<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>If the goal were to reduce cost, for me the best way to keep cost in check is consistant rules over the long term, manufacturers and competitors don't have a moving target to hit.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Others point out the historical affect of changes to the aircraft specification and resultant size increase and cost increase. Although I bet if you look at today's vs. then dollars its a wash. Cheap asian aircraft and increased radio reliability have kept the relative expense in check and made the hobby accesible by offering affordable prebuilt planes. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>My preference is no change to the aircraft specification. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>When do these proposals get voted on?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Brian</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px"><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Chad Northeast <chad@f3acanada.org><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Sat, December 12, 2009 9:41:07 AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes<BR></FONT><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>If FAI increased the weight limit, then there would be some serious trouble.<BR><BR>Chad<BR><BR>Archie Stafford wrote:<BR>> <BR>> 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.<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> Arch<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> *From:* <A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A> [mailto:<A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>] *On Behalf Of *Bill Glaze<BR>> *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2009 5:16 PM<BR>> *To:* <A href="mailto:jpavlick@idseng.com" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:jpavlick@idseng.com">jpavlick@idseng.com</A>; General pattern discussion<BR>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Yep! I've got a G-62 laying around here that I have no use for--until now.<BR>> <BR>> Bill<BR>> <BR>> ----- Original
Message -----<BR>> <BR>> *From:* John Pavlick <mailto:<A href="mailto:jpavlick@idseng.com" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:jpavlick@idseng.com">jpavlick@idseng.com</A>><BR>> <BR>> *To:* General pattern discussion<BR>> <mailto:<A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>> <BR>> *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2009 4:47 PM<BR>> <BR>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Excellent! Looks like I can finally build a gas-powered biplane. LOL<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> John Pavlick<BR>> <BR>> --- On *Fri, 12/11/09, Dave Burton /<<A href="mailto:burtona@atmc.net" rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:burtona@atmc.net">burtona@atmc.net</A><BR>> <mailto:<A href="mailto:burtona@atmc.net" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:burtona@atmc.net">burtona@atmc.net</A>>>/* wrote:<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> From: Dave Burton <<A href="mailto:burtona@atmc.net" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:burtona@atmc.net">burtona@atmc.net</A> <mailto:<A href="mailto:burtona@atmc.net" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:burtona@atmc.net">burtona@atmc.net</A>>><BR>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes<BR>> To: "'General pattern discussion'"<BR>> <<A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>> <mailto:<A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>>><BR>> Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 4:38 PM<BR>> <BR>> I have submitted a rules proposal to completely eliminate the<BR>> 11 lb. Weight<BR>> limit in AMA pattern classes. (proposal 11-11).<BR>> I'd like to see some discussion on the pros and cons of this<BR>> proposal on the<BR>> NSRCA e-mail list and the Pattern forum.<BR>> <BR>> My reasons for submitting the proposal include the following<BR>> points:<BR>> <BR>> 1. There is no competitive advantage to a heavier plane
with<BR>> the 2 meter<BR>> size constraint (in fact I'd argue a heavier plane is usually at a<BR>> disadvantage and perhaps a minimum weight makes more sense<BR>> than a maximum)<BR>> 2. The 2 meter size constraint is sufficient keep the weight<BR>> of pattern<BR>> planes to reasonable limits.<BR>> 3. The fact that AMA class planes are weighed only at the US<BR>> Nationals gives<BR>> proof that the rule is not now enforced and not needed.<BR>> 4. The 11 lb. Weight limit drives up the cost of pattern<BR>> planes through the<BR>> necessary use of more expensive high tech
materials. (If you<BR>> don't believe<BR>> "light weight" cost a lot of money ask the people who race<BR>> sail boats)<BR>> 5. Removing the weight limit will reduce the manpower and cost<BR>> associated<BR>> with running the Nationals And also perhaps increase<BR>> participation.<BR>> <BR>> OK, guys, what do you think?<BR>> What other "pro" and "con" points?<BR>> Dave Burton<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> <A href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow
target=_blank ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>> <http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> <A href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>> <A href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>> <BR>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> <A href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>> <A href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR><BR>-- Chad<BR><BR><A href="http://www.chadnortheast.ca/" rel=nofollow target=_blank>www.chadnortheast.ca</A><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR><A href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" rel=nofollow
target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV><!-- cg11.c4.mail.gq1.yahoo.com compressed/chunked Fri Dec 4 18:38:27 PST 2009 --></div><br>
</body></html>