<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16825" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Gee--could I have my airplane weighed without
batteries? I mean the 1500 mil pack I use to power the radio and
accessories? Bill</FONT></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="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=pamrich47@hotmail.com href="mailto:pamrich47@hotmail.com">Richard
Strickland</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">General pattern discussion</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:25
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Weight</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>As Ron pointed out--the decision to weigh "with batteries" was
probably someone's very strict <EM>interpretation. </EM> Do we have
any idea who that is/was--and could it just be re-interpreted? This is
just flat not logical.<BR>RS <BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:mjfrederick@cox.net">mjfrederick@cox.net</A><BR>> To: <A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:04:52 -0500<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Weight<BR>> <BR>> It's not so much that the designs are obsolete, people
just feel <BR>> embarrassed showing up with an old airplane. A friend of
mine who <BR>> designs airplanes has designed 3 airplanes in the last 3
years. The <BR>> main reason for the new designs is changes in F3A
schedules. His older <BR>> designs going back to the mid to late 90's are
still highly <BR>> competitive. His new designs are not for AMA pattern,
they're for f3a. <BR>> If you choose to buy a design that is more than you
need, that's your <BR>> choice but don't look for a rules change to fix AMA
pattern when <BR>> there's nothing broke. Keeping up with the Joneses in
f3a is not a <BR>> valid reason for a rule change.<BR>> <BR>> Sent
from my iPhone<BR>> <BR>> On Jun 4, 2009, at 7:45 AM, mike mueller
<mups1953@yahoo.com> wrote:<BR>> <BR>> ><BR>> > "designs
are obsolete in 2-3 years"<BR>> > Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1
racing we're competitive and <BR>> > always looking for better and
different. Truth be known I look <BR>> > forward to a new plane in the
Spring that I planned and prepared for <BR>> > a year or so. It's part
of what appeals me to pattern and I do this <BR>> > on a lower budget
than many would deam possible. Trust me on this. <BR>> > It's all about
will and determination and innovation to get what I <BR>> > want with as
little as I have to work with. Money and building <BR>> > talents
lacking I still put down a competitive piece each year. No <BR>> >
sponsors either. Now that's actually pretty funny sorry.....<BR>> > Not
saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and that the <BR>> >
pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the time. I'm saying <BR>> >
that I think designs for the truly competitive have a rather short <BR>>
> lifespan and that's not going to change anytime soon.<BR>> > Also
Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that work well with <BR>> >
IC. What about the Passport? Osmose? Integral? It's only been a year <BR>>
> or so that the newer generation of planes have been introduced that
<BR>> > are dedicated for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E.
<BR>> > Addiction E. and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were
meant <BR>> > for IC and we adapted them to fit E.<BR>> >
Mike<BR>> ><BR>> > --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Ron Hansen
<rcpilot@wowway.com> wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> >> From: Ron
Hansen <rcpilot@wowway.com><BR>> >> Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>> >> To: "'General pattern discussion'"
<nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> >> Date: Thursday, June
4, 2009, 7:10 AM<BR>> >> I agree with Paul. Remove the<BR>>
>> weight limit and keep the 2 meter size<BR>> >> limit. If
someone wants to fly a 15 lb biplane<BR>> >> powered with a
DA-50<BR>> >> more power too them. Sure our current planes may
be<BR>> >> obsolete but all<BR>> >> designs are obsolete in
2-3 years.<BR>> >><BR>> >> I'm an intermediate pilot and my
biggest concern is the<BR>> >> selection of<BR>> >> designs
available. Right now other than the Focus II<BR>> >> or the Black
Magic<BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR><BR>
<HR>
Lauren found her dream laptop. <A
href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290"
target=_new>Find the PC that’s right for you.</A>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>