[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Sun Mar 18 16:32:39 AKDT 2012

Me dare to disagree with Dave Lockhart?  Sure, why not?

 i started flying electric-powered airplanes long after the pioneers like Joe Gross and Jason Shulman showed us what could be done.  I prefer electric-powered airplanes because of a lot of what I don't have relative to glow-powered airplanes.  I don't have the mess, maintenance costs and reliability issues that glow-powered airplanes have.  However, when I started flying electric-powered airplanes, there were significant performance disadvantages to glow-powered airplanes.

Now that there is close to parity between the two powerplant choices, i see the glow-powered airplane proponents "protecting their turf" against the encroachment of electric-powered airplanes.

Do electric-powered airplanes really have a performance advantage over a glow-powered airplane?  Not that I can see.  In fact, the opposite seems to be true with most glow-powered airplanes I've seen in competition.

Ron Van Putte

On Mar 18, 2012, at 7:14 PM, Dave Lockhart wrote:

> “Why should I have to spend extra $$  to meet a rule that has a built in inequity to electric system?”
>  
> Because you are gaining a performance advantage.  Higher performance, with rare exception, costs more.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Dave L
>  
>  
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Burton
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 7:29 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>  
> Del, Where in any of the rules proposals is there any mandate to fly heavier planes? You can still fly an under 5Kg plane and have a performance advantage. I’m not proposing to bend any rules, I want to change the rules.
> I don’t want to fly glow any more. I want to fly electric. My choice is to accept a performance penalty to save a few bucks (About $100.00/oz usually).
>  
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Del R
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 7:17 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>  
> Dave..
>  
> So if you chose not to spend the dollars you can chose to use glow... Both are viable means of campaigning on the trail. The choice is do you want to try to bend the rules or comply within the rules and fly electric. If electric is such a expensive choice the glow is the more affordable solution for some. Why force a mandate because a few don't want to pay to play the electric solution. Many are doing it quite well. Maybe time for a new plaque for the contestant who places in the top 3 spending the least on the airframe.. lol..
>  
> Now that would be novel.. lol.. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
>  
>     Del
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave Burton
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 7:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>  
> Because it cost me more to buy CF stuff, lighter servos, etc! Why don’t you get that!
> And how does the weight change make your glow stuff oobsolete!
> You don’t know me – what have I said that’s p**** & moan? I’m trying to make a rational argument that you can’t seem to grasp.
> Dave
>  
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Del R
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 6:49 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>  
> If the advantages are so great to fly electric then why p*** & moan about making weight. Making all the glow powered aircraft obsolete does what to help promote the sport.. Of `` I forgot.. That's not what is really important.
>  
>     Del  
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave Burton
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 2:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>  
> George,
> Yours is an interesting post. In an environment where we are all flying the same power systems I think you would be spot on. However, what I’d like to see is a change that accounts for the fact that glow planes must make 5Kg without fuel and electric must make 5Kg with fuel. In order for comparable planes to comply with the weight it’s necessary for electric to use more hi-tech and expensive components, lighter less durable building techniques, more expensive and lighter accessories, etc. thus increasing the cost. Almost every glow 2M plane takes off above 5Kg and flies at above 5Kg the entire sequence. I know there are exceptions but I think it’s generally true.  I know I could choose to fly glow and not have an issue. However I want the advantages of electric without having to pay a significant cost penalty to do so. Let’s fix the inequity of this in the AMA classes.
> Dave Burton
>  
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of George Kennie
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 1:41 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>  
>  
> My understanding is that the 5Kg weight rule was adopted because of the International standard,
> and as part of the copendium, would have no less adherence than any other rule, after all, a rule is
> a rule and by vertue of being a rule becomes a stipulation requiring adherence.
> In spite of the fact that a 2 meter airframe powered by a glow motor appears to have little difficulty
> achieving compliance with the standard and 2 meter airframes powered by an electric motor pose
> additional challenges, this in no way should bring into contest adherence to the standard. "A RULE
> is a RULE !"
> This problem introduces a choice to be rendered on the part of the participant. It would appear that
> the choices become either fiscally based or possibly a downsized effort in order to comply with the
> standard.
> Downsize ???, you say. How can I downsize when all my competition is utilizing full 2 meter airframes?
> Is it possible that someone might compete with a Wind 110 S and actually fly well enough to actually
> place in the upper eschelon in the upper classes?
> Can I remind you that just last year Frakowiak flew a 40 sized Sequence airframe in Master's and
> cleaned everybody's clock. "Oh yeah, but that was Frak" comes the responce.
> Aha !,.......we may just be coming to a newly realized conclusion. "Could it possibly be that I don't fly
> well enough to beat my competition no matter what size airframe I am campaigning?"  " Maybe it doesn't
> have as much to do with the RULE as it does with me. Could it possibly be that I could benefit from
> a more comprehensive practice routine?"
> You can see where I'm going with this I'm sure and that is, all RULES are to be honored and not
> approached from the perspective of " How can I adjust/modify this particular RULE so that what I personally
> am currently unable to do becomes, for me, possible?"
> So the bottom line, for me, becomes, I am the one who needs to adjust and not the RULE to maintain
> balance in the proposed statutes.
>  
> Just some ramblings guys as I see things.
>  
> Georgie
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
>  
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net> wrote:
> “If we want the weight rule to return in full force and expect it to be enforceable rule, then we need the NSRCA to target a year in the future where zero tolerance will come into effect for AMA Pattern. That way, you achieve the desired result and you provide pilots with enough time to renovate their equipment and focus on compliance when buying or building. This avoids punishing people for flying in a world that was at best a messy "grey zone" created by our own lack of rigor as a special interest group.”
>  
> Interesting idea, But NRSCA couldn’t do this even if it wanted to IMO. First, most CDs probably wouldn’t care to measure and weigh, and second, NSRCA has no authority to mandate it. After all it’s still an AMA event, not a NSRCA event.
>  
>  
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Ford
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 8:18 PM
> 
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>  
> We are our own worst enemies...we wouldn't be having this conversation if the rules had been enforced as intended by everyone all the time.
> Since we have had different enforcement depending on the CD, depending on the ED, depending on the contest, etc, we now force each successive Nats ED to play "bad guy" in a way that tries to annoy or alienate the least number of people.
>  
> Let's face it, I think that Arch has inherited a "no win" scenario here and we shouldn't put the onus of the solution on his shoulders.
>  
> Today, the difference between a "legal" and an "illegal" plane is limited to how much glue was used or the choice of paint, prop, or brand of battery...it isn't because the heavier plane is packing a game-changing feature that gives it the advantage (I didn't see the contras shut everyone out in 2011, either). If one is looking to disqualify a pilot because they feel they can do so on a technicality fed by years/decades of ambiguity and lack of enforcement, then things are really getting ugly.
>  
> The mere fact that we are having this discusion has created a situation where a significant number of pilots are considering not attending the Nats (significant, because last year, there were several who knew they didn't make weight but at the same time knew they were not in the hunt but enjoyed flying at the Nats).
>  
> The solution isn't black and white, nor is it going to be fixed overnight.
>  
> If we want the weight rule to return in full force and expect it to be enforceable rule, then we need the NSRCA to target a year in the future where zero tolerance will come into effect for AMA Pattern. That way, you achieve the desired result and you provide pilots with enough time to renovate their equipment and focus on compliance when buying or building. This avoids punishing people for flying in a world that was at best a messy "grey zone" created by our own lack of rigor as a special interest group.
>  
> Just my opinion, and by the way, my planes make weight.
>  
> John
> 
> --- On Sat, 3/17/12, Del R <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> From: Del R <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Saturday, March 17, 2012, 7:25 PM
> 
> HMMMmmm!!!  Why both having rules if they are only occasionally adhered to. In fairness to all honorable contestants, rules should be honored whether PATTERN police are present or not.  I sure would not want to bust my butt spending the buckaroos and committing the time to be legal at any local or regional or national event to know that some can show up to beat up on me because they spent their time practicing, but not flying a legal plane.
>  
> I have never understood the desire for some to encourage hollow victories. 
>  
>     Del      
> ----- OriginaI Message -----
> From: John Gayer
> To: General pattern discussion
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>  
> Arch,
> I certainly was not objecting to you enforcing the weight rule at the Nats. I'm with  you 100% on that and any other rule enforcement at the Nats you can afford to do. You have to admit that your decision to weigh every plane created a lot of "discussion" on this list.
> Can't see anyone going to the Nats knowing they are going to get just a tearsheet and a bunch of zeros for their efforts. Again, this is not to imply you should be doing anything different, just that we should change the rule to encourage participation in the future.
> John
> 
> On 3/16/2012 7:55 PM, Archie Stafford wrote:
> Hey, all I did was decide to enforce an existing rule. Actually, I didn't have to say a thing except for how it was going to be enforced. Frankly, if I had the number of people available to strictly enforce every rule, I would.   If nothing else my decision has at least sparked the debate about the rule. It has never made sense to me to never enforce it. Personally I think it needs to be left alone, but others don't. Even this year, no one is saying you can't fly a heavy airplane. You just wont get to keep the scores for that round. I seriously doubt someone with a real shot at winning would show up with a heavy airplane anyway. People can even have their tear sheets for the round. It just wont be listed in the results. 
>  
> Arch
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Mar 16, 2012, at 9:48 PM, John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Point taken about having to serve notice that you are going to enforce a rule at a local contest. Note that Arch had to do that for the Nats this year and such a clatter did arise....
> 
> 
> On 3/16/2012 6:53 PM, Dave Burton wrote:
> John, one issue about waive a rule notification in really bothers me in your suggestion. Having to post in advance 30 days that a CD will enforce a rule is counter to any other process I’ve seen.
> 
> It becoming clear -eliminating the max weight rule is the only system that really works. LOL
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Gayer
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 8:20 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
> 
> This won't work very well, in my opinion. Who is going to the Nats if they start out 5-10% behind? This does nothing to increase attendance and is detrimental to operation of local contests. All it takes is an unhappy pilot feeling he was home-towned protesting vociferously about the heavy airplane that just beat him and demanding a weight check that might reverse the first and second places. 
> 
> IF the CD denies the protest, you've lost a pilot. If you do a weight check and it fails, then you've lost a different pilot. To prevent this, a CD must waive the weight rules on his sanction which is not normally done now, although it should be. So extra work and/or hassle for the CD and extra work for scorekeeper/scorekeeping systems. For what gain? A rule that will not be enforced locally and will keep pilots away from the Nats just as much as no weight allowance at all. 
> 
> At the very least, preface the rule proposal with something like:
> This weight rule will be enforced at the Nats. If a CD  chooses to include this rule at a local contest, he must publicize that fact appropriately to all potential attendees at least 30 days prior to the contest. 
> 
> At a local contest, this officially leaves us with no weight rule at all in AMA classes. That's probably OK as we could reject on size if needed. Personally I would only turn someone away if they brought a 42% Extra to fly in Masters and maybe not even then...
> 
> Cheers
> John
> 
> 
> On 3/15/2012 7:54 AM, ronlock at comcast.net wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> Here is a copy of another proposal for consideration by the Contest Board along with the others that have been submitted.
> This one does not disqualify a model for not meeting weight limits.  It imposes a score penalty, but still allows the
> model to participate.
> Ron Lockhart
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120319/115a34e7/attachment.html>