...and participation had already plummeted.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Dave Lockhart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.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">If your premise is true…..<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><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Turnaround and 4C were well established when the unlimited displacement rule went into effect. And costs went up (again).<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><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Regards,<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><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Dave L<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><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 10:17 AM</span></p><div><div class="h5"><br><b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals<u></u><u></u></div></div><p></p><div><div class="h5">
<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 the 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><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>