[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

Mon Jun 25 11:15:50 AKDT 2007

I think it is allow 50 gr error to consider scale deviations.  This is 1.76 oz.  However, I believe it was for FAI-F3A but I really don't remember where I read the information.  Probably, this could be a good solution.  Of course, the rule is for all types of power plants.  

I just read the AMA rule book and says 5 Kg (11 lbs).  I believe the 5 Kg takes precedence and it is really 11.0231 lbs or 176.3698 oz.  Therefore, to be exact it is really a little over 11 lbs (176 oz) by 0.37 oz. If add 1.76 oz plus .37 oz we get over the magic number or 2.13 oz.

--
Vicente "Vince" Bortone

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com> 
There is a compromise solution that I have in mind. So let's give 2 ozs. Many of the planes I have heard of through the grapevine that are overweight are usually within that 2 ozs. overweight. Eight ozs is just too much to give.

Two ounces should be just enough not to create a proliferation of new designs coming about to take advantage of the situation and allow some breathing room to use existing airframes.  Actually, I could even be persuaded to accept even 3 or 4 ozs. Eight ounces just opens up a can of worms.

From: verne at twmi.rr.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:45:26 -0400
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 cons
equences 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 
To: NSRCA Mailing List 
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 
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

Change is good. See what’s different about Windows Live Hotmail. Check it out! 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070625/a7f78711/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:34:21 +0000
Size: 707
Url: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070625/a7f78711/attachment-0001.mht 