane that cannot compete at the FAI level. It just wont
happen.
 
What harm can it do if I build a Focus2 in Elect and show up 1/2 pound over
weight? 
 
None.
 
What harm will it do if an Advance flier shows up with a 2 year old airplane
bought from an FAI pilot and he has heavier batteries or repairs have now
made the airplane over weight? 
 
None.
 
Will you have a guy show up with a 50cc 2x2  3d monster from time to time? 
 
Yes, 
 
does it matter?
 
 No.
 
 He won't pass the noise test anyway. :)

Can any CD here honestly tell me that they'll turn a pilot down at a contest
(Besides the nats) because he's 3 oz over weight?
 
I doubt it, 
 
Tim
 

--- On Fri, 8/20/10, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:



From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Friday, August 20, 2010, 5:54 PM



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!  :-)

 

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.
  


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100821/a0f76971/attachment.html>