[NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

[James Oddino]

That's what I was going to say.  Smaller is more difficult to fly, so why not?

Jim O


On Dec 11, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Mark Hunt wrote:

> Want to reduce cost....make the maximum weight in AMA 9lbs.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Archie Stafford
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 16:30
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20091212/651a54c1/attachment.html>