<html><body>
<DIV>Lots of us are concened about the high cost of competing at the top levels, and the medium and lower levels too. That concern is part of my rationale to not raise weight limits.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But.... raising weight limits only a little (1 lb??) could allow an existing pattern bird design that got a little heavy in construction, or subsequent repairs, to remain in use and save the bucks for a new bird. Or save the bucks for carbon parts. Or allows use of a cheaper but heaver OS1.60. So what's the problem with that? Nothing in the short term. In the longer term, designers will use the extra weight allowance for a second wing, or larger fuselage side area, etc. The slightly larger bird will present better, likely fly better, etc. A look at history shows the pattern community will gravitate to the bigger bird. At that point, were back to the present quandry, but with a bigger bird. (and we loose consistency with F3A) </DIV>
<DIV>A couple of years ago when the weight limit was last debated, someone in this forum referred to it as Un Intended consequences. That person still here??</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Later, Ron Lockhart</DIV>
<DIV>-------------- Original message -------------- <BR></DIV>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bob,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Take off that flame suit so I can give you a hug. That is exactly how I feel about this. This sport is already prohibatively expensive to compete at the top levels.</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=rcaerobob@cox.net href="mailto:rcaerobob@cox.net">Bob Pastorello</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 7:28 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Rules of our event can either be made to be "inclusive" or "exclusive", and can be written to guarantee costs of operation that Joe Average GOOD Aerobatic pilot (the guy that we DESPERATELY want in the game) simply will not afford, given his two job, two kids, two mortgage, two car lifestyle demands.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>We either face the perception (notice my choice of words, gentlemen, please!!!!) of being "exclusive" (read "prohibitively costly") or "inclusive" (read the Joe Average Aerobat can afford to play).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Unfortunately, it is OUR choice, and that means a choice from within the game, and that means it probably will not change, because we are corporately POSITIVELY, ABSOLUTELY *BLIND* to the perceptions that are out there.</FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><BR>I expect practically none of you to agree. But perhaps you will ponder to possible factuality of my statements.</DIV>
<DIV></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2> Thanks for reading. Flame suit on.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>Bob Pastorello<BR>NSRCA 199 AMA 46373<BR><A href="mailto:rcaerobob@cox.net">rcaerobob@cox.net</A><BR><A href="http://www.rcaerobats.net/">www.rcaerobats.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE 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=natpenton@centurytel.net href="mailto:natpenton@centurytel.net">Nat Penton</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 6:06 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Gray, you're making me cry.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE 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=gfowler@raytheon.com href="mailto:gfowler@raytheon.com">Gray E Fowler</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 3:25 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Here comes the dreaded weight debate again....</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Consider this-Anyone in the upper level classes would not be too smart to have a plane heavier than it needs to be. But, lets pretend there is a hot new Sportsman named uh lets see..... Chuck. Chuck tears up 401 after 3 contests, and he is flying his best airplane that most FAI guys would consider a toy (and I do not mean the "foamie toys" pictured in last months Model Aviation being held by a guy named "Chuck") and so moving up to Intermediate halfway thru his first season, last 3 contests were quite a challenge, BUT he places in 402 anyway!</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>In the off season, he saves his pennies, keeps his wife happy and gets a used REAL pattern plane, built by someone who has a slight heavy hand, and alas it weighs 11.5 lbs. Now this here Chuck is good and pumped up and I would place money that this theoretical person could place at the NATS, but his plane is over weight!!!!! one more !</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Sorry Chuck, even though you are flying at a disadvantage, we will not let you play at the NATS........Oh unless you can spend $2k more on another plane. </FONT><BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>The story you have just read is about to be true, once we do not let Chuck fly at this years NATS. But at least the French FAI rule makers are happy.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Consider a weight change. It does not need to be across the board and for the life of me I cannot imagine why it needs to align with FAI. Chuck will have a 5Kg plane <B>BY THE TIME HE REACHES FAI-</B>and the French can be happy then<B>.</B><BR><BR><BR><BR>Gray Fowler<BR>Principal Chemical Engineer<BR>Composites Engineering</FONT> <BR><BR><BR>
<TABLE width="100%">
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<TD><FONT face=sans-serif size=1><B>"Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm@paragon-inc.com></B></FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>Sent by: discussion-request@nsrca.org</FONT>
<P><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>02/08/2005 01:47 PM</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>Please respond to discussion</FONT> <BR></P>
<TD><FONT face=Arial size=1> </FONT><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=1> To: <discussion@nsrca.org></FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=1> cc: </FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=1> Subject: RE: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey</FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><BR><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><BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now, with unlimited engine size...weight, and in some cases size, has become the constraining factor.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><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> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><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 ne
ver 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> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><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> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>-Mark</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<B><BR>From:</B> discussion-request@nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org]<B>On Behalf Of </B>DaveL322@comcast.net<B><BR>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:01 PM<B><BR>To:</B> discussion@nsrca.org<B><BR>Subject:</B> *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey<BR></FONT><BR><FONT size=3>Buddy,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3>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.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3>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.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT si
ze=3>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.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3>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?</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3>Regards,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3><BR>Dave Lockhart</FONT> <BR><A href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net"><FONT color=blue size=3><U>DaveL322@comcast.net</U></FONT></A> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3>-------------- Original message -------------- </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial color=#8000ff size=2>In a message dated 2/8/2005 8:02:54 AM Central Standard Time, donramsey@cox-internet.com writes:</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial 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> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Email me offline at </FONT><A href="mailto:donramsey@cox-internet.com"><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><U>donramsey@cox-internet.com</U></FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2> with your ideas.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Don</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>&
nbsp;</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial color=#8000ff size=2> </FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial color=#8000ff size=2>Don</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial color=#8000ff size=2>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 <B>not </B>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. </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial color=#8000ff size=2>Buddy </FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial color=#8000ff size=2> </FONT> <BR><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.<BR>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.<BR>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date: 1/17/2005<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.<BR>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.<BR>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date: 1/17/2005<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>