[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Sun Mar 11 07:34:29 AKDT 2012

Peter 

I never laugh about pissing glue on an airplane. ( its tragic) I think it's sad that with a weight increase, forced attention to detail is lost, innovation is lost. If we as a group demand lighter batteries at a lower cost so it will help us make weight some company out there will try to provide as has happened. If we as a group demand lighter engines ( electric motors)at a lower cost to help make weight some company will provide . If we as a group demand quality aircrafts at a lower cost.(vanquish)...Etc. etc.. Now we have a higher weight to deal with no need for further innovation .." Let them eat cake" by the way if some new guy that is interested in pattern meets me at his first event or they have shown genuine interest in this end of the hobby. They are more than likely to end up taking an aircraft home with them free of charge as has happened many times in the past . On this I have a definite track record . So excuse me if I feel like the board is missing the big picture or looking at it from a obtuse angle from a less than whole sample of the membership.. Having served on the board for several years I find their current actions gives me a since of bewilderment ..  Not trying to personally attack anyone on the board but very very strongly disagreeing and not feeling represented...Simple fact ...the vanquish and soon coming Osiris,motors like the fury, silver bullet and  hobby king batteries, will do more to draw new blood than any rule change.. Why ?its about $$$$..and has been for many years...

Glue pisser  only by accident 

Gary Courtney 

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 11, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Peter Vogel <vogel.peter at gmail.com> wrote:

> Weight limit increase:  Why is it a mistake?  Given the size limitations in place, there's a practical limit on the wing loading above which the plane is going to fly like crap, people who take care with their weight will have an advantage, people who don't won't, but can fly their plane and compete.  It's easy to make weight even at relatively low cost given airframes like the 2M Vanquish and the 2M Osiris.  If you are concerned about the craftsmanship aspect of making weight with a hand-built plane, that horse left the barn long ago since the builder of the model rule hasn't applied to pattern as far back as I can find rules.  I have thought it a _little_ unfair that the fuel guys get to weigh in empty and the electric guys have to weigh in with batteries in place, but I get why that's the case, and, like I said, it's not hard to make weight.  For the guys who choose to compete with a heavyweight plane, I don't doubt that as they learn more and advance in the sport they'll tune their plane to compete well and the plane will go on a diet or be replaced.
> 
> I'll be honest, I don't think the shrinkage (or growth) in competition is due to any rules change, yes, there will be the folks for whom all change is immediately bad and they may choose to leave, but I think if they truly enjoy competition, they'll adapt and move on.  What fundamentally impacts the growth (or not) of the sport is the experience a new pilot has at his or her first few competitions.  If the people they meet are friendly and welcoming, if performing in front of judges gets the adrenaline going and they enjoy the experience, then they'll stick around and may seek even more competitions then they'd planned (that's what happened to me).  On the other hand, if the people they meet behave in person the way some of the people I've seen on this list behave, or they get elitist and start grousing about weight, or look at the new guy's plane and laugh about "pissing glue" then that person will not be back unless there's something deep in his DNA that is triggered by precisely controlling an aircraft through a sequence of maneuvers from the ground -- that person will come back no matter what others say and regardless of what rules do or do not change.  
> 
> Peter+
> 
> 
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Dave Lockhart <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Matt,
> 
> I agree 100% increasing the weight limit is a mistake, and I seriously
> regret supporting the prior increase of 115 grams....it was just the first
> step down a slippery slope.
> 
> I'd also note that it is not just the electric guys pushing for the weight
> increase.  In fact, it is much easier to make weight with electric today
> than it was several years ago.
> 
> Of course you are 100% right about technology catching up IF things are left
> alone.  Of course the 115 gram change hasn't been in effect long enough to
> see the full impact of it.  Highest performance and lowest cost are two
> ideas that never coexist no matter what the rules are.....but some don't
> understand that.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> mjfrederick at cox.net
> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 1:03 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
> 
> I second what Stuart is saying here. I've kept my mouth shut just observing
> throughout all this discussion mainly because I'm not a member of the NSRCA.
> Why am I not a member? I can't remember the last time the NSRCA represented
> my interests. To propose a weight rule change is a huge mistake. Hopefully
> the contest board has better sense (and experience) than the NSRCA
> leadership. Being the AMA-recognized special interest group for Pattern is a
> huge responsibility. Changes to what we do should not be taken lightly, nor
> should they be left up to a 50% + 1 vote on a website. Sometimes leadership
> and experience need to step in and stand up to those who are barking the
> loudest about not being able to make weight. In this instance, the squeaky
> wheel doesn't necessarily deserve the grease. Well, whetever. It's not like
> I would just stop flying pattern if a weight increase was passed, but I
> think it would tarnish the image of pattern. Perhaps irrevocably. Once a
> change like this happ  ens, it cannot ever be taken back. Let's say 2 - 3
> years from now as battery technology continues to improve (because let's
> face it, the only people who want weight limit increases are electric guys),
> and the batteries get lighter and lighter, you may have now given electric
> planes an advantage. Rules are already in place to allow anyone to try
> pattern without needing to make weight. Rules were recently passed to allow
> the lower classes a variance so that they get a little leeway as they move
> up. Leave things alone, and the technology will catch up to the rules, as it
> always has in the past (2-stroke to 4-stroke migration).
> 
> Matt
> 
> ---- Stuart Chale <schale1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
> Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120311/551b465f/attachment.html>