<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sorry this is long but this issue is an important
one.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>At one time I was all in favor of an increase in
weight limit to 11.5 or 12 pounds. Today, I'm leaning towards leaving
the 11 pound limit in place. I built an EMC after flying Dave's EMC's and let me
tell you, to build a large 2M plane using conventional ( read low cost )
materials like fiberglass, foam, plywood and balsa can be a challenge. It
requires careful planning to put only what is really required in the plane for
structure and durability and careful selection of fixed items like hardware,
radio gear, engine, pipe, etc. Painting has to be closely monitored. But the 11
pound limit is very doable. My current EMC is down to 10 pounds 9 ounces and I
believe the second one I can build at maybe 10 pounds 6 ounces. That's a $400
basic kit with maybe $200 worth of wood/plywood/endgrain balsa, etc. in the
structure. Where the real $$ is spent is in "lite" versions of fixed
hardware like CF wing and stab tubes, CF landing gear, CF tuned pipe, Mintor
head and Perf Specialties AAC piston/liner assembly ( my OS 140 RX weighs 26.3
ounces ), special batteries, etc. I have a Hanson rotomount in my EMC that
weighs less than 3 ounces with hardware, no extra $$ spent there but a lot of
labor. So, the 11 pound limit is achievable with a "conventional material" kit
of a large 2M plane at a relatively low cost for the airframe. It still requires
higher $$ hardware to outfit the plane to ensure an 11 pound or under result,
the same higher $$ hardware one typically outfits a composite
airframe with also. The newer composite airframes such as Dave's Vivat's
are from the get go, lighter and as such open up the possibility of electric
power ( a 12 ounce penalty over glow power ) OR a</FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2> super light, under 10 pound glow powered large 2M plane. Would I
notice the flying difference between a 9.75 pound EMC over a 10.5 pound
EMC ??? Yes, I think so. Would I be able to capitalize on that ?? Would I
be now be a threat in Master's ?? Doubtful. The top of the heap like the
Lockhart's, Hyde's, Newman's, etc. are so very close they need every tiny bit of
advantage they can beg, borrow or steal. The more "average" Joe pattern guy just
needs to make the weight limit as 3/4 pound of extra airframe weight is the
least of our worries. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>At this point in the game, to me, an increase in
the weight limit MAY help the pattern newbie "buy an off the shelf ARF" and
assemble with the best value accessories which may result in an over 11 pound
plane, a plane that newbie will be plenty competitive with until their eyes,
thumbs and fingers get to that top of the heap plateau. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The problem is the current best of the best
potentially will leverage that weight limit increase into yet an even
higher level of cost and complexity that the rest of us, over time will be
chasing. I believe we've experienced that scenario though the 90's and it is at
least partially responsible for the dwindling interest in our sport.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ed M.</FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=DaveL322@comcast.net href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">David
Lockhart</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 08, 2005 10:25
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules
Survey</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Todd,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Always nice to see some quantified
data.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As a point of reference, I built a pair of Dick
Hanson EMCs a few years ago - full 2M planes. Glass fuse with balsa
crutch, clear canopy with pilot and details, aluminum landing gear w/ FG
wheelpants, foam/balsa wings. CF pipe and wingtube, and 2 6v720mah Nimh
batteries w/ 2 switches, all flushmount / hidden hatches/fasteners.
10.75 lbs. Plenty strong to make it through 1500 flights of FAI
sequences. If I built them again, I think with a little work I could get
them down to 10.25 lbs, maybe 10 even.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I am currently flying a pair of Vivats which are
basically a FG/balsa/FG composite with limited CF and Kevlar
reinforcement. My #2 plane uses an aluminum pipe and 2 Nimh batteries
and 2 switches - it is 9 lbs 13 oz and all paint. I think I could trim
it down to 9.5 lbs if I wanted to.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If the 11 lb envelope is being pushed (and I
think it is for some of the planes out there), it is a result of allowing
unlimited displacement engines. So from this point -</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>- do nothing and accept the idea that competitors
will always push the limits, or,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>- increase the weight limit, and watch the cost
and complexity escalate another level and eventually push the new limits,
or,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>- re-instate a displacement limit, and reduce the
cost and complexity, and push the displacement limit which is arguably a safer
limit to push.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It makes sense to me.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><BR>Dave Lockhart</DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A></DIV>
<DIV></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=tschmidt@classicnet.net href="mailto:tschmidt@classicnet.net">Todd
Schmidt</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 08, 2005 10:14
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules
Survey</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I really don't see how raising the weight limit
to 12 or 12.5 would increase the cost of pattern as long as the size
limitations are in place. As stated by several, the materials used in
today's ships to keep them underweight is driving the
cost up. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG>Standard Glass Cloth Composite
Construction</STRONG> ($5-$7 per yard) You cannot make
a 2M fuse strong <STRONG>AND</STRONG> light enough to make weight
using this stuff. You can probably come close, but it'll be a noodle
that won't last and <STRONG>in the long
run </STRONG>will cost simply because you're plane won't
last.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So, now you see 2M planes made with Kevlar ($44
per yard) and Carbon ($80 per yard) in order to keep weight
down. Not only are these materials more expensive, they're harder to
work with, which increases labor costs. No wonder ZN and PL kits are so
expensive.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I make my own composite fuselages using a
mixture of glass, Kevlar, carbon and foam much like the ZN and PL
kits. The material cost for one fuselage will run between $200 to $250
and take approx.12 hours of labor to lay-up. I'd hate to try and make a
living in the US making these things!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The latest is the TAVS fuselage. Light,
Stiff, and <STRONG>FRAGILE</STRONG>. This is a new technology driven
by the weight limit IMO. Some are failing and we the consumer bare the
price and inconvenience of being the R&D for
the manufactures. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bottom line, the 11 pound weight limit is the
same as when our birds were much smaller. I think we have pushed this
envelope to its limit and it proving to be costly and unsafe.
Just my opinion.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Todd Schmidt</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=atwoodm@paragon-inc.com
href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com">Atwood, Mark</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:47
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: *SPAM* Re: Rules
Survey</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial size=2>I have to
agree 100% with Dave on this one. I'd also like to add that in
addition to raising the cost...it doesn't acheive the objective. Any
and all sports that have limitations of this type (Sailing comes to mind
with complex formulas that define the class of boat) ALWAYS have one
critical limiting factor. For us it USE to be the engine. We
had a weight restriction...but it was meaningless because you couldn't
approach it with the power options that we had. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now, with
unlimited engine size...weight, and in some cases size, has become the
constraining factor.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial size=2>In all
cases...there are always those with the talent and money to take the rules
to the limit. We will always be chasing them, and trying to acheive
what they acheive. It's great to say that raising the weight
limit will allow more "stock" models to compete... But my bet
is that someone creative and talented will make use of that rule in a way
that others can't easily follow...and will again have competitive
advantage. And as Dave so aptly pointed out...it will
cost the rest of us more money.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial size=2>Steve Maxwell
has made the best suggestion to date. I for one have NEVER
seen a sportsman pilot denied admission to an event based on the weight of
their plane. Size, yes (we turned away a few 30% planes for safety
reasons) but never just on weight. In fact...I've never seen ANYONE
weight a plane at any event other than the Nat's finals. So I
think we could EASILY acheive the objective with a simple statement that
alters the current "intent" from one where the CD CAN change the rule...to
one that implies the CD USUALLY changes the rule.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial size=2>I dont recall
Steve's language, but it was simple and to the point so I'll paraphrase...
" CD's often/usually alter (or wave) the weight restriction for the
sportsman class...please contact them for details".
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2>-Mark</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
discussion-request@nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org]<B>On
Behalf Of </B>DaveL322@comcast.net<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 08,
2005 1:01 PM<BR><B>To:</B> discussion@nsrca.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> *SPAM*
Re: Rules Survey<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Buddy,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Deliberately segregating FAI and AMA is counterproductive. We
need all the pattern fliers we can get, and we need a common target for
the limited number of manufacturers and suppliers we have. I would
never suggest AMA pattern rules blindly follow FAI, but there would have
to be a huge benefit to US pattern before I would advocate moving away
from the FAI in the US.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>FAI pilots in the US have made many contributions to AMA pattern in
the US and I think most pattern pilots in the US would agree that the FAI
pilots are a resource to all of pattern in the US. Cutting FAI
pilots out of AMA pattern issues is losing a resource. And I think
you'd have a hard time doing it in practice - many pilots bounce back and
forth between FAI and Masters - there is no rule against it as they are
different systems with common elements.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If there is no valid reason to oppose an increase in the weight
limit, it seems strange to me that the majority has repeatedly voted to
keep the weight limit as is. Anyone who chooses to look at the
history of the "limiting" rules for pattern (weight, size, displacement)
can pretty easily see what the net result has been anytime the limits have
been increased. For those not familiar with the rules history of
pattern, the most basic of points I am alluding to is cost - any increase
in the limits results in an increase in the cost of the average pattern
plane - not something that is productive for our event.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This list and numerous other publications have contained many ideas,
rationales, and discussions opposed to increasing the weight limit for
close to 20 years (that I know of). Perhaps you could share your
thoughts as to why those ideas, rationales, and discussions are not
valid?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Dave Lockhart</DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">--------------
Original message -------------- <BR>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR><FONT
id=role_document face=Arial color=#8000ff size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 2/8/2005 8:02:54 AM Central Standard Time,
donramsey@cox-internet.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Ok everyone, here's your chance. What would
you like to see changed in the regulations for precision
aerobatics? Up the weight limit, change the box, score takeoff
and landings, etc?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Email me offline at <A
title=mailto:donramsey@cox-internet.com
href="mailto:donramsey@cox-internet.com">donramsey@cox-internet.com</A>
with your ideas.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Don</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Don</DIV>
<DIV>As an after thought it would be interesting for those who oppose a
weight change to state their reasons for opposing it so the benefits to
pattern can be evaluated for each case. I cannot come up with a
valid reason <STRONG>not </STRONG>To change the rule. It would also be
interesting to know if opposition comes from a specific group. Since
this change does not apply to FAI it is my opinion that votes from those
in that group should not be used to sway the vote in Any NSRCA survey
that would effect the submission of an AMA rules change proposal
since these do not apply to FAI rules changes. </DIV>
<DIV>Buddy </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>