[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

Thu Jan 26 08:05:00 AKST 2017

I assume that we don't mind to have AMA legal and F3A legal planes.  Does
this means that we could justify having more planes?  I like the idea.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:28 AM Dr. Mike Harrison via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> 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
> <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
> <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>; General pattern
> discussion <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> 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>
>
> Date: 1/25/17 5:34 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Whodaddy Whodaddy <whodaddy10 at gmail.com>, General pattern discussion <
> 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>
>
> 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
> <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>; General pattern discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; General pattern discussion <
> 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
> 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

-- 
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170126/a9d20953/attachment.html>