<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
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: mjfrederick@cox.net<BR>> To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<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></body>
</html>