[NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference

Tue Aug 24 07:08:33 AKDT 2010

So it is true then... pigs CAN fly.

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com> wrote:

>  Funny, I did fly the Focus at one time. It was a great plane in its day. I
> had 3 of them.
>
> ------------------------------
> From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:34:08 -0400
>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
>
>  I might be going out on the limb here, but I’m going to guess that Joe
> flys a focus…Lol   Pretty sure that was meant rather tongue in cheek.
> Microsoft REALLY needs to come out with a Sarcasm Font to help make these
> things more clear.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Mark Atwood*
>
> *Paragon Consulting, Inc.*  *|*  President
>
> 5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
>
> Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  *|*  Fax: 440.684.3102
>
> mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com  *|*  www.paragon-inc.com
>
>
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Dave Burton
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 24, 2010 10:29 AM
> *To:* 'General pattern discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
>
>
>
> 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
>  ------------------------------
>
> *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.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://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________ 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/20100824/6a7b8f78/attachment.html>