<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'><P>Hi Mike,</P>
<P> </P>
<P>The limit has to do with the international competition limit for RC model airplanes that is 5 Kg. I learned this in a good way the first time I went to the Nats and visit the museum. During the visit a curator approached us and offer to give us a tour which was great. During the tour he got a call from a guy claiming that he broke the altitude record with RC sailplane. Guess what was the first question he asked: Is your sailplane below 5 Kgs? Then of course he asked: what altitude you got? He said that there was another record better than that and the sailplane is been displayed in the museum. I know now that there is only one exception to this rule for the scale international competition which is higher but I don't remember the exact number. How the 5kg was selected by FAI? I don't know. Probably easy to transport from one country to another could be the very first reason. </P>
<DIV><SPAN name="x"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN name="x">Best,</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Vicente "Vince" Bortone<SPAN name="x"></SPAN><BR></DIV><BR>
<HR id=zwchr>
<B>From: </B>"Michael S. Harrison" <drmikedds@sbcglobal.net><BR><B>To: </B>"General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR><B>Sent: </B>Friday, March 9, 2012 1:59:53 PM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals<BR><BR>With all the greatest respect to your opinion, I believe the current weight<BR>rule is comparable to requiring only a certain type of paint be allowed on<BR>an airplane. It simply has no bearing on anything we do in pattern. There<BR>are still certain limits to the weight in place with this new rule and it is<BR>simply modified to allow some breathing room for us all. I have planes that<BR>are not legal because someone thinks 11 pounds is the proper weight. What<BR>is the scientific basis for that limit? It is certainly not safer, it does<BR>not cost more, in fact the 11 lb limit issue has become absurdly expensive.<BR>I applaud the NSRCA for stepping up to make this change.<BR>Mike<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of<BR>mjfrederick@cox.net<BR>Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 12:03 PM<BR>To: General pattern discuss<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals<BR><BR>I second what Stuart is saying here. I've kept my mouth shut just observing<BR>throughout all this discussion mainly because I'm not a member of the NSRCA.<BR>Why am I not a member? I can't remember the last time the NSRCA represented<BR>my interests. To propose a weight rule change is a huge mistake. Hopefully<BR>the contest board has better sense (and experience) than the NSRCA<BR>leadership. Being the AMA-recognized special interest group for Pattern is a<BR>huge responsibility. Changes to what we do should not be taken lightly, nor<BR>should they be left up to a 50% + 1 vote on a website. Sometimes leadership<BR>and experience need to step in and stand up to those who are barking the<BR>loudest about not being able to make weight. In this instance, the squeaky<BR>wheel doesn't necessarily deserve the grease. Well, whetever. It's not like<BR>I would just stop flying pattern if a weight increase was passed, but I<BR>think it would tarnish the image of pattern. Perhaps irrevocably. Once a<BR>change like this happ<BR> ens, it cannot ever be taken back. Let's say 2 - 3 years from now as<BR>battery technology continues to improve (because let's face it, the only<BR>people who want weight limit increases are electric guys), and the batteries<BR>get lighter and lighter, you may have now given electric planes an<BR>advantage. Rules are already in place to allow anyone to try pattern without<BR>needing to make weight. Rules were recently passed to allow the lower<BR>classes a variance so that they get a little leeway as they move up. Leave<BR>things alone, and the technology will catch up to the rules, as it always<BR>has in the past (2-stroke to 4-stroke migration).<BR><BR>Matt<BR><BR>---- Stuart Chale <schale1@verizon.net> wrote: <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></div></body></html>