[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

[Ron Van Putte]

John used to be on the NSRCA discussion list, but took his name off  
the list when he was getting too many e-mails.

What situation did we have "with scoring the take off and landings?"   
Every AMA member has a right to submit a rule change proposal,  
regardless of his status within AMA.

Ron Van Putte

On Jun 25, 2007, at 8:33 PM, vicenterc at comcast.net wrote:

> I really don't know John Fuqua.  Why he does not respond directly  
> to this list?  Are we going to have the same situation we had with  
> scoring the take off and landings?  I checked the web NSRCA web  
> site and I don't see his name there.
>
> --
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "Glen Watson" <gwatson11 at houston.rr.com>
> “Rechargeable batteries” by definition are referred to as storage  
> batteries or secondary cells, batteries that can be restored to  
> full charge by the application of electrical energy.
>
>
>
> In the spirit of the current AMA rule 4.3 rechargeable batteries  
> used to provide electricity for e-powered aircraft is truly a  
> storage unit for electricity (fuel).  That being the case both e- 
> powered and IC powered aircraft should be weighed with everything  
> excluding fuel which does not exclude the fuel storage unit i.e.  
> fuel tank for IC powered aircraft, rechargeable battery for e- 
> powered aircraft.
>
>
>
> Altering the weight rule as proposed by John Fuqua can and will  
> affect every AMA pattern competitor, some negatively some  
> positively.  Rules should only be changed unless duly warranted to  
> level the playing field for the majority.  Lobbying a rule change  
> to appease a minority to ease their effort to make weight with e- 
> power is not in the best interest for the majority.  Instead apply  
> energy and pressure on the vendors who supply motors, ESC,  
> batteries, airframes, accessories etc. to evolve their technology  
> to meet the objectives of the pattern community.
>
>
>
> Personally I’ve witnessed several local competitors newly construct  
> and retrofit existing aircraft with e-power and make weight.   
> Making weight with either IC power or e-power requires planning and  
> application of sound building techniques.  Everyone’s goals and  
> interest are different as to why they do pattern.  No matter the  
> level of interest or enjoyment one receives some effort large or  
> small has to be applied to compete within the structure of the rules.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Glen Watson
>
> http://www.geocities.com/rcprecision/pah.html
>
>
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 2:07 PM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
>
>
>
> After reading all the responses on this issue, John Fuqua has  
> decided to amend his draft rule change proposal to require that  
> electric-powered airplanes be weighed with battery, but be given 4  
> oz relief from the 5 KG (11 lb) maximum weight .  His logic is  
> that, even the Intermediate/Advanced glow-powered airplanes use  
> about 10 oz of fuel in a flight and 10 oz of fuel weighs about 8  
> oz.  So, halfway through the flight, a glow-powered airplane in the  
> Intermediate/Advanced class, which barely makes the weight limit,  
> is likely to weigh about 11 lb 4 oz.   The guys in the Master class  
> would still be at a disadvantage, but a 4 oz relief is still better  
> than a stick in the eye.
>
>
>
> Ron Van Putte
>
>
>
> On Jun 25, 2007, at 1:32 PM, Joe Lachowski wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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 Lockha rt'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
>
>
>
> Change is good. See what’s different about Windows Live Hotmail.  
> Check it out!
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
> From: "Glen Watson" <gwatson11 at houston.rr.com>
> Date: June 25, 2007 7:51:56 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/20070626/a6e8344a/attachment.html