[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

Thu Jan 26 07:27:55 AKST 2017

What I take away from here is that there are very good points by all.  

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Fuqua via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 8:26 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

Agree totally.   Weight is a false flag for Masters and FAI.    It made some sense to raise the weight for the lower classes as they often fly pass down previously owned planes which tend to grow in weight as they are passed around.

My fear has always been the law of unintended consequences when a radical change is made without fully appreciating the ingenuity of the pattern people.  

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Lockhart via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 7:45 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

IF all other things are equal, heavier does not fly better.  The “IF” is rarely (if ever) considered by proponents of raising the weight limit.

IF the added weight is used to increase power, size, or performance, it is an advantage that will raise the performance (and cost) and nothing changes except the cost has increased for everyone.  The reason so many planes are close to the limits is because they have been designed for the greatest performance available within the limits, by pushing right up to the limits.

Most airplane designers have recommended equipment to complete the plane at or below the weight limit.  The electric “pigs” that won’t make the weight limit are ALL the modern day large 2M planes when equipped with the heaviest motor, heaviest motor batteries, heaviest RX/servo power supply (dual redundant everything with 10 amp magnetic switches), heaviest servos, heaviest linkages, heaviest wheels, plethora of telemetry sensors, etc.  Any airplane can be made overweight.  If someone has the opinion it is ok to be less competitive for being overweight, being less competitive with a smaller plane that does make weight is pretty much the same scenario (but is legal to the letter of the rules).

I don’t think we get a lot of new people flying pattern at the NATs…which…in practice is the only contest where weight is checked.  In the northeast US, any number of contests have advertised waivers of the weight limit, and in ~20 years, there have been very few overweight entrants, and I can’t think of any pattern converts as a result of waiving the weight limit.

Regards,

Dave

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Oscar via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:27 PM
To: Patternpilot One <patternpilot1 at hotmail.com <mailto:patternpilot1 at hotmail.com> >; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

😀😀😀

On Jan 25, 2017, at 5:46 PM, Patternpilot One via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> > wrote:

I see the potential for more people to fly pattern without the weight limit.

Sa.

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> > 
Date: 1/25/17 5:34 PM (GMT-05:00) 
To: Whodaddy Whodaddy <whodaddy10 at gmail.com <mailto:whodaddy10 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? 

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

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170126/b3803111/attachment.html>