[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

Thu Jan 26 10:53:45 AKST 2017

It'll never happen Ron. The market for airframes is dictated by the FAI requirements. No one is going to make the effort for a limited market. FAI can still  fly by the FAI rules. The rest of us in the US don't have to. Why do we always have to follow the rest of the world to the letter? Change the weight rule whether eliminating or making it around 11.5 lbs  like RVP  suggests is not going to hurt.  I am tired of worrying and making all sorts of compromises and gyrations to make weight everytime I get a new airframe together. What batteries am I going to have to buy to  replace my perfectly good heavier packs with. Which more expensive lighter servos am I going to have in place of servos I already have laying around. Am I going to have to forego using a switch harness to save a few grams. It goes on and on. Heck, I wish I could use APC props again, but that is not possible. Everytime you buy a new airframe you cringe at the thought that you got the heavy one from the manufacture. Having to be really really careful on landing especially on grass with the fear that your landing gear is going to rip out. All this crap is a deterent and if anything has driven people away fro pattern after a few years.

Someone mentioned that we only weigh at the Nats. Well, maybe a few more pilots might attend if they didn't have to worry so much about the weight.

You know I too, as someone mentioned in one of the posts have an Invitation that had a weight problem after it was setup with my standard setup which has always worked for me. Well it was much to my surprise that it was overweight by more than 90 grams. The Invitation coming in overweight should be of no surprise to anyone since it is designed to use an electric or internal combustion powerplant and some structural integrity compromise had to be made so the airframe could handle internal combustion. Well, like the honest flyer that I am I had to swap out some servos with more expensive ones and buy new batteries to make that airplane comfortably under 5000 grams. The 1% weight tolerance may help but I'm not 100% comfortable that my weight will pass inspection at the Nats if I were ever to attend again unless the airframe is about 25 to 50 grams under 5000 grams on my pretty damn accurate scale. And I have some calibration weights laying around to boot.

I also have or had two different Contra powered airframes. Well guess what they were both a little over 5000 grams using 6000ma packs. And guess what I expect to have the same problem with my new plane.  I'll be honest, I do not want to use anything smaller than a 6000 ma pack on a contra setup. There is no comfortable margin of safety to use 5000ma packs and still have over 20% capacity left. There is not enough sufficient battery capacity to taxi at the local field or have to fly around to wait for another plane to land  and clear out before you land. I fly conservatively, use throttle-tech, etc. and can tell you that I have had a few times where my capacity much to my surprise was below 20% due to these conditions with 5000ma packs. When I have flown 5000 or 5400 packs, it is drag the plane onto the runway, takeoff, fly the sequence and immediately land, walk  out to the runway(unsafe at local fields) and drag my plane back to the pits. Takes some of the fun out flying.

And Ron, I know Dave is an advocate of keeping the status quo, but honestly, I know he has gone to extremes and spent plenty of time and money so he could compete at the level he has to to fly the F sequence and unknowns when it comes to weight. Not everyone is a Dave. The average guy doesn't want to worry, have the time or desire to have to do this everytime they get a new airframe.

I'm done with this thread. Got better things to do.

From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of ronlock--- via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 4:03 PM
To: Larry Diamond; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

Yep.

On January 25, 2017 at 5:34 PM Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

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<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] On Behalf Of blotch44026--- via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:56
To: Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com<mailto:jlachow at hotmail.com>>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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<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
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170126/1992915e/attachment.html>