<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
I have this 'feeling' that at the time there was little thought given between flight pack batteries and POWER batteries--"...with batteries..." was in the book--and that was taken literally. Anyone truly know?<BR>
RS<BR>> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 12:00:53 -0400<BR>> From: verne@twmi.rr.com<BR>> To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>> CC: pamrich47@hotmail.com<BR>> <BR>> The only logic I can see in the decision would be that electric motors are inherently lighter than glow motors so the batteries were thrown in as a means to balance things out. I doubt that anyone at the time was aware that less robust airframes would also be an added benefit to electric vs glow. Having said all that, I believe the formula is deficient. To me, the most logical approach is to take the batteries out of the equation and require a "dry" weight for electrics that takes into account the fact that an electric motor is inherently lighter than a glow motor. The arguments that a fuel tank isn't required doesn't wash because the counter argument is that an electric requires a speed control that is much heavier than a throttle servo. All of those arguments are just that, arguments. A "dry" weight of 8.75 pounds fixes everything in my opinion.<BR>> <BR>> Verne<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ---- Richard Strickland <pamrich47@hotmail.com> wrote: <BR>> > <BR>> > As Ron pointed out--the decision to weigh "with batteries" was probably someone's very strict interpretation. Do we have any idea who that is/was--and could it just be re-interpreted? This is just flat not logical.<BR>> > RS <BR>> > > From: mjfrederick@cox.net<BR>> > > To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:04:52 -0500<BR>> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>> > > <BR>> > > It's not so much that the designs are obsolete, people just feel <BR>> > > embarrassed showing up with an old airplane. A friend of mine who <BR>> > > designs airplanes has designed 3 airplanes in the last 3 years. The <BR>> > > main reason for the new designs is changes in F3A schedules. His older <BR>> > > designs going back to the mid to late 90's are still highly <BR>> > > competitive. His new designs are not for AMA pattern, they're for f3a. <BR>> > > If you choose to buy a design that is more than you need, that's your <BR>> > > choice but don't look for a rules change to fix AMA pattern when <BR>> > > there's nothing broke. Keeping up with the Joneses in f3a is not a <BR>> > > valid reason for a rule change.<BR>> > > <BR>> > > Sent from my iPhone<BR>> > > <BR>> > > On Jun 4, 2009, at 7:45 AM, mike mueller <mups1953@yahoo.com> wrote:<BR>> > > <BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > "designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"<BR>> > > > Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're competitive and <BR>> > > > always looking for better and different. Truth be known I look <BR>> > > > forward to a new plane in the Spring that I planned and prepared for <BR>> > > > a year or so. It's part of what appeals me to pattern and I do this <BR>> > > > on a lower budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this. <BR>> > > > It's all about will and determination and innovation to get what I <BR>> > > > want with as little as I have to work with. Money and building <BR>> > > > talents lacking I still put down a competitive piece each year. No <BR>> > > > sponsors either. Now that's actually pretty funny sorry.....<BR>> > > > Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and that the <BR>> > > > pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the time. I'm saying <BR>> > > > that I think designs for the truly competitive have a rather short <BR>> > > > lifespan and that's not going to change anytime soon.<BR>> > > > Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that work well with <BR>> > > > IC. What about the Passport? Osmose? Integral? It's only been a year <BR>> > > > or so that the newer generation of planes have been introduced that <BR>> > > > are dedicated for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E. <BR>> > > > Addiction E. and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were meant <BR>> > > > for IC and we adapted them to fit E.<BR>> > > > Mike<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Ron Hansen <rcpilot@wowway.com> wrote:<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > >> From: Ron Hansen <rcpilot@wowway.com><BR>> > > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>> > > >> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> > > >> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 7:10 AM<BR>> > > >> I agree with Paul. Remove the<BR>> > > >> weight limit and keep the 2 meter size<BR>> > > >> limit. If someone wants to fly a 15 lb biplane<BR>> > > >> powered with a DA-50<BR>> > > >> more power too them. Sure our current planes may be<BR>> > > >> obsolete but all<BR>> > > >> designs are obsolete in 2-3 years.<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> I'm an intermediate pilot and my biggest concern is the<BR>> > > >> selection of<BR>> > > >> designs available. Right now other than the Focus II<BR>> > > >> or the Black Magic<BR>> > > _______________________________________________<BR>> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > <BR>> > _________________________________________________________________<BR>> > Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you.<BR>> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290<BR><br /><hr />Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. <a href='http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009' target='_new'>Check it out.</a></body>
</html>