<!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 6.00.2900.2604" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You guys need to leave well enough alone.
With the unlimited engines a higher weight limit is just going to ecourage
larger more expenseive airplanes. That will amount to fewer
flyers.</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 4:25
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></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 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> <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 size=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> </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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>