<br><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 9"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 9"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Bob/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_filelist.xml"><style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal">Personally, I’m for a weight increase, whether it’s a pound
or two or even unlimited as Dave advocates.<span style="">
</span>I think it would be good for the NSRCA by driving interest and new
technology.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m having a little problem understanding the logic of some
of the anti-weight arguments.<span style=""> </span>If you
are one that feels a pattern plane performs best with a YS 1.60 at 11 lbs then,
by all means, continue to compete with that setup.<span style=""> </span>However, the weight increase would allow others to take a hard
look at alternate power sources whether it be gas or electric.<span style=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Remember, we are talking a weight limit increase and not a
size increase.<span style=""> </span>The 2-meter rule insures
that the aircraft won’t escalate in cost like we see at IMAC.<span style=""> </span>However, if someone wants to design a new
biplane design to compensate for the added weight…so be it…go for it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The added weight would probably also drive new muffler,
accessories, airplane designs, and put pressure on suppliers to provide lighter
weight and more powerful gas engines.<span style="">
</span>The electric boys could expand their battery alternatives.<span style=""> </span>All are exciting prospects for the NSRCA,
which is admittedly hurting for new blood and interest.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As to cost, I think that argument is a non-starter.<span style=""> </span>When you factor in the cost of glow fuel
versus gas or electric power, 30% nitro is roughly 10 times more expensive than
gasoline.<span style=""> </span>Do the math…a season of
100-200 flights with gasoline is going to offset any perceived increase in
equipment costs.<span style=""> </span>Savings in fuel also
rapidly offsets the higher electric costs.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Finally, the 5kg (11 lb) limit was established back in the
1930’s for Free Flight airplanes.<span style="">
</span>Within the FAI/CIAM both RC Scale and RC Helicopters recognized the need
to change the rules.<span style=""> </span>Both did that with
increases to 7kg and 6kg respectively.<span style="">
</span>Certainly, pattern deserves the same consideration.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">Bob Wilson<br></p>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Gordon Anderson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:GAA@owt.com">GAA@owt.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Mike,<br>
<br>
Well said, I totally agree with your comments. I am one of the people who rarely comment.<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
--Gordon</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
mike mueller wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I have a hard time with a lot of the feedback that circulates on this email list. It's too limited by the amount of people who respond and the ones who do are usually the same guys. I find some of the ones that respond a lot to be closed minded and are never swayed by a good argument.<br>
I would warn people that asking for an opinion here may have a very different response than say RCU where you get a broader audience to sample from. I wish there was a way to get more people to respond with opinions. I fear many have been drivin away.<br>
I also wish we would all not be so quick to shoot down these opinions as it results in less people asking for one and sharing any thoughts with us.<br>
I enjoy an open discusssion with a lot of people chiming in.<br>
I respect the opinions of everyone and do what I can to listen to the points of both sides to form an opinion. Often the responses kill the debate.<br>
Listening is a skill.<br>
There are times when some of you could be wrong.<br>
Thanks for letting me share my thoughts.<br>
Mike Mueller<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>