[NSRCA-discussion] Alabama Bound

[Bob Richards]

Lets face it, if someone is going to cheat, they are going to cheat. It should not take long for everyone to figure out who. 
 
Checking the wattage WOULD be easier than comparing every airplane to a set of plans for deviations from original (which sounds like what some people want to do). Also, do they bother taking apart IC engines to check them for displacement now? Back when pattern had displacment limits, I don't remember ANYONE checking the engines before a contest, EVER. 
 
Bottom line, it still comes down to flying skill to win.
 
As far as whether electrics should be allowed, that decision should be made in principle alone. Either you are for it or against it. (I'm not saying either opinion is right or wrong.) If it is decided to allow it, THEN it should be determined how to implement it. It sounds like SPA wants to try it for one year to see how it works. I think that is a good way to proceed.
 
Bob R.


--- On Thu, 11/26/09, Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net> wrote:










I think that’s chasing tail also. You can prop a motor to produce almost any wattage you want (within limits). Who’s going to monitor what wattage is pulled after every prop change.  Are all electric planes going to be checked at every contest and throughout the event? That sounds like a lot of fun for a CD.
Rule of KISS needed!
Dave Burton
 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 9:50 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Alabama Bound
 




Well, I think the 1400 watts (or whatever wattage) is a good start. 

--- On Wed, 11/25/09, Phil Spelt <chuenkan at comcast.net> wrote:
 

Hi, Dave,

Yes, I know that -- I have told our BOD we will be chasing our tails for as long as we permit electrics, but most of the BOD is wanting to embrace the "new technology" for power...as motors improve and batteries get stronger, things will change.  BTW, the 6s lipo is not part of the current proposal -- we are trying to do something different on the battery side.  I will be glad to let you know what we finally do, if you are interested...

At 04:22 PM 11/25/2009, you wrote:
 
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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/20091127/bb6b1bbb/attachment.html>