<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1595" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=125335919-21062007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Dave,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=125335919-21062007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=125335919-21062007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I may
be arguing just for the sake of arguing--but: They made an exception to the
take-off weight of 5kg for fuel-so why not for batteries? If the rule is
5kg--then it should be that for everyone. OK, OK, I know (sort of)
why--but I don't necessarily agree with it...bitch, moan,
grumble....</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=125335919-21062007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=125335919-21062007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Richard</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]<B>On Behalf Of
</B>Davel322@comcast.net<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:27
PM<BR><B>To:</B> NSRCA Mailing List<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Fwd: Electric Weight Proposal LogicandRationale<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Richard.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I agree with all your points in theory/concept.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As has been discussed many a time on this list, a guy doing exactly what
you suggest (using an existing airframe for electric, being a couple ounces
over the weight limit, and not gaining a competive advantage by being slightly
overweight) is not going to draw attention and be DQ'd from anything other
than the finals at the US NATs. So practically, the 11.1 lb conversion
is not an issue.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I tend to think the durability of electric planes themselves is not as a
big a problem as thought - I think most of the problems tend to come from glow
conversions which end up some signifigant compromises to reduce weight (which
would have been absent if initially electric). I really don't think
durability of the electric plane itself is a problem - purpose built electrics
are likely more durable as they don't have to endure vibration. The
Abbra (I built one to use as an electric testbed) kit is no different
glow/electric - same weight glass, CF, foam, paint, etc. Mine
is right at 10 lbs 10 oz w/ TP5000s and I did nothing special to save
weight. It is very easy to get an electric heavy if care is not taken
selecting components, but that is really just a learning curve (not unlike
glow), and much of what can be done to keep an electric light is limited when
converting from glow.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Dave</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">--------------
Original message -------------- <BR>From: "Richard Strickland"
<richard.s@allied-callaway.com> <BR>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1595" name=GENERATOR>
<DIV><SPAN class=546533918-21062007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>For most guys, myself included, just want to use the existing
airframes and not have to sweat being super-light and it costing up the
wazoo to get there. Plus the very light airframes don't stand up to
much abuse to where one little prang puts you over the limit. You
certainly have a good point about the unintended consequences of a
change--but how many guys would go for it?--you don't see that many bipes
out there now primarily because they are a pain in the ass to deal with when
in heavy practice mode for a guy after work...</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=546533918-21062007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=546533918-21062007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Richard</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]<B>On Behalf Of
</B>Davel322@comcast.net<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 21, 2007 12:36
PM<BR><B>To:</B> NSRCA Mailing List<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Electric Weight Proposal Logic
andRationale<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Richard,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think in many respects trying to compare electric / glow is like
comparing apples and oranges.....so having a blanket set of rules that is
absolutely equal (and fair) for both is not going to happen.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The "most fair" methods are going to be too complex - ie, calculate
average power loading and wingloading for average electric and glow models
over the course of an average flight...and then structure the rules to
ensure equality of the averages for glow and electric. And as
technology and equipment changes....the rules would have to continually
change to maintain parity.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>My electric Prestige is 7.5 lbs without batteries.....for another 2.5
lbs of airframe, .5 lb of motor, and .5 lb of radio gear, I could easily
build a bigger (but still 2M) plane with performance that would absolutely
obsolete any of the current day 2M stuff (and probably double the pricetag
as well).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Dave</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">--------------
Original message -------------- <BR>From: "Richard Strickland"
<richard.s@allied-callaway.com> <BR>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1595" name=GENERATOR>
<DIV><SPAN class=109080917-21062007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>I know I sound like a broken record, but: The IC airplanes are
weighed without fuel--the electrics should be weighed with out their
fuel. Give or take a little for the tank and not splitting
hairs--but it simply is not fair the way it is set up now. I'd
still like to know how that decision was made--so they could just
un-make it...seemed pretty arbitrary to me...no rule change involved--it
appears someone just said this is <EM>so</EM>. Somebody straighten
me out, <EM>please</EM>.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=109080917-21062007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=109080917-21062007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Richard Strickland</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]<B>On Behalf Of
</B>Ron Van Putte<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 21, 2007 11:09
AM<BR><B>To:</B> NSRCA Mailing List<BR><B>Subject:</B>
[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Electric Weight Proposal Logic and
Rationale<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>I got the following from John
Fuqua. He is going to submit a proposal to increase the weight
limit for electric-powered airplanes to 11.5 lbs. I suggested to
him that he "float" his rationale by the NSRCA Discussion List, to get
some feedback. Here is his response.
<DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>Ron Van Putte<BR>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>Begin forwarded message:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT
style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #000000" face=Helvetica
color=#000000 size=3><B>Date: </B></FONT><FONT
style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" face=Helvetica size=3>June 21, 2007
10:40:36 AM CDT</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT
style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #000000" face=Helvetica
color=#000000 size=3><B>To: </B></FONT><FONT
style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" face=Helvetica size=3>"Ron Van Putte"
<<A
href="mailto:vanputte@cox.net">vanputte@cox.net</A>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT
style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #000000" face=Helvetica
color=#000000 size=3><B>Subject: </B></FONT><FONT
style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" face=Helvetica size=3><B>Electric
Weight Proposal Logic and Rationale</B></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MIN-HEIGHT: 14px; MARGIN: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now that I am flying electrics I have
come to realize the penalty that electric planes have when being
built that gas planes to not have. That building penalty is
significant under the current rules. Electrics must be built
lighter, to include paranoid attention to everything used - wood,
paint, fittings, etc., - all to make weight. Much more of a
concern than gas planes. Also I remember many instances at the
NATs when we were weighing airplanes, when the contestant was doing
all he could do to meet weight with a gas plane to include cleaning
the fuel residue inside and out. A lot of gas planes
were weighing in at 10lb 11oz, 10lb 11.9 oz, even one that was only
a few grams under 5 kilos. Then they get to add a
minimum of 16 to 20 ozs of weight by fueling up (and there is no
limit to fuel capacity). Takeoff weights are 12 lbs or
more. This situation seems bizarre and illogical when
yo! ! u put s ome thought into it. Electrics have a finite
weight and gas planes are open ended at Takeoff. Even
though the 2005 NSRCA survey did not support an electric weight
increase it occurred to me that the survey did not offer any logic
or rationale as to why some increase would be justified or
not. I have attempted below to come up with a reasonable
compromise on electric weight allowance. I believe the
rationale supports an increase but it would be nice to have NSRCA
membership look at it to find the fatal flaw in the rationale before
it gets submitted. The two paras below are taken from the
proposed change. Lets put it out and see what the
discussion list comes up with.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>John</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Change paragraph 4.3 Weight and Size page
RCA-2 to read: No model may weigh more than 5 kilograms (11
pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff. Electric
models are weighed with batteries<B><I> and are allowed an
additional 8 ounces for a total of 11.5 pounds ready for
takeoff.</I></B><I></I> No model may have a wingspan or total
length longer than two (2) meters (78.74 inches).</FONT></P><BR>
<P><B><FONT face=Arial size=2>Logic behind proposed change,
including alleged shortcomings of the present rules. State
intent for future reference.</FONT></B> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Today's 2 meter RC Aerobatics fuel
powered aircraft typically use fuel tanks with a 20 fluid ounce
capacity. A 20 fluid ounce Crank Tank containing 25% Cool
Power Pro Pattern fuel was tested. The fuel weighed 17.3
ounces. Allowing for variation in tank sizes and fuel type a
conservative weight of 16 ounces of fuel on average seems
appropriate. This means that an allowable takeoff weight for
fuel powered aircraft is at least 12 pounds. Assuming
that all fuel is consumed during the flight, the average weight for
the aircraft is 11.5 pounds. By restricting electric powered
aircraft to the takeoff weight of unfueled aircraft an unfair weight
penalty is being arbitrarily imposed against the electric
model. By allowing electric aircraft an AVERAGE flying weight
of the fuel powered aircraft, flying weight equity is
restored.</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOC!
KQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>