[NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

[ronlock at comcast.net]

The un-intended consequence of more weight allowance is that it will get filled by even more expensive parts. 

In general a consequence of lowering limits would be lowered costs. 

Look backwards thru the years when weight/engine size limits were less than now, costs were less. 
(maybe easier to attract new folks to pattern?) 

Ron Lockhart 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 8:36:58 PM (GMT-0500) Auto-Detected 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes 

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 

_______________________________________________ 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/ae7bdf3d/attachment.html>