<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Buddy:<br>
An idea worth discussing. I'm sure there would be a few who would
build with the extended weight in mind, thus, perhaps unwittingly,
handicapping themselves.<br>
But worth a consideration, anyhow. Bill Glaze<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:BUDDYonRC@aol.com">BUDDYonRC@aol.com</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid12a.57d5ac07.2f5216be@aol.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name="GENERATOR">
<font id="role_document" color="#8000ff" face="Arial" size="2">
<div>OK fellows</div>
<div>I'm going to fess up. A few weeks ago I accepted a position on
the rules committee, and after some thought decided to float a trial
balloon out here to try and establish some consensus about what the
general feelings were concerning changing the weight rule.</div>
<div>After collecting about 100 opinions (some from the same people
trying to make their point) from this list, and I purposely slanted my
opinion toward a change as I thought this was necessary to get the
responses from both sides of the issue, I sat down and reread them all.
I know that this sampling is not representative of the whole pattern
group but it does give me a general Idea of your feelings and
identifies the problem areas.</div>
<div>I also slanted the issue toward change in light of the
possibility of an FAI weight rule change and we all need to be thinking
about the effects of that should it come to pass.</div>
<div>My review indicates that there are three main opinion groups.</div>
<div>1. Those who oppose the change mainly due to the effects which
will result in design changes and additional cost which will occur
because of it.</div>
<div>2. Those who are for the change to allow the use of gas engines,
lower cost items such as exhaust systems and leveling the playing field
between IC and electric power.</div>
<div>3. Those who favor a moderate change to allow for the use of
less costly hardware items and the use of less costly models mainly of
the ARF variety.</div>
<div>All of these positions have merit, but none of them in my
opinion will garner enough support to result in a change in the rules
either way.</div>
<div>I would like to float another trial balloon in an effort to try
to satisfy as many positions as possible and solve this dilemma.</div>
<div> The main problem as I see it are the cases where someone ends
up with an airplane that is slightly over weight that requires them to
spend a lot of money to it get under the 11lb limit. This can also
occur due to repairs required to repair damage or even changing props
which vary in weight by as much as 2 or 3 ounces or using one of the
many ARF's available that are marginal due to weight variations which
occur during manufacturing , [-e.g], You go to the Nat's and your
airplane weight is 10lb and 14oz. Wind comes up and you need to change
props now your airplane weighs 11lb and 1/2oz and you are disqualified.
Two years ago I saw one pilot disqualified at the Nat's due to using a
very heavy spring to hold his wings on he was in compliance at the
courtesy weigh in but had changed props and his margin of overweight
could have been corrected simply by using a lighter spring.</div>
<div>What would be the pros and cons of providing a weight rule which
allowed a fixed margin of overweight to handle this problem say 2% or
2-1/2% which would be about 3-1/2 to 4-1/2 ounces? That way the basic
intent of the rule is maintained but it also allows room for those who
experience such issues. </div>
<div>Buddy </div>
</font></blockquote>
</body>
</html>