<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1595" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; khtml-nbsp-mode: space; khtml-line-break: after-white-space">
<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 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.</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></BODY></HTML>