<DIV>Guys, I am very new to pattern, but have been following this discussion with interest. I don't know enough to have an opinion, although I do have a couple of points that I've been wondering about that I don't think anyone has mentioned yet, or at least not stated explicitly. But maybe I missed it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If the issue of "going electric" is cost, then how does raising the weight limit for electric lower the cost? Seems the real killer, cost-wise, is battery packs, and anybody flying electric is still going to have to purchase the highest quality he can afford, no matter what.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It appears the equalizing factor for electric advocates is weight. If the weight limit is raised for electrics, won't the additional weight hurt performance? And if the weight limit for glow planes was changed to "ramp weight" (with fuel), wouldn't that mean that glow planes would have to be built even lighter, with more exotic materials and care, thereby driving up the cost? And at the end of a flying schedule they'd have a distinct advantage because they'd be all that much lighter, no?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Maybe the status quo is better.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-- Bob Moulder</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From: nsrca-discussion-request@lists.nsrca.org<BR>Date: Monday, June 25, 2007 12:14 pm<BR>Subject: NSRCA-discussion Digest, Vol 19, Issue 141<BR>To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR><BR>> Send NSRCA-discussion mailing list submissions to<BR>> nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> <BR>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<BR>> nsrca-discussion-request@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> <BR>> You can reach the person managing the list at<BR>> nsrca-discussion-owner@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> <BR>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<BR>> than "Re: Contents of NSRCA-discussion digest..."<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Today's Topics:<BR>> <BR>> 1. Re: Airplane Weight Limits (Ron Van Putte)<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> -----<BR>> <BR>> Message: 1<BR>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:11:32 -0500<BR>> From: Ron Van Putte <VANPUTTE@COX.NET><BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits<BR>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>> Message-ID: <A98F8D14-8194-41C3-9434-5E991ECE652F@COX.NET><BR>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"<BR>> <BR>> No. Most of the people who can "make weight" are extremely <BR>> talented <BR>> in building a light airplane for battery power (or can afford to <BR>> pay <BR>> a talented builder) and have the money to spend to buy the <BR>> lightest <BR>> equipment (motor/batteries/ESC). I don't think I'm denigrating <BR>> the <BR>> pilot on a limited budget when I say that. The result is, those <BR>> who <BR>> have the money can compete with electric-powered airplanes, but <BR>> most <BR>> of the others can't. The factor causing most of the money <BR>> discrepancy is the unfair application of the weight limit by <BR>> requiring electric-powered airplanes to be weighed with the <BR>> batteries, but allowing glow-powered airplanes to be weighed <BR>> with an <BR>> empty fuel tank.<BR>> <BR>> Ron Van Putte<BR>> <BR>> On Jun 25, 2007, at 8:48 AM, Del K. Rykert wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > Ron..<BR>> > Is your message that glow is at a disadvantage? Cost and <BR>> what <BR>> > some can afford has always and will always be an issue in this <BR>> <BR>> > sport. Back when everyone else switched to full 2 meter planes <BR>> and <BR>> > I stuck with 60 size 2 cycle I could easily see the <BR>> disadvantage I <BR>> > was at except in calm air. If that is where electric is <BR>> taking the <BR>> > sport then that is another nail in the proverbial coffin for <BR>> the <BR>> > sport.<BR>> ><BR>> > Del<BR>> ><BR>> > ----- Original Message -----<BR>> > From: Ron Van Putte<BR>> > To: NSRCA Mailing List<BR>> > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 12:00 PM<BR>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits<BR>> ><BR>> > I have a built-in problem with someone being able to "buy" a <BR>> win. <BR>> > It comes from when I entered the Soapbox Derby as a 14 year <BR>> old. <BR>> > In my first race, I was beaten buy a kid who eventually won <BR>> the <BR>> > whole race. My dad could afford to buy me an official set of <BR>> <BR>> > wheels, but no more. The father of the kid who beat me bought <BR>> ten <BR>> > sets of wheels and they were able to select the four best <BR>> wheels. <BR>> > If a rule enables only the "rich" to compete successfully with <BR>> an e- <BR>> > powered airplane, it gets my hackles up.<BR>> ><BR>> > Ron Van Putte<BR>> ><BR>> > On Jun 22, 2007, at 9:54 AM, Dave Lockhart wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> >> Ron / John,<BR>> >><BR>> >> Point taken. And no offense, but so what? As a kid, I was <BR>> never <BR>> >> the biggest guy on the playing fields??but I loved to play <BR>> anyway <BR>> >> and never asked for a head start, an extra kick, or an extra <BR>> >> swing. I?m still not the ?biggest kid?, and some of the most <BR>> fun <BR>> >> I?ve had was whooping up on the ?superior? equipment back <BR>> when I <BR>> >> couldn?t afford the latest greatest Skippy Propnut TurboZoot <BR>> 9000 <BR>> >> XL MkVII Touring edition limited SE with the add-ons.<BR>> >><BR>> >> The average guy can?t afford many things?..like the Naruke <BR>> edition <BR>> >> Astral flown by McMurtry at the 2006 NATs? Or even the Oxai <BR>> >> version?..or even the Xtreme version.<BR>> >><BR>> >> Your argument could be extended to many things??.2C vs 4C (as <BR>> if <BR>> >> you could get a consensus on which is ?better?)???..analog vs <BR>> <BR>> >> digital servos????.guys flying electrics w/ NIcd or Nimh <BR>> because <BR>> >> they can?t afford lipos???and on an on.<BR>> >><BR>> >> Pattern competition is a competitive event with some broad <BR>> limits <BR>> >> (weight, size, noise). You have your choices, you pick what <BR>> is <BR>> >> most competitive for your available budget, you practice, you <BR>> <BR>> >> compete. You win, or you lose.<BR>> >><BR>> >> If you / John don?t think electric is competitive under the <BR>> >> current rules, fly glow.<BR>> >><BR>> >> Others think electric is competitive and are flying electric.<BR>> >><BR>> >> Again, electric is in its infancy??make a rule now that <BR>> favors <BR>> >> electrics and you will ensure unquestionable electric <BR>> dominance in <BR>> >> the very near future. Just remember the 120 4C?.it was to <BR>> allow <BR>> >> parity between a piped 60 2C and allow a quieter powerplant. <BR>> Very <BR>> >> shortsighted rule as the 120 4C became dominant rapidly. <BR>> Clearly <BR>> >> the gap (if there is one) between electric and glow today is <BR>> >> nothing like the 2C / 4C gap was in ~1988 (when 2C 60s <BR>> dominated <BR>> >> 120 4Cs) or now (when a 120 4C dominates 60 2Cs).<BR>> >><BR>> >> By definition, the average guy will never be able to afford <BR>> the <BR>> >> highest level setup. And that has never prevented something <BR>> like <BR>> >> a humble wooden Focus from winning the NATs?..at any level.<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> Regards,<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> Dave<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- <BR>> >> discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte<BR>> >> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 10:27 AM<BR>> >> To: NSRCA Mailing List<BR>> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> It is said that you can't understand a person's problems <BR>> until <BR>> >> you've walked a mile in their shoes. John and I didn't <BR>> understand <BR>> >> what the problems were regarding making weight with electric- <BR>> >> powered airplanes until he decided to compete with one. I am <BR>> still <BR>> >> competing with a glow-powered Focus.<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> John's airplane is under 5 Kg, but not by much. Due to an <BR>> >> extensive weight-saving building job on his Black Magic by <BR>> Mike <BR>> >> Hester and John's careful selection and installation of <BR>> radio, <BR>> >> batteries, ESC, prop, motor, spinner, et al, his airplane is <BR>> OK <BR>> >> with weight, even in the kind of winds we often see at the <BR>> Nats. <BR>> >> He's thinking about the guys who can't afford as much $$$ as <BR>> he <BR>> >> has invested in his setup. The average guy probably can't <BR>> build an <BR>> >> electric-powered 2 meter airplane that makes weight and is <BR>> >> competitive with the kind of budget required for a glow-<BR>> powered <BR>> >> version of the same airplane.<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> Ron Van Putte<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> The learning curve is very steep.<BR>> >><BR>> >> On Jun 21, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Keith Black wrote:<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> I fly electric but still would be against this proposal.<BR>> >><BR>> >> John F. makes some good points in his justification, however, <BR>> I <BR>> >> simply think that Dave's counter points out "weigh" John's points.<BR>> >><BR>> >> I think if you read Dave's post with an open mind and not a <BR>> pre- <BR>> >> conceived "position" you feel you have to protect you'll <BR>> find <BR>> >> his logic very compelling.<BR>> >><BR>> >> BTW, I find this change of heart by you and John quite <BR>> amusing. <BR>> >> This is probably unfair but it almost sounds as if one of you <BR>> <BR>> >> can't get your new e-plane to make weight with the current <BR>> rules. <BR>> >> I'm sure that's not true, but from the outside it certainly <BR>> >> appears that way.<BR>> >><BR>> >> I hope the real reason for "floating" this idea was to get <BR>> people <BR>> >> opinions. If so I'm beginning to see a trend.<BR>> >><BR>> >> Keith Black<BR>> >><BR>> >> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> >><BR>> >> From: Ron Van Putte<BR>> >><BR>> >> To: NSRCA Mailing List<BR>> >><BR>> >> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 7:38 PM<BR>> >><BR>> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> I was also not aware that glow-powered airplanes needed the <BR>> >> handicap they already have. I agree that, with innovative <BR>> design <BR>> >> and $$$, electric-powered airplanes can compete with glow-<BR>> powered <BR>> >> airplanes. The ones who suffer from the weight inequity are <BR>> those <BR>> >> who can't afford the $$$ to overcome the weight inequity.<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> Ron Van Putte<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> On Jun 21, 2007, at 6:59 PM, John Ferrell wrote:<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> I did not realize that the Electrics were in need of a <BR>> handicap. <BR>> >> They seem to be doing just fine against the recips under <BR>> current <BR>> >> rules.<BR>> >><BR>> >> If you really think they need a little help by all means give <BR>> them <BR>> >> a rule book boost!<BR>> >><BR>> >> John Ferrell W8CCW<BR>> >> "Life is easier if you learn to plow<BR>> >> around the stumps"<BR>> >> http://DixieNC.US<BR>> >><BR>> >> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> >><BR>> >> From: Ron Van Putte<BR>> >><BR>> >> To: NSRCA Mailing List<BR>> >><BR>> >> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:44 PM<BR>> >><BR>> >> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> I just got this response from John Fuqua.<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> Ron Van Putte<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> The guys are missing the point. It is not about what can be <BR>> >> achieved on weight. It is what is permitted by the rules. <BR>> They are <BR>> >> not arguing the logic of what the rules allow (in most cases) <BR>> but <BR>> >> examples of what has been achieved. Please make that point.<BR>> >><BR>> >> John<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> From: Ron Van Putte [mailto:vanputte@cox.net]<BR>> >><BR>> >> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 1:18 PM<BR>> >><BR>> >> To: Fuqua John D Mr CTR USAF 697 ARSF/EN<BR>> >><BR>> >> Subject: Fwd: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Electric Weight <BR>> Proposal <BR>> >> Logic and Rationale<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> _______________________________________________<BR>> >><BR>> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >><BR>> >> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >><BR>> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> _______________________________________________<BR>> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> >><BR>> >> _______________________________________________<BR>> >><BR>> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >><BR>> >> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >><BR>> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> _______________________________________________<BR>> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> <BR>> -------------- next part --------------<BR>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<BR>> URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-<BR>> discussion/attachments/20070625/475efa86/attachment.html <BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> <BR>> End of NSRCA-discussion Digest, Vol 19, Issue 141<BR>> *************************************************<BR>> </DIV>