[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

[Dave Burton]

Sounds like a nice size. Are the rules going to require everyone to build one? Hope it's optional.

 

 

 

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 5:34 PM
To: Whodaddy Whodaddy; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

 

Hmmmm. No weight limit...

 

I see a new market for a full 2M wing span on bi-planes sporting a YS-300DZ twin on the horizon... vbg

 

 

 

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

 

-------- Original message --------

From: Whodaddy Whodaddy via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 

Date: 1/25/17 4:20 PM (GMT-06:00) 

To: Jas S <justanotherflyr at gmail.com>, General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle? 

 

Not a fan of rule change for weight .. Cost is an obsolete argument blah blah blah ... Im well under with no extravagant $$$ or measures ... If manufacturers are building heavy components for their planes  and that plane is overweight then dont buy the dang thing .. There is enough information as to the dews and donts to get planes under weight and wat planes leave the factory as over weight pigs... .. I you dont pay attention its ur fault u fly a pig ... Dont change the rules cause u refuse to pay attention ... 

 

Nuff said

 

G

Sent from my iPhone


On Jan 25, 2017, at 12:20 PM, Jas S via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

There is one. The pilot with an 'over weight' can now compete at the Nats

Jas iP


On Jan 25, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

Come on now!  How can hobby shops make some $$$ on a customer who needs to “buy some lightness” if the weight limit is thrown in the trash?

 

I hope that all readers realize that my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I posted the above.  There is no advantage in R/C aerobatic competition for a pilot to fly a heavy airplane.

 

Ron Van Putte

 

On Jan 25, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

 

I think its time to throw the weight limit in the trash.  There is nothing keeping anyone from voluntarily spending half of a paycheck to drop a few grams.

 

From: NSRCA-discussion [ <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of blotch44026--- via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:56
To: Joe Lachowski < <mailto:jlachow at hotmail.com> jlachow at hotmail.com>; General pattern discussion < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; General pattern discussion < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

 

+1

-----Original Message----- 
From: Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion 
Sent: Jan 24, 2017 5:04 PM 
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle? 





Does anyone know when the next rules proposal cycle begins?

 

I think it is time to stretch the weight limit to at least 4 ozs over 11 lbs. for electrics in ALL the AMA classes. Tired of paying the proverbial  $100 and ounce to get there. Glow setups have an advantage. No doubt in my mind.

 

Flame on.

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

  _____  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> 
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4749/13830 - Release Date: 01/24/17

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170125/bb9a8185/attachment.html>