[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

Fri Jun 22 10:08:57 AKDT 2007

Just think, 30 years ago the average modeler could afford to fly Class III.
Of course if he wanted to he could fly Class I or II.  Everyone thought
retracts would cost too much but the average modeler found a way to have
them too.  It was a lot of fun with your "every day" plane, one that did not
need to be pampered from lack of use but flown all the time.  Remember back
then, you only had one radio and one airplane.  The second airplane was on
the bench being built or being "research" so it could be built for next
year.  Vintage Pattern or the Senior Pattern Association is trying to get
the average modeler back to pattern but today he has too many choices, too
many roads to be traveled and only so much time.  Do you remember the times
when all pattern contests had 50 to 70 entrants?  I do.  But I can't live in
the past, too many roads are now open and I've got to have a radio for each
pathway.  The average modeler wants to try all the different venues.  Again,
remember 30 years ago all that was available was Class I, II, III or Scale.
The average modeler just flew his sport planes be they pattern type or
scale.  How many of you have seen a Galloping Ghost airplane fly?  But, I
digress.  Sorry.  Dwayne

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Lockhart
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:54 AM
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

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 <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

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/cc7e5450/attachment-0001.html 