[NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

[Tommy Scarmardo]

I don't think weight should be the determining factor. The "old" pattern was
controlled by engine displacement which controlled how big or heavy the
airplane could practically be.
 
tommy s

--- On Sat, 12/12/09, ronlock at comcast.net <ronlock at comcast.net> wrote:


From: ronlock at comcast.net <ronlock at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Saturday, December 12, 2009, 8:09 AM



#yiv953820180 p {margin:0;}

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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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/addd9500/attachment.html>