[NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals

Mon Nov 6 12:39:31 AKST 2006

One other point is in a question: What does it change to allow E type planes
to be weighed without power batteries?  Nothing that is apparent---except
all the existing airframes become fair game for E.  BTW, while I am flying E
right now, I may not forever.  I can see all sides of this issue and the
advantages and disadvantages to both.  Fair is fair and it is not now.
RS

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Richard
Strickland
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 1:14 PM
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals

My point is and always has been really--If the rules are for the airplanes
to be 'ready to fly' at a given weight, then it should be just that.  And
it's not now.  It's 5000 g for E 'ready to fly' and 5000 + for everyone
else.(plus the 50G for both)  Again, and I've made this argument before; was
the decision based on making a new rule--or was it someone's INTERPRETATION
of an existing rule that could just as easily be interpreted to allow E to
be weighed w/o batteries?
RS

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Stuart
Chale
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:25 PM
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals

Weights are being made with electric.  The airframes although made lighter
than their IC counterparts appear to be holding up although I doubt many
500+ flight airframes are out there.  Time will tell.  Whenever there is
something new, be it 120 4 cycle, unlimited engine/motor size there have
been growing pains and people have adapted to make it work.  With the 5300
TP packs weights are pretty easy to make these days unless you are trying to
convert a heavy 2M IC plane to electric.  With the new TP packs or other
packs made with Enerland cells there is an additional 4 oz weight penalty
that may need to be overcome.  The new rule proposals give you an additional
50 grams to work with assuming that the scales being used are accurate.  I
suspect most digital scales are closer than 50 grams off at 5000.

If the weight rule were to change it would have to be different rules for IC
and electric, otherwise new targets for IC would allow changes in design
again.  I am happy that there is no significant change in size and weight
even though I am flying electric.  Unless you are ready to build/buy the
next generation of pattern plane work with the rules as we have them.

Stuart Chale

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Richard
Strickland
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:56 PM
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals

It would seem with the state of things as they are, quite a few compromises
have to be made on the E models compared to IC in the name of weight savings
affecting reliability, cost, and safety of airframes.  PLUS the fairness
issue.

RS

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Del K.
Rykert
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:58 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals

Do I detect the sound of off tasting grapes..  ;+^  ( tic )

    Del

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Strickland" <richard.s at allied-callaway.com>
To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals

> Of course, just to be fair; the IC airplanes are now weighed with fuel?
> Yeah, right.....
>
> RS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dean Pappas
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:18 AM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals
>
>
> So they listened to my 50 gram scale accuracy argument!
>
>
> Dean Pappas
> Sr. Design Engineer
> Kodeos Communications
> 111 Corporate Blvd.
> South Plainfield, N.J. 07080
> (908) 222-7817 phone
> (908) 222-2392 fax
> d.pappas at kodeos.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Earl Haury
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:52 AM
> To: Discussion List, NSRCA
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals
>
>
> Just reviewed the final draft of F3A rules proposals for '08 thru '11 (no
> sequences yet) and thought I'd share my quick take. They're well done with
> some changes (or not) and consideration of a  number of technical issues.
> Understand that these are unapproved proposals at this point and will not
> affect the '07 season.
>
> Most significant items are that there will be no weight limit change,
> scores
> will be normalized to the average (with some provisions for exclusion of
> zero scores / excessively low scores from the average), take-off / landing
> will not be judged / scored (no more procedure turn after take-off),
> sequences will be shorter with an eight minute time limit, wording to
> exempt
> rolling circles from the distance rules - 350 meters allowable.
>
> Tech issues include changes to address measuring equipment variability -
> sound level (nose into the wind) will be 94.99 dBA max, max weight will be
> 5000 grams with a 50 gram allowance (5050 gram fail point), power battery
> max volts will be 42.99v in the ready box.
>
> There are several items regarding WC procedures including flight groups
> for
> prelims, team championships determined by finishing order (rather than
> scores), in the 5-10-5 judge arrangement the end judges will now judge all
> turnarounds.
>
> Overall a very good effort with input from a broad spectrum of the world
> pattern community.
>
> Earl
>
>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion