Rules for Electrics in AMA Pattern [was: Participation]

[Jerry Budd]

Hi all,

I'm in the process of putting together an AMA rules clarification 
proposal (which BTW doesn't have to occur during a rules cycle year) 
to clarify this topic.  The proposal is only for AMA and has no 
applicability for FAI events.

When I flew Frackowiak's electric Partner at the Nats this year this 
was a topic that got a lot of discussion.  Some argued that the 
battery was the fuel so under the current rules you should weigh the 
airplane without the battery.  Others argued that the battery wasn't 
the fuel, that it was the fuel tank, and that under the current rules 
you should weight the plane with the batteries.  *I* suggested that 
the current rules weren't clear on the subject, and that maybe we 
ought to clarify the rules.  The Chair of the Rules Committee agreed 
with me on that point, and suggested I put forth a well thought out 
rules clarification proposal for consideration (which I am).

Some general comments about my experience flying the ePartner to 2nd 
in Masters at the Nats follow:

The ePartner weighed 8 lbs without the batteries, just under 5kg 
with, and it did make weight without any problems.  Someone at the 
Nats started a rumor that it was 3 or 4 oz over weight and that I was 
jumping through hoops to get it lighter.  I thought that was funny 
since only a small handful of people knew what it really weighed, and 
most of them weren't at the Nats!  With the latest round of batteries 
it really isn't an issue since they're lighter yet, but anyone 
converting a 2m ARF to electric is still going to have a problem 
making weight.

Also, one of the NSRCA District columnists, wrote in their Nats 
report that I was flying an electric Partner in Masters and "even 
finished second".  The columnist further wrote that the ePartner 
"lacked some power in heavy wind and in the verticals."  The problem 
seen with the ePartner in the heavy wind was solely a crosswind 
problem due to the pilot (that would be me) as Dave Lockhart so 
elegantly stated after the flight, "not making the commitment to hold 
the line".  As far as the "lacking power in the verticals" I have no 
idea what this person was looking at.  Many of you saw the Partner 
fly at the Nats (and a few others in Omaha the Friday before), and 
virtually everyone was surprised at how well it went "uphill".

The columnist further wrote that Jason's Impact had better 
performance than the ePartner because Jason was using "experimental 
equipment" not yet available to everyone.  That's an interesting 
comment since Jason and I were using exactly the same equipment, just 
in different airplanes (even the props were the same).  I even had 
several different pilots comment to me during the week that Jason's 
Impact seemed *down* in power compared to the ePartner, and yet 
others that said that Jason had *more* power with the Impact than the 
ePartner.  Go figure.  When I finally saw Jason fly on Wed morning, I 
didn't see any real difference in power, just a difference in flying 
style (In Masters I was flying slower horizontal components at lower 
power settings and taller, more extended vertical end lines than he 
was in FAI).

The columnist completed their comments with the statement, "in a 
short time, electrics will really have "arrived" and be true 
competitors to the glow engines."  I guess I was fortunate that I 
even finished the contest, let alone having finished second!  Maybe 
I'll switch back to glow so I can be competitive in Masters at the 
Nats next year.  : P

Jerry


>Well, this is rules cycle year, so ya'll need to be keeping a list 
>of stuff you'd like to see....like 12lb weight limit, dry, maybe.
>     Or anything else.....
>
>The NSRCA new President and the Board will most SURELY organize a 
>rules committee or use the existing bunch to figure out what 
>questions to ask.
>
>Equally important  - ANY AMA member may submit a proposal for a rule change...
>
>Bob Pastorello
>NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
><mailto:rcaerobob at cox.net>rcaerobob at cox.net
><http://www.rcaerobats.net>www.rcaerobats.net
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:jpavlick at idseng.com>John Pavlick
>To: <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>discussion at nsrca.org
>Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 2:12 PM
>Subject: RE: Participation
>
>Mike,
>  Thanks for clearing that up. I guess to be fair we should fix the 
>rules to require glow powered planes to be weighed with the fuel? 
>Ready to fly to me means you could flip the prop or open the 
>throttle and go, without adding any thing to the model (like fuel). 
>Not trying to start a big war here, just wondering about the 
>rationale.
>
>John Pavlick
><http://www.idseng.com/>http://www.idseng.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: discussion-request at nsrca.org 
>[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of MKMSG at aol.com
>Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 3:03 PM
>To: discussion at nsrca.org
>Subject: Re: Participation
>
>In a message dated 1/9/05 1:57:07 PM Central Standard Time, 
>randy10926 at comcast.net writes:
>
>I think electric are weighted without the pack.  At least I have 
>seen it written on this list that way/
>
>Randy
>
>Randy:  Under current rules and interpretations, electric pattern 
>aircraft must be weighed with all batteries installed....which means 
>completely ready to fly.
>
>Mike Moritko


-- 
___________
Jerry Budd
Budd Engineering
(661) 722-5669 Voice/Fax
(661) 435-0358 Cell Phone
mailto:jerry at buddengineering.com
http://www.buddengineering.com
=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.