[NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

[Ed Alt]

Arch:
Agree 100%

Ed
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Archie Stafford 
  To: 'General pattern discussion' 
  Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 5:30 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes


  Very simple statement.  Open your checkbook if this passes.  Big 2 meter bipes will be the norm.  YS will come out with a 50CC size engine that blows away other gas or Nitro setups, and much bigger, more powerful electric setups to remain competitive.  People thing this would reduce the cost, it will do exactly the opposite.  You are right Dave, there is no competitive advantage to a plane of the size we are flying now being 11 1/2lbs, but be able to build a 13lb bipe with unlimited power and watch what happens.

   

  Arch

   

   

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill Glaze
  Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 5:16 PM
  To: jpavlick at idseng.com; General pattern discussion
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

   

  Yep!  I've got a G-62 laying around here that I have no use for--until now.

  Bill

    ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: John Pavlick 

    To: General pattern discussion 

    Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 4:47 PM

    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

     

          Excellent! Looks like I can finally build a gas-powered biplane. LOL

           

          John Pavlick

          --- On Fri, 12/11/09, Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net> wrote:


            From: Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net>
            Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes
            To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
            Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 4:38 PM

            I have submitted a rules proposal to completely eliminate the 11 lb. Weight
            limit in AMA pattern classes. (proposal 11-11).
            I'd like to see some discussion on the pros and cons of this proposal on the
            NSRCA e-mail list and the Pattern forum.

            My reasons for submitting the proposal include the following points:

            1. There is no competitive advantage to a heavier plane with the 2 meter
            size constraint (in fact I'd argue a heavier plane is usually at a
            disadvantage and perhaps a minimum weight makes more sense than a maximum)
            2. The 2 meter size constraint is sufficient keep the weight of pattern
            planes to reasonable limits.
            3. The fact that AMA class planes are weighed only at the US Nationals gives
            proof that the rule is not now enforced and not needed.
            4. The 11 lb. Weight limit drives up the cost of pattern planes through the
            necessary use of more expensive high tech materials. (If you don't believe
            "light weight" cost a lot of money ask the people who race sail boats)
            5. Removing the weight limit will reduce the manpower and cost associated
            with running the Nationals And also perhaps increase participation.

            OK, guys, what do you think?
            What other "pro" and "con" points?
            Dave Burton




            _______________________________________________
            NSRCA-discussion mailing list
            NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
            http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
         


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    _______________________________________________
    NSRCA-discussion mailing list
    NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091211/e18ddd86/attachment.html>