[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

Mon Jun 25 09:37:06 AKDT 2007

Ron,
You are making an assertion that it is "unfair".  IMHO, electrics are 
"unfair" because they don't have a weight change between takeoff and 
landing, no CG shift, and they are lighter overall at takeoff.  A glow 
planes fuel is contained in its tank.  An electric airplane's "tank" is 
its battery. Its fuel weighs nothing, so it has an advantage.

I guess we need to give handicaps to those pilots who don't fly Oxai or 
Naruke ariplanes, who don't have 14mz's and 10x's, and who don't fly 
EFI OS engines or 1.70DZ's because they can't afford to do so.  Same 
thing.  Someone will ALWAYS outspend someone else, unless we institute 
claiming in pattern.  Now THERE would be a concept!

Jon Lowe

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:11 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

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

=

_______________________________________________
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