[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Tue Mar 13 08:50:47 AKDT 2012

...and participation had already plummeted.

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Dave Lockhart <DaveL322 at comcast.net>wrote:

> 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*****
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>

-- 
*Scott A. McHarg*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120313/bff8a8e8/attachment.html>