[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

[Ronald Van Putte]

It might be better if you ask for a list of the airplanes you should buy.  It’s probably a shorter list.

Ron Van Putte

> On Jan 25, 2017, at 7:20 PM, Ron Hansen via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> Can someone provide me with a list of all the pigs that I shouldn’t buy.
>  
> I’ve been flying pattern for over 10 years and I’m unaware of this common knowledge information.
>  
> I’m serious provide me with a list off line.
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Ron Hansen
>  
>  
> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 7:26 PM
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?
>  
> No, but a two meter wingspan bipe with a 3.00 or so might at 14 lbs.
> 
> Jon
> 
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 Dave Burton via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
> 
> Anyone really believe a 20 lb, 2 meter plane will fly better than an 11 lb. 2 meter plane?
>  
> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?>] On Behalf Of James Hiller via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 6:53 PM
> To: 'Larry Diamond'; 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?
>  
> Or a 100cc Gas burner weighing 20 lb.
>  
> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf Of Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 2:34 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 <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> 
> Date: 1/25/17 4:20 PM (GMT-06:00) 
> To: Jas S <justanotherflyr at gmail.com <mailto:justanotherflyr at gmail.com>>, General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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 $$$ or measures ... If manufacturers are building heavy components for their planes  and that plane is overweight then dont buy the dang thing .. There is enough information as to the dews and donts to get planes under weight and wat planes leave the factory as over weight pigs... .. I you dont pay attention its ur fault u fly a pig ... Dont change the rules cause u refuse to pay attention ... 
>  
> Nuff said
>  
> G
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jan 25, 2017, at 12:20 PM, Jas S via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
> 
>> There is one. The pilot with an 'over weight' can now compete at the Nats
>> 
>> Jas iP
>> 
>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Come on now!  How can hobby shops make some $$$ 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 <mailto: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 <jlachow at hotmail.com <mailto:jlachow at hotmail.com>>; General pattern discussion <nsrca- <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>; General pattern discussion <nsrca- <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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
>>>> NSRCA- <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <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
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
> 
> 
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 14830 (20170125) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
> 
> http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/>_______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170126/041403f1/attachment.html>