Rules to sort ourt

Grow Pattern pattern4u at comcast.net
Sun Jan 9 15:13:09 AKST 2005 

Three things to try or fix with urgent proposals.

1. Give electrics a provisional year at 11 lb 8 oz. Asses results and any 
battery tech changes or disadvantages/advantages at end of year. Would not 
hurt pattern

2. Try a year of 401 with no turnarounds. Might help us attract.

3. Resubmit landings and take-off proposal based upon the knowledge that one 
AMA board member has stated that they voted the wrong way by mistake. 
Primarily due to the confusing English that was used. Correct a wrong. 
Respect the NSRCA vote.

Regards,

Eric.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jerry Budd" <jerry at buddengineering.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 5:38 PM
Subject: Rules for Electrics in AMA Pattern [was: Participation]


> 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.
> 

=================================================
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.

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list