<!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 6.00.2900.3132" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Two years ago I was told we could not make a kit
that would make the electric weight. I did not believe that, even though I was
appalled at the "gram counting-corner cutting- un-safe construction" I was
seeing people using just to make the weight.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A year ago we took our glo Aggressor, and with
minor changes made an Electric that flew at 10 lbs 5 oz. Minor
changes being --no pipe tunnel, a minor change in chin layup, and no
firewall. We installed the Pletty30-10, and later the Pletty30-10EVO
in the spinner, and used Falcon 5s2p 5300 10c batteries. I decided I
wanted to go with an outrunner instead of a geared system. Our only problem
was being committed to only three prop configurations available that were
not that good in very high winds. After about 80 flights on the
batteries we switched to the EVO and had our first electric problem. The
new EVO controller was not tested to an Airtronics Stylus for throttle settings,
and guess what-we drained the batteries and lost one set. Our fault, we should
have measured the top end before we flew on the new setup, but we did not and
had a max top end of 89 amps. We reset the transmitter curve and now things
are fine. Since then we have tried (on loan) several types of
batteries and the weight has gone down, and the performance gone up (20 to 50 C
versions).We are now converting to a normal fiewall installation to be able to
match props/ conditions better.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So much for "weight being an impossible problem",
and others have confirmed their similar experience with nominal costing
kits. You DO NOT have to buy $2500 kits to make the weight-matter of fact the
way some of them made the weight was lousy engineering/fabrication, and then
they came apart very easily.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>COSTS- more-yes, if you already have all the glo
stuff -you have essentially a duplicate expense to what you have spent already,
assuming you are flying a DZ or a large two stroke. I do not believe you
can use electric "cost" as a justification for a rule change--as others have so
aptly stated! Competitive people will strive for the best -no matter what the
Sport. And you also can get very good motor performance now days for less
than half what it was a year ago.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Therefore I see NO logical, or substantive reason
to change the current weight rules.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now from a safety standpoint I do see some
logic behind making a minor change to the rule on allowable voltage. Increase it
to maximum of 48 volts using the Manufacturer's rated cell voltage.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The current AMA rule stating 42 volts nominal ( I
do not know whether that precisely means --designated cell voltage, or
fully charged voltage). Our 5s batteries are sold at (marked) as 18.5v.
Yet we know when fully charged they are 21v give or take. One more cell would
reduce the current needed for the same power, and therefore be somewhat safer. I
know there was a 48 v limit in the National Electrical Code, and why
it was there, and see no reason why it should not be
used.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Also, with the new LIPO cell chemistry and
associated cell voltage changes, they would become more attractive, even
with a minor weight penalty. They also would be more user
friendly,(charging) and safer, than the current LIPO's.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>HMMM-maybe I should think about working a proposal
up on that--any thoughts from the gallery?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jerry</FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>