[NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

Atwood, Mark atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
Sat Dec 12 11:06:36 AKST 2009 

I think you'll see that this is the logoic behind the other weight proposal.  Keep the 5kg limit but allow a "variance" for sportsman - advanced to allow for various things such as repairs of used planes, beginner building skills, sturdier gear for beginning flyers that are rougher on landings etc. 

I think the proposed variance is 4oz. 
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld


----- Original Message -----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sat Dec 12 14:50:38 2009
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

I feel the weight limit should stay... for masters.  My reasoning is 
that as planes get older they get heavier, My black Magic was 11lbs when 
it was built.  However, as the seasons passed I had minor (and some not 
so minor) repairs that needed to be done each adding weight, it is now 
overweight... If I wanted to sell/give this model to someone entering 
pattern it would be very difficult to get it back down to legal 
weight.... I feel relaxing the weight limit for the lower classes would 
help by making more perfectly good, but slightly overweight, used 
aircraft available to people that want a full 2meter setup on a budget.

On 12/12/2009 2:04 PM, patterndude at tx.rr.com wrote:
> 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
>>      
>    

_______________________________________________
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