Mike,<br> Agreed but inflation is across the board regardless of what discipline you fly. Certain facets are increasing in popularity an others are not.<br><br>Scott<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Michael S. Harrison <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:drmikedds@sbcglobal.net">drmikedds@sbcglobal.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Has anybody considered inflation? i doubt the cost of pattern
has gone up any, but inflation makes it seem so. however, going out to buy
custom built custom painted airplanes is going to drive your personal costs up.
So pattern is not driving that cost, the flyers choice to buy these custom jobs
is expensive. otherwise, the cost is probably no more or even less.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">mike <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Scott
McHarg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 13, 2012 9:17 AM</span></p><div class="im"><br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals<u></u><u></u></div><p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">I'd also like to take just a
moment to look at the rising costs of pattern in a different light. What
really drove up the costs of pattern? I suggest that turnaround pattern
is what really drove up the costs. There were no more horizon to horizon
slow rolls and your base altitude being 10 feet AGL. Now, we have to fly
in a box that is covered in 5 seconds flat end to end and with .60 size
aircraft, you had to pour the coals to it in order to keep your speed up to
make your next vertical. Now, we need to slow down and have more power at
the same time to accomplish the same thing. Sure, there's other reasons
the 4C came to be the norm but really, I remember the move from AMA pattern to
turnaround. Everyone that was excited about turnaround was excited about
4C engines because it allowed you to swing a bigger prop. A bigger prop
meant slower flight, slower equaled more controlled down lines. More
power meant you were able to start using throttle control and not have an
engine that was either on or off. I submit to you that this is also why
we went from the first 2M pattern ship era such as the Typhoon and
others. A bigger plane with a wider body meant slower flight and the
ability to be on your side aka knife-edge at a slower speed without falling out
of the sky. Now, fast-forward to today. The Contra drive is leading
to even slower flight and t<span style="color:#1f497d">..</span>he ability to
fly closer in because everything is slowing down. My point here is
that I remember the mass exodus from pattern. I submit to you that it was
not due to 4C engines but turnaround itself. The fact turnaround requires
you to fly in a box at 150 meters requires fatter planes, slower speeds and
bigger props to accomplish all this. Besides the fact that biplanes are
very cool looking, why do we think that facet of airframe design is starting to
come in to play more than ever before? Because they fly slower, because,
if flown well, they present better to our peers and judges (my opinion
only). Chip Hyde is going back to a bipe, Brett W. is going to the Hebert
Alferma, etc. I'm just pointing out that possibly the cost of pattern and
the increase of everything is not due to a rules change but essentially,
turnaround itself.<u></u><u></u></p><div><div class="h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Scott McHarg <<a href="mailto:scmcharg@gmail.com" target="_blank">scmcharg@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bob,<br>
I think one thing that everyone is either dismissing or not
considering is this: Pattern is not driven by AMA classes. Pattern
is strictly driven by FAI as FAI is worldwide. If a manufacturer were to
develop new technology for the United States AMA class, they would essentially
exclude themselves from the rest of the pattern market worldwide. No
manufacturer is going to take advantage of a rule that only effects the AMA
classes. If FAI ever decides to change the rules, that's when you will
see a change to pattern as a whole. Granted, the US is different in that
FAI is not "the only" destination class. In the rest of the
world, you are nobody if you are flying the development classes and
"may" become somebody once you are in FAI. The rest of the
world "awards" the ability to fly in FAI. You don't just
randomly decide to go fly it. You must earn that right. So,
basically new technology is not going to be developed because of an AMA-only
rules change. AMA has essentially stuck by what FAI has done always as
the thought process was everyone wanted to make it to FAI. That's no so
much the case any more. Dave Lockhart even said in an email to us all
that flat out, FAI (or the top guys) drive what even the beginners do and buy
and try (simply paraphrased). That tells us even more so that this would
not change the face of pattern. Sure, there's going to be some
extraordinary people here in the US that have the desire to try new things to
take advantage of the weight rule. Will it so severely impact pattern
that more change will be necessary? Doubtful.<br>
<br>
Just a thought and hopefully to get y'all thinking about that facet as well.<br>
<br>
With a due respect,<br>
Scott<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Bob Richards <<a href="mailto:bob@toprudder.com" target="_blank">bob@toprudder.com</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in" valign="top">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dave,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">That shows how much I have been paying attention. I
thought all AMA classes were limited to 5kg now. With the 115 gram allowance,
I don't see the need for a change. But I still don't see why people are
getting so heated up over it.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">You do bring up a good point about the 4S rule, though. We
keep reacting to technology with new rules, and the technology keeps reacting
to the rules with new equipment. I guess it is a part of competition that we
have to learn to accept. If we accept it, then maybe we can get out of this
reactionary cycle. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Back when they removed the displacement limit, I figured
that it would make the engines less expensive. I was wrong. But I also
predicted that the weight would then become the limiting factor and the
airframe expense would go up. Generally, I think I was right with that one.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Every time someone suggested that a rules change would
result in less expense, it probably hasn't and in fact may have cause more
expense in the long run. In fact, I think your earlier statement about every
rules change to increase size/weight limits having resulted in more expensive
models is generally accurate. I would not have thought so 10 years ago, but I
guess history has taught us that lesson.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">One can argue that leaving the size/weight rules alone can
actually decrease the cost. In the manufacturer's eyes, a rules change will
obsolete existing equipment. Think about it - in most cases the manufacturers
will change their designs to try to take advantage of the rules. They will
have to spend more of their money bring new products to the market - an
expense that is passed on to the pilot. If they could stop shooting at
a moving target they might start trying to recoup their cost over lots of
1000 instead of lots of 100. Maybe. I just hope the domestic
manufacturers figure that out before China does. :-)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bob R.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
--- On <b>Mon, 3/12/12, Dave Lockhart <i><<a href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net" target="_blank">DaveL322@comcast.net</a>></i></b>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #1010ff 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
From: Dave Lockhart <<a href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net" target="_blank">DaveL322@comcast.net</a>><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">To: "'General pattern discussion'" <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Date: Monday, March 12, 2012, 6:59 PM<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">The
proposed weight change is for all AMA classes. We already have an
allowance of 115 grams for hand-me-downs…..if that is an important aspect,
then why not make it 5615 grams for Advanced, Intermediate, and Sportsman?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">“</span>The
fact is that the proposed rule does not exclude any planes that are
already legal.”<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">And the fact is that the 120 4C rule did not exclude 60
2C….but they rapidly became uncompetitive once the competition variety 4Cs
were developed.</span> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I see the electric vs glow aspect a completely moot point…..it
will all be electric (or close to it) soon enough….even with rules that many
feel are biased against electric.</span> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Having the weight limit on the books, and checking it at the
NATs is what keeps the playing field level. Same as having a noise rule
keeps the planes quiet, even if it not checked locally.</span> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Regards,</span>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><br>
Dave L</span> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of
</b>Bob Richards<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:22 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals</span> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in" valign="top">
<div>
<p>Guys,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p>For the life of me, I can't see why everyone is getting bent out of
shape over the proposed weight limt rule for the lower classes. It
opens up the possibilities for someone wanting to get started in pattern
and competing in the lower classes, IMHO. If someone in the upper
classes has a plane that is at the weight limit, but is unable to repair
the plane without it going over the limit, then it becomes a perfect
hand-me-down for someone getting started. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p>The fact is that the proposed rule does not exclude any planes that
are already legal. The guys that build light know they should have a better
flying plane than one that is heavier. The only reason I can think of that
people with light planes can get upset with this rule is that someone with
a heavier plane might beat them. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p>OTOH, how often are models weighed at local contests? I never saw it
done in the years I flew, but that was before the electrics came on the
scene. Tell me, does any CD weigh planes at a local event now? If not, then
I am really confused about weight limit discussions where someone says
it is ruining things to raise the weight limit, when no one is checking it
at local contests anyway. Why all the fuss (one way or the other) about a
rule that no one enforces except at the Nats?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p>I really don't have a dog in this hunt. I'm just confused about all the
strongly worded comments going back and forth. This, IMHO, does more to
turn people off from pattern than any rule change proposal.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Bob R.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
</div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span><span style="color:#888888">-- </span></span><span style="color:#888888"><br>
</span><span><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:#3333ff">Scott A. McHarg</span></b></span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
<b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:#3333ff">Scott
A. McHarg</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">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></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><b style="color:rgb(51,51,255)"><font style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif" size="4">Scott A. McHarg</font></b><br>
<br>