[NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

Fri Dec 11 16:39:45 AKST 2009

Things to buy:

Integral fuselage-  $649
Chin cowl-    $85
Canopy- $60
LG- $59
Wheel pants- $50
Fuselage total- $903

Or buy the entire airframe for $1,190 and sell the wings.

Then go buy:

Foam core set from Bob Hunt (wings, stab/elev & rudder) - $125
Some balsa wood -  $70
PPG Wing tube set - $80 if memory serves right
Wing & tail total - $275

Airframe cost before finishing - $1178 or thereabouts.

If you can't make weight with this combo, electric or otherwise, then it's a 
skill/experience issue, not a wallet issue. That's what the hobby is about, 
or used to be anyway - learning how to do stuff well.
Ed
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Van Putte" <vanputte at cox.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

>I feel sensitive to this weight issue driving costs as well.  I think 
>raising the weight limit to 11.5 pounds would dramatically help the  pilot 
>who wants a 2-meter electric-powered airplane, but can't afford  all the 
>measures required to do it.
>
> There are more 2-meter airplanes out there than ever before.  Mike 
> Hester's Black Magic series has been a boon to 2-meter airplanes in  the 
> U.S.A.  Most pilots can afford a Black Magic kit.  Let's hope  that Mike 
> keeps pushing them out the door for those who have the  skill and time to 
> turn them into airplanes on the flight line.
>
> Ron Van Putte
>
> On Dec 11, 2009, at 6:29 PM, Ron Hansen wrote:
>
>> Ron, I hear what you are saying but if you want to buy the best due  to 
>> peer
>> pressure then don't complain about the cost.  If you are forced to  buy 
>> an
>> expensive airplane because there isn't much to choose from then  that is 
>> what
>> this rule will help fix.  Eliminating the weight limit will  increase the
>> options (airframes/engine combinations) available to all.  Right  now, 
>> most
>> of the better kits are from overseas and they are in real short  supply 
>> here
>> in the US.  I want everyone to be able to buy a reasonably priced  full 2
>> meter airplane.  What can we do to accomplish that?  I'm building a 
>> Focus II
>> as electric.  If it doesn't make weight then I'm still going to fly  it 
>> just
>> not at the NATS.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron  Van 
>> Putte
>> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 7:13 PM
>> To: General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 