[NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

Sat Dec 12 09:45:58 AKST 2009

Back in the day when I was flying at the team selection meets, I believe the planes had to be over a certain wing loading.  No maximum was specified.  The airplane size was generally limited by the 10 cc engine size but I do remember some Chicago guys building 80 or 90 inch wingspan planes.  They were not an advantage.  

There was a guy from England on the FAI committee that wanted to reduce the engine size to .40 ci  (6.5 cc).  I believe he thought it would reduce costs and increase the difficulty.  I'm glad no one listened to him.  I say leave the rule as is.

Jim

On Dec 12, 2009, at 10:19 AM, Dave Burton wrote:

> Look at racing sail boats if you think heavier cost more. Look at jet fighters.  The opposite is true IMO. Lighter cost more in the same size.
> Aren’t you even contradicting yourself in your third sentence?
> Dave
>  
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of CHV69 at aol.com
> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 1:06 PM
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes
>  
> No matter what sport or hobby, Bigger ( heavier ) WILL cost more!
> Keep the pattern class the same and play within the rules. Sure it will cost more to build a lighter more powerful pattern ship. Increasing weight limits in my opinion will NOT reduce the cost of a competitive pattern ship.
>  
> Carl
>  
>  
> In a message dated 12/12/2009 9:12:15 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ronlock at comcast.net writes:
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c4593804/attachment.html>