[NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes
patterndude at tx.rr.com
patterndude at tx.rr.com
Sat Dec 12 10:03:41 AKST 2009
Wherever any limit is set there will be efforts by competitors to get the most out of their design within the rules. The high cost of the top designs is in their manufacturing cost (laminated fuses, use of expensive materials, highly skilled technicians to assemble). This will never change. If you can pay more to get more many will.
Our weight and size limits bound this effort and alignment with FAI helps increase our market size. However, it does make sense for AMA to support novice builders and a secondary market for used planes by relaxing the weight limit in classes below the top class. We offer multiple classes to provide a developmental path for our piloting and trimming skills, why not provide this same path for new builders?
Lance
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: "Troy Newman" <troy at troynewman.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:44:03
To: <chad at f3acanada.org>; General pattern discussion<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner
There is no one out there designing models to fly AMA classes. The
models are designed by those flying FAI to fly FAI. If there is no
change to FAI then there will be no change at the AMA level. AMA has no
driving force at all. It's all F3A.
AMA pattern has followed behind FAI for so many years that there is no
way a change in AMA class weight limit is going to change pattern as we
know it and love it. Only changes to F3A will bring changes to pattern
in terms of models used.
I feel this would be a really good move for AMA pattern as it means it's
looking at growing, and marketing, and trying to include more people
rather than chasing them away. However as has been noted in this
discussion, I also agree with Mike Mueller, this group is obviously very
open minded to growing and increasing participation in AMA pattern.
Thanks Dave Burton and Frak for submitting such proposals.
Troy Newman
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Chad
Northeast
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 8:41 AM
To: General pattern discussion
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.nsr
ca.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
_______________________________________________
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