[NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference

Tue Aug 24 06:28:40 AKDT 2010

That's really an arrogant, condescending statement!

Now I see why elitist pattern flyers have such a bad reputation at local
flying fields!

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Joe Lachowski
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 9:59 AM
To: NSRCA Discussion List
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 <http://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://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
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://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
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 

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: 08/24/10
02:34:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100824/56562e70/attachment.html>