[NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

[Chad Northeast]

I don't know the YS business model, but I would place a bet they will 
never develop a motor specifically marketed toward AMA classes.  They 
are going to develop motors that can be showcased at the Worlds.  Same 
with airplane designs, I dont think you will see many companies market 
planes that cannot be used in FAI.

I think its very important to keep in mind that typically most of what 
we use in pattern today is designed for use in FAI.  Oxai, CA, ZN, 
Wistmodel, CARF etc. etc. etc. all design models for FAI.  Change the 
AMA weight limits, and none of those companies will change their 
designs, the same planes will still be flown, just with heavier 
equipment :)  I think you would have a hard sell to get any of them to 
produce a model that can only be used in AMA classes.

If FAI increased the weight limit, then there would be some serious trouble.

Chad

Archie Stafford wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto:jpavlick at idseng.com>
>
>     *To:* General pattern discussion
>     <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
>     *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
>     <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>>/* wrote:
>
>
>         From: Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>>
>         Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes
>         To: "'General pattern discussion'"
>         <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>         <mailto: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://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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

-- 
Chad

www.chadnortheast.ca