[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

[verne at twmi.rr.com]

At what point was it determined that electric airplanes have to weighed with their batteries? How was that decided and by whom? I REALLY am asking because I don't know the answer. I'm quite certain that it wasn't always just there.

Verne


---- Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net> wrote: 
> The rules should drive technology used, not the other way around.  
> Otherwise we go back to the fantasy contests where you fly when you  
> feel like it, judge yourself, and everyone gets a trophy. Changing the  
> rules to accomadate such a small amount of people sets a bad  
> precedent. Convince me pattern participation would increase 50% due to  
> a rules change and I'll be on board.
> 
> Matt
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jun 3, 2009, at 11:59 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > Yes, the goal is to make it cheaper. What I'm trying to do is take  
> > the weight of the batteries out of the equation just like fuel is.  
> > With rare exception, cheaper batteries equals more weight. The  
> > reason for including a mah restriction (probably 6000mah as rated by  
> > the mfg) is to keep things under control and avoid someone taking  
> > advantage with larger batteries. What I'm hearing out of my district  
> > is guys wanting to try electric and getting scared off with the high  
> > cost of kits, batteries, and motors that will make weight. I'm well  
> > aware that the Prestige, Spark, Integral, and a few others can make  
> > weight with the right batteries and motor. I'm also aware of what  
> > that costs. My goal is to make it possible for someone to build a  
> > Black Magic without the building skills of Zen that'll make weight  
> > with an Axi and Zippy packs.
> >
> > Verne
> >
> >
> > ---- Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Verne,
> >>
> >> If you goal is to make pattern cheaper, I'm all for that (and the  
> >> most
> >> expensive setup right now is a YS CDI setup), but I can't see how a  
> >> proposal
> >> based on your description can effectively accomplish that.
> >>
> >> Is the goal to reduce cost of the electric (which I can argue is  
> >> cheaper
> >> than glow at the top levels of each) or to make electric and glow  
> >> airplanes
> >> have the same cost for equal performance?  As electric technology  
> >> rapidly
> >> advances, any proposal based on current day planes will be obsolete  
> >> by the
> >> time it in place.
> >>
> >> Limits on pack mah will certainly add to the complexity of tech  
> >> inspections
> >> of planes....to say nothing of the fact that all "20C" lipos do not  
> >> weigh
> >> the same thing, and all batteries of a marked capacity are not the  
> >> same
> >> either - the door will be wide open for "creative" labeling of mah  
> >> capacity
> >> on batteries.
> >>
> >> Just as there are examples of overweight glow planes (I do hope you  
> >> are
> >> getting weights on glow planes as well during your surveys???),  
> >> there are
> >> overweight examples of electrics - neither should be accommodated  
> >> by a
> >> change in the rules.  Each competitor should evaluate the rules,  
> >> and prepare
> >> to compete with whatever setup best suits there budget, time,  
> >> resources, and
> >> is within the RULES.
> >>
> >> Electric may cost more upfront, but it is rapidly getting cheaper  
> >> (and glow
> >> is getting more expensive).  The big hurdle for electric right now  
> >> is that
> >> all the costs are upfront, making it expensive to enter.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion