[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
Richard Strickland
richard.s at allied-callaway.com
Mon Jun 25 07:50:26 AKDT 2007
For me, electrics were buying TIME--and with fairly standard equipment and
flying the 3200s, I was within a couple ounces of making weight. That was
VERY early on when FMA/Kokam thought those would work--and they DID--for
about 25 cycles. That was a learning experience for everyone involved. Now
that we have balancing chargers, 4200 50C(Tanic) packs down around the same
weight and really no need for the heavy Discharge Protection Modules(if you
watch your time!)--the weight problem for most will essentially go
away--except there are still A BUNCH of the heavier 3#+ 5000 pack sets out
there (I have four sets--mixed and matched--but all about the same weight).
I still feel like it was an arbitrary decision to weigh the airplanes with
batteries when it could have just as easily gone the other way--but it
appears the point will be moot in the fairly near future...
Richard S.
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of R. LIPRIE
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 9:18 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
Electrics are not really buying wins, I've seen plenty glow airplanes beat
electric airplanes severely and many electric beat glow.. All it depends on
is the pilot and experience.
--Matt
----- Original Message -----
From: Del K. Rykert
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
Ron..
Is your message that glow is at a disadvantage? Cost and what some
can afford has always and will always be an issue in this sport. Back when
everyone else switched to full 2 meter planes and I stuck with 60 size 2
cycle I could easily see the disadvantage I was at except in calm air. If
that is where electric is taking the sport then that is another nail in the
proverbial coffin for the sport.
Del
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Van Putte
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.7/868 - Release Date: 6/25/2007
12:20 PM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070625/0901bb27/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list