[NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.

[Rick Rosinski]

It seems to me that root of this discussion (yet again) is the fact that some people are having trouble making weight with electric, and it's not "fair" that glow weighs in without fuel and electric has to weigh in with it's batteries installed.  I've been trying to think of a "fair" rule change and came up with this.

Right now electrics for the most part have enough battery capacity to takeoff fly the sequence once (and maybe a few more practice maneuvers) and land.  So they only carry enough "fuel" for a contest flight (takeoff sequence and landing).
 
Now we need to figure out how much (average) fuel a glow plane burns to complete takeoff, masters sequence ( I choose this one because it's the longest thus more fuel burn), and land.  I have no basis for this number but lets say it's 10oz of fuel which equals approx 9 ounces of weight.  

Now add the 9 ounces of extra weight a glow plane can takeoff with to the max. electric takeoff weight.  So in theory a 11 lb glow plane (right at the current limit and taking off with just enough fuel to fly one contest flight) would takeoff at 11lb 9oz.  Sitting right next to it is a legal electric at it's max takeoff weight of ....... 11lb 9oz. 

I can see an argument that 9 more ounces for electric is too much and the glow guys burn off the weight as they fly, so lets divide the fuel required by half (that should represent the "average" weight for the glow plane).  Now the electric MTOW is 11lb 4.5oz making the average weight for electric and glow the same over the entire flight.   

I understand that all the glow guys have 16-20oz fuel tanks, but most of us choose those larger tanks to get more practice per flight.... I guess we'll have to trade longer practice flights for having to clean all that messy residue off of the airplanes.

Just thinking out loud,

Rick



From: CHV69 at aol.com
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:19:44 -0500
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] This email list is flawed in my opinion.








Jason don't you think the lighter Integral flew much slower and presented 
better then the ones weighing a 1/2 lb more? 
I think an Integral weighing 11 1/2 to 12 lbs would be a much different 
beast in the air.
 
I built and flew 2 Integrals. The first one I built finished at 10 lbs 12 
ozs.
The second one finished at 10 lbs 3 ozs. They flew like 2 completely 
different models. They presented differently, Vertical performance was 
dramatically different. I have just recently retro fitted Integral #1 to match 
#2  (moved the servos from the Stabs to a single servo mid ship) I was 
unable to get the weight as low as #2 due to some extra epoxy in some areas I 
could not remove. And some added epoxy in areas that needed some reinforcement. 

Integral #1 has better then 400 flights on it and is starting to loosen up 
some! :>)
In the retrofit I was able to reduce it's weight by 2 1/2 ozs.
 
Carl
 
 
 

In a message dated 12/12/2009 9:15:29 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
jshulman at cfl.rr.com writes:
No wonder I hated my Integrals... all of them (electric) 
  were 10lbs 12, 14, 15.95ozs. Only my glow ones were 10lbs 4 and 8ozs....lol. 
  Just messing Carl. But we all know that flying electric will require lighter 
  choices in equipment for the most part. I learned that in 93. Titanium 
  anyone... my Rhapsody's had 
some...lol. 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091213/480fc372/attachment.html>