[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?
John Gayer
west.engineering at comcast.net
Sat Jan 28 09:55:44 AKST 2017
Well thought out discussion. Thanks Larry.
As has already been pointed out, the FAI 5kg rules defines how our
pattern models are designed. If we change the AMA rules to go along with
common practice at local and regional contest, it will have zero impact
on the pattern models commonly available to us. On the other hand, if
the FAI changes/eliminates the 5Kg rule and we don't follow, very soon
we will have no legal pattern models available. Not likely to happen.
I'm just pointing out who is in charge here.
It's been fairly well established that there is no advantage in flying a
heavy model so what does an AMA weight rule accomplish? Locally
absolutely nothing since no one has ever checked weights at a local
contest with the intent of disqualifying overweight models. At the Nats,
who knows. Most of the overweight models never showed up. I have checked
model weights at a local contest. As I recall, about half were over 5Kg.
All were recognized pattern models.
There is also a whole class of sport scale models in the 75-78 inch span
area costing about $350 into which you can put a DLE 30cc for about $300
and operate much cheaper than four stroke or battery. Many of these can
be set up for less than it cost to put an Osiris in the air and can be
made to fly very well. Unlikely that you will stay under 5Kg, however.
Part of what we should be looking for is a way to improve participation
and lower costs. Including this class of models as legal might help.
There are two types of participants. One shows up at a contest to win
and the other shows up to participate. Of course there is some overlap
there. :-) The contestant looking to win shows up with a current design
and it will weigh less than 5Kg regardless of weight rules. The second
might be interested in reducing participation costs and doesn't care
about the weight rule either as long as his model is acceptable to the CD.
Other countries recognize the distinction between the FAI requirements
of 5Kg and the weight limits for their national classes. The French have
a limit of 5.5Kg + 1% which I believe is only checked at their Nats. Why
shouldn't we do something about the weight rule for AMA classes? I don't
see the French designing planes around 5.5Kg.
I firmly believe we could abolish or diminish the impact of the AMA
weight rule without any negative impact on model design and it might do
some good in legalizing some hand me down models and increase the
variety of legal models .
John Gayer
On 1/28/2017 10:40 AM, Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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] *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
> <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/20170128/681765e3/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list