Rules for Electrics in AMA Pattern [was: Participation]

David Lockhart DaveL322 at comcast.net
Mon Jan 10 16:41:19 AKST 2005 

I assume the noise rule would be retained?

If the 2M and noise rule were all that were retained, Chip's next bipe would
make his current DV look like a 60 sized pattern relic.  And the cost would
go up exponentially again.  As would the time to build, maintain, and
assemble such a beast.  A brief review of history would show the trend
pretty clearly - anytime the rules allowed bigger planes or bigger engines,
the cost went up, and some number of competitors went away.  Doesn't seem to
be a good thing to me to continue that trend.

Regards,

Dave

PS - The E-Partner absolutely did not lack vertical or power.  It was slow
everywhere and something people need some time to adjust to.  I do think
higher overall flight speed would help in the wind - but that is just my
opinion.  I saw all the equipment in both the E-Partner and Jasons plane -
all had the same labels.  I think the apparent speed difference was
partially due to the relative distances flown, and the cleaner design of
Jasons plane - which was faster to my eye.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Taylor" <twtaylor at ftc-i.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Rules for Electrics in AMA Pattern [was: Participation]


> 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.
>

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