[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

[Pete Cosky]

I did not mean to be condescending, and am sorry if I slighted you. The
weight rule has been the rule for more than a minute and I did say that the
fact is it only impacts those who choose to compete at the Nation Level. If
you don't fly at the NATS who is going to care?

Again, I did not mean to be condescending and I apologize.



From:  Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net>
Reply-To:  General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date:  Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:50:19 -0400
To:  'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject:  Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

I fly Masters Class and I have a Wind S 110 I could fly at contest. There¹s
no comparison between the way it flies and my 11.25 lb Integral.  It¹s
really very condescending to suggest that since you make weight with
whatever you fly that I should fly something that is not near as good as my
11.25 Integral because I don¹t want to spend another $300-$400 on the
Integral. And we also know that a 11.25 Integral is already at a
disadvantage to a 10.9 lb. plane. Why can¹t you agree to let me make the
choice of spending the extra money or flying with a plane that¹s already at
a disadvantage due to the extra weight? We are really arguing about a weight
limit that¹s not even important with today¹s planes and rules package. If it
was important we would weigh planes at every contest.
Dave Burton
 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Pete Cosky
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:04 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
 

I really was going to try and stay out of this , butŠ..I am left with
questions and a few of my brain droppings.

 

So the 115 gram increase for Sportsman, Intermediate and Advanced was not
enough? Masters needs a weight increase? Ok, I'll bite, lets consider that
by the time you fly Masters you have clearly made a decision to compete and
meet the rules. Let us further consider that Masters and FAI pilots can, for
the most part, fly either. So if you allow heavier planes in Masters and the
Masters pilot wants to try FAI he is now not in compliance. Then again if we
want to make sure everyone that wants to compete at the NATS can then we
need to make sure that those pilots that are making the jump from Sportsman,
Intermediate or Advanced directly to FAI will not be unduly financially
burdened by having to by a new airframe to make weight.

 

We can also go so far as to say that nowhere in the rules does it say that
you must compete with a 2 meter airframe. That is a limit, you can use a
smaller airframe and make weight easily. The Wind 1.10, Osiris, or Monolog
1.10 would all fill that role. If a competitor chooses to fly a 2M bird then
you need to take the good with the bad, take the perceived better
presentation along with the power system cost and weight. Also, if you are
flying at the NATS, and lets just face facts that this is where these rules
are enforced, you have made a decision to compete at a National Level and
need to meet the rules. Oh, and let us not forget that you will also have
the resources to get to Muncie and stay a week.

 

There was a 1/4 pound allowance given for Sportsman-Advanced which is a lot
of balsa and/or epoxy. I'm no top competitor and never will be nor am I a
master builder but I meet the rules without that allowance on the plane I
built and will on my hand-me-down plane as well swinging an APC prop, and
all heat sinks intact. I do not have deep pockets but I chose to fly a 2M
plane so I did my homework and broke out the scale.

 

If it truely is cost that is the issue, don't buy the biggest and the best.
This is supposed to be about the best pilot not the best gear which is sadly
lost in the ambient room noise. Again a Wind 1.10 is legal and can fly
Masters.

 

Just my $2.98 ($0.02 adjusted for inflation)

 

 
_______________________________________________ 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/20120313/7ffd1d5c/attachment.html>