[NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals

Mon Nov 6 13:25:59 AKST 2006

I don't quite understand why anyone really cares if they are weighed with or
w/o batts.  All you have is a heavier airplane that is perceived to not fly
as well...
RS

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Mark
Atwood
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 3:55 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals

I think in another year you'll find the "unfair" argument will be coming
from the IC guys...

The weight game is quickly moving in favor of the electrics.  The lack of
wear and vibration is allowing people to build lighter and lighter structure
for their airframes.  At the same time...the equipment required is
continually losing weight.  IC components have stagnated from a weight
perspective.  And while E-power continues to climb...IC power only goes up
with added weight, and usually, added vibration requiring added weight in
the structure.

I'd say it's pretty even now....

On the down side for IC..the E-guys get to take off at full capacity a full
lb and half lighter than the IC guys...and have no changing trim to deal
with as that extra fuel weight is burned.

On 11/6/06 4:40 PM, "Richard Strickland" <richard.s at allied-callaway.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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