[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

[Richard Strickland]

I have this 'feeling' that at the time there was little thought given between flight pack batteries and POWER batteries--"...with batteries..." was in the book--and that was taken literally.  Anyone truly know?

RS
> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 12:00:53 -0400
> From: verne at twmi.rr.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> CC: pamrich47 at hotmail.com
> 
> 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

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. 
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/55f13928/attachment.html>