[SPAM] RE: Rules to sort ourt

Joe Lachowski jlachow at hotmail.com
Sun Jan 9 15:20:18 AKST 2005 

Even 11 lbs - 4 ozs would work for the electrics.

>From: "Grow Pattern" <pattern4u at comcast.net>
>Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org
>To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>Subject: Rules to sort ourt
>Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 19:12:35 -0500
>
>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.
>


=================================================
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