[NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals

[Scott McHarg]

Sorry, I bought a year's supply from that same hobby shop Keith bought his
down thrust from.  Looks like you got some too huh?
On Apr 23, 2012 5:28 PM, "Robert Campbell" <rgc1701 at earthlink.net> wrote:

> **
> Scott,
>
> Want to buy a gallon of prop wash?  It's only $10.  It'll make your plane
> look great sitting on the flight line.  If you order in the next 15
> minutes, we'll add 50 feet of flight line for an extra $15.  Operators are
> standing by.
>
>
> Rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Keith Hoard <khoard at gmail.com>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2012 5:06 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals
>
> The reason I was asking is because I had bought a box of down thrust from
> Shalimar Hobbies a couple years ago and still have some left over.
>
> If it's now illegal, I need to return what's left for a partial refund.
>
> The box of right thrust is still shrink wrapped, but I can't find the
> receipt.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 23, 2012, at 16:44, Ronald Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:
>
>  I've just added an arming plug assembly to my Vanquish.  It has the
> added feature of having the ability to minimize the coriolis acceleration
> due to precession of the earth and it self adjusts for latitude.
>
> Ron
>
>  On Apr 23, 2012, at 4:33 PM, Scott McHarg wrote:
>
>  Only if you use a disarming plug and/or bore another hole in the side of
> your fuse.  I heard something along the lines of the "Hoarder Policy" being
> written as we speak but only after a survey has been presented.
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Keith Hoard <khoard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  I just added some down thrust to my plane, is that illegal?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 15:54, James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Scott, I don't want to beat this to death but you must be very careful.
>>  I could interpret this to disallow Contra Drive prop set ups that
>> automatically cancel the effects of spiral slipstream, torque, gyroscopic
>> precession and P-Factor.  What about adding aerodynamic appendages that
>> improve stability and damping?  It is not clear why the aerodynamicist
>> should should be given an advantage over the power management guy or the
>> electronics guy.  I'll never understand why the variable thrust alignment
>> system was disallowed.
>>
>> I don't really care what is decided, but if the rule is not well defined
>> it will cause turmoil and new guys thinking about getting into pattern
>> won't like it.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>  On Apr 23, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Scott McHarg wrote:
>>
>>  Good Afternoon,
>>    First, let's agree that "Engine managment" was not a correct term that
>> we derived from the "old days" and we will fix that (per John Fuqua)
>> assuming it passes the initial vote.  Second, let's not lose sight that we
>> are speaking about telemetry and we are speaking of automated functions
>> here, not those that require direct and manual input.  The wording is such
>> that engine management systems that COORDINATE (through telemetry and read:
>> automatically adjust) power output (to maintain a speed or anything that
>> may relate to) with model performance, position, or attitude.  Honestly,
>> this is no different than a gyro correcting attitude and we certainly don't
>> want to allow that.  We simply are trying to allow telemetry that is
>> important for safety and continue to dis-allow anything that automates
>> flying the aircraft.  In my very humble opinion and to answer your
>> question; Yes, I think we do want to outlaw something that makes our models
>> fly better IF it is automated and not pilot-induced.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:10 AM, James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com>wrote:
>>
>>>  What does it mean?  Electric motors change the power as a function of
>>> the load applied.  For a given throttle setting the motor will draw more
>>> current as the model is pulled vertical for instance.  Is the rule trying
>>> to prevent that or prevent an improvement in its ability to do that?  Is it
>>> trying to outlaw braking or variable pitch props?
>>>
>>> The question we should ask is; do we really want to outlaw anything that
>>> might make our models fly better?
>>>
>>>
>>>       9. Engine management systems that coordinate power output with
>>> model performance, position, or ****
>>>  attitude.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Scott A. McHarg*
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Scott A. McHarg*
> Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure
> Bryan Research & Engineering
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120423/a1476c6f/attachment.html>