[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

[Joe Lachowski]

Makes common sense to me Ron.


________________________________
From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 10:35 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

I am shocked, maybe even stunned.  I didn’t know that Gary knew how to spell “ramifications”.

On the serious side, I have never understood the rule that glow-powered airplanes should be weighed without fuel, while electric-powered airplanes should be weighed with batteries.  If a glow-powered airplane weighs 11 pounds without fuel, with 20  oz of fuel (that weighs about 16oz), the airplane would weigh 12lb at takeoff  and 11lb at landing.  That means this glow -powered airplane’s average weight would be 11 1/2lb.  I suggested that electric-powered airplanes be allowed to weigh 11 1/2 lbs, since their weight doesn’t change during  the maneuver schedule.

Ron Van Putte

On Jan 26, 2017, at 11:52 AM, Whodaddy Whodaddy via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

Wat u dont get joe.....is lets say a set up that uses lots of batt power at the choice of the pilot and provides an advantage in flight and cost almost double to conventional motor set up .... It weighs more .. So he has to use lighter lower mah batts to make weight .. He has trouble completing the flight in higher than average wind ( nats wind) ... Ur thinking allows this guy to fly heavier batts (more mah) complete his flight  .. Because the weight limit has been raised .... Not really fair now to the guy who can't or choses not to afford higher $$ motor set up....

Not trying to degrade ur thinking joe i jus think the issue has broad ramifications


Gary

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 26, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:


Maybe he can update it to include Masters instead of having to submit another proposal. Plane size will always be dictated by FAI. So I see no reason to restrict the AMA classes to the weight rule. I guarantee you most people flying AMA classes will have their planes within a half a pound of the current limit anyway. Lets face it our planes are eggshells the way it is and if I could I would beef up areas like the landing gear structure. I can't count how many people in the AMA classes have ripped out landing gear at a local contest.

As far as Sportsman goes I am a believer of fly anything you got or at least leave it to being at the Contest Directors discretion provided the requirements are spelled out in the Sanctioning documents.


If anything FAI has made it more costly with the absurd maneuvers required to be flown which drives the complexity, shape and size of the airframes upwards along with the cost.

________________________________
From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>> on behalf of Jeff Worsham via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:13 AM
To: Robert Campbell; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

AMA website shows the following rules change proposal for 2018-19 already submitted by Curtis Oberg:

"I propose that the current 5000 gram weight limit be eliminated for the Sportsman, Intermediate, and Advanced Classes."

On Jan 25, 2017, at 9:58 AM, Robert Campbell via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

Or weigh fuel airplanes with FULL tanks.  The FAI rule does specify TAKE-OFF weight may not exceed 5 kg.  You can't take-off without fuel.

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

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<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
_______________________________________________
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/20170126/0323cb07/attachment.html>