[NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals

Mon Nov 6 12:43:16 AKST 2006

Hi Richard..
    The actual history is the weight specific rule was made long before 
electric was viable for pattern. To mandate glow be weighed with fuel will 
raise issues on how much do some have to put into plane to make weight.. 
who is going to monitor the precise filling of tank to make weight let alone 
is it going to be done under the scrutiny of flight line director just 
before flight..  The rule is simple as it is..
    Raising the weight is self defeating as Dave mentioned. Mandating that 
all glow be weighed with fuel will make some models obsolete.. We don't need 
to drive more competitors away from the sport.
    Those that have made the choice to use electric for their power have 
meet the challenge and do a great job within the current standing rules. 
Those that don't want to do all the work/expense to have a viable electric 
model still have the glow choice. Changing the rules I don't encourage 
personally, but if you feel that strongly about it please draft up a 
proposal for next rule change cycle.
    I feel the move to electric for many competitors has already caused 
impression issues and can be counter-productive to bringing new blood to the 
sport. Only because of the cost factors if one is going to
use the full approach that a serious glow competitor uses.
                Del
          nsrca - 473
----- 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 2:14 PM
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
>