<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<div>
<div>+1 Trillion </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="x_composer_signature">Matthew E Finley
<div>Q.C.I Technical Assistant</div>
<div>248-794-8487 mobile </div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-------- Original message --------</div>
<div>From: Curt Oberg via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org> </div>
<div>Date: 1/27/17 7:18 PM (GMT-05:00) </div>
<div>To: 'lucky macy' <luckymacy@hotmail.com>, 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>
</div>
<div>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Time to lobby those that will vote for the next change of rules. I have<br>
officially proposed eliminating the weight restrictions for Sportsman,<br>
Intermediate, and Advanced classes. Logically, these lower classes are<br>
stepping stones to Masters and FAI classes, classes where the more serious<br>
and talented flyers migrate and eventually MIGHT participate in<br>
International competitions where the 5000 gram limit is accepted and<br>
undisputed. I wonder how many flyers that have shown up for an<br>
international competition failed to make weight? Bottom line is that the<br>
5000 gram limit is an arbitrary weight that someone imposed a long time ago.<br>
What's wrong with raising it to 5500 grams or better yet, eliminating it<br>
altogether. Considering the decline in pattern flying across the country,<br>
I believe that we should do everything we can to encourage the lower class<br>
flyers to participate, including at the NAT's. These lower class flyers<br>
are generally NOT the ones with Contra drives, they may have APC props and<br>
Gater products Flo Thru spinners instead of the Falcon carbon fiber<br>
products. Their battery packs are most likely not the ultra light weight,<br>
twice as expensive battery packs that you will find in the upper echelon<br>
classes. They are the ones that might not grease in every landing and have<br>
multiple weight increasing repairs to their planes, a plane that might not<br>
make weight right out of the box in the first place. It doesn't take an<br>
Einstein to figure out that if you don't have a teeming and active group of<br>
lower class pattern flyers, it's only a matter of time when you will have no<br>
new entrants into the Masters and FAI classes and when that occurs, will the<br>
last one out please turn off the lights.<br>
<br>
Curt Oberg<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: NSRCA-discussion [<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] On<br>
Behalf Of lucky macy via NSRCA-discussion<br>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 5:31 PM<br>
To: Ronald Van Putte; General pattern discussion<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight<br>
<br>
Just get rid of the weight rule in the AMA classes and be done with it.<br>
Build the plane as light or heavy as you want. AJ or Shulman could still<br>
fly a 12 pound plane and beat probably 99% of folks on this list no matter<br>
what you flew...just sayin<br>
<br>
Not worth the debate in the AMA ckasses<br>
<br>
> On Jan 27, 2017, at 5:03 PM, Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion<br>
<nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Typo in second paragraph. Should have been 5000gm, not 50000gm. Sorry.<br>
> <br>
> Ron <br>
> <br>
>> On Jan 27, 2017, at 3:57 PM, Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion<br>
<nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org> wrote:<br>
>> <br>
>> Something has been nagging me since the 2011 F3A World Championships.<br>
The decision was made, over the objections of the official weighers (John<br>
Fuqua and me), that airplanes would be allowed to weigh 1% more than the<br>
listed maximum weight of 50000gm, or 50gm.<br>
>> <br>
>> The argument was that it "allowed for possible inconsistencies in<br>
measuring equipment". We objected because we had purchased calibration<br>
weights and had them verified by the Precision Measurement Equipment<br>
Laboratory on Eglin AFB (at the cost of a sixpack of beer per set of<br>
calibration weights). That meant we knew exactly what the airplanes<br>
weighed.<br>
>> <br>
>> Now to the current situation. Currently, AMA classes have a 1% weight<br>
tolerance, or 50gm. Suppose a contestant's model actually weighs 5050gm,<br>
but the weighing equipment is in error by 25 grams. So the scales would<br>
measure the contestant's airplane at 5075gm. Remember that the 15 allowance<br>
is for "possible inconsistencies in measuring equipment". The contestant's<br>
airplane is "too heavy".<br>
>> <br>
>> Something to think about.<br>
>> <br>
>> Ron Van Putte<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
>> <a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
> <a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>