[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

Fred Huber fhhuber at clearwire.net
Mon Jun 25 13:51:07 AKDT 2007 

If battery weights are comming down... then weighing without battery will 
make the planes more consistant with varying cost batteries.

someone who can afford the lighter batteries buys an advantage one way or 
another...  no matter how you look at it.

Just as someone who can afford the EFI 2.0 engine is buying an advantage.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <seefo at san.rr.com>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits


>
> You're all taking a very short-sided view of this. Batteries are evolving 
> VERY rapidly right now. It won't be too long before making weight isn't a 
> problem.
>
> Any time you make allowances for a specific aspect or flavor of the sport, 
> that aspect rapidly gains dominance. The four stroke rules should be a 
> glaring example of this.
>
> Basically you're trying to fix something that will fix itself inside of a 
> year to year and a half.
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com>
>
> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:32:44
> To:NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
>
>
> 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 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
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ----------------
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 <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 <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 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 
> <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>
>
>
> ----------------
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 
> <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 
> <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 
> <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: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/863 - Release Date: 6/23/2007 
> 11:08 AM
>
>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list