[NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
G Seeling
gseeling at q.com
Tue Aug 24 06:25:34 AKDT 2010
that pig won the nats in fai have you ??
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Lachowski
To: NSRCA Discussion List
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
Who in there right mind would want to fly a pig of a Focus in Masters. Get real.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: burtona at atmc.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:14:22 -0400
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
How about an 11 lb 8 oz. electric Focus 2 flying in Masters class? How much more would that cost?
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Pavlick
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 1:09 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
Hmm, how about a biplane with 6000 mAh batteries. It will cost more because, well, it has 2 wings not just 1. J The “bigger” batteries will obviously cost more than what we’re using now. Not too hard to figure this stuff out…
John Pavlick
http://www.idseng.com
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Burton
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 7:54 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
Not trying to debate Dave, only trying to understand.
If the 2M rule stays the same, and the noise limit stays the same, but the weight limit is increased or eliminated, what specific components are going to increase in cost as a result and why?
What will be the cost drivers?
As sure as you and others seem to be that cost will increase due to the weight limit change, I’d like to have your thoughts on the specifics of what and why.
Dave Burton
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 1:48 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
Dave B,
I’m not going to debate whether your paraphrased quote is an answer or not……that aspect is not relevant.
“Always has in the past” is nothing other than historical fact.
“Always will in the future” is a prediction based on what if scenarios from the past are repeated.
The NSRCA archives have exhaustive detailed discussions on both, as well as the results of multiple surveys for which the majority did not favor a weight increase or elimination of the weight limit for all classes.
Regards,
Dave L
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Burton
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 1:33 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
So Dave, Tell us exactly what is going to make the cost go up.
“Always has in the past and always will in the future” is not an answer.
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 1:23 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
…nor increasing cost yet again
Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Derek Koopowitz
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 1:16 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
Tony,
This issue has come up time and time again... they just aren't interested in changing the way it is currently done, nor in increasing the weight.
-Derek
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Tony <tony at radiosouthrc.com> wrote:
Derek:
My take on Mike’s point was that they should weigh models without the batteries for the motor. I don’t think he was asking about increasing the weight. I believe there are other FAI events where the batteries are removed when the models are weighed, so this is not a new concept to them.
Tony Stillman, President
Radio South, Inc.
139 Altama Connector, Box 322
Brunswick, GA 31525
1-800-962-7802
www.radiosouthrc.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Derek Koopowitz
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:37 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
Mike,
I've talked at length about the weight issue with the other F3A representatives and there wasn't much support at all for increasing the weight limits.
-Derek
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Dr Mike <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I think all of that is too complicated. As you are all aware, it is really FAI rules that is the problem. I recommend we urge our FAI rep to change the rule to weigh airplanes without batteries. This argument has been presented before, but I think it needs to be pressed. Batteries are just fuel. A fuel weight limit could be imposed. I fly IC and loaded with fuel it is 12 lbs 4oz at least. All of this is old, old news, but it should be pressed, I believe.
Mike
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Keith Hoard
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 9:35 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
Perhaps another compromise would be to raise the weight limit to 11.5 or 12 lbs., then have a weight penalty that starts at 11lbs and increases hyperbolically up to the max weight.
It could start at 2% at 11lb 1oz., 5% at 11 lb., 2oz., 7% at 11lb. 3oz., on up to 40% score reduction at 12 lbs.
This rule wouldn't affect anyone at local contests nor guys who aren't in the hunt for hardware at the Nats. The top guys at the Nats wouldn't have to worry about being DQ'd for weight HOWEVER if you want to stay in the top you better have a light airplane. . . or be able to fly 40% better than everyone else . .
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:
Tim,
Yep…time will tell. This topic has been a debate for many years….and the “cushion” is the best idea/compromise I have seen since the weight became a limiting factor.
Regards,
Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Tim Taylor
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 12:29 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
Dave,
At this point we'll agree to disagree. The "cushion rule" is a good thing and might just achieve what I want while maintaining the spirit of the rules that you want.
Time will tell.
Lively discussion and debate brings out points from all sides the other might not have thought of.
I enjoy it and often learn from it.
Tim
--- On Sun, 8/22/10, davel322 at comcast.net <davel322 at comcast.net> wrote:
From: davel322 at comcast.net <davel322 at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Sunday, August 22, 2010, 12:07 PM
Tim,
I'm well aware of where the rules changes came from (FAI), and how they were followed by AMA, and it changes nothing with respect to my original point. When the limits have increased, increased costs have followed without exception.
Pattern planes are quiet because we have a noise rule...even though it is not enforced locally.
Pattern planes are limited in cost because we have limits...and the most competitive are the most costly - that will never change. Increase the limits, and the costs for the most competitive setups will increase - it always has, and it always will.
The current proposal to allow a "cushion" to the weight limit in the lower classes is I think a good idea. For the FAI based designs (the vast majority), the lightest and most expensive equipment will not have to be used. For the AMA based designs (very few in number), planes will still be designed to meet 11 lbs and therefore an increase in size/weight/expense is very unlikely to happen.
Regards,
Dave L
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Taylor" <timsautopro at yahoo.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 8:25:18 PM
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! 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.
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
--
Keith Hoard
Collierville, TN
khoard at gmail.com
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3088 - Release Date: 08/23/10 02:35:00
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3088 - Release Date: 08/23/10 02:35:00
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3088 - Release Date: 08/22/10 14:35:00
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3089 - Release Date: 08/23/10 02:35:00
_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20100824/575e4209/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list