[NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals

[Robert Campbell]

Scott,

Want to buy a gallon of prop wash?  It's only $10.  It'll make your plane look great sitting on the flight line.  If you order in the next 15 minutes, we'll add 50 feet of flight line for an extra $15.  Operators are standing by.


Rob
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Keith Hoard 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 5:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals


  The reason I was asking is because I had bought a box of down thrust from Shalimar Hobbies a couple years ago and still have some left over. 


  If it's now illegal, I need to return what's left for a partial refund. 


  The box of right thrust is still shrink wrapped, but I can't find the receipt. 

  Sent from my iPhone

  On Apr 23, 2012, at 16:44, Ronald Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:


    I've just added an arming plug assembly to my Vanquish.  It has the added feature of having the ability to minimize the coriolis acceleration due to precession of the earth and it self adjusts for latitude.


    Ron


    On Apr 23, 2012, at 4:33 PM, Scott McHarg wrote:


      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


      _______________________________________________
      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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120423/c026cf3b/attachment.html>