[NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes
Chad Northeast
chad at f3acanada.org
Sun Dec 13 06:54:47 AKST 2009
Hi Ron,
I think you will find that by and large the rest of the world follow FAI
rules and generate their own sequences. Thats what we do in Canada, and
I know many countries that do the same.
Chad
Ron Hansen wrote:
> Chad, I fear you are correct but I ask this question.
>
> How many people fly pattern either AMA or FAI worldwide and of that number
> what percent fly AMA? I assume the majority of people fly AMA. If my
> assumption is correct then you would think it would be in the manufacturers
> best interest to design planes that meet the AMA standards.
>
> Most planes are made overseas because the US can't make them as well and as
> cheaply as they can.
>
> If we changed the rules for AMA would Mike Hester design planes to meet FAI
> only, FAI and AMA or AMA only?
>
> -----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 10:41 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.nsrca.o
> rg>
>
>> 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
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list