<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #8000ff; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#8000ff 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></BODY></HTML>