[NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference

[Joe Lachowski]

Well, I think it is a foregone conclusion that the proposal to add 4 ozs to the classes below Masters will pass. Most planes that have been coming overweight as electrics are usually within 4 ozs. The additional 4 ozs is a good point to start at. Let's see how it works over the next two years. You can always propose a change next time around if you don't think it is working.
 
There is a downside to having a heavier plane as an electric. Heavier airframe means more abuse of the batteries because it requires more power consumption during a flight.
 


Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 23:15:52 -0600
From: jgghome at comcast.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference


The French and probably other countries already allow 5.5 kilos without fuel but with batteries for their non-F3A classes. The entry class also limits size to 1.75X1.75 meters. Their entry class is much more difficult than our Sportsman class, closer to Advanced with two classes above that before F3A which is the final destination class. (as it should be)
So it's too late to lead. We can either stand pat or follow.

John

On 8/26/2010 5:21 PM, BUDDYonRC at aol.com wrote: 

I suggest a re-count useing current conditions and new ideas 
 
It is obvious to me after following this debate for at least eight or ten years that the foremost reason for increasing cost year after year has been changes to the pattern that dictates design change thereby limiting sales due to frequent obsolescence of the best if the best. So the price increases about every two or three years.
 As before AMA will follow FAI and the price will be what it will be We will always be followers not leaders due to the notion that pattern will crumble if the weight rule is changed or removed. We have one vote in FAI why can't we  lead and chalange others to follow?
Buddy
_______________________________________________
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/20100827/102d7c23/attachment.html>