Technology and Paticipation

[steven maxwell]

 Seems like all this is a moot point sense they are making weight as is ( Jason, Jerry with Fracks plane, and all that flew at the Euro Championships and the newer batteries will get better.
 Steve Maxwell

----- Original Message ----- 
From: 
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Sent: 1/9/2005 6:24:48 PM 
Subject: RE: Technology and Paticipation


 If you can weigh a glow powered plane with out the fuel then why cant you call the area and the retention system that the battery fits the tank and remove the “fuel”?  In a glow set up the tank it is simply a plastic vessel that holds the chemicals that provide power to rotate a prop. Same with the wrap on a battery or the retention system. Give or allow for a certain few oz. for the “Vessel” in the case of electric. Then you have parity. We are speaking of components of a power system be it liquid or electric.  Could FAI be wrong on there perspective?  
 
Bill
 
 
 
 
-----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 3:14 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Technology and Paticipation
 
The issue of whether a battery is primarily fuel, or primarily a fuel tank can be debated endlessly with opinions on both sides of the fence.  The biggest difference in my mind is that the "fuel" and the "tank" cannot be separated in a battery while they can in glow/gas powered models.  Consequently, batteries and glow fuel/tanks are the same in one sense, but different in another....which is why the rules need to be clarified.  Any good, current 2 meter pattern design can be built and flown with an OS 140 for example, and make weight.  I don't think the same can be said for electric.  A model that starts out on the heavy side can present a very difficult problem when it comes to shedding ounces to make the 11 lb weigh limit.  I'm glad Jerry Budd has volunteered to generate something for pattern flyers to review and discuss relative to the rules.  Perhaps there is some medium ground that can be attained to resolve the issue.  And by the way, I was one of the Omaha bunch to watch Jerry practice before the Nats.  The Partner was impressive.
 
Mike Moritko  
 
 
In a message dated 1/9/05 4:53:37 PM Central Standard Time, randy10926 at comcast.net writes:
Who in their right mind would think the batttery is the fuel tank and not the fuel?  Wonder if Jason would consider sharing his experience on this issue?
 
Randy
----- Original Message ----- 
From: bnbsouthwell at bellsouth.net 
To: discussion at nsrca.org 
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 5:45 PM
Subject: RE: Technology and Paticipation
 
 
“Big thing in the current rules the battery is not the fuel. Its the fuel tank! The electrons are the fuel. So weigh with a  dead battery.”
 
 
 I believe the shrink wrap is the “tank”  The energy comes from the chemicals enclosed….just like a glow or gas yet they are weighed empty…………………..Lets start weighing glow and gas with a tank full of the chemicals…….
 
Bill
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050109/deecb2e2/attachment-0001.html