[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

[Dave Lockhart]

Vicente,

My comment was more geared towards any changes that have allowed BIGGER have
resulted in increased costs.

With the original rules structures.....weight was not a limiting factor.
Power was the limiting factor.

Increased 4C displacement was allowed.....to increase diversity, and reduce
noise footprint (thought being lower RPM 4C was more pleasant sounding than
higher pitched 2C)....and at the time, the sport 4Cs on the market were
quiet indeed as they did not make much power.  That of course changed when
Enya, OS, and YS developed competition level 4Cs that were actually louder.
Of course the added power brought in a new generation of BIGGER and more
expensive planes.

Given the dominance of the 4C from the short sighted rule that allowed them
to have a 2:1 displacement advantage......the prevailing "wisdom" was to
remove all displacement limits to allow larger bore cheaper sport engines
and gasoline engines to be competitive with the boosted 4Cs.  Hmmm....no
surprise, few if any of the cheaper options were ever used or competitive,
but again, the added power brought another generation of BIGGER and more
expensive planes.....and the weight limit became the limiting factor.  Of
course FAI also added a 2M rule, thinking (wrongly) that would control the
size of the planes.  Clearly it did not, as the 2M planes from ~1998 are
tiny compared to a 2M plane today.

So...now the limiting factor is weight.  Plenty of planes (with needed
equipment) exist today that are substantially bigger and will fit in a 2M
box, will cost more money (when equipped with pattern grade servos,
hardware, powerplants, etc), and most certainly will be challenging to get
to <96 db.

The cost of the average plane on the field is not dictated by what could be
used, but by what the top level is using - that is the goal to better,
equal, or approach (in any competitive event) - just part of competition and
competitive nature.

Regards,

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
vicenterc at comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 7:20 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Plus one here.  I am also 110% against any weight increase.      

Question: as David L. explained is important to study the history of how we
decided the 5 kg limit.  Can we elaborate on details of this history?  I
would like to know. 

Best regards, 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone        
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: "Dave Harmon" <k6xyz at sbcglobal.net>
Sender: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:55:52 
To: 'General pattern discussion'<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Reply-To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

_______________________________________________
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