Technology and Paticipation

Sun Jan 9 19:36:26 AKST 2005

Troy,
 Good points. I understand what you're saying. Sorry, I'm an Engineer so
sometimes I have a hard time explaining things that appear logical and
obvious to me. All I was trying to say was that if we worded the rules so
that "Weight - Ready To Fly" really meant what it said then you would weigh
an electric with the batteries in it (charged) and a glow / gas plane with a
full tank of fuel. The way it is now, it's open to interpretation - which
fosters the type of behavior we see happening now. I'm not trying to start
trouble, just make everyone think and be more careful when we draft and / or
accept rules. In Engineering we work to a spec. When we're done with the
first prototype, the design either meets the spec. or deviates from it in
some way. This is all duly noted during the release process. When you write
a spec. you try to accomodate Marketing's interpretation of the spec. This
is called covering your a##. You have to make it immune to interpretaion as
much as possible. This is to avoid working on weekends (when you should be
at the field, not in the lab). Because of this, I've developed a fairly good
sense of what will hold water and what won't. This rule doesn't hold water.
When 3 people can read it and come up with the answer they want to hear,
then it needs to be fixed / clarified. Here's some more "out-of-the-box"
thinking:  What is the purpose of the weight limit? Safety I would think.
Why is it a MAXIMUM limit. Lately it seems we're trying so hard to build
BIG, light airplanes that some parts aren't strong enough (like wing tubes).
In R/C car racing there's a MINIMUM weight rule. Since I don't think anyone
purposely sets out to build a heavy plane, it just ends up that way (at
least that's the problem I always run into) why do we even need a maximum
weight rule. Maybe this works for "scale" models but I think it should be
different for pattern planes. Lighter weight is an advantage. Maybe, if what
you really want is light airplanes, have a MINIMUM weight rule. Everyone
will try to work towards minimum weight. End result - same as with a max.
weight rule BUT no more "unfair" advantages. Sure, some planes will be
lighter than others, but none will be shaved to ribbons trying to be
"legal". Does this make sense, or am I missing something? I understand that
we're trying to keep things "safe" by limiting the amount of potential
damage an 11 lb. airplane can cause when the wings fold, but...
John Pavlick
http://www.idseng.com

 -----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On
Behalf Of Troy A. Newman
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 4:14 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Technology and Paticipation

  John et al,

  read this carefully. I'm not in favor or against any specific
technology...But I think this point blow needs to be understood very well by
us as a pattern community. Rules advantages to a given technology are a
slippery slope. Regardless of the technology we choose to help out.

  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 think that a case could be made that the current AMA rules could be
interpreted either way. FAI has already set a standard in that Jason's
models at the 2003 WC as well as those used at the Euro champ in 2004 were
weighed with the Batteries installed.

  This is an interesting idea and I'm not taking a position on other to say
what the rules are giving us. I think that opening up the weight limit for
Electric only is not a very good idea. The reason is we are dealing with
some limits. These limits help keep our sport in a price range and in a
performance range. Allowing electrics to weigh without batts gives a huge
advantage to the electrics. Right now the limiting factors for electric are
weight...Batteries and motor combos. The power is equal to that of glow
motors not more and not less EQUAL or as the NFL would call it parity...the
battery technology right now is coming up short or just making the grade.
The amount of power you can have are very dependant on the batts we can use.
More power means more battery in today's technology an this mans the weight
is higher 4P 8000mah packs vs the 3P 6000mah packs. But the weight limit is
keeping the batts to a specific size and capacity. When the batts change and
get lighter or more output the weight will come down. This will allow you to
make weight even with the batts easier.

  If you blow the weight limit higher now you are driving more and more
power in favor of the electric setup. This also drives costs. Example.
Chip's DV bipe is a very big model. But with the opportunity to make weight
without the batts...Chip now has a distinct advantage in using electric
power. His wing loading is better being the bipe as he can carry 13 or 14
lbs with the extra wing. On the other hand a glow motor as it gets above a
140 to 160 becomes almost a problem in terms of fuel consumption vs power.
Guys are complaining about fuel consumption rates now on the glow motors.
This will drive people to gasoline...Not that Gasoline is bad...Just makes
it now the advantage over glow. The result is you are now driving the guy
that don't want electric away from glow over to gasoline.....So the glow
systems are now the antiques.

  Then we change the rules to encourage glow motors to make a come
back....We did this with 2 stroke vs 4 stroke. The 4 strokes have less power
so let us give them extra cubes...60 2 stroke and 120 4 stroke. A couple
years later 4 strokes have the advantage and we give the 2 strokes a
boost...No engine limits just size and weight. Then the 2 strokes came back
with more power....and the limits of 2M and 5KG means the performance of the
models is way more than ever before and the rules evolve to make the flying
harder rolling loops, circle and snaps. Now electric comes on the scene and
gasoline too..The end result is a keeping up the Jones'

  Here is the JUST of my argument: So do we change the game again to
encourage these technologies or do we keep the game the same and make the
tools fit the game? We have already proven that an advantage in the rules
will drive the technology to that as the preferred choice. If we keep the
rules the same and make the technology come to us then the game is less
effected and there are more choices to do the job. YS 160, OS 160, Hacker,
ZDZ....Now everybody gets to play on equal footing...the game. No specific
equipment is getting the granny clause because its tough to make the rules
with it. It has been proven many times now that Electric is capable in both
performance and rules compliant. Gasoline is also in the works and being
ready to prove its mustard too. Glow is the preferred choice for now. I'm in
favor of keeping the game the same and letting the guys that want the new
technology to develop it to compete in the same game on the same field.
Giving a hand out to one technology over another has in the past driven
costs up, driven changes in the equipment and made the products we use even
more and more specialized than they already are. This means decline in
participation in my book.

  Gasoline and Electric are already Viable and has proven to work in the
environment we already have. Yes perhaps your airframe choices are less if
you choose electric or gas today..But there will be more and more for both
gasoline and electric as time passes. The rules changes can't take place
until 2007 regardless. In that 2 years today's models will be old news and
something new will be in works like Hydrogen power models or something.

  Troy Newman

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050110/8127e130/attachment.html