<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=Windows-1252>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=MailContainerBody
style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 15px; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Lucida Sans; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TEXT-DECORATION: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"
leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 acc_role="text" CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area"><!--[gte IE 5]><?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->
<DIV>
<DIV>Ya, I'm all jiggy with that.... Keep smiling, the weather report down
here doesn't show anything bad. I'll do my dance.</DIV>
<DIV>I'm sure that Gordon will help out with the consumption contest. He's
feeling all pent up and needs a little relief!!!!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Rex</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B> <A title=mailto:chad@f3acanada.org
href="mailto:chad@f3acanada.org">Chad Northeast</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, May 14, 2006 8:11 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight
limits for electrics?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Hey Rex,<BR><BR>There are 4 of us coming from Calgary....should
have a good turnout. <BR>Weather forecast does not look too promising
though! Might have time to <BR>drink a few beers
:)<BR><BR>Chad<BR><BR>Rex LESHER wrote:<BR><BR>> The only thing I've seen
that stopped the spread of the Double Vision, <BR>> was the cost.
$2600 for the kit was a bit extreme. Then you have to <BR>> build
it. Especially when you have all the ready made planes <BR>>
available for about half that price. <BR>> Hey Chad, See you at the DAM
next weekend.... Looking forward to it. <BR>> Looks like we'll
bring 4-6 flyers up for it...<BR>> <BR>>
Rex<BR>><BR>> ----- Original Message
-----<BR>> *From:* Chad Northeast <<A
title=mailto:chad@f3acanada.org
href="mailto:chad@f3acanada.org">mailto:chad@f3acanada.org</A>><BR>>
*To:* NSRCA Mailing List <<A title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>
*Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 7:44 PM<BR>>
*Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for
electrics?<BR>><BR>> Lest we not forget that
bipes placed 2nd and 4th at the 2005 World<BR>>
Champs......they are not everywhere....yet....increasing the
weight<BR>> limit will only open the door for their
development.<BR>><BR>>
Chad<BR>><BR>> <A
title=mailto:jivey61@bellsouth.net
href="mailto:jivey61@bellsouth.net">jivey61@bellsouth.net</A> <<A
title=mailto:jivey61@bellsouth.net
href="mailto:jivey61@bellsouth.net">mailto:jivey61@bellsouth.net</A>>
wrote:<BR>><BR>> >
Dave<BR>> > I agree and didn't Chip do this and
it didn't take hold and stay<BR>> > around for
long.<BR>> > Jim
Ivey<BR>> ><BR>>
> ----- Original Message
-----<BR>> > *From:*
Dave Lockhart <<A title=mailto:davel322@comcast.net
href="mailto:davel322@comcast.net">mailto:davel322@comcast.net</A>><BR>>
> *To:* 'NSRCA Mailing
List'<BR>> <<A
title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 10:19
PM<BR>> > *Subject:* Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for
electrics?<BR>>
><BR>> > Yes they are
a PIA and I don’t want to spend the extra time<BR>>
either.<BR>> ><BR>>
> IMAC essentially has no limits, excepting the AMA
55 lb limit<BR>> > which
is not really a factor.<BR>>
><BR>> > Bigger flies
better, period. If an IMAC guy went through
the<BR>> fuss<BR>>
> to build the monstrous bipe with wingspan similar
to the big<BR>> >
monoplanes, it would be “bigger” and it would fly better. No
one<BR>> > wants to deal
with that hassle and expense.<BR>>
><BR>> > A 2M bipe is
bigger than a 2M monoplane. The 2M being
bigger<BR>> will<BR>>
> fly better, period. And it will be more expense
and it will<BR>>
result<BR>> > in some
number of current day pattern competitors
leaving<BR>> the
event.<BR>> ><BR>>
> Regards,<BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>>
> Dave Lockhart<BR>>
><BR>> > <A
title=mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net
href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A> <<A
title=mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net
href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net</A>><BR>>
><BR>> >
<BR>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
><BR>> > *From:* <A
title=mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
<<A title=mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]
*On Behalf Of<BR>> >
*Robert Mairs<BR>> >
*Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 9:26 PM<BR>>
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing
List<BR>> > *Subject:*
Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for
electrics?<BR>>
><BR>> > I don't buy
into the bipe theory. Bipes are a PIA. I<BR>>
wouldn't want<BR>> > to
spend a half hour setting up and tearing down every day
I<BR>> went<BR>>
> out flying. If bipes are so dominating why don't
you see them on<BR>> >
the IMAC circuit? They don't have any size or
weight<BR>>
restrictions<BR>> > and
they strive for the same type performance we do,
yet<BR>> they're a<BR>>
> rarity. They're nice to see and may show up, but
a flight line<BR>> >
full of bipes, I doubt it.<BR>>
><BR>>
> ----- Original Message
-----<BR>> ><BR>>
> *From:* Stuart Chale
<<A title=mailto:schale@optonline.net
href="mailto:schale@optonline.net">mailto:schale@optonline.net</A>><BR>>
><BR>>
> *To:* 'NSRCA Mailing
List'<BR>>
> <<A
title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>
><BR>>
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 14,
2006 8:57 PM<BR>>
><BR>>
> *Subject:* Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for<BR>>
electrics?<BR>>
><BR>>
> Any time a limit has been
relaxed; there has been a<BR>> change
in<BR>>
> airplane size and or
design. It is not necessarily immediate<BR>>
> but technology seems to
adapt to the new limits. Just try to<BR>>
> fly one of your 2M
designs with a piped 60, or even a<BR>> 120
4C.<BR>>
> When 4C limits were
increased to 1.2 cubic inches nothing<BR>>
> changed. Some brave folks
tried 4C but it didn’t work<BR>> until
YS<BR>>
> came out with a 4C engine
that was more powerful than a<BR>> 60
2C<BR>>
> engine. Then the planes
took a step larger and heavier. When<BR>>
> the engine limit was
removed planes got larger again. 120 AC<BR>>
> engines were now only
good for the beginner classes. (An<BR>>
> oversimplification).
Right now the weight limit works.<BR>> Yes
it<BR>>
> is a bit harder to make a
2M pattern plane come in under<BR>> 5
kg<BR>>
> when made electric but it
can be done. A gas engine 2M<BR>> may
be<BR>>
> even more difficult.
Relaxing the weight limit will make it<BR>>
> easier for an electric
conversion to make weight and make a<BR>>
> gas powered version more
feasible. But new designs will now<BR>>
> show up pushing the new
limits. The obvious direction is<BR>> a 2
M<BR>>
> bipe. A 14 pound 2 M bipe
may present better than a<BR>>
monoplane,<BR>>
> maybe not. If it does
then everyone will “need” or at least<BR>>
> want one. If people want
to try something new and bigger<BR>>
then<BR>>
> scrap the weight limit.
If not then relaxing the weight<BR>>
limit<BR>>
> to fit today’s problems
will have undesirable effects<BR>> tomorrow
J<BR>> ><BR>>
> Stuart
Chale<BR>> ><BR>>
>
<BR>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
><BR>>
> *From:* <A
title=mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
<<A title=mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>
>
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] *On
Behalf<BR>>
> Of <A
title=mailto:*vicenterc@comcast.net
href="mailto:*vicenterc@comcast.net">*vicenterc@comcast.net</A> <<A
title=mailto:*vicenterc@comcast.net
href="mailto:*vicenterc@comcast.net">mailto:*vicenterc@comcast.net</A>><BR>>
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 14,
2006 8:06 PM<BR>>
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List;
NSRCA Mailing List<BR>>
> *Subject:* Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for<BR>>
electrics?<BR>>
><BR>>
> I understood that the
definition of model airplane<BR>> states
that<BR>>
> weigh has to be below 5
Kg. That is consider international.<BR>>
> The only exception is the
scale that is a little higher.<BR>> I
am<BR>>
> not sure if this single
reason is going to make difficult to<BR>>
> change the rule for F3A.
For sure is going to help the gas<BR>>
> engines. I don't think
electric power plants are having a<BR>>
> weigh
problem.<BR>> ><BR>>
> Vicente
Bortone<BR>> ><BR>>
>
-------------- Original message --------------<BR>>
>
From: "John Ferrell" <<A title=mailto:johnferrell@earthlink.net
href="mailto:johnferrell@earthlink.net">johnferrell@earthlink.net</A><BR>>
<<A title=mailto:johnferrell@earthlink.net
href="mailto:johnferrell@earthlink.net">mailto:johnferrell@earthlink.net</A>>><BR>>
><BR>>
>
Yummy! Big Biplanes are coming in quantity!<BR>>
><BR>>
>
John Ferrell W8CCW<BR>>
>
"My Competition is not my enemy"<BR>>
>
<A title=http://dixienc.us/ href="http://DixieNC.US">http://DixieNC.US</A>
<<A title=http://dixienc.us/
href="http://dixienc.us/">http://dixienc.us/</A>><BR>>
><BR>>
>
----- Original Message -----<BR>>
><BR>>
>
*From:* Bdrtschiger Urs<BR>>
>
<<A title=mailto:baertschiger-tai@bluewin.ch
href="mailto:baertschiger-tai@bluewin.ch">mailto:baertschiger-tai@bluewin.ch</A>><BR>>
><BR>>
>
*To:* NSRCA Mailing List<BR>>
>
<<A title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>
><BR>>
>
*Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 5:17 AM<BR>>
><BR>>
>
*Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits
for<BR>>
>
electrics?<BR>>
><BR>>
>
This subject has been adressed officially. Based
on<BR>>
>
what I have been told, the weight limit for F3A
will<BR>>
>
be dropped with the next rules changes. What
will<BR>>
>
remain however, is the 2M by 2M box.<BR>>
><BR>>
>
Urs<BR>> ><BR>>
>
NSRCA #3069<BR>>
><BR>>
>
<BR>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
><BR>>
>
_______________________________________________<BR>>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing
list<BR>>
> <A
title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
<<A title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>
> <A
title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>
><BR>> >
<BR>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
>
_______________________________________________<BR>>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing
list<BR>> > <A
title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
<<A title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>
> <A
title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>
><BR>>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
><BR>>
>_______________________________________________<BR>>
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>>
>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>>
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>>
><BR>><BR>><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> <A
title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
<<A title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>
<A title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>><BR>>------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>><BR>>_______________________________________________<BR>>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR><A title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR><A
title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BODY></HTML>