[NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals

[J N Hiller]

Jim you have been doing this a lot longer than I.
I can only answer as a competitor who may or may not object to the use of
technological improvements as an unfair advantage.

I believe the intent is to prevent auto adjustment of, shall we say RPM,
relative to the aircraft line of flight as in ascending or descending or
speed etc. This is why I have no problem with a fellow competitor using an
electronic devise to set RPM relative to TX stick position. This would
offsets or nullify the RPM reduction as the battery voltage drops making
electric power respond more like glow power when returning the TX stick to
the same position later in a flight, but I'm not saying anything you don't
already know.
Yes, I'd like such a devise allowing similar muscle memory technique when
using either power source.

Just my opinion.
Jim Hiller






-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of James Oddino
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 9:10 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals

What does it mean?  Electric motors change the power as a function of the
load applied.  For a given throttle setting the motor will draw more current
as the model is pulled vertical for instance.  Is the rule trying to prevent
that or prevent an improvement in its ability to do that?  Is it trying to
outlaw braking or variable pitch props?

The question we should ask is; do we really want to outlaw anything that
might make our models fly better?




9. Engine management systems that coordinate power output with model
performance, position, or
attitude.”

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120423/0264754b/attachment.html>