[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight

[Matthew Finley]

+1 Trillion



Matthew E Finley
Q.C.I Technical Assistant
248-794-8487 mobile


-------- Original message --------
From: Curt Oberg via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: 1/27/17 7:18 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: 'lucky macy' <luckymacy at hotmail.com>, 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170128/517ca7c2/attachment.html>