[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

Sat Jan 28 08:40:21 AKST 2017

I personally have never attended the NATS. I hope to in the future. With that said, my point of view from a competitor stand point:

We have rules and these rules apply to all those that compete in any sport or event. If you are traveling to a National Event and you know they will be checking and you don’t take the initiative to ensure you comply with the rules, you deserve to be sent home or you can get your equipment to comply with the rules.

Why do I have this view? If at least one who is present for the National Event, spent time and money to make certain their equipment is within the rules, any relief to any other participant grossly disenfranchises the effort of those that comply. This is why we have rules.

For Instance, another SIG such as IMAC. A plane must represent a full scale aerobatic aircraft that has either competed or was designed to compete in full scale aerobatics. For me, this is a much more silly rule as often the application of the rule could be influenced by subjectivity. One could argue that the wing span dictates the other features. However, if your IMAC aircraft is deemed to not be compliant, will they let you compete for a National Championship? I think you would get sent home or need to find an aircraft that is compliant, and I would agree with that as well.

Now with the weight issue. We have struggled with this issue since I have been an NSRCA member from 2003. This is has been tabled evidently from the beginning of Pattern. If the rules are changed to whatever, then they are the rules and binding at a National Event. Comply or be sent home.

There are other SIGS which do not have weight or size limits. We are free to participate in them as well. However, here we are talking about Pattern. Changing a rule will not be the reason Pattern will grow or decline. Interestingly enough, these debates may contribute to the elitist stigma and influence the reason for decline.

Again I will state, we (Pattern) exist because of a purpose and a culture. Changing the rule simply because people don’t like it will result in an evolutional change of Pattern (Good or Bad). You may agree or disagree, but I would ask to look at the history as outlined in another post which shows the facts of this result.

Interestingly enough, those that fly pattern control the market of design and cost (including robustness of LG). If you are buying inferior products which can’t make weight, then you are part of the weight problem not the NSRCA and/or rules. Designers and companies will build what sells. Pattern is a Pull market, not a push market unless we allow/accept it as consumers.

If we are to propose a rule change, we must understand the potential outcomes (good or bad). The decision must be based on the Vision of Pattern, Principles, and ultimately our culture.

My .02, I could be wrong…

Best Regards,

Larry Diamond

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Randy Forbus via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 8:30 AM
To: Larry and Eileen <fitch5 at frontier.com>; 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

I'm sure its happed before

  _____  

From: Larry and Eileen <fitch5 at frontier.com <mailto:fitch5 at frontier.com> >
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 2:28 PM
To: 'Randy Forbus'; 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle? 

If 50grams sends a person home, I think you have a silly rule. Just saying….

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Randy Forbus via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 6:20 AM
To: Dr. Mike Harrison <drmikedds at sbcglobal.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 think the point is , if a person drives 20 hours to the Nats , and then gets turned away because he is 50 grams overweight, that person wont be going to the Nats anymore, everyone knows the rules, but you can do everything right and still be over weight.

  _____  

From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> > on behalf of Dr. Mike Harrison via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 4:27 PM
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 <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] 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] 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 < <mailto:jlachow at hotmail.com> jlachow at hotmail.com>; General pattern discussion < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; General pattern discussion < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170128/302dc99b/attachment.html>