[NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes
Ron Van Putte
vanputte at cox.net
Fri Dec 11 15:12:35 AKST 2009
I kind of agree. I think the first part (only the folks that
seriously have a chance of getting to the podium at the NATS will buy
full 2 meter bi-planes made of space aged materials) is not quite
true. There will always be the wannabees who have the $$$$ who will
show up with them as well. The problem is whether the "second tier"
pilots will feel and respond to the pressure to have the airplanes
the "big boys" have and that could drive the costs. There's another
factor that bothers me about a rule like this. I once overheard a
comment from a judge which went something like, "That pilot must not
be a serious competitor because he doesn't have....". I know he was
a "bad" judge, but....
Ron Van Putte
On Dec 11, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Ron Hansen wrote:
> Arch and others, I think only the folks that seriously have a
> chance of getting to the podium at the NATS will buy full 2 meter
> bi-planes made of space aged materials. They are just a pain in
> the ass. The rest of us just want to fly any kind of full 2 meter
> airplane because they are easier to see and fly better in the
> wind. A full 2 meter bi-plane won’t be easier to see but may fly
> better in the wind but is that really worth it if you won’t in your
> wildest dreams make the podium. I think not. As I see it, the
> only reason to keep the weight limit as is is because the designers
> and manufacturers will only make planes to satisfy the top dogs and
> therefore the only planes that will be available will be high
> priced full 2 meter bi-planes with even more expensive engines.
> Most of the 2 meter ARFS out there really aren’t very good. I
> won’t spend much over $1500 for an airframe. I’d rather have two
> $1500 airframes than one $3000+ airframe.
>
>
> -----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 6:10 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes
>
>
> Dave,
>
>
> It is still competition. If guys weren’t worried about being
> competitive, you can go buy a .60 size Kaos and fly pattern. You
> probably wont be competitive, but you can fly. This rule change
> would just make todays 2M stuff obsolete and that would be exactly
> the situation we are in now. There are guys making weight with the
> cheap stuff today. The top guys will always fly the top of the
> line stuff. This is still competition and there are options to fly
> cheaper options, albeit probably not as competitive. Pattern by
> nature is not cheap, NOTHING competitive is. Everyone in the world
> can go play golf, but you don’t see the top guys in the world
> buying clubs at walmart, and there are airframes out there that
> will make weight with the cheaper setups that are available today.
>
>
> You are right, todays available gas engines are cheaper than a YS
> 1.70DZ CDI setup, but change the rules and watch that change as
> people develop engines just specifically for pattern competition.
> You can fly todays patterns with an OS 1.60, but I will argue you
> are at a disadvantage with that setup compared to the top electric
> and YS setups. There is a reason the top stuff costs more, because
> it is better. If you could build a competitive engine cheaply,
> then I’m sure someone would have done it by now. It’s not in the
> best interest of the manufacturers to have the cost out of reach
> for many people. Top level options, expensive options will always
> be available, no matter what rules you change.
>
>
> Arch
>
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 4680 (20091211) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list