[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

[Vicente "Vince" Bortone]

Looks like the 5 Kg. is an overall international requirement (FAI records for altitude, long distance, speed, etc).  Therefore, I doubt tha AMA will allow to increase the limit unless we have a very good reasoning .  With new tecnology is actually easier to meet the 5Kg requirement.  Also looking what is going on with the UAV, I will guess that is even more difficult to get this one digested by AMA now.  


Thanks for looking the history.  I will expect AMA board members going to the same reasoning w e are doing here .  



Best, 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Vogel" <vogel.peter at gmail.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 7:34:18 PM 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals 

The CIAM branch of FAI revised the rules governing what constitutes a model aircraft in 1947, at that time Wmax was revised upward to 5kg, it hasn't changed since and I haven't been able to find reasoning for it in online FAI records.  I do know they recently created an exemption to allow IMAC style competition to be governed by CIAM even though weights there are well over 10kg.   

In short, the FAI limit of 5kg hasn't changed in 65 years, the reasons for the limit are almost certainly obsolete (servo power, radio system reliability and capability, maximum speed (which would argue for a reduction in weight if it were the reason based on E=mv^2), power system capability, construction techniques and capability (CNC laser cutting, etc).  But FAI is even more conservative than the crowd on this list! 

Peter+ 

On Sunday, March 11, 2012, John Fuqua < johnfuqua at embarqmail.com > wrote: 
> You will have to find someone who flew FAI from the sixties to answer that 
> question.  I have been in pattern since the late seventies and its always 
> been 5kg/11lbs.  Have no clue how FAI came to that weight. 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org ] On Behalf Of 
> vicenterc at comcast.net 
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:20 PM 
> To: General pattern discussion 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals 
> 
> Plus one here.  I am also 110% against any weight increase. 
> 
> Question: as David L. explained is important to study the history of how we 
> decided the 5 kg limit.  Can we elaborate on details of this history?  I 
> would like to know. 
> 
> Best regards, 
> 
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone 
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: "Dave Harmon" < k6xyz at sbcglobal.net > 
> Sender: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:55:52 
> To: 'General pattern discussion'< nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org > 
> Reply-To: General pattern discussion < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org > 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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 
> 

-- 

Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training 
Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark 


_______________________________________________ 
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/20120312/ba3f8d4d/attachment.html>