[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight

[Ronald Van Putte]

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Ron

> On Jan 27, 2017, at 6:17 PM, Curt Oberg via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> Time to lobby those that will vote for the next change of rules.  I have
> officially proposed eliminating the weight restrictions for Sportsman,
> Intermediate, and Advanced classes.  Logically, these lower classes are
> stepping stones to Masters and FAI classes, classes where the more serious
> and talented flyers migrate and eventually MIGHT participate in
> International competitions where the 5000 gram limit is accepted and
> undisputed.  I wonder how many flyers that have shown up for an
> international competition failed to make weight?  Bottom line is that the
> 5000 gram limit is an arbitrary weight that someone imposed a long time ago.
> What's wrong with raising it to 5500 grams or better yet, eliminating it
> altogether.    Considering the decline in pattern flying across the country,
> I believe that we should do everything we can to encourage the lower class
> flyers to participate, including at the NAT's.    These lower class flyers
> are generally NOT the ones with Contra drives, they may have APC props and
> Gater products Flo Thru spinners instead of the Falcon carbon fiber
> products.  Their battery packs are most likely not the ultra light weight,
> twice as expensive battery packs that you will find in the upper echelon
> classes.  They are the ones that might not grease in every landing and have
> multiple weight increasing repairs to their planes, a plane that might not
> make weight right out of the box in the first place.  It doesn't take an
> Einstein to figure out that if you don't have a teeming and active group of
> lower class pattern flyers, it's only a matter of time when you will have no
> new entrants into the Masters and FAI classes and when that occurs, will the
> last one out please turn off the lights.
> 
> Curt Oberg
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
> Behalf Of lucky macy via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 5:31 PM
> To: Ronald Van Putte; General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight
> 
> Just get rid of the weight rule in the AMA classes and be done with it.
> Build the plane as light or heavy as you want.  AJ or Shulman could still
> fly a 12 pound plane and beat probably 99% of folks on this list no matter
> what you flew...just sayin
> 
> Not worth the debate in the AMA ckasses
> 
>> On Jan 27, 2017, at 5:03 PM, Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Typo in second paragraph.  Should have been 5000gm, not 50000gm.  Sorry.
>> 
>> Ron 
>> 
>>> On Jan 27, 2017, at 3:57 PM, Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Something has been nagging me since the 2011 F3A World Championships.
> The decision was made, over the objections of the official weighers (John
> Fuqua and me), that airplanes would be allowed to weigh 1% more than the
> listed maximum weight of 50000gm, or 50gm.
>>> 
>>> The argument was that it "allowed for possible inconsistencies in
> measuring equipment".  We objected because we had purchased calibration
> weights and had them verified by the Precision Measurement Equipment
> Laboratory on Eglin AFB (at the cost of a sixpack of beer per set of
> calibration weights).  That meant we knew exactly what the airplanes
> weighed.
>>> 
>>> Now to the current situation.  Currently, AMA classes have a 1% weight
> tolerance, or 50gm.  Suppose a contestant's model actually weighs 5050gm,
> but the weighing equipment is in error by 25 grams.  So the scales would
> measure the contestant's airplane at 5075gm.  Remember that the 15 allowance
> is for "possible inconsistencies in measuring equipment".  The contestant's
> airplane is "too heavy".
>>> 
>>> Something to think about.
>>> 
>>> Ron Van Putte
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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