[NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes
Jon Lowe
jonlowe at aol.com
Sat Dec 12 08:30:12 AKST 2009
Chad,
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Anyone who thinks YS (or anyone else) is going to make a special engine
JUST for AMA classes is dreaming, IMHO. FAI drives the WORLD market.
We are lucky it exists as US pattern's paltry numbers wouldn't
encourage anyone to design special airplanes and engines just for it.
Obviously current, foreign manufacturers are getting enough business
elsewhere to make exports to the US an afterthought, and we are lucky
to have a few importers who go thru the hassles of bringing them over.
Why would we think that they would now be suddenly interested in making
special, AMA only airplanes for our miniscule market? Lower sales with
the same upfront costs.
Look at the current US manufacturers of pattern plane kits, Mike
Hester, Mark Hunt, and Aeroslave (if I left someone out, I'm sorry).
Mike is the only one that is a full time business, and I don't think he
is going to tell anyone he will get rich from it. Each of them have
their hands full producing one or two current designs. If AMA goes its
own way, they would have to make some hard decisions of where to invest
their time. I believe most would invest their time in the FAI area as
that is where the money is.
Anyone thinking to do special AMA only designs for ARFs would have to
think long and hard about the upfront costs to get the ARFs made. My
understanding is that it is upwards of a $30k investment. The Chinese
aren't going to do it on consignment.
Let's face it, making weight or any other rule at the moment is not
that difficult or expensive, electrics included. There were several
electric airplanes at the Nats that were at 10lbs, WITH batteries. So
there is weight headroom for less exotic equipment. More and more ARFs
are becoming available built strictly for the weight advantages
electric allows, so weight limits are getting easier and easier to
make. You just have to make the correct upfront equipment choices. I
had to make similar choices when I went to ignition on my YS's.
The current "free" engine size limit was made with the thought that
allowing larger engines would result in cheaper choices. No one then
forsaw supercharged, fuel injected, and CDI engines. There are always
unintended consequences with any major change.
Maybe the simpliest thing to do is just start weighing and measuring
airplanes at local contests. Then the argument can't be made that it
is lnly done at the Nats....
Jon Lowe
-----Original Message-----
From: Chad Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:41 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes
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.nsrc
a.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
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list