[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

Fri Jun 22 00:51:20 AKDT 2007

Yeah it may be unfair. I built that plane and it is under weight even with the set up he's currently running....but just barely. But that's only about half of the story. If that.

The plane was built to use the heaviest of set ups and still make weight. it does, but he's also running a reciever switch, kill switch, lots of stuff. He could shed a few ounces pretty easy, but it's legal....so why bother? If an ounce or 2 helps him sleep better, then that's really simple. 

When the plane was first built, he tried a much lighter set up. The numbers looked ok in theory, and the plane came in at 9 lbs 14 ounces with batteries, flying. But it was just way short on power for masters. 

So, John installed the larger motor and repropped it. Using 3700s at this point. Bingo! 10 lbs, 5 ounces and plenty of power.....or so he thought.

Andersonville: We had conditions almost identical to the nats finals last year. Windy as hell, cold, rainy, nasty....and after the flights he was putting 3750 back in the packs. Yeah. Different story when you're really deep in the throttle compensating for a ridiculous wind.

So, he installs the new 5000s, which are over 3 lbs. Now the plane is 10 lbs 15 ounces, but my guess is power just won't be an issue at all. Thing is by the time he got enough power to have flexibility to handle the nastiest of conditions, his set up was pushing 5 lbs. And I think that's where this is coming from.

I REALLY am not going to argue with the "well I'm running half of that and I have plenty of power" stuff. Good for you, but I have seen one too many set ups fry in hellish conditions. I much prefer the power to spare approach, so you're not ever really taking your stuff to it's absolute limit. This is ONLY my opinion but from a couple of years of playing with this stuff, this is my current approach and I am comfortable with it. Nobody has fried a set up yet....

Oh and that's totally not directed at you Keith. Yes John is looking for opinions is what he told me. he knew this would be a can of worms so he's enjoying it. Just look at the responses so far. Very well thought out on both sides, that's what we're here for!

I am not for a rule change. At all. I can see both sides of the arguement, but I too think it opens too many loopholes. I have a pretty good idea of what I could do with 8 more ounces, so I could only imagine what those with more skill than myself could do.  =) I REALLY don't want to see that get opened up. but again, just my opinion on the subject. Not sure where John is going with this though.

-Mike

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Keith Black 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 12:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

  I fly electric but still would be against this proposal. 

  John F. makes some good points in his justification, however, I simply think that Dave's counter points out "weigh" John's points.

  I think if you read Dave's post with an open mind and not a pre-conceived "position" you feel you have to protect you'll find his logic very compelling. 

  BTW, I find this change of heart by you and John quite amusing. This is probably unfair but it almost sounds as if one of you can't get your new e-plane to make weight with the current rules. I'm sure that's not true, but from the outside it certainly appears that way.

  I hope the real reason for "floating" this idea was to get people opinions. If so I'm beginning to see a trend.

  Keith Black 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Ron Van Putte 
    To: NSRCA Mailing List 
    Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 7:38 PM
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

    I was also not aware that glow-powered airplanes needed the handicap they already have.  I agree that, with innovative design and $$$, electric-powered airplanes can compete with glow-powered airplanes.  The ones who suffer from the weight inequity are those who can't afford the $$$ to overcome the weight inequity. 

    Ron Van Putte

    On Jun 21, 2007, at 6:59 PM, John Ferrell wrote:

      I did not realize that the Electrics were in need of a handicap. They seem to be doing just fine against the recips under current rules. 

      If you really think they need a little help by all means give them a rule book boost!

      John Ferrell    W8CCW
      "Life is easier if you learn to plow 
             around the stumps"
      http://DixieNC.US

        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Ron Van Putte 
        To: NSRCA Mailing List 
        Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:44 PM
        Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

        I just got this response from John Fuqua.

        Ron Van Putte

        The guys are missing the point.  It is not about what can be achieved on weight.  It is what is permitted by the rules.  They are not arguing the logic of what the rules allow (in most cases) but examples of what has been achieved.   Please make that point. 

        John

        From: Ron Van Putte [mailto:vanputte at cox.net] 
        Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 1:18 PM
        To: Fuqua John D Mr CTR USAF 697 ARSF/EN
        Subject: Fwd: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Electric Weight Proposal Logic and Rationale

      _______________________________________________
      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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070622/6da46301/attachment-0001.html 