[NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals

[Scott McHarg]

Only if you use a disarming plug and/or bore another hole in the side of
your fuse.  I heard something along the lines of the "Hoarder Policy" being
written as we speak but only after a survey has been presented.

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Keith Hoard <khoard at gmail.com> wrote:

> I just added some down thrust to my plane, is that illegal?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 23, 2012, at 15:54, James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Scott, I don't want to beat this to death but you must be very careful.  I
> could interpret this to disallow Contra Drive prop set ups that
> automatically cancel the effects of spiral slipstream, torque, gyroscopic
> precession and P-Factor.  What about adding aerodynamic appendages that
> improve stability and damping?  It is not clear why the aerodynamicist
> should should be given an advantage over the power management guy or the
> electronics guy.  I'll never understand why the variable thrust alignment
> system was disallowed.
>
> I don't really care what is decided, but if the rule is not well defined
> it will cause turmoil and new guys thinking about getting into pattern
> won't like it.
>
> Jim
>
> On Apr 23, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Scott McHarg wrote:
>
> Good Afternoon,
>    First, let's agree that "Engine managment" was not a correct term that
> we derived from the "old days" and we will fix that (per John Fuqua)
> assuming it passes the initial vote.  Second, let's not lose sight that we
> are speaking about telemetry and we are speaking of automated functions
> here, not those that require direct and manual input.  The wording is such
> that engine management systems that COORDINATE (through telemetry and read:
> automatically adjust) power output (to maintain a speed or anything that
> may relate to) with model performance, position, or attitude.  Honestly,
> this is no different than a gyro correcting attitude and we certainly don't
> want to allow that.  We simply are trying to allow telemetry that is
> important for safety and continue to dis-allow anything that automates
> flying the aircraft.  In my very humble opinion and to answer your
> question; Yes, I think we do want to outlaw something that makes our models
> fly better IF it is automated and not pilot-induced.
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:10 AM, James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com>wrote:
>
>> 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.”
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Scott A. McHarg*
>
>  _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>



-- 
*Scott A. McHarg*
Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure
Bryan Research & Engineering
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120423/8d1d2464/attachment.html>