[NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference

[Ron Hansen]

I agree.  Nuff said

 

-----Original Message-----
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 8:13 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!  :-)

 

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/20100821/332701a7/attachment.html>