<!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></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=435534614-09022005><FONT face=Arial size=2>As one of those
Former kit manufacturers...I have to agree. There's another component
though and that's shelf life. When I was making the Nemesis kits
(and subsequent Arch Nemesis) the modification to the kit year to year were
small. RULE CHANGES cause a LOT of work. When we changed the
displacement rules...Suddenly the top classes were flying VERY big
airplanes. The Nemesis was no longer competitive as it was designed to
handle the .61 long stroke motors and weigh about 8lbs.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=435534614-09022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=435534614-09022005><FONT face=Arial size=2>This is an expensive
undertaking for a cottage company...re-designing, test flying, redesigning
again...and again....and again....then finally you get something you like.
You have to make all new plugs, new molds, new drawings, new
instructions....oh...and order new boxes to ship in. A LOT of cost
when you may only hope to sell dozens, maybe a hundred of the new
kit.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=435534614-09022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=435534614-09022005><FONT face=Arial size=2>Even with
that...those designs lasted a few years... Now...you're lucky if they last
through the year. We talk about WEIGHT changes??? Everyone is
saying that the SIZE of the plane wouldn't change...I'm here to tell you, it
certainly would. My Arch was 78in by 78in...FULL 2m...and yet it looks
quite small compared to what's flying today. You could easily EASILY
build an Arch under 10lbs. So why aren't the lower class flyers
building and flying these full 2M birds????? My guess is
they're considered tooo small...and out of date.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=435534614-09022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=435534614-09022005><FONT face=Arial size=2>Raising the weight
limit would only turn Dave's Vivat into my Arch Nemesis...out of date, and too
small...and still 2M.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=435534614-09022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=435534614-09022005><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ok...I'm done
venting....lol Sorry.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=435534614-09022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=435534614-09022005><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>Gray E
Fowler<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, February 09, 2005 9:36 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
discussion@nsrca.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules
Survey<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Todd</FONT>
<BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>You said and are right on the money,
literally. As a kit manufacturer, I can tell you that there was more money to be
made in the solid laminate fuselage of 1999 era. The large body planes such as
the Symphony could not use solid glass laminate technology and be stiff enough.
To make it stiff enough would require much more weight. So we are forced to
fabricate sandwich structure, vacuum bagged, primed in the mold airplanes that
use materials that are orders of magnitude more expensive than fiberglass and
require more than double the time.....and everyone wonders what happen to the US
kit manufacturers. I know what happened, the <B>smart </B>ones exited the
business.<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>"Todd Schmidt"
<tschmidt@classicnet.net></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 09:14 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:
[SPAM] Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules
Survey</FONT></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><BR><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> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2><B>Standard Glass Cloth Composite Construction</B> ($5-$7 per yard) You
cannot make a 2M fuse strong <B>AND</B> light enough to make weight using this
stuff. You can probably come close, but it'll be a noodle that won't last and
<B>in the long run </B>will cost simply because you're plane won't last.</FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT><BR><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> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><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> <BR><FONT
size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>The latest is the TAVS
fuselage. Light, Stiff, and <B>FRAGILE</B>. 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>
<BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><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> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>Todd Schmidt</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3>-----
Original Message ----- </FONT><BR><FONT size=3><B>From:</B> </FONT><A
href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com"><FONT color=blue size=3><U>Atwood,
Mark</U></FONT></A><FONT size=3> </FONT><BR><FONT size=3><B>To:</B> </FONT><A
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org"><FONT color=blue
size=3><U>discussion@nsrca.org</U></FONT></A><FONT size=3> </FONT><BR><FONT
size=3><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:47 PM</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3><B>Subject:</B> RE: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey</FONT> <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></BODY></HTML>