[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?
Ronald Van Putte
vanputter at gmail.com
Thu Jan 26 10:54:46 AKST 2017
I think that’s a wonderful idea!
I’m counting on you competing at the Nats in Blytheville and show us all how it’s done.
Ron
> On Jan 26, 2017, at 1:30 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 <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 <mailto:scmcharg at gmail.com>>; blotch44026 at mypacks.net <mailto:blotch44026 at mypacks.net>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto: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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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/b1017161/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list