<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>“</span></font>Simple solution to
this seemingly impossible to solve problem: come up with a weight limit that is
reasonable for a 2-meter Pattern plane that's READY TO FLY. That means
an electric <em><i><font face="Times New Roman">with batteries</font></i></em>
and a glow airplane <em><i><font face="Times New Roman">with a full tank of
fuel</font></i></em>.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Here’s the deal – not matter how we got here, we do have a
max takeoff weight now for electrics which is 11 lbs, and electrics are
competitive with glow which clearly have an advantage as they do not have a
maximum takeoff weight. What are the options to “level the playing
field”, and what results will the “changes” bring:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Option A – leave the rules and current interpretations alone.
Result – minor improvements in glow before it’s imminent death, and
considerably more improvements in electrics (in terms of performance and
reduced cost). The latest and greatest costs money/time/resources, and “I
want new stuff now for what the old stuff costs” just isn’t reality.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Option B – to level the playing field, increase the takeoff weight
limit to whatever (11.5, 12, 12.5 lbs) for both glow and electric, and you have
ZERO performance increase with glow, and you have a HUGE opportunity to
increase the performance of electric (which WILL happen). Result – the
imminent obsolescence of glow will occur faster, and performance and COST will
increase for electric which will be the only viable option for those that want
to compete without being at a disadvantage. I think a bad scenario for
everyone (excepting maybe the battery manufacturers). AND, in truth, I
can envision some minimal increases in glow depending on the exact setup and
weight limit, but it will be at increased cost, and it the increased
performance will be a fraction of the extra performance the electrics will
gain.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Option C – to level the playing field and prevent an escalation
in costs (of glow or electric), enforce an 11 lb takeoff weight for glow and
electric. Result – even faster obsolescence of glow, and no
escalation in costs of electrics (which will continue to improve in performance
while decreasing in costs). The average glow plane / engine would need some
serious work, but there are plenty of options for those that care to look.
Numerous composite or “roach” ships can be built at <10 lbs, without
spending $3500 for a custom Oxai (nothing wrong with that of course), and
plenty of power options exist to get through a sequence on less than 16 oz (by
weight) of fuel. My last glow plane (hanging on the ceiling untouched
since June 2006) was a Vivat / Webra 160, and it was 10.5 lbs at takeoff, and
that combo is still competitive today through Masters or P09.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Option D – attempt to establish differing takeoff weights for
every viable power system, and perpetually adjust the takeoff weight limits as
technology changes. Result – moving targets for manufacturers
(bad), none of the weights will ever be reduced (because that would obsolete
some equipment in use), the escalation of weights will slowly and inevitably
creep up for all powerplants, and the costs will go up for everyone….and
the administrative/technical/logistical/tech inspections for planes will be far
more complex. By far the worst option.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Glow already has an advantage, and it is going to die anyway. Excepting
Option D (by far the worst option), electric will be dominant, and the best
electrics with the best performance will always cost more (performance always
has a cost in open competition). To me, the only decision is how much do
you want the electrics to cost when glow is obsolete? I’d prefer to
keep rules as they are and, not allow the costs to go up (yet another time) for
either glow or electric.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
Dave</span></font><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <b><span style='font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>John Pavlick<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Thursday, June 04, 2009 1:52
PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">General
pattern discussion</st1:PersonName><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Weight</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0>
<tr>
<td valign=top style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>What everyone is dancing around is the fact that
there are 2 definitions of "takeoff weight". One for glow / gas
powered airplanes and one for electrics. Being an engineer and a somewhat
logically minded person I would say that the correct definition of
"takeoff weight" would include batteries, fuel, protoplasm -
whatever is necessary to allow the airplane to fly. I'm sure most
people would agree. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>The "problem" comes form the
fact that some people believe there is no way of verifying the amount of
fuel that would be put into a glow / gas airplane when it's weighed (people
might put half a tank of fuel in and then get the airplane weighed), so
they decided to weigh them without fuel. Solved the problem - but created
another one when electrics became popular. Let's see. How hard is it to
make sure you have a full tank of fuel? Doesn't it run out of the overflow?
Is it really that hard? I know it might take longer to verify that the
tank is full but if that's what needs to be done then so be it. How do
you know that the batteries are installed in an electric? How can you be
sure that every time that plane is flown in the contest, the batteries will
weigh the same (someone could weigh in with smaller batteries)?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>I REALLY wish more of you guys were involved in car
racing. 99% of these ridiculous "problems" would be avoided. Here's
how it works: Before the car goes on the track it's inspected. If it meets
the rules (weight, size, safety equipment, etc.) it gets stickered. NOW
it can race. Cars are usually checked before they go out and when they come
off the track. If you place in the top 3 the engine usually gets torn
apart. Cheaters get caught by the tech. inspectors. Everyone knows the rules
and all the cars running in a given class must meet those rules. It's not
rocket science. If a bunch of good ole' boys at a dirt track can do it - why
can't we? LOL<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Simple solution to this seemingly impossible to
solve problem: come up with a weight limit that is reasonable for a
2-meter Pattern plane that's READY TO FLY. That means an electric <em><i><font
face="Times New Roman">with batteries</font></i></em> and a glow airplane <em><i><font
face="Times New Roman">with a full tank of fuel</font></i></em>. Of course
you can fly with less fuel or smaller batteries if you want to be lighter but
what we're looking for is a worst case / maximum weight scenario. To be fair,
the planes should be weighed before thay take off and after they land. Do you
need to do this at local contests? No, I don't think so. How many planes
are weighed at local contests now? Should you do this at the Nationals?
Absolutely. Anythng else will only lead to more discussion,
explanation and discontent. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>John Pavlick<br>
<br>
--- On <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Thu, 6/4/09, J N Hiller <i><span
style='font-style:italic'><jnhiller@earthlink.net></span></i></span></b>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #1010FF 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><br>
From: J N Hiller <jnhiller@earthlink.net><br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<br>
To: "<st1:PersonName w:st="on">General pattern discussion</st1:PersonName>"
<nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 1:08 PM<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Using the FAI weight limit allow one to fly the same
airplane in both FAI<br>
and AMA pattern.<br>
Jim Hiller<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a
href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
[mailto:<a
href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>]On
Behalf Of Bill's Email<br>
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:42 AM<br>
To: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">General pattern discussion</st1:PersonName><br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<br>
<br>
What everyone is dancing around here is the fact that the 5 kg (+/- 11<br>
pound) weight limit is a completely arbitrary number that has no<br>
foundation in anything other than FAI used to have this limit for all RC<br>
models. In FAI being at or below 5 kg was what defined you as a radio<br>
controlled "model" airplane.<br>
<br>
Here is the weight rule for F3B gliders:<br>
<br>
5.3.1.3. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Gliders F3B<br>
a) Maximum flying mass ........................................ 5 kg<br>
<br>
F3J Gliders:<br>
<br>
5.6.1.3. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Gliders<br>
a) Maximum Flying Mass .................................. 5 kg<br>
<br>
F3F Slope RAcing Gliders:<br>
<br>
5.F.2. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Slope Gliders<br>
Maximum flying mass ........................................ 5 kg<br>
<br>
F3C helis are now 6 KG so even the FAI can change their minds.<br>
<br>
Point being is that the 5 kg "limit" has no real life basis beyond
what<br>
was in the FAI sporting code at the time the AMA rules were written. FAI<br>
was not looking at all the convoluted logic about cost, etc. At the time<br>
that was simply how they defined (and still do for many RC events) what<br>
a model airplane is.<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a
href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a
href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>