[NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference

Sat Aug 21 09:37:55 AKDT 2010

Dave,
Just want to summarize my earlier post.  The weight issue is not a driving force in costs in my opinion and experience.  It is peoples building time and also the desire to fly what the winners fly that are far stronger influencers.  I remember all the customer pressure to find a way to lower our plane prices or keep them down.  This was not just when selling Aries for $450 but Symphonys at $850.  These planes are top competitors, having placed 1st in Intermediate, 1st in Advanced, made finals in Masters and FAI.   Then Oxai and the CA Genesis arrived on the scene and 10X of these were sold in the next season than we sold in total and these planes were $2000 and up.  Deep pockets are available and in business, that's where the suppliers will go.  There are still low cost options that are very competitive that make weight, but they are kits and not ARFs.  You will never see the top pilots flying them because they will be flying higher margin planes that can be assembled quickly.  Weight is just not a factor.

--Lance

From: Dave Burton 
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:15 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion' 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference

Good food for thought too John,

And I don't want to pound the weight issue either so this will be my last post on the issue.

I don't really care what the weight limit is because I'll either build to it or ignore it and not fly at the Nats. But some things need to be considered I believe.

1.       Does the current weight limit drive cost up or down unnecessarily? I believe up.               

2.       Are we keeping some people from participating with the weight limit or the weight driven cost? I don't know but I'd rather see as few as possible impediments to participation.

3.       There is an obvious inequity between the way GP and EP planes are weighed. It's ok if a GP plane has a legal takeoff weight of 12 ½ lbs but an EP plane must weigh 11 lbs at take off. It's an FAI issue but it's also an AMA issue for the AMA classes. We can't fix the FAI issue but we can fix the AMA side if we want to.

4.       If we are going to make a rule change for the lower classes then we should make it for all AMA classes. I wouldn't want to see someone not fly a higher class because his now legal plane will be illegal in the higher class.

OK, my $0.02

Dave

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

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 14:35:00

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

_______________________________________________
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/20100821/0d88f6fc/attachment.html>