[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
R. LIPRIE
RLIPRIE at centurytel.net
Mon Jun 25 13:05:18 AKDT 2007
And also George, welcome to the chat room.
Matt
----- 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