[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Electric Weight Proposal Logic andRationale
Mark Atwood
atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
Thu Jun 21 11:00:36 AKDT 2007
Hey Richard...
To answer your question of how many guys?, you need only look at the number
of guys that are going to electric and are willing to ³hassle² with the pain
in the ass of cost, weight issues, etc. This whole conversation is to lower
the ³pain in the ass² quotient. If it is even thought to be more
competitive, someone will start the trend, and the rest will follow.
The bipe hasn¹t caught on yet simply because it¹s just a little toooooo hard
for the masses. Electric was that way before too and only Jason was giving
in a go. A few tech changes and suddenly it¹s close enough, and there¹s a
following.
On 6/21/07 2:53 PM, "Richard Strickland" <richard.s at allied-callaway.com>
wrote:
> For most guys, myself included, just want to use the existing airframes and
> not have to sweat being super-light and it costing up the wazoo to get there.
> Plus the very light airframes don't stand up to much abuse to where one little
> prang puts you over the limit. You certainly have a good point about the
> unintended consequences of a change--but how many guys would go for it?--you
> don't see that many bipes out there now primarily because they are a pain in
> the ass to deal with when in heavy practice mode for a guy after work...
>
> Richard
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of
>> Davel322 at comcast.net
>> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 12:36 PM
>> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Electric Weight Proposal Logic
>> andRationale
>>
>>
>> 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 yo! u put s ome 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.
>>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070621/65d75fb8/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list