[NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals
Archie Stafford
astafford at md.metrocast.net
Tue Apr 24 05:31:53 AKDT 2012
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Mark is on the CB, so he would know where things stand with it.
Arch
On Tue 04/24/12 9:27 AM , Scott McHarg scmcharg at gmail.com sent:
Mark,
Where did you find that? I only see last cycle results. If
that's true, they passed the proposal y'all didn't like and failed the
one that fell in line with FAI for the electrical circuit break. They
also passed through the penalty weight and failed all proposals for
increase. Very interesting.
Scott
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Mark Atwood wrote:
Already complete. Proposals 2,4,6,7,8 were passed through for the
cross proposal stage.
MARK ATWOOD PARAGON CONSULTING, INC. | President 5885
Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124 Phone:
440.684.3101 x102 [2] | Fax: 440.684.3102 [3]
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com | www.paragon-inc.com
On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:15 AM, Dave Burton wrote:
When is the CB initial vote? FROM:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [4]] ON BEHALF OF Keith Hoard
SENT: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:01 AM
TO: General pattern discussion
SUBJECT: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals
Yup, you gotta store those in separate airtight containers.
Another question for Scott McHarg . . .
If I install both an Arming Plug and a Disarming Plug, are they
wired in series or parallel?
Keith Hoard
Collierville, TN
khoard at gmail.com
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Bob Richards wrote:
I bought a box of dihedral recently. I had a box of anhedral left
over from the 70s (used for stabs back then) and I made the mistake of
storing them next to each other. Apparently they cancelled each other
out and all I have left now is some crumbled up cardboard. Bob R.
--- On MON, 4/23/12, KEITH HOARD __ wrote:
From: Keith Hoard
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals To: "General
pattern discussion" Date: Monday, April 23, 2012, 6:06 PM
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 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 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 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 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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
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 [5]
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion [6]
--
SCOTT A. MCHARG
Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure
Bryan Research & Engineering
Links:
------
[1] mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
[2] http://metromail.metrocast.net/tel:440.684.3101%20x102
[3] http://metromail.metrocast.net/tel:440.684.3102
[4] mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[5] mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
[6] http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120424/2a3c4c00/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list