<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><base href="x-msg://703/"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>So Dave, You going to start flying an 8 ½ lb. Hebert Patriot or a 2M something else from the late 1990’s with a YS 175 CDI? Based on your power to weight ratio theory that combination would be much better than what you have now.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><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"'> nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dave Lockhart<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 12, 2012 7:09 PM<br><b>To:</b> 'General pattern discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The benchmark for performance is being set in large part by the planes (and equipment) with the best power to weight ratio. That will never change at any weight limit…..but, increased size will be matched by increased cost (and size is currently limited by weight).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The best glow and electric examples are comparable for setting the performance bar. The last glow I flew took off at 10.5 pounds….not much different than my 10.25 pound electric now (which has better performance).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Dave L<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><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"'> nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dave Burton<br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:04 PM<br><b>To:</b> 'General pattern discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>IMO you are dead wrong about the motivation for changing the weight limit. At least for me, it’s about cost that buys me no advantage and the inequity between EP and GP.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Every GP airplane takes off at 12 lbs + legally. In order to take off at 11 lbs with my EP plane I have to buy expensive Cf components, aftermarket wings not part of the original plane, extremely low capacity batteries, expensive CF props, and on and on $$$ to make weight. And what advantage does it buy me?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>If the older 2M planes that weighted easily under 11 lbs were better flying than current designs we would all be flying them. But they don’t fly as well so we don’t use them anymore. Why would I want to fly one - just to make 11 lbs cheaper? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Dave<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><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">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a> <a href="mailto:[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]">[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]</a> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Mark Atwood<br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:36 AM<br><b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Simply put, if SIZE was indeed the limiting factor, that would be the constraint that people would be trying to adjust. It's not. People are hitting the weight limit because they're trying to go bigger and bigger. As Dave pointed out, there are LOTS of FULL 2M planes that would come in under 10lbs, much less 11lbs, from days of old. <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>Mark Atwood</span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>Paragon Consulting, Inc.</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'> </span><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>|</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'> President</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124</span><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>Phone: 440.684.3101 x102 </span><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>|</span></b><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'> Fax: 440.684.3102</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1351F3'><a href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a> </span><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>|</span></b><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1351F3'><a href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/">www.paragon-inc.com</a></span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mar 11, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Dave Lockhart wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:13.5pt'><span class=apple-style-span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I see lots of points below about why to NOT increase the weight limit.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>With respect to the aircraft size being limited by size, that is simply not the case. If that were true, we’d still be flying 9 lb 78” long Prophecies from 1998. We aren’t, we are flying much larger volume BIGGER planes than weigh more and cost more. The history is very clear on this and easy enough to research. Size has not been and is still not the limiting factor.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I’m not hypothesizing about reductions in numbers being associated with rules changes…..the history is very clear….and most have never returned.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I think you are correct – if some of the “behavior” on this list were evidenced in person, it would turn off new flyers. However, I think much of the “behavior” was literary license, exaggeration, etc to make a point(s).</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><br>Dave L</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'><a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]">[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]</a><span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>Peter Vogel<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Sunday, March 11, 2012 10:52 AM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>General pattern discussion<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Weight limit increase: Why is it a mistake? Given the size limitations in place, there's a practical limit on the wing loading above which the plane is going to fly like crap, people who take care with their weight will have an advantage, people who don't won't, but can fly their plane and compete. It's easy to make weight even at relatively low cost given airframes like the 2M Vanquish and the 2M Osiris. If you are concerned about the craftsmanship aspect of making weight with a hand-built plane, that horse left the barn long ago since the builder of the model rule hasn't applied to pattern as far back as I can find rules. I have thought it a _little_ unfair that the fuel guys get to weigh in empty and the electric guys have to weigh in with batteries in place, but I get why that's the case, and, like I said, it's not hard to make weight. For the guys who choose to compete with a heavyweight plane, I don't doubt that as they learn more and advance in the sport they'll tune their plane to compete well and the plane will go on a diet or be replaced.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I'll be honest, I don't think the shrinkage (or growth) in competition is due to any rules change, yes, there will be the folks for whom all change is immediately bad and they may choose to leave, but I think if they truly enjoy competition, they'll adapt and move on. What fundamentally impacts the growth (or not) of the sport is the experience a new pilot has at his or her first few competitions. If the people they meet are friendly and welcoming, if performing in front of judges gets the adrenaline going and they enjoy the experience, then they'll stick around and may seek even more competitions then they'd planned (that's what happened to me). On the other hand, if the people they meet behave in person the way some of the people I've seen on this list behave, or they get elitist and start grousing about weight, or look at the new guy's plane and laugh about "pissing glue" then that person will not be back unless there's something deep in his DNA that is triggered by precisely controlling an aircraft through a sequence of maneuvers from the ground -- that person will come back no matter what others say and regardless of what rules do or do not change. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Peter+<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Dave Lockhart <<a href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Matt,<br><br>I agree 100% increasing the weight limit is a mistake, and I seriously<br>regret supporting the prior increase of 115 grams....it was just the first<br>step down a slippery slope.<br><br>I'd also note that it is not just the electric guys pushing for the weight<br>increase. In fact, it is much easier to make weight with electric today<br>than it was several years ago.<br><br>Of course you are 100% right about technology catching up IF things are left<br>alone. Of course the 115 gram change hasn't been in effect long enough to<br>see the full impact of it. Highest performance and lowest cost are two<br>ideas that never coexist no matter what the rules are.....but some don't<br>understand that.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Dave<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>[mailto:<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] On Behalf Of<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><a href="mailto:mjfrederick@cox.net">mjfrederick@cox.net</a><br>Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 1:03 PM<br>To: General pattern discussion<br>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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 ens, it cannot ever be taken back. Let's say 2 - 3<br>years from now as battery technology continues to improve (because let's<br>face it, the only people who want weight limit increases are electric guys),<br>and the batteries get lighter and lighter, you may have now given electric<br>planes an advantage. Rules are already in place to allow anyone to try<br>pattern without needing to make weight. Rules were recently passed to allow<br>the lower classes a variance so that they get a little leeway as they move<br>up. Leave things alone, and the technology will catch up to the rules, as it<br>always has in the past (2-stroke to 4-stroke migration).<br><br>Matt<br><br>---- Stuart Chale <<a href="mailto:schale1@verizon.net">schale1@verizon.net</a>> wrote:<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>_______________________________________________<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><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><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>--<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><img border=0 id="_x0000_i1025" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6513778381_5569cc985d_m.jpg"><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>_______________________________________________<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">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>