[NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

Fri Dec 11 15:00:43 AKST 2009

Or another option is to build a modern 2M design slightly over weight and
fly it at every contest in the country but choose not to go to the Nats.
(It's too hot in Muncie anyway!)
And by the way, my 11.25 lb Integral is lighter at takeoff than most any of
the glo powered planes carrying 20-24 oz. Of fuel so I may even have a
performance advantage.
Aren't these winter time discussions fun? And we still have months to go!
Dave Burton

-----Original Message-----
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 6:37 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

But you don't see this at the NATS near the top in Masters and FAI.  The
options to fly older cheaper stuff is there.  We don't need to change the
rules for people to use them.  The top guys will always fly the expensive
stuff, its just the way competition works.  If you are having problems
making weight, then built a 1.10 size plane.  Costs are less, and they don't
fly badly, but raising the limits will simply make what we fly today
obsolete.

-----Original Message-----
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 6:25 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

Lots do fly the older designs. What's the most prevalent plane I see at my
local contest? Answer - A Focus!

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 6:02 PM
To: 'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

Arch is correct. If those on top fly bigger (and they would) everyone WOULD
follow. If people don't believe that, they simply need to ask why they're
not flying the MYRIAD of good planes that are less volume and easily make
weight.  Aka 5yr old designs. Or better, 110 size. 

-mark 
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

----- Original Message -----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Fri Dec 11 18:01:22 2009
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 dont 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

_______________________________________________
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