[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

Mon Jun 25 10:24:00 AKDT 2007

I vote for 12 lbs take ready to fly. Weigh it then go fly. Then we can
listen to the IC guys whine. I can see it now, scales at every pilot box for
the judges to see. 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Verne Koester
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 1:45 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

Having flown both glow and now electric. I agree with Ron to a point. The
batteries ARE the fuel in an electric plane and so weighing them with the
batteries (not counting the Rx battery) is almost comparable to weighing a
glow motor plane with fuel. I said almost because the weight of an electric
motor and speed controller is considerably less than the weight of a glow
motor, muffler, and servo. I consider myself a reasonably light builder, but
have had to be extraordinarily careful to keep my electric planes within the
weight limits, to the point of not having features I'd prefer to have for
safety such as an on/off switch and arming plug. I know of one electric
flier that folded up his fuse in a snap because the construction was
inadequate, also not safe. Can they be built light enough? Yep, I've done it
twice, but there are compromises and not all are good. I also agree with
Dave Lockhart's assessment that weighing electric planes without the
batteries will have unintended consequences and new planes will be developed
for/by the exceptionally skilled. Somewhere in all of this, there's probably
a reasonable solution, but none are on the table and most seem to think that
if an increase is allowed now, it can never be taken back as technology
develops. Perhaps, but I don't see the logic if the adjustment is written
properly. In truth, I'm on the fence on this issue, but I'd sure like a
little cushion to beef things up a little and add that arming plug. BTW,
I've found no performance advantage in electric, just reliability and less
mess. Fact is, I was winning a lot more with glow.

Verne

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Ron Van Putte <mailto:vanputte at cox.net>  

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 1:11 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 <mailto:vanputte at cox.net>  

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

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 <mailto:vanputte at cox.net>  

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

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 <mailto:vanputte at cox.net>  

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070625/8a7dbe3f/attachment-0001.html 