A Proposal - Size v.s. Weight

[Bob Pastorello]

Yep.  Too obvious, I guess.

Bob Pastorello
NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
rcaerobob at cox.net
www.rcaerobats.net


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ed Miller 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 8:02 PM
  Subject: Re: A Proposal - Size v.s. Weight


  At 72 x 72 you have just obsolete all the planes we now fly. Talk about expensive. Does anyone know why E powered planes must be weighed with batteries ?? What was the rational ??
  Ed M.
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Bob Pastorello 
    To: NSRCA 
    Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 7:44 PM
    Subject: A Proposal - Size v.s. Weight


    Here's a thought - before you die laughing - think about all the things we have read the past three days, and test those issues against this rule....

    "Models shall not exceed 5kg, ready-to-fly, without fuel in the case of internal combustion powerplants, with batteries installed in the case of electric powerplant.  Models shall not exceed 72" x 72" overall length and overall wingspan.  There shall be no displacement (or horsepower/wattage rating) limits to  powerplants, except that in no case shall the model exceed 96 db noise levels, measured per AMA noise standard testing."

    Could this help the issues that seem to be nagging at us?

    Bob Pastorello
    NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
    rcaerobob at cox.net
    www.rcaerobats.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050226/ecc60928/attachment.html