[NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

Fri Dec 11 14:36:11 AKST 2009

Everyone,

Please read the NSRCA archives to find all the pros and cons about this.

I'll try to keep this simple.

1.  Fact - pattern planes benefit from high power and low weight.

2.  Fact - bigger flies better.

3.  Fact - the equipment and planes with the best power to weight ratio will
always have a competitive advantage.

4.  Fact - the equipment and planes with the best power to weight ratio cost
more money.

5.  Fact - in a competitive event, the top levels of performance will only
be achieved with the best equipment (in this case, the more expensive stuff
with the best power to weight ratio).

If the available size or weight was increased, and the available power and
size of planes did not increase (pipe dream), the heavier planes would not
gain any advantage (and in fact be at a disadvantage).  Short term result
could be a decrease in the average price (and competitiveness relative to
the top levels) of the plane on the flightline.

If the available size or weight is increased, the available power and size
of planes will increase (competitors want competitive advantages) and the
formerly competitive 2M planes will be at a competitive disadvantage (at any
weight) to the newer, larger, more powerful planes.  And someone will build
one of the newer, larger, more powerful planes just a tad over the weight
(or size) limit and want to increase the limits again.  Endless cycle of
endless cost escalation.  And for those that want to point out how cheap 80"
IMAC planes are..it is apples and oranges to compare them to pattern planes.
Look at the cost of 50, 100, or 150cc IMAC style planes that have the same
power to weight ratio and servo power as a top level 2M pattern plane, and
the cost is not comparable to a cheap 80" IMAC style plane, and it is
certainly far greater than the average current day 2M plane.

There is no need to change the rules to be able to fly a cheaper, heavier,
less competitive setup.  That can easily be done now - use a plane smaller
than 2M - plenty exist and easily fit the current rules structure (and prior
to the current rules, they were the "best").

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Burton
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 6:01 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

Arch, you may be right on this, but I wonder how many pattern flyers would
do this. Seems to me that cheaper 2 M mono planes could be available without
the carbon fiber/Kevlar/titanium/aluminum expensive stuff we use today to
get under 11 lbs. How big can you make a 2 meter plane within the 2 meter
box. So what if gas engines could be used. Probably would be cheaper than
the YS 170 CDI in use today. I could certainly use the under $200.00 AXI
5330  FAI rather than the $500+ Pletty. 

I don't know if the rules proposal has much merit or not, but I wanted to
get it on the table for consideration.

Dave Burton

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Archie
Stafford
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 5:30 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
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 <mailto:jpavlick at idseng.com>  

To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

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://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
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/20091211/1808965d/attachment.html>