<html><body>
<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></BLOCKQUOTE>
</body></html>