[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

Fri Jun 22 08:01:08 AKDT 2007

I have a built-in problem with someone being able to "buy" a win.  It  
comes from when I entered the Soapbox Derby as a 14 year old.  In my  
first race, I was beaten buy a kid who eventually won the whole  
race.  My dad could afford to buy  me an official set of wheels, but  
no more.  The father of the kid who beat me bought ten sets of wheels  
and they were able to select the four best wheels.  If a rule enables  
only the "rich" to compete successfully with an e-powered airplane,  
it gets my hackles up.

Ron Van Putte

On Jun 22, 2007, at 9:54 AM, Dave Lockhart wrote:

> Ron / John,
>
>  Point taken.  And no offense, but so what?  As a kid, I was never  
> the biggest guy on the playing fields……but I loved to play anyway  
> and never asked for a head start, an extra kick, or an extra  
> swing.  I’m still not the “biggest kid”, and some of the most fun  
> I’ve had was whooping up on the “superior” equipment back when I  
> couldn’t afford the latest greatest Skippy Propnut TurboZoot 9000  
> XL MkVII Touring edition limited SE with the add-ons.
>
> The average guy can’t afford many things…..like the Naruke edition  
> Astral flown by McMurtry at the 2006 NATs?  Or even the Oxai  
> version…..or even the Xtreme version.
>
> Your argument could be extended to many things…….2C vs 4C (as if  
> you could get a consensus on which is “better”)………..analog vs  
> digital servos………….guys flying electrics w/ NIcd or Nimh because  
> they can’t afford lipos………and on an on.
>
> Pattern competition is a competitive event with some broad limits  
> (weight, size, noise).  You have your choices, you pick what is  
> most competitive for your available budget, you practice, you  
> compete.  You win, or you lose.
>
> If you / John don’t think electric is competitive under the current  
> rules, fly glow.
>
> Others think electric is competitive and are flying electric.
>
> Again, electric is in its infancy……make a rule now that favors  
> electrics and you will ensure unquestionable electric dominance in  
> the very near future.  Just remember the 120 4C….it was to allow  
> parity between a piped 60 2C and allow a quieter powerplant.  Very  
> shortsighted rule as the 120 4C became dominant rapidly.  Clearly  
> the gap (if there is one) between electric and glow today is  
> nothing like the 2C / 4C gap was in ~1988 (when 2C 60s dominated  
> 120 4Cs) or now (when a 120 4C dominates 60 2Cs).
>
> By definition, the average guy will never be able to afford the  
> highest level setup.  And that has never prevented something like a  
> humble wooden Focus from winning the NATs…..at any level.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 10:27 AM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
>
>
>
> It is said that you can't understand a person's problems until  
> you've walked a mile in their shoes. John and I didn't understand  
> what the problems were regarding making weight with electric- 
> powered airplanes until he decided to compete with one. I am still  
> competing with a glow-powered Focus.
>
>
>
> John's airplane is under 5 Kg, but not by much. Due to an extensive  
> weight-saving building job on his Black Magic by Mike Hester and  
> John's careful selection and installation of radio, batteries, ESC,  
> prop, motor, spinner, et al, his airplane is OK with weight, even  
> in the kind of winds we often see at the Nats. He's thinking about  
> the guys who can't afford as much $$$ as he has invested in his  
> setup. The average guy probably can't build an electric-powered 2  
> meter airplane that makes weight and is competitive with the kind  
> of budget required for a glow-powered version of the same airplane.
>
>
>
> Ron Van Putte
>
>
>
> The learning curve is very steep.
>
> On Jun 21, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Keith Black wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I fly electric but still would be against this proposal.
>
> John F. makes some good points in his justification, however, I  
> simply think that Dave's counter points out "weigh" John's points.
>
> I think if you read Dave's post with an open mind and not a pre- 
> conceived "position" you feel you have to protect you'll find his  
> logic very compelling.
>
> BTW, I find this change of heart by you and John quite amusing.  
> This is probably unfair but it almost sounds as if one of you can't  
> get your new e-plane to make weight with the current rules. I'm  
> sure that's not true, but from the outside it certainly appears  
> that way.
>
> I hope the real reason for "floating" this idea was to get people  
> opinions. If so I'm beginning to see a trend.
>
> Keith Black
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Ron Van Putte
>
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 7:38 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
>
>
>
> I was also not aware that glow-powered airplanes needed the  
> handicap they already have. I agree that, with innovative design  
> and $$$, 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c18bd35c/attachment-0001.html 