[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
Ron Van Putte
vanputte at cox.net
Mon Jun 25 11:32:02 AKDT 2007
The 50 gm allowance for electric-powered airplanes is only for F3A
and won't go into effect until next year.
Ron Van Putte
On Jun 25, 2007, at 2:15 PM, vicenterc at comcast.net wrote:
> 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 wil l 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
> 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!
>
> From: Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com>
> Date: June 25, 2007 1:34:21 PM CDT
> To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070625/9e125008/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list