[NSRCA-discussion] NATS 2012

[BUDDYonRC at aol.com]

Yes and we all need to accept our share of the responsibility for  the 
shift of business to distant shores resulting in the loss of  required talent 
and interest in modeling in future generations.
Buddy
 
 
In a message dated 12/13/2011 12:02:38 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
khoard at gmail.com writes:

Just be  glad there is no Builder of Model rule . . .

Sent from my  iPhone

On Dec 13, 2011, at 11:58, Jerry Stebbins  <JAStebbins at att.net> wrote:

> Now ,now, Now, Ron--you know the  power of "Perceived Advantage". And the 
virile thoughts that rule reason  (their ain't none). Maybe we need a 
"Minimum" landing weight!
>  Jerry
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Van Putte"  <vanputte at cox.net>
> To: "General pattern discussion"  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13,  2011 9:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NATS  2012
>
>
>> John Fuqua and I tried to change the weight  rule to keep glow-powered 
airplanes without fuel at 5000 grams and change the  battery-powered 
airplanes with batteries to 5500 grams.  It went over  like a lead  balloon with the 
Contest Board.
>>
>> On  average, a 5000 gram glow-powered airplane can weight more than  
5500  grams at takeoff and land at just above 5000 grams (spare  fuel).   If a 
battery-powered airplane takes off at 5000 grams, it  will land at  5000 
grams.
>>
>> I don't understand the resistance to  changing the weight rule for 
battery-powered airplanes if the size limit is  the same.
>>
>> Ron Van Putte
>>
>> On Dec  13, 2011, at 9:33 AM, cahochhalter wrote:
>>
>>> I  agree..i did have a lol moment but I had also considered trying  to 
be  involved in helping run nats. This thread has removed any  desire to be  
involved.
>>>
>>> So you dont agree with the rules  Change them through the proper 
channels.
>>>
>>> Arch  posts his desire to run the nats as close to the rule book as  
ever  before.  Personally I agree with him...why not. Thats why we  have  
rules.
>>>
>>> This past nats was filled with  controversy about rules.
>>>
>>> Go for it  arch.....
>>  _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
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/20111213/c4e9d5b5/attachment.html>