[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

Sun Jun 24 15:01:51 AKDT 2007

I still remember the argument on how much cheaper engines would become with the introduction of 120 4 cycle.  Course we all see how that argument turned out.

     Del 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dave Lockhart 
  To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 
  Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 10:54 AM
  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 

    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/20070624/8e12f038/attachment-0001.html 