<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Electric Weight Proposal Logic and Rationale</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16481" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Gasoline may become viable for Pattern.. new lightweight
DESIGNED FOR AIRPLANES engines with electronic ignition are comming out.
Amazing power when a 26 CC $300 engine turns a 18X8 @ 7600 rpm...</FONT></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="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=atwoodm@paragon-inc.com href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com">Mark
Atwood</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=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 1:37
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd:
Electric Weight Proposal Logic and Rationale</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">Go Gavey, Go Davey, Go Davey...<BR><BR>In my opinion,
ANY change in the rules will be exploited. And why does there need
to be equity or parity of equipment??? In ANY competitive sport there
are limits that effectively define what is and is not competitive.
Should wood propellers have a special rule to help them be more
competitive? They’re cheaper! That’ll help get more people into
pattern if we give a scoring bonus to people using wooden propellers.
Sorry, that’s being a little obnoxious, but that’s the way this
feels. I’d love to use cheaper, lighter paints...but the burden of nitro
is making things fuel proof. Everything I use on a plane is
decided based on what will be either cool, competitive, or cost effective.
It’s rare that I get to have all three. Where’s the proposal to
increase the weight for Gas engines since none of the current designs are
competitive at the current weight? Talk about saving some money in
pattern...whew...$3/gal vs $20/gal times 50 gal a season....<BR><BR>I think
the biggest point that Dave makes is that E power is still SO new that setting
rules now will be moot in a year. By the time they’re voted in, they’ll
need to be changed.<BR><BR>We didn’t have electrics in pattern for MANY years
because it wasn’t competitive (Ask Dave Von Linsowe who tried it numerous
times). Not enough power for the weight. No one argued for Parity rules.
The only reason there’s an issue now is because they’re getting close to
parity on their own. My guess is they’ll get there on their own
too.<BR><BR>-M<BR><BR><BR>On 6/21/07 1:09 PM, "Davel322@comcast.net"
<Davel322@comcast.net> wrote:<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">Not a good proposal.<BR> <BR>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.<BR> <BR>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).<BR> <BR>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.<BR> <BR>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.<BR> <BR>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).<BR> <BR>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.<BR> <BR>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.<BR> <BR>Regards,<BR><BR>Dave
Lockhart<BR>DaveL322@comcast.net<BR> <BR> <BR></SPAN></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">-------------- 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. <BR><BR>Ron Van Putte<BR><BR>Begin
forwarded message:<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT size=4><FONT face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><B>Date: </B>June 21, 2007 10:40:36 AM
CDT<BR><B>To: </B>"Ron Van Putte"
<vanputte@cox.net><BR><B>Subject: Electric Weight Proposal Logic
and Rationale<BR></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px"><BR><BR></SPAN></FONT><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px"><FONT face=Arial>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 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.<BR></FONT><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT><FONT
face=Arial>John</FONT><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">
<BR><BR></FONT><FONT face=Arial>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> No model may have a
wingspan or total length longer than two (2) meters (78.74
inches).<BR></FONT><FONT
face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR><BR></FONT><FONT
face=Arial><B>Logic behind proposed change, including alleged
shortcomings of the present rules. State intent for future
reference.</B></FONT><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">
<BR><BR></FONT><FONT face=Arial>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.<BR></FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px"><FONT
face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px"><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
<HR align=center width="95%" SIZE=3>
</FONT></SPAN><FONT size=2><FONT face="Monaco, Courier New"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10px">_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT
size=2><FONT face="Monaco, Courier New"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10px"><BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
<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></BODY></HTML>