[NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

Sat Dec 12 11:07:07 AKST 2009

Way back in the day, I remember a friend of mine who was in on the design of the F-4.  Northrup management told the employees "a pound saved is worth $1000."  Back when a $1000 was worth something.  What they didn't explain was just who got the $1000.  Oh, Well.
Bill Glaze
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dave Burton 
  To: 'General pattern discussion' 
  Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 1:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

  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/20091212/21667192/attachment.html>