[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

Mon Jun 25 09:11:45 AKDT 2007

No.  Most of the people who can "make weight" are extremely talented  
in building a light airplane for battery power (or can afford to pay  
a talented builder) and have the money to spend to buy the lightest  
equipment (motor/batteries/ESC).  I don't think I'm denigrating the  
pilot on a limited budget when I say that.  The result is, those who  
have the money can compete with electric-powered airplanes, but most  
of the others can't.  The factor causing most of the money  
discrepancy is the unfair application of the weight limit by  
requiring electric-powered airplanes to be weighed with the  
batteries, but allowing glow-powered airplanes to be weighed with an  
empty fuel tank.

Ron Van Putte

On Jun 25, 2007, at 8:48 AM, Del K. Rykert wrote:

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070625/475efa86/attachment-0001.html 