<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
F3B/F3H alternate years with F3J. That is why there are no entries in F3B and F3H. They have already reduced their event timeframe, as well. I think they have eliminated scale soaring in recent years.<BR> A lot of the soaring guys fly multiple events. I know there was talk of eliminating two meter some years ago too. Some of the sailplane events require 2 days and they cram a bunch of rounds in each day with a lot more planes in the air at one time than we have. Just think unlimited had around 100 people flying to complete an event in a two day period.<BR>
<BR>
On the other end of the spectrum, you also need to look at some of the control line events where there are only a handful of entrants.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>> From: vanputte@cox.net<BR>> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 22:50:59 -0500<BR>> To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing<BR>> <BR>> Hmmm. R/C Soaring had six events and 146 total entrants. We had <BR>> four events with about 100 entrants. They got nine days and we got <BR>> four. Maybe someone can explain the logic.<BR>> <BR>> Ron VP<BR>> <BR>> On Aug 3, 2009, at 10:39 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > 09SO - RC Soaring Total Registrants - 146<BR>> > Event #NameOpenSeniorJunior<BR>> > 441HL Thermal Soaring3811<BR>> > 442Thermal Soaring Two Meter4611<BR>> > 444Thermal Soaring Unlimited10433<BR>> > 445F3B Thermal Soaring000<BR>> > 446F3H Cross Country Soaring000<BR>> > 456F3J4520<BR>> > 460RES Function (RES)7113<BR>> > 461Nostalgia (NOS)2100<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Chris<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > --- On Mon, 8/3/09, Ron Van Putte <vanputte@cox.net> wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> > From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte@cox.net><BR>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing<BR>> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> > Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 8:32 PM<BR>> ><BR>> > Maybe Tony Stillman can tell us. I didn't see the number of <BR>> > entrants posted for Soaring. Waiting for thermals is a personal <BR>> > problem; we don't get to wait for less wind.<BR>> ><BR>> > Ron VP<BR>> ><BR>> > On Aug 3, 2009, at 10:05 PM, rcmaster199@aol.com wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> > > I don't know much about the Soaring event. If I were to hazard a <BR>> > guess, it would be 1- more pilots and 2- waiting for thermals is <BR>> > less predictable<BR>> > ><BR>> > > MattK<BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> > > -----Original Message-----<BR>> > > From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte@cox.net><BR>> > > To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> > > Sent: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 10:55 pm<BR>> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Not too long ago, R/C Aerobatics had five days; the fifth day was <BR>> > a "rain day", just in case. When AMA decided to shorten the Nats, <BR>> > they took away our rain day. I was OK with that, BUT I don't see <BR>> > that the Nats are any shorter and, in looking over the Nats News, I <BR>> > noticed that R/C Soaring has NINE days. What's with that?<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Ron VP<BR>> > ><BR>> > > On Aug 3, 2009, at 9:44 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:<BR>> > ><BR>> > > > The $100 that we pay for the entry is small potatoes compared <BR>> > to > what we spend on the nats. Think about the time off work, all <BR>> > the > practice leading up, the expenses. I estimate that with the <BR>> > time I > took off work, and everything else that it cost me about <BR>> > (well I > won't say, or I will get crucified on here, lol). Raise <BR>> > my rate to > $200 and pay someone to weigh planes. Pay some judges. <BR>> > Pay some > zero judges. Pay for a few more days so that everyone <BR>> > gets equal > exposure judging. Whatever has to be done to make it <BR>> > fair for all. > Why settle for "well, it's sorta ok the way it is, <BR>> > not perfect, but > ok" when we can change it? I can't understand <BR>> > why people don't want > to make it better.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Chris<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > --- On Mon, 8/3/09, Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz@gmail.com> <BR>> > wrote:<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > From: Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz@gmail.com><BR>> > > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing<BR>> > > > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca- <BR>> > discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> > > > Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 7:28 PM<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Rules are rules and we should enforce them for everyone - not <BR>> > just > the select few that make the finals. I would bet that the <BR>> > majority > of everyone that attends the Nats is compliant with the <BR>> > rules we > have today.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Chris: I don't have any problems working to process planes - I <BR>> > > think the time would be fun to meet all the attendees and say hi. <BR>> > I > don't normally get to do that and this will give me an <BR>> > opportunity > to meet everyone. I'm also not looking to do this in <BR>> > lieu of my > judging duties either... I view my judging assignment <BR>> > as an > essential part of attending the Nats and look forward to it <BR>> > every > time. If someone is going to cheat by replacing servos or <BR>> > whatever > just to make weight then shame on them... perhaps Chad's <BR>> > solution > is the best one to weigh planes after they fly but that <BR>> > just makes > the logistics even harder I think since we don't have <BR>> > the enclosed > tents to do this and also enough scales etc. for <BR>> > each site.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:29 PM, John Konneker <BR>> > <jlkonn@hotmail.com> > wrote:<BR>> > > > Not the point I was trying to make.<BR>> > > > Please reread the last two sentences of my note below.<BR>> > > > ONLY legal planes would make the finals, semifinals and place <BR>> > if > the procedure that has been in place were followed.<BR>> > > > Respectfully,<BR>> > > > JLK<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:24:22 -0700<BR>> > > > From: derekkoopowitz@gmail.com<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Then why even bother to have the rules? How about noise and <BR>> > size? > Should we eliminate those rules as well? No one checks <BR>> > weight, size > and noise locally... so why should we bother having <BR>> > a rule for it > and enforcing it at the Nats?<BR>> > > > I don't buy it that attendance will diminish.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:16 PM, John Konneker <BR>> > <jlkonn@hotmail.com> > wrote:<BR>> > > > I have to agree with Chris.<BR>> > > > As someone has pointed out there are basically two types that > <BR>> > attend the Nats.<BR>> > > > Those that go to renew friendships and for the social aspects <BR>> > and > those that are trying to win.<BR>> > > > I have been told by more than one pilot attending that they <BR>> > aren't > concerned about their plane<BR>> > > > being overweight since they have no chance of making the finals <BR>> > or > placing and are there for the fun.<BR>> > > > I think you will see an even further decrease in attendance if <BR>> > > everyone gets weighed at checkin.<BR>> > > > The way it has been til now would be fine IF it was followed <BR>> > and > enforced.<BR>> > > > Otherwise it's just more search for the guilty, punish the <BR>> > innocent.<BR>> > > > JLK<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 19:57:03 -0400<BR>> > > > From: cjm767driver@hotmail.com<BR>> > > > To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > I think we are making this more difficult than necessary (not <BR>> > aimed > at anyone in particular - I just jumped in on Chris's <BR>> > response). We > go through the process of weighing the potential <BR>> > winners and > finalists already - why not just mandate that the <BR>> > officials APPLY > the rule that already exists. No lee way or <BR>> > interpretation > necessary. Why weigh and measure if we are going <BR>> > to say "oh never > mind, that's ok" when they fail inspection. If <BR>> > they had applied the > existing rule, this discussion would not be <BR>> > going on. To implement > a new procedure (weighing all at check in) <BR>> > is going to need a bunch > of extra help to do and do we really <BR>> > want to have somebody > inventory EVERY item on the plane too in <BR>> > order to ensure they don't > change props, wheels, rx battery, etc <BR>> > after inspection? Who is > going to volunteer to do that to 100+ <BR>> > airplanes? The current way > has worked just fine and would still <BR>> > be fine IF THE RULE AS IT > EXIS TS WAS APPLIED. Simple. Let's not <BR>> > make an overly elaborate > witch hunt in response to what happened.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Chris (the other one)<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:<BR>> > > > Where do they weigh at a worlds event? Outside in the wind?<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Just curious.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Thx!<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Chris<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > --- On Mon, 8/3/09, dkrev@shaw.ca <dkrev@shaw.ca> wrote:<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > From: dkrev@shaw.ca <dkrev@shaw.ca><BR>> > > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing<BR>> > > > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca- <BR>> > discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> > > > Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 12:30 PM<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > We got weighed after each round at the worlds..... Just saying :-)<BR>> > > > Sent from Dave's Crackberry<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > -----Original Message-----<BR>> > > > From: John Fuqua <johnfuqua@embarqmail.com><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:35:25<BR>> > > > To: 'General pattern discussion'<nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> > > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Better be prepared to weigh 4 or 5 sets of batteries with each <BR>> > > competitor as<BR>> > > > well as airplanes.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > That's the thing with glow. Only dry weight counts. You can <BR>> > load as > much<BR>> > > > fuel as you wish to any weight! Electric stuck at a fixed max <BR>> > T.O. > Weight.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > -----Original Message-----<BR>> > > > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of <BR>> > Derek<BR>> > > > Koopowitz<BR>> > > > Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 12:37 PM<BR>> > > > To: General pattern discussion<BR>> > > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > I don't see an issue with this... we will put a sticker on all <BR>> > items<BR>> > > > including all packs that a competitor will use. If a competitor <BR>> > really<BR>> > > > wants to cheat then they will do it... nothing we can do will <BR>> > stop > that.<BR>> > > > I'm also hoping that random inspections will keep people honest <BR>> > and > the fear<BR>> > > > that if you do fail then you will be disqualified.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Jay Marshall <BR>> > <lightfoot@sc.rr.com> > wrote:<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > I have some concern that the proposals put forward will really <BR>> > work.<BR>> > > > If the plane is inspected at check-in then there is too much > <BR>> > opportunity to<BR>> > > > change things. In particular, batteries, which are a normally > <BR>> > removable<BR>> > > > item, can be changed to decrease on increase the weight. Do we <BR>> > > "sticker" the<BR>> > > > battery pack? This means the plane must be disassembled for > <BR>> > inspection and<BR>> > > > that only that battery pack can be used. At present fuel tanks <BR>> > can > also be<BR>> > > > under/over filled to adjust ballast for windy conditions.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > If this is a serious problem, perhaps there are other solutions.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Planes could be placed in an impound/inspection area immediately<BR>> > > > before a flight and fully fueled. The inspection could happen <BR>> > here and<BR>> > > > shouldn't delay the flow of the contest.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Another possibility is to adopt a "standard" weight for a battery<BR>> > > > pack, then weigh electric planes empty. The "standard" could <BR>> > change as<BR>> > > > technology changes.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > As John Pavlick will tell you, all major race winners undergo a<BR>> > > > teardown and inspection.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Jay Marshall<BR>> > > ><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>> > > > _______________________________________________<BR>> > > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > > > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<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>> > > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > > > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>> > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<BR>> > > > Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.43/2280 - Release <BR>> > Date: > 08/03/09 17:56:00<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>> > > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > > > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----<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>> > > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > > > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > ><BR>> > > _______________________________________________<BR>> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > > _______________________________________________<BR>> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<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>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR><br /><hr />Get free photo software from Windows Live <a href='http://www.windowslive.com/online/photos?ocid=PID23393::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_PH_software:082009' target='_new'>Click here.</a></body>
</html>