[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight

[Peter Vogel]

Full moon doesn't matter.  What does matter is the proximity of the moon to
earth and relative angle to you and the scale as the moon's gravity could
act to retard or enhance the effective pull of gravity on your plane and
the scale.

:-^

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Randy Forbus via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> Will it be full moon in Blytheville, that could effect weight
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on
> behalf of Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.
> org>
> *Sent:* Friday, January 27, 2017 11:05 PM
> *To:* Ronald Van Putte; General pattern discussion
>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight
>
>
> In addition, . . . if your calibration weights were calibrated on Eglin
> AFB (elevation 84 ft MSL), they will measure a different weight in
> Blytheville, AR (elevation 255.7 ft MSL) due to the relative distance to
> the center of the earth.
>
>
>
> See how much easier all of this would be if we ditched the weight rule?
>
>
>
> -Keith Hoard
>
> -klhoard at outlook.com
>
>
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Friday, January 27, 2017 4:52 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight
>
>
>
> That’s right!  The Earth is an oblate spheroid.  Gotta factor that in.
>
>
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> On Jan 27, 2017, at 4:34 PM, Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> The rules also seem to neglect that gravity is not truly consistent at
> every place on the planet.  Perhaps that needs to be addressed in an
> upcoming rules cycle?
>
>
>
> https:      //           en.wikipedia.org
> /wiki                 /Gravity_of_Earth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] *On Behalf Of *Vogel, Peter
> via NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Friday, January 27, 2017 4:27 PM
> *To:* Ronald Van Putte <vanputter at gmail.com>; General pattern discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight
>
>
>
> The "inconsistencies" are the inconsistencies between the pilots weighing
> equipment at home and the weighing equipment used at the contest.
>
>
>
> So, if you count on your equipment being "dead accurate" and come with a
> 5050g airplane knowing it's 5050g, and the scales at the venue are off on
> the slightly heavy side, you will, in fact, be too heavy.  This, in fact,
> happened to Joseph at the last worlds, he knew he was heavy with that set
> of batteries, and the scale caught him.
>
>
>
> The LIMIT is 5000g, the tolerance is there in case your scales or the
> venue's scales are a little bit off.  The limit is not 5050g.
>
>
>
> Peter+
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on
> behalf of Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, January 27, 2017 2:02:57 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight
>
>
>
> Typo in second paragraph.  Should have been 5000gm, not 50000gm.  Sorry.
>
> Ron
>
> > On Jan 27, 2017, at 3:57 PM, Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> >
> > Something has been nagging me since the 2011 F3A World Championships.
> The decision was made, over the objections of the official weighers (John
> Fuqua and me), that airplanes would be allowed to weigh 1% more than the
> listed maximum weight of 50000gm, or 50gm.
> >
> > The argument was that it “allowed for possible inconsistencies in
> measuring equipment”.  We objected because we had purchased calibration
> weights and had them verified by the Precision Measurement Equipment
> Laboratory on Eglin AFB (at the cost of a sixpack of beer per set of
> calibration weights).  That meant we knew exactly what the airplanes
> weighed.
> >
> > Now to the current situation.  Currently, AMA classes have a 1% weight
> tolerance, or 50gm.  Suppose a contestant’s model actually weighs 5050gm,
> but the weighing equipment is in error by 25 grams.  So the scales would
> measure the contestant’s airplane at 5075gm.  Remember that the 15
> allowance is for "possible inconsistencies in measuring equipment”.  The
> contestant’s airplane is “too heavy”.
> >
> > Something to think about.
> >
> > Ron Van Putte
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>



-- 
Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
Associate Vice President, Academy of Model Aeronautics District X
Treasurer, National Society of Radio Control Aerobatics (NSRCA)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170127/17cb9d29/attachment.html>