Rules for Electrics in AMA Pattern [was: Participation]

Mon Jan 10 11:15:03 AKST 2005

The logical answer is that all aircraft must meet the requirements ready to
fly, that is, with whatever fuel they need.  Given that, pick a weight or
forget it.  The two meter rule is all we need.  No one will get an advantage
by going heavier so why set a maximum?
Jim

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jerry Budd" <jerry at buddengineering.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 2:38 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.