[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

[Dave]

Maybe they actually figured the future would bring very powerful and
lightweight electric motors and batteries, and that even at 11 lbs with
batteries electrics would take over.....and thusly decided weigh electrics
with batteries in an attempt to not immediately obsolete glow.

Give electrics more advantage now, and the death of glow will be accelerated
(and guys will still build overweight electrics - limits are always pushed
in competitive events, and occasionally they are exceeded).

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
verne at twmi.rr.com
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:01 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

The only logic I can see in the decision would be that electric motors are
inherently lighter than glow motors so the batteries were thrown in as a
means to balance things out. I doubt that anyone at the time was aware that
less robust airframes would also be an added benefit to electric vs glow.
Having said all that, I believe the formula is deficient. To me, the most
logical approach is to take the batteries out of the equation and require a
"dry" weight for electrics that takes into account the fact that an electric
motor is inherently lighter than a glow motor. The arguments that a fuel
tank isn't required doesn't wash because the counter argument is that an
electric requires a speed control that is much heavier than a throttle
servo. All of those arguments are just that, arguments. A "dry" weight of
8.75 pounds fixes everything in my opinion.

Verne


---- Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> As Ron pointed out--the decision to weigh "with batteries" was probably
someone's very strict interpretation.  Do we have any idea who that
is/was--and could it just be re-interpreted?  This is just flat not logical.
> RS 
> > From: mjfrederick at cox.net
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:04:52 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > 
> > It's not so much that the designs are obsolete, people just feel 
> > embarrassed showing up with an old airplane. A friend of mine who 
> > designs airplanes has designed 3 airplanes in the last 3 years. The 
> > main reason for the new designs is changes in F3A schedules. His older 
> > designs going back to the mid to late 90's are still highly 
> > competitive. His new designs are not for AMA pattern, they're for f3a. 
> > If you choose to buy a design that is more than you need, that's your 
> > choice but don't look for a rules change to fix AMA pattern when 
> > there's nothing broke. Keeping up with the Joneses in f3a is not a 
> > valid reason for a rule change.
> > 
> > Sent from my iPhone
> > 
> > On Jun 4, 2009, at 7:45 AM, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > "designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"
> > > Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're competitive and 
> > > always looking for better and different. Truth be known I look 
> > > forward to a new plane in the Spring that I planned and prepared for 
> > > a year or so. It's part of what appeals me to pattern and I do this 
> > > on a lower budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this. 
> > > It's all about will and determination and innovation to get what I 
> > > want with as little as I have to work with. Money and building 
> > > talents lacking I still put down a competitive piece each year. No 
> > > sponsors either. Now that's actually pretty funny sorry.....
> > > Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and that the 
> > > pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the time. I'm saying 
> > > that I think designs for the truly competitive have a rather short 
> > > lifespan and that's not going to change anytime soon.
> > > Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that work well with 
> > > IC. What about the Passport? Osmose? Integral? It's only been a year 
> > > or so that the newer generation of planes have been introduced that 
> > > are dedicated for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E. 
> > > Addiction E. and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were meant 
> > > for IC and we adapted them to fit E.
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > >> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 7:10 AM
> > >> I agree with Paul. Remove the
> > >> weight limit and keep the 2 meter size
> > >> limit. If someone wants to fly a 15 lb biplane
> > >> powered with a DA-50
> > >> more power too them. Sure our current planes may be
> > >> obsolete but all
> > >> designs are obsolete in 2-3 years.
> > >>
> > >> I'm an intermediate pilot and my biggest concern is the
> > >> selection of
> > >> designs available. Right now other than the Focus II
> > >> or the Black Magic
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that's right for you.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion