<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16481" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=MailContainerBody
style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 15px; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Lucida Sans; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TEXT-DECORATION: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"
leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 acc_role="text" CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area"><!--[gte IE 5]><?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->
<DIV>
<DIV>FAI has apparantly addressed the issue by going a different
route... Take a look at P09... Total Kfactor has been reduced
to 60... Total time</DIV>
<DIV>has been reduced from 10 minutes to 8 minutes.</DIV>
<DIV>There are no take off/ landing rules, or judging.... get in the air
and get to the sequence starting position.</DIV>
<DIV>This will cut the flight times by at least a minute. This also means
that smaller batteries can be used, easily cutting gross weight by 1/2
pound.</DIV>
<DIV>Problem solved!!!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Rex</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B> <A
title=mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net
href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 21, 2007 1:30
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd:
Electric Weight Proposal LogicandRationale</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Fred,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>And they have quit improving glow engines?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>********Certainly glow continues to improve, but as a well
established medium, it is not improving at the same rate as
electric.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Didn't they just come out with a 2.0 ci glow engine thats
light enough to stick on a Pattern plane?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>********Yes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Saying we can't do something because technology wil
advance means you must want to go back to the days when the Sig King Kobra was
a top of the line plane. Anything with higher performance than thhat had
using 1975 technology is not allowed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>********That was not my statement. My statement was
that a rules change for an intended purpose needs be additionally evaluated
for unintended consequences (pattern has a long history of unintended
consequences from short sighted rules).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Glow planes DO bennefit from carrying more weight... you can
bolt on that 2.0 ci engine and carry a 30 oz fuel tank to feed it.... and
because you weigh empty you gain the bennefits of added power making the added
fuel weight inconsequential. Glow can compensate for the higher fuel
consumption that comes with higher power and not blink.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>********Fair enough. However, the intended
context/framework was the comparison of additional weight in the form of fuel
to a glow plane with no other changes, and the addition of weight (in the form
of battery) to an electric plane with no other changes. The intended
context aside, there are also several other complicating factors such as
wingloading, noise, structural considerations, etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The basic conclusions I made remain unchanged.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><BR>Dave</DIV>
<DIV></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=mailto:Davel322@comcast.net
href="mailto:Davel322@comcast.net">Davel322@comcast.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 21, 2007 12:09
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd:
Electric Weight Proposal Logic andRationale</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Not a good proposal.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The fatal flaw is this - Glow planes receive no benefit from carrying
additional weight. Adding weight to glow reduces the power to weight
ratio, carrying un-needed fuel detracts from performance. Adding
more battery weight to an electric could substantially increase the power
output AND power to weight ratio.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Additionally, the proposal fails to acknowledge the inherent benefits
of electrics over glow (reduced structure is possible with reduced
vibration, reduced finish is possible with lack of oil...and many
more).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>An additional flaw (conceptually) is that this idea is very
shortsighted. Electrics are still in their infancy. The
motors, batteries, and ESCs will all get lighter and more efficient (and
cheaper) with future develepment. Airframes tailored for electric
will continue to improve further reducing weight. Within the
existing rules structure, a very solid arguement could be made that
electrics can already achieve equal performance to glow, and a very solid
arguement could also be made that a cutting edge electric has better
performance than a cutting edge glow. Electrics do not need any
additional advantages at this time and will be dominant in the near future
within the existing rules structure.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>An average flying weight for glow of 11.5 lbs assumes the average dry
weight is 11 lbs. 11 lbs is not the average dry weight.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The assumption that 20 fluid oz is the average tank size needed for
completion of a pattern flight assumes a Masters or FAI preliminary
flight. Not all flights are for Masters and FAI. Substantially
less fuel is needed for Adv, Int, and Sportsman. Further, the
assumption would also seem to be based on a glow engine with a very high
fuel consumption ratio. Plenty of 2C setups complete Masters and FAI
on 12 oz.....well managed 4Cs do almost as well. Perhaps 14 fluid oz
would be a better average (~11 oz actual weight).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The past few years, I've been fortunate to be flying some very high
quality composite models (glow Vivats and electric Prestiges). The
Vivats were 9 lbs 14 oz + 12 oz of fuel (more than enough for the Webra
160MC to get through 1.5 PO7s) for an average flight weight of 10 lbs 4
oz. My electric Prestige with TP5300s was 10 lbs even on the 2006
NATs scale.....current configuration puts it at 10 lbs 3 oz. At
~$1900 USD per copy, the Vivat and Prestige are not cheap, but hardly the
most expensive option. On the lower end of the price scale, there
are plenty of options from UltraRC, Fliton, etc, that can be well under
weight electric or glow. The Black Magic series is among the biggest
planes currently and recently available and can be built at 10 lbs
electric and well under 10 lbs glow.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Applicable to this proposal (and others past, current, future) is
that the proposal should be evaluated from the perspective of a competitor
looking for a competitive advantage - ie, not how the proposal will effect
current equipment/desigsn, but what higher levels of performance could
potentially be achieved by a competitor looking to exploit the new
rules. Historically, any increase in size, weight, or displacement
has resulted in larger and more expensive airframes.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Dave Lockhart</DIV>
<DIV><A title=mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net
href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">--------------
Original message -------------- <BR>From: Ron Van Putte
<vanputte@cox.net> <BR>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 title=mailto:vanputte@cox.net
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 you put some thought into it. Electrics
have a finite weight and gas! ! plane s 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>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG Free
Edition. <BR>Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.4/860 - Release
Date: 6/21/2007 5:53
PM<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BODY></HTML>