Rules for Electrics in AMA Pattern [was: Participation]

Mon Jan 10 11:49:40 AKST 2005

There you go! Throw some Logic in the mix that'll screw them up for years!
:)
----- Original Message -----
From: "J.Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: Rules for Electrics in AMA Pattern [was: Participation]

> 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.
>

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