[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

R. LIPRIE RLIPRIE at centurytel.net
Mon Jun 25 13:02:09 AKDT 2007


Sorry George,what I was meaning was to by a couple of cases with 4 gallons 
each on a 5 to 8 weeks basis.  Which I've got 6 cases with 4 gallons each, 
which should last me a while, basically it was a figure of speech.

Matt L
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <glmiller3 at suddenlink.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Cc: "R. LIPRIE" <RLIPRIE at centurytel.net>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits


> Matt,
>
> You definitely need to be flying more.  One gallon every five weeks, 
> Indeed!
>
> G<VBG>
>
> ---- "R. LIPRIE" <RLIPRIE at centurytel.net> wrote:
>> Electric is cheaper than gas in the long run , because you don't have to 
>> by a gallon of fuel every 5 weeks.
>>
>>
>> Matt L
>>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>>   From: James Oddino
>>   To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>   Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 1:37 PM
>>   Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
>>
>>
>>   I have a feeling that electric will prove less expensive than glow in 
>> the long run.  It is already an advantage because you spend your time 
>> flying and not fixing.  My Impact has 237 flights and looks and operates 
>> as good as new with the exception of the gear box.  The outrunner in my 
>> new Abbra should fix that.
>>
>>
>>   The new plane is about a pound lighter and performs much better.  I 
>> suspect the glow airplanes would also fly better if they were lighter.
>>
>>
>>   Bottom line; build a plane that is under 11 pounds read to fly and you 
>> will be glad you did.  You will all agree that the electric has the 
>> advantage if that is your goal.
>>
>>
>>   Jim O
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   On Jun 25, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Verne Koester wrote:
>>
>>
>>     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
>>       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
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     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
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>   No virus found in this incoming message.
>>   Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>   Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.7/868 - Release Date: 
>> 6/25/2007 12:20 PM
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.7/868 - Release Date: 6/25/2007 
> 12:20 PM
>
> 



More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list