[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

Thu Jan 26 10:34:42 AKST 2017

Sounds legit!

On Jan 26, 2017 1:31 PM, "Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion" <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> How about this?
>
>
>
> Club Class thru Advanced – Remove Weight Limit since nobody designs
> specifically for these classes and thus the 20lb. YS300DZ nightmare will
> never come true . .
>
>
>
> . . . then . .
>
>
>
> Masters Class – Reduce weight limit from 11lbs. down to 9 lbs. - Since 11
> lbs. is such a great idea, then knocking off another 2 lbs. should make it
> fantastic!!
>
>
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> *On Behalf Of *blotch44026--- via NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 26, 2017 1:25 PM
> *To:* Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com>; blotch44026 at mypacks.net; General
> pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?
>
>
>
>
> I was just wondering what I could possibly do to remove some weight from
> an airplane (a good one) that hits the boundaries of our weight rules
> out-of-the-box? The arguments have been folks are using heavy motors, heavy
> wheels, heavy surface controls....etc. I placed the lightest components you
> can purchase and I am still knocking on the door. I am wondering what guys
> are doing?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott McHarg
> Sent: Jan 26, 2017 12:56 PM
> To: blotch44026 at mypacks.net, General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?
>
> Lest we forget, Sportsman - Advanced actually has 5165 grams which was
> increased 50 grams last year.  Masters now has 5050 grams which was also
> adopted last year with the 1% tolerance.  I was pro weight increase until
> we got the 1%.  Now, I must agree with Dave L.  and we did not see a growth
> in pattern with the additional weight added this last year.  I'm not so
> sure we would with another increase.
>
>
>
> Although the USA has more pattern fliers than most, if not all other
> countries, most manufacturers do not build to our (AMA) specifications
> (although some are doing a great job of trying to give us "what we want").
> Manufacturers, especially in a niche market) are going to build based on
> what can be sold to the whole world.  Plugs and molds are very expensive to
> make, tooling is another story.  Manufacturers and those designers that
> utilize manufacturers in other countries don't have an unlimited budget to
> have different variants of the same model when, in reality, a small number
> (from a manufacturing standpoint) will be sold as a whole.  All this to say
> that we are an oddity.  The rest of the world flies introductory classes as
> well but with the sole intent to finally be able to fly FAI.  You actually
> have to earn that right in many places.  This is why the 110-size class has
> come started to become popular in other parts of the world.  Fly the 110's
> in the intro classes and then you can step up to your Formula 1 machine
> when you earn the right.
>
>
>
> A.R.F. aircraft have changed our hobby largely.  We, as modelers (can we
> really be called this anymore) are holding manufacturers responsible for
> what we buy when we buy it.  If it's overweight, it's their fault.  When
> you build your own, only you are held accountable.  You select the balsa,
> you decide and the glass cloth, paint, clear coat, etc.  You actually take
> the time to make sure it is perfect.  Now, we look for whatever the next
> guy is flying and decide that's what we're going to use too.  We don't know
> what kind of work Dave L., AJ, etc. has put into their A.R.F., we just make
> the assumption that it was off the shelf so if he made weight, so should we.
>
>
>
> All just food for thought.
>
>
> *Scott A. McHarg*
>
> VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
>
> Texas A&M University
>
> PPL - ASEL
>
> Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:25 AM, blotch44026--- via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> I forgot to mention fuse weight included an Pletty Advanced
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blotch44026--- via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Jan 26, 2017 12:19 PM
> To: "Dr. Mike Harrison" , General pattern discussion , 'John Fuqua' ,
> 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?
>
> Out of the box Invitation before any flights:
>
> Fuse - 3115grams (weighed with Powerbox duel receiver reg, standard
> landing gear, Futaba BLS451 for Rudder, stab halves with Futaba 9650's and
> Castle ESC 80 light, along with Falcon carbon prop light and a Falcon
> carbon spinner)
> Leftwing Panel - 359grams (wing weighed with Futaba S9551)
> RightWing Panel - 361grams (wing weighed with Futaba S9551)
> RX Batts - 2 TP 480mah - 60grams
> WingTube - 51grams
> Arming Plug 17grams
> Total Weight = 3963
>
> Compact 2 5000mah 1125grams
>
> Total Flying Weight=5088grams
>
> I could remove the Regulator and save 46grams
>
> Total Flying Weight=5042grams
>
> I could remove Arming plug
>
> Total Flying Weight=5025grams
>
> All of the equipment installed could be considered the higher end of the
> market...
>
> 500 flights and 2 landing gear repairs later - Well I have not bothered
> weighing it.
>
> The plane does fly very well though...
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Rick
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Dr. Mike Harrison via NSRCA-discussion"
> Sent: Jan 26, 2017 11:27 AM
> To: 'John Fuqua' , 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> 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/20170126/63eb8edf/attachment.html>