[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Electric Weight Proposal Logic and Rationale

[Davel322 at comcast.net]

Richard,

I think in many respects trying to compare electric / glow is like comparing apples and oranges.....so having a blanket set of rules that is absolutely equal (and fair) for both is not going to happen.

The "most fair" methods are going to be too complex - ie, calculate average power loading and wingloading for average electric and glow models over the course of an average flight...and then structure the rules to ensure equality of the averages for glow and electric.  And as technology and equipment changes....the rules would have to continually change to maintain parity.

My electric Prestige is 7.5 lbs without batteries.....for another 2.5 lbs of airframe, .5 lb of motor, and .5 lb of radio gear, I could easily build a bigger (but still 2M) plane with performance that would absolutely obsolete any of the current day 2M stuff (and probably double the pricetag as well).

Dave
-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Richard Strickland" <richard.s at allied-callaway.com> 

I know I sound like a broken record, but: The IC airplanes are weighed without fuel--the electrics should be weighed with out their fuel.  Give or take a little for the tank and not splitting hairs--but it simply is not fair the way it is set up now.  I'd still like to know how that decision was made--so they could just un-make it...seemed pretty arbitrary to me...no rule change involved--it appears someone just said this is so.  Somebody straighten me out, please.

Richard Strickland
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 11:09 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Electric Weight Proposal Logic and Rationale


I got the following from John Fuqua.  He is going to submit a proposal to increase the weight limit for electric-powered airplanes to 11.5 lbs.  I suggested to him that he "float" his rationale by the NSRCA Discussion List, to get some feedback.  Here is his response. 


Ron Van Putte



Begin forwarded message:


Date: June 21, 2007 10:40:36 AM CDT
To: "Ron Van Putte" <vanputte at cox.net>
Subject: Electric Weight Proposal Logic and Rationale


Now that I am flying electrics I have come to realize the penalty that electric planes have when being built that gas planes to not have.  That building penalty is significant under the current rules.  Electrics must be built lighter, to include paranoid attention to everything used - wood, paint, fittings, etc., - all to make weight.  Much more of a concern than gas planes.  Also I remember many instances at the NATs when we were weighing airplanes, when the contestant was doing all he could do to meet weight with a gas plane to include cleaning the fuel residue inside and out.   A lot of gas planes were weighing in at 10lb 11oz, 10lb 11.9 oz, even one that was only a few grams under 5 kilos.   Then they get to add a minimum of 16 to 20 ozs of weight by fueling up (and there is no limit to fuel capacity).  Takeoff weights are 12 lbs or more.   This situation seems bizarre and illogical when you put some thought into it.  Electrics have a finite weight and gas planes are open ended
 at Takeoff.   Even though the 2005 NSRCA survey did not support an electric weight increase it occurred to me that the survey did not offer any logic or rationale as to why some increase would be justified or not.  I have attempted below to come up with a reasonable compromise on electric weight allowance.  I believe the rationale supports an increase but it would be nice to have NSRCA membership look at it to find the fatal flaw in the rationale before it gets submitted.  The two paras below are taken from the proposed change.   Lets put it out and see what the discussion list comes up with.
John 
Change paragraph 4.3 Weight and Size page RCA-2 to read:  No model may weigh more than 5 kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff.  Electric models are weighed with batteries and are allowed an additional 8 ounces for a total of 11.5 pounds ready for takeoff.   No model may have a wingspan or total length longer than two (2) meters (78.74 inches).


Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the present rules.  State intent for future reference. 
Today’s 2 meter RC Aerobatics fuel powered aircraft typically use fuel tanks with a 20 fluid ounce capacity.  A 20 fluid ounce Crank Tank containing 25% Cool Power Pro Pattern fuel was tested.  The fuel weighed 17.3 ounces.  Allowing for variation in tank sizes and fuel type a conservative weight of 16 ounces of fuel on average seems appropriate.  This means that an allowable takeoff weight for fuel powered aircraft is at least 12 pounds.   Assuming that all fuel is consumed during the flight, the average weight for the aircraft is 11.5 pounds.  By restricting electric powered aircraft to the takeoff weight of unfueled aircraft an unfair weight penalty is being arbitrarily imposed against the electric model.  By allowing electric aircraft an AVERAGE flying weight of the fuel powered aircraft, flying weight equity is restored.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070621/85f335d3/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Richard Strickland" <richard.s at allied-callaway.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Electric Weight Proposal Logic and
	Rationale
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:24:25 +0000
Size: 759
Url: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070621/85f335d3/attachment-0001.mht