[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
Chad Northeast
chad at f3acanada.org
Fri Jun 22 05:06:54 AKDT 2007
Interestingly enough, up here we changed MAAC rules (similar to how you
are setup with AMA/FAI separated), so that planes are weighed without
batteries. Did it about two years ago so as to allow guys to use other
technology than Lipos (A123's for instance). To date nobody has ever
bothered to do anything different, and I am sure most planes have been
close to the conventional weight limit, regardless of class.
As for FAI, come 2008 weight limit wont matter much. With the shorter
sequences you could run a smaller pack fairly comfortably. As well
there is a 50 gram allowance I believe, so you could be 5050 grams and
still be ok. Just shortening the schedules will give electric a pretty
nice boost, it will finally allow us to haul ass in a 7 min schedule and
demonstrate the much needed wind killing speed that many say we dont
have :-) Time to get APC to make that 20x16 :)
Chad
Fred Huber wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Mike Hester <mailto:kerlock at comcast.net>
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2007 3:51 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
>
> 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 <mailto:tkeithblack at gmail.com>
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *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 <mailto:vanputte at cox.net>
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *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 <mailto:vanputte at cox.net>
>> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> *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
>> <mailto: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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.4/860 - Release Date:
> 6/21/2007 5:53 PM
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list