[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

Wed Jan 25 17:02:55 AKST 2017

Exactly

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 8:42 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

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:  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
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 <
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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 SR 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

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

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

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

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

  _____  

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

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA- <mailto:discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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
 <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

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 14830 (20170125) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 14830 (20170125) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 14830 (20170125) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170126/f807fa0d/attachment.html>