[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

Mon Jun 25 08:04:46 AKDT 2007

I've been watching this with fascination.  We have rules, and electric 
technology is catching up to them.  If I didn't know John, this would 
sound like someone had tried to go in cheap, found out it didn't work, 
and then crying to get the rules changed to fit his "solution".  Right 
now, electrics are still bleeding edge technology, and lots of guys are 
bleeding lots of money.  The ones I see having the problems are the 
ones that don't buy proven combinations, and go thru lots of pain in 
the process.  I saw a situation this past weekend where a 
manufacturer's speed controller didn't work properly with the motor 
they sold with it.  As a result, the owner had to use another brand 
which fortunately did work.  In some cases the buyers are becoming the 
beta testers; not good.  Right now, it appears that in the long run you 
will save money buying proven setups.

Of course, even with glow, some buyers become beta testers, even with 
some high buck solutions.  At dinner Saurday nite at the Nederland 
contest I heard a hilarious discussion about a certain engine that 
starts with an "M" and ends with an "r".  Rather than seeing if you had 
the latest firmware upgrade, you had to ensure you had the latest 
insulator, pump mod, etc.  Just goes to show, what looks and sounds 
good on paper doesn't always translate to reality, be it glow or 
electric.  You need to do your research, talk with lots of people that 
have the exact setup you are thinkg of buying (NOT the importer or 
manufacturer, and NOT the internet!), and go from there.

 From what I gather, the first 4 strokes for pattern were not all that 
great, and the technology grew into the rules.  Electric will be the 
same way.  Nobody is forcing anybody to go electric, and there is no 
clear advantage, IMHO.  The current World Champion is still flying 
glow, and he can get anything he wants.  You can bet he would be flying 
electric if he saw a clear advantage.  If you can't afford electric, 
don't go that way.  Its just like buying a 10x or a 14 MZ.  You don't 
HAVE to have one to win.  Other solutions will work.  Don't ask to 
change the rules to give 9Cs or 9303s an advantage just because you 
can't afford top of the line.

Jon Lowe

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Lockhart <davel322 at comcast.net>
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 9:54 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

________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free 
from AOL at AOL.com.
=0