[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Tue Mar 13 08:39:25 AKDT 2012

If  your premise is true...

Turnaround and 4C were well established when the unlimited displacement rule
went into effect.  And costs went up (again).

Regards,

Dave L

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Scott McHarg
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:17 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

I'd also like to take just a moment to look at the rising costs of pattern
in a different light.  What really drove up the costs of pattern?  I suggest
that turnaround pattern is what really drove up the costs.  There were no
more horizon to horizon slow rolls and your base altitude being 10 feet AGL.
Now, we have to fly in a box that is covered in 5 seconds flat end to end
and with .60 size aircraft, you had to pour the coals to it in order to keep
your speed up to make your next vertical.  Now, we need to slow down and
have more power at the same time to accomplish the same thing.  Sure,
there's other reasons the 4C came to be the norm but really, I remember the
move from AMA pattern to turnaround.  Everyone that was excited about
turnaround was excited about 4C engines because it allowed you to swing a
bigger prop.  A bigger prop meant slower flight, slower equaled more
controlled down lines.  More power meant you were able to start using
throttle control and not have an engine that was either on or off.  I submit
to you that this is also why we went from the first 2M pattern ship era such
as the Typhoon and others.  A bigger plane with a wider body meant slower
flight and the ability to be on your side aka knife-edge at a slower speed
without falling out of the sky.  Now, fast-forward to today.  The Contra
drive is leading to even slower flight and the ability to fly closer in
because everything is slowing down.   My point here is that I remember the
mass exodus from pattern.  I submit to you that it was not due to 4C engines
but turnaround itself.  The fact turnaround requires you to fly in a box at
150 meters requires fatter planes, slower speeds and bigger props to
accomplish all this.  Besides the fact that biplanes are very cool looking,
why do we think that facet of airframe design is starting to come in to play
more than ever before?  Because they fly slower, because, if flown well,
they present better to our peers and judges (my opinion only).  Chip Hyde is
going back to a bipe, Brett W. is going to the Hebert Alferma, etc.  I'm
just pointing out that possibly the cost of pattern and the increase of
everything is not due to a rules change but essentially, turnaround itself.

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com> wrote:

Bob,
   I think one thing that everyone is either dismissing or not considering
is this:  Pattern is not driven by AMA classes.  Pattern is strictly driven
by FAI as FAI is worldwide.  If a manufacturer were to develop new
technology for the United States AMA class, they would essentially exclude
themselves from the rest of the pattern market worldwide.  No manufacturer
is going to take advantage of a rule that only effects the AMA classes.  If
FAI ever decides to change the rules, that's when you will see a change to
pattern as a whole.  Granted, the US is different in that FAI is not "the
only" destination class.  In the rest of the world, you are nobody if you
are flying the development classes and "may" become somebody once you are in
FAI.  The rest of the world "awards" the ability to fly in FAI.  You don't
just randomly decide to go fly it.  You must earn that right.  So, basically
new technology is not going to be developed because of an AMA-only rules
change.  AMA has essentially stuck by what FAI has done always as the
thought process was everyone wanted to make it to FAI.  That's no so much
the case any more.  Dave Lockhart even said in an email to us all that flat
out, FAI (or the top guys) drive what even the beginners do and buy and try
(simply paraphrased).  That tells us even more so that this would not change
the face of pattern.  Sure, there's going to be some extraordinary people
here in the US that have the desire to try new things to take advantage of
the weight rule.  Will it so severely impact pattern that more change will
be necessary?  Doubtful.

Just a thought and hopefully to get y'all thinking about that facet as well.

With a due respect,
Scott

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com> wrote:

Dave,

That shows how much I have been paying attention. I thought all AMA classes
were limited to 5kg now. With the 115 gram allowance, I don't see the need
for a change. But I still don't see why people are getting so heated up over
it.

You do bring up a good point about the 4S rule, though. We keep reacting to
technology with new rules, and the technology keeps reacting to the rules
with new equipment. I guess it is a part of competition that we have to
learn to accept. If we accept it, then maybe we can get out of this
reactionary cycle. 

Back when they removed the displacement limit, I figured that it would make
the engines less expensive. I was wrong. But I also predicted that the
weight would then become the limiting factor and the airframe expense would
go up. Generally, I think I was right with that one.

Every time someone suggested that a rules change would result in less
expense, it probably hasn't and in fact may have cause more expense in the
long run. In fact, I think your earlier statement about every rules change
to increase size/weight limits having resulted in more expensive models is
generally accurate. I would not have thought so 10 years ago, but I guess
history has taught us that lesson.

One can argue that leaving the size/weight rules alone can actually decrease
the cost. In the manufacturer's eyes, a rules change will obsolete existing
equipment. Think about it - in most cases the manufacturers will change
their designs to try to take advantage of the rules. They will have to spend
more of their money bring new products to the market - an expense that is
passed on to the pilot.  If they could stop shooting at a moving target they
might start trying to recoup their cost over lots of 1000 instead of lots of
100. Maybe. I just hope the domestic manufacturers figure that out before
China does. :-)

Bob R.

--- On Mon, 3/12/12, Dave Lockhart <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:

From: Dave Lockhart <DaveL322 at comcast.net>

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

Date: Monday, March 12, 2012, 6:59 PM

The proposed weight change is for all AMA classes.  We already have an
allowance of 115 grams for hand-me-downs...if that is an important aspect,
then why not make it 5615 grams for Advanced, Intermediate, and Sportsman?

"The fact is that the proposed rule does not exclude any planes that are
already legal."

And the fact is that the 120 4C rule did not exclude 60 2C..but they rapidly
became uncompetitive once the competition variety 4Cs were developed. 

I see the electric vs glow aspect a completely moot point...it will all be
electric (or close to it) soon enough..even with rules that many feel are
biased against electric. 

Having the weight limit on the books, and checking it at the NATs is what
keeps the playing field level.  Same as having a noise rule keeps the planes
quiet, even if it not checked locally. 

Regards, 

Dave L 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:22 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals 

Guys,

For the life of me, I can't see why everyone is getting bent out of shape
over the proposed weight limt rule for the lower classes. It opens up the
possibilities for someone wanting to get started in pattern and competing in
the lower classes, IMHO. If someone in the upper classes has a plane that is
at the weight limit, but is unable to repair the plane without it going over
the limit, then it becomes a perfect hand-me-down for someone getting
started. 

The fact is that the proposed rule does not exclude any planes that are
already legal. The guys that build light know they should have a better
flying plane than one that is heavier. The only reason I can think of that
people with light planes can get upset with this rule is that someone with a
heavier plane might beat them. 

OTOH, how often are models weighed at local contests? I never saw it done in
the years I flew, but that was before the electrics came on the scene. Tell
me, does any CD weigh planes at a local event now? If not, then I am really
confused about weight limit discussions where someone says it is ruining
things to raise the weight limit, when no one is checking it at local
contests anyway. Why all the fuss (one way or the other) about a rule that
no one enforces except at the Nats?

I really don't have a dog in this hunt. I'm just confused about all the
strongly worded comments going back and forth. This, IMHO, does more to turn
people off from pattern than any rule change proposal.

Bob R.

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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

-- 
Scott A. McHarg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120313/40ec1231/attachment.html>