[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Sun Mar 11 10:25:13 AKDT 2012

I think we could easily accommodate another pound without increasing wing
loading or exceeding 2M or going to a biplane. Heavier may be a little more
solid in turbulent air and useful if excess thrust is still available.
Splitting a manufacturers market to accommodate FAI and AMA legal designs
that surly will evolve to be significantly different will likely increase
the cost of both.

In watching and judging the integrated stuff being flown I'd agree an even
larger volume fuselage, more like a Gee Bee, able to support the weight well
in any attitude could be beneficial, needing the wings only for low speed
low AOT take off and landing and visible reference.

The problem is deviating from FAI. We went to a lot of trouble some years
back to get AMA rules in alignment with FAI so competitors could move from
one to the other without having to get new or different equipment. Yes I
know there are a lot of us that will never fly FAI and see no need to align
our rules and we already have judging differences, but that’s another issue.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Mark Atwood
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 8:36 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Simply put, if SIZE was indeed the limiting factor, that would be the
constraint that people would be trying to adjust.  It's not.  People are
hitting the weight limit because they're trying to go bigger and bigger.  As
Dave pointed out, there are LOTS of FULL 2M planes that would come in under
10lbs, much less 11lbs,  from days of old.

Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com <mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>   |
www.paragon-inc.com <http://www.paragon-inc.com/>

On Mar 11, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Dave Lockhart wrote:

I see lots of points below about why to NOT increase the weight limit.

With respect to the aircraft size being limited by size, that is simply not
the case.  If that were true, we’d still be flying 9 lb 78” long Prophecies
from 1998.  We aren’t, we are flying much larger volume BIGGER planes than
weigh more and cost more.  The history is very clear on this and easy enough
to research.  Size has not been and is still not the limiting factor.

I’m not hypothesizing about reductions in numbers being associated with
rules changes…..the history is very clear….and most have never returned.

I think you are correct – if some of the “behavior” on this list were
evidenced in person, it would turn off new flyers.  However, I think much of
the “behavior” was literary license, exaggeration, etc to make a point(s).

Regards,

Dave L

From:  nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Peter Vogel
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 10:52 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

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
<mailto: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>
[mailto: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> ] On Behalf Of
mjfrederick at cox.net <mailto: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 <mailto:schale1 at verizon.net> >
wrote:
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20120311/1da7b69b/attachment.html>