<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV>Did you expect anythng less from this group? LOL</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>John Pavlick<BR><BR>--- On <B>Thu, 6/4/09, Verne Koester <I><verne@twmi.rr.com></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From: Verne Koester <verne@twmi.rr.com><BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight<BR>To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 11:52 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>This discussion reminds me of the old law school example that teaches the<BR>unreliability of hearsay or second-hand information. You start by whispering<BR>something into the ear of the first person in the first row and then have<BR>him repeat the message to the person sitting next to him. You continue on in<BR>this fashion until it works its way to the last person in the last row and<BR>have that person repeat the message. The difference between my original<BR>message and the final version is astounding. I give the award here to Dave<BR>for twisting my message the most. Somehow or other my proposal has turned<BR>from decreasing the allowable weight of an electric plane without batteries<BR>into increasing the weight of all pattern planes, strapping gas engines on<BR>for good measure, rendering all current designs obsolete while totally<BR>ignoring the fact that easily 99% of the designs come from the FAI ranks<BR>which aren't
impacted in any way by this proposal, and completely ignoring<BR>the fact that currently available 5300 mah batteries haven't gotten lighter,<BR>they've gotten heavier. Most of us started with TP 5300 5S4P batteries<BR>including Dave. They aren't made anymore and everything available in that<BR>power/mah range from any manufacturer is anywhere from 2 to 10 ounces<BR>heavier going from most expensive to cheapest. But you knew that, right?<BR><BR>Verne<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 mike mueller<BR>Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009
7:44 PM<BR>To: General pattern discussion<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight<BR><BR><BR>OK Uncle!!!!!<BR><BR>--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Dave <<A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=DaveL322@comcast.net" ymailto="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A>> wrote:<BR><BR>> From: Dave <<A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=DaveL322@comcast.net" ymailto="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A>><BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight<BR>> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <<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>> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 3:51 PM<BR>> Mike,<BR>> <BR>> "Dave there are cheaper higher C light weight Lipo's on the<BR>> market now so no<BR>> need for the expensive stuff if
one so chooses."<BR>> <BR>> Whoooaaa!!!! So if the cheap lightweight lipo is<BR>> available now, why is it<BR>> that the current rules need to be tweaked??<BR>> <BR>> If you like Verne's proposal, vote for it (if/when<BR>> submitted). And know<BR>> that doing so probably won't bring us to the point where<BR>> electrics are the<BR>> only planes flying, just the point at which glow are<BR>> seriously outclassed.<BR>> <BR>> I'm not opposed to the spirit of Verne's idea, but the<BR>> nature of competition<BR>> is to push the limits whatever they are, and pushing the<BR>> limits costs<BR>> time/money/resources - always has and always will. <BR>> Raising the limits<BR>> simply raises the costs for all of us.<BR>> <BR>> Regards,<BR>> <BR>> Dave<BR>> <BR>> <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>]<BR>> On Behalf Of mike mueller<BR>> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:08 PM<BR>> To: General pattern discussion<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Dave there are cheaper higher C light weight Lipo's on the<BR>> market now so no<BR>> need for the expensive stuff if one so chooses.<BR>> I make weight with both my planes but the choices I made<BR>> in airframes and<BR>> equipment made it close. The planes both feel light in the<BR>> air. My newest<BR>> one was
harder and more expensive to make legal than what I<BR>> would have liked<BR>> but it flys very nicely.<BR>> Say whatever you guys like and all the points are well<BR>> taken but I still<BR>> like Verne's proposal. That's called an opinion and we all<BR>> have one as you<BR>> know.<BR>> I hope we never get to the point where Electric planes are<BR>> the only thing<BR>> we fly. I love to see a screaming YS plane flying and who<BR>> knows if I<BR>> wouldn't want to some day do another one just to do<BR>> something different.<BR>> It'll just be expensive. Plus if were all flying the same<BR>> power plant who am<BR>> I going to argue with?????? <BR>> Great debate and I'm taking in all the thoughts. You guys<BR>> are pretty smart<BR>> dudes!!! <BR>> Mike<BR>> <BR>> --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Dave <<A
href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=DaveL322@comcast.net" ymailto="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A>><BR>> wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > From: Dave <<A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=DaveL322@comcast.net" ymailto="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A>><BR>> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight<BR>> > To: "'General pattern discussion'" <<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>> > Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 11:17 AM<BR>> > Honestly, I understand (and agree)<BR>> > with the intention to allow the "cheap<BR>> > electric", but it is no different than trying to tweak<BR>> the<BR>> > rules for the<BR>> > "cheap gas engine" and won't (my opinion, with<BR>>
substantial<BR>> > history to back<BR>> > it) work- <BR>> > - why should the rules be tweaked to essentially<BR>> allow<BR>> > someone the latest<BR>> > greatest (electric) without paying for it (either<BR>> with<BR>> > time, or $$$, or<BR>> > experience)? The latest greatest always cost more -<BR>> > that is the nature of<BR>> > competition.<BR>> > - I truly believe the time spent researching,<BR>> designing,<BR>> > crafting,<BR>> > submitting, and implementing such a proposal will<BR>> largely<BR>> > be wasted because<BR>> > the process is relatively slow and can not possibly<BR>> keep up<BR>> > with the rate of<BR>> > change in electrics as technology advances.<BR>> > - Anyone who wants to try electric - go right ahead -<BR>> and<BR>> > fly a current day<BR>> > design at a slight weight disadvantage at local
comps<BR>> (most<BR>> > guys don't go to<BR>> > the NATs anyway) - no one is going to ask or care<BR>> about a<BR>> > couple ounces over<BR>> > 11 lbs. And if they do decide to go to the NATs,<BR>> they<BR>> > can suck it up and<BR>> > buy 1 expensive pack for official flights and the<BR>> scale.<BR>> > <BR>> > With the understanding of the intent to allow cheap<BR>> > electrics, the<BR>> > unintended consequences of any rule change needs to<BR>> be<BR>> > carefully evaluated<BR>> > prior to submitting a proposal. In this case, the<BR>> > unintended consequence<BR>> > will be the opportunity for the TOP LEVEL electric<BR>> designs<BR>> > to grow<BR>> > substantially in size and weight, which will drive the<BR>> cost<BR>> > up for all<BR>> > competitors (glow and electric) to compete with the<BR>> new<BR>>
> performance<BR>> > standard. The average plane is influenced by<BR>> whatever<BR>> > the TOP LEVEL stuff<BR>> > is - that is why both electric and glow TOP LEVEL<BR>> stuff has<BR>> > always been<BR>> > right on the limit of whatever the rules are at the<BR>> time,<BR>> > and that is the<BR>> > way it will always be - again, it is the nature of<BR>> > competition.<BR>> > <BR>> > The top level electrics right now weigh well under 11<BR>> > lbs......10 lbs is<BR>> > quite possible with electric monoplanes, which is why<BR>> some<BR>> > are able to sneak<BR>> > biplanes in under 11 lbs - of course this is by<BR>> shaving<BR>> > every ounce off the<BR>> > airframe (reducing it's lifespan and making it<BR>> relatively<BR>> > fragile) and<BR>> > pushing the lipos harder (also reducing it's<BR>> > lifespan). So
when you look at<BR>> > 8.7 lbs considering the weight of the electrics that<BR>> are<BR>> > marginally<BR>> > overweight (with the Zippy packs and AXI), the<BR>> unintended<BR>> > consequence is the<BR>> > guys that have 7.5 lb airframes now have 1.2 lbs of<BR>> > additional weight to add<BR>> > to make the plane bigger - and you know it will be<BR>> used,<BR>> > and probably along<BR>> > the lines of - <BR>> > - 6-8 oz for structure<BR>> > - 3-4 oz for more motor (more power)<BR>> > - 4-5 oz for more lipo (which would still be rated the<BR>> same<BR>> > 5300 mah, but be<BR>> > heavier to allow more voltage under load, thus<BR>> delivering<BR>> > more watts through<BR>> > the course of the flight - and it will be called a<BR>> "High<BR>> > Power Prolite", or<BR>> > "High Power AEON", whatever.)<BR>> > - 1-2 oz more for
bigger servos and more RX battery<BR>> > <BR>> > And 2 years after the 8.7 lb rule is introduced, there<BR>> will<BR>> > be a cheap copy<BR>> > of the "High Power Prolite" will be available and it<BR>> will<BR>> > weigh 5 oz more,<BR>> > and the desire will be to raise the 8.7 lbs to 9.2<BR>> lbs.<BR>> > <BR>> > Allow 5.5 kg (12 lb) or 6 kg (14.3 kg) airframes, and<BR>> yes,<BR>> > you will have<BR>> > DA50 powered stuff that is competitive with current<BR>> day<BR>> > designs, but it will<BR>> > not be competitive with the YS built for 6 kg<BR>> airframes for<BR>> > the same reason<BR>> > gas is not competitive with glow now.<BR>> > <BR>> > Allow 5.5 kg weight limit, and you instantly solve<BR>> the<BR>> > problem of all the<BR>> > guys that are a couple oz over the current 5 kg<BR>> weight<BR>> > limit. And
the new<BR>> > designs will grow, and in 1-2 years, the new designs<BR>> will<BR>> > be showing up a<BR>> > couple oz over the 5.5 kg limit.<BR>> > <BR>> > It may be true that for the TOP LEVELs of competition<BR>> that<BR>> > any airframe is<BR>> > obsolete in 3 years......BUT.......changing the rules<BR>> to<BR>> > allow 15 lbs<BR>> > airframes will obsolete (immediately) not only the<BR>> > airframes, but the<BR>> > powerplants and servos.....and up the horsepower<BR>> > requirements substantially<BR>> > which will increase the noise (only measured at the<BR>> NATs)<BR>> > and require<BR>> > substantially more cost to reduce the noise (to<BR>> achieve<BR>> > 94/96 db at the<BR>> > NATs).<BR>> > <BR>> > All of the above is escalation no different than what<BR>> we've<BR>> > seen in the past<BR>> > -<BR>>
> - "we" started with .61 cubic inch (10 CC) limit and<BR>> 5<BR>> > kg......the only<BR>> > practical limit was the displacement.<BR>> > - "we" allowed 120 4C (big mistake, short sighted, or<BR>> > should have been<BR>> > continually adjusted as competition 4Cs developed). <BR>> > Airframes grew and cost<BR>> > went up....some airplanes actually exceeded 2M (which<BR>> was<BR>> > not yet a limit).<BR>> > - "we" allowed unlimited engines to, in part, cover up<BR>> the<BR>> > mistake of the<BR>> > 120 4C, and, in part, to allow cheap gas engines<BR>> (another<BR>> > big mistake, again<BR>> > short sighted). The 2M rule went into place because<BR>> > that was essentially<BR>> > the "largest" plane in existence at the time. The<BR>> > airframes got bigger<BR>> > again (fuse volume), and cost went up again, and the<BR>>
> practical limit to<BR>> > airframe size became the 5 kg weight limit.<BR>> > <BR>> > Of course we also have the noise limit - that is<BR>> really a<BR>> > separate issue -<BR>> > but - it is worth noting that larger airplanes require<BR>> more<BR>> > power, and more<BR>> > power is more noise (or more expense to keep the noise<BR>> from<BR>> > increasing).<BR>> > <BR>> > "Wouldn't it be nice if"........is a dangerous lead in<BR>> to<BR>> > rule changes with<BR>> > unintended consequences. The gas engine, the<BR>> heavier<BR>> > lipo, the heavier<BR>> > motor, the heavier airframe, etc.....will all forever<BR>> be<BR>> > less competitive<BR>> > because the limits will always be pushed by the<BR>> > airframe/powerplant that has<BR>> > the best power to weight ratio, and that will always<BR>> cost<BR>> > more,
and always<BR>> > be more sensitive to weight conscious building<BR>> > techniques. No change in the<BR>> > rules will ever allow parity for equipment that does<BR>> not<BR>> > have the best power<BR>> > to weight ratio.<BR>> > <BR>> > Someone else made the point that they perceived the<BR>> less<BR>> > the rules change,<BR>> > the more available airframes and equipment are (2nd<BR>> hand) -<BR>> > I couldn't agree<BR>> > more. Stop changing the rules to allow (intended or<BR>> > not) higher performance<BR>> > airframes, and the "old" ones won't be obsolete so<BR>> > quickly.<BR>> > <BR>> > Personally, after a lot of research and planning, I<BR>> > switched to electric in<BR>> > 2006....and the expense was big.....especially because<BR>> I<BR>> > had perfectly good<BR>> > glow stuff, and maintained glow and
electric for about<BR>> 1<BR>> > year. To date,<BR>> > I've built 3 electric airframes (1 Abbra, 2 Prestige),<BR>> and<BR>> > between them I<BR>> > have run 12 different motors of different brands,<BR>> weights,<BR>> > in/out runners,<BR>> > and just about every mounting configuration you can<BR>> think<BR>> > of. The majority<BR>> > of the motors have been < $300, and I've always<BR>> used the<BR>> > Castle 85HV (which<BR>> > I think has always been and still is the least<BR>> expensive<BR>> > ESC available for<BR>> > the job). My planes have weighed anywhere between 9<BR>> > lbs 13 oz and 10 lbs 14<BR>> > depending on the configuration. If I had the time,<BR>> > $$$, resources, etc, I'd<BR>> > design and build my own stuff right up to the limit,<BR>> > whatever that limit<BR>> > might be. As I
do have limits (as most of us do),<BR>> > I'll get as close to what<BR>> > I think optimum performance is, and it may or may not<BR>> be<BR>> > pushing the limits<BR>> > (for whatever reasons). <BR>> > <BR>> > In the past 3 years, I've spent a huge amount of time<BR>> on<BR>> > email, phone,<BR>> > forums, in my shop, in others shops, etc....working<BR>> with<BR>> > people on how to<BR>> > assemble electric pattern stuff....and most are not<BR>> using<BR>> > the most expensive<BR>> > airframes or equipment, and all are under 11 lbs. <BR>> > Bottom line is that you<BR>> > can not take the largest, cheapest, and heaviest of<BR>> each<BR>> > respective<BR>> > component and have a sub 11 lb electric OR glow<BR>> > plane. Nor do you need to<BR>> > have the most expensive and lightest example of each<BR>> > component to
be<BR>> > competitive. You do need to research, plan, and<BR>> make<BR>> > educated decisions.<BR>> > No offense to anyone with an 10 lb 18 oz plane....they<BR>> do<BR>> > exist....and most<BR>> > are being happily flown, and most can make weight for<BR>> the<BR>> > NATs if the time<BR>> > is spent in advanced.<BR>> > <BR>> > Regards,<BR>> > <BR>> > Dave<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <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>]<BR>> > On Behalf Of<BR>> > <A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=verne@twmi.rr.com" ymailto="mailto:verne@twmi.rr.com">verne@twmi.rr.com</A><BR>> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:53 PM<BR>> > To: General pattern discussion<BR>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>> > <BR>> > Derek,<BR>> > We've discussed raising the weight before and it's<BR>> always<BR>> > been voted down. I<BR>> > believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart has<BR>> steadfastly<BR>> > argued that raising<BR>> > the weight limit will inevitably increase the size of<BR>> our<BR>> > planes, obsoleting<BR>> > anything that preceded it. I agree with him. <BR>> > <BR>> > What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for<BR>> someone<BR>> > wanting to
try<BR>> > electric to be able to do so without having to buy the<BR>> most<BR>> > expensive<BR>> > equipment available. For example, at a contest last<BR>> > weekend, a friend and<BR>> > fellow pattern pilot had a set of Zippy packs that<BR>> weighed<BR>> > roughly 5.5<BR>> > ounces more than my FlightPower packs. Pretty much the<BR>> same<BR>> > difference when<BR>> > compared to Andrew's TP packs. The Zippy's as we all<BR>> know,<BR>> > were less than<BR>> > half the cost. I know for sure that my friend would<BR>> have<BR>> > made weight with my<BR>> > FP's or Andrew's TP's, but he couldn't afford that<BR>> after<BR>> > all the other<BR>> > "electric" purchases. <BR>> > <BR>> > What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked<BR>> out, is<BR>> > that electric<BR>> > airplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be
weighed<BR>> > without their "fuel",<BR>> > just like glow. The Rx battery will have to be in the<BR>> > plane, just like glow.<BR>> > Yes, I realize that there are UBEC's out there but I<BR>> don't<BR>> > know of anyone<BR>> > who trusts them with the kind of current we're<BR>> running. In<BR>> > any event, my<BR>> > preliminary research indicates that roughly 8.7<BR>> pounds<BR>> > should be just about<BR>> > right, but I want to make sure before I submit the<BR>> > proposal.<BR>> > <BR>> > Verne<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > ---- Derek Koopowitz <<A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=derekkoopowitz@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:derekkoopowitz@gmail.com">derekkoopowitz@gmail.com</A>><BR>> > wrote: <BR>> > > Verne,<BR>> > > <BR>> > > When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of<BR>>
the<BR>> > proposals which was<BR>> > > passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify<BR>> the<BR>> > weight limit for<BR>> > their<BR>> > > helicopters effective 1/1/2010. Here is the<BR>> new<BR>> > wording:<BR>> > > <BR>> > > a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft<BR>> (*with<BR>> > *fuel *or *batteries)<BR>> > > must not exceed *6.5 *kg.<BR>> > > <BR>> > > Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting.<BR>> Effective<BR>> > 01/01/10.<BR>> > > <BR>> > > I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A<BR>> > sub-committee members to see if<BR>> > > there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit<BR>> to<BR>> > 5.5kg. What does<BR>> > > everyone think about this?<BR>> > > <BR>> > > -Derek<BR>> > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <<A
href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=verne@twmi.rr.com" ymailto="mailto:verne@twmi.rr.com">verne@twmi.rr.com</A>><BR>> > wrote:<BR>> > > <BR>> > > > Bill,<BR>> > > > I've been working up an AMA rules proposal<BR>> to<BR>> > address that very issue.<BR>> > > > Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by<BR>> the<BR>> > contest board anytime<BR>> > soon. In<BR>> > > > the meantime, there's one area you didn't<BR>> mention<BR>> > in the glow to<BR>> > electric<BR>> > > > comparison and that's that an electric<BR>> plane<BR>> > doesn't need as much<BR>> > internal<BR>> > > > reinforcement because there's virtually no<BR>> > vibrational effects to<BR>> > contend<BR>> > > > with that you do with glow. That equates to<BR>> > lighter airframes being<BR>> > > >
acceptable as well as small, light, lipo<BR>> packs to<BR>> > power the Rx and<BR>> > servos.<BR>> > > > An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50<BR>> mah.<BR>> > The same flight in<BR>> > glow is<BR>> > > > typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most<BR>> electric<BR>> > pilots will tell you<BR>> > that<BR>> > > > making weight in electric is generally a<BR>> pretty<BR>> > expensive proposition<BR>> > with a<BR>> > > > limited number of 2 meter planes available<BR>> that<BR>> > are usually<BR>> > vacuum-bagged<BR>> > > > composite affairs. In addition, your best<BR>> chances<BR>> > for making weight will<BR>> > > > also necessitate the lightest and generally<BR>> most<BR>> > expensive motors and<BR>> > > > batteries. There are exceptio<BR>> > > > ns, and I'm
sure we're about to hear<BR>> about<BR>> > most of them, but I'll be<BR>> > able<BR>> > > > to point to just as many examples of guys<BR>> that<BR>> > fly overweight at local<BR>> > > > contests where they know they won't be<BR>> weighed<BR>> > and the only thing<BR>> > they're<BR>> > > > really guilty of is not spending the extra<BR>> money<BR>> > that the lightest<BR>> > batteries<BR>> > > > and motors cost. In every other way, the<BR>> planes<BR>> > they're flying are the<BR>> > same<BR>> > > > as the ones they're competing against. The<BR>> > proposal I'm working on is<BR>> > not<BR>> > > > self-serving because my planes make weight,<BR>> but<BR>> > getting there is both<BR>> > too<BR>> > > > expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion.<BR>> My<BR>> > proposal won't
be to allow<BR>> > > > electric planes to weigh more, it'll require<BR>> that<BR>> > they weigh less, but<BR>> > > > without the "fuel". The proposal will take<BR>> into<BR>> > account that electric<BR>> > motors<BR>> > > > are inherently lighter than their glow<BR>> > counterparts as well as the<BR>> > reduced<BR>> > > > structural requirements. It will limit the<BR>> mah of<BR>> > permissible packs to<BR>> > > > control that end of the equation and<BR>> there's<BR>> > already a voltage limit on<BR>> > the<BR>> > > > books which is fine as it<BR>> > > > stands. I'm currently doing survey work<BR>> at<BR>> > the contests I go to to see<BR>> > > > where everybody is at weight-wise and will<BR>> post<BR>> > my proposal on this list<BR>> > > > soon. After that, it's
up to all concerned<BR>> to<BR>> > voice their opinions to<BR>> > their<BR>> > > > respective Contest Board reps.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Verne Koester<BR>> > > > AMA District 7<BR>> > > > Contest Board<BR>> > > > ---- Bill's Email <<A href="http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wemodels@cox.net" ymailto="mailto:wemodels@cox.net">wemodels@cox.net</A>><BR>> > wrote:<BR>> > > > > I am certain this has been beaten to<BR>> > death while I was off doing<BR>> > other<BR>> > > > > things, but can anyone explain this:<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model<BR>> may<BR>> > weigh more than five (5)<BR>> > > > > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but<BR>> excluding<BR>> > fuel, ready for
takeoff.<BR>> > > > > Electric models are weighed with<BR>> batteries.<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > > Why can't an electric "deduct" the<BR>> > equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??<BR>> > Is<BR>> > > > > a plane without fuel rally "ready for<BR>> > takeoff"??<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > > I know it is likely a direct copy of<BR>> the FAI<BR>> > rule, but it makes no<BR>> > > > > logical sense. IC powered planes are<BR>> weighed<BR>> > without fuel and can<BR>> > weigh<BR>> > > > > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it<BR>> could<BR>> > add another 10 to 12 ounces<BR>> > of<BR>> > > > > weight. That's OK. But if an electric<BR>> with<BR>> > batteries weight<BR>> > > > > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is<BR>> overweight<BR>> > by the
rules.<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > > Put another way, what does a YS and<BR>> full<BR>> > fuel weigh compared to a<BR>> > > > > motor+ESC+batteries?<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces<BR>> > > > > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces<BR>> > > > > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9<BR>> > > > > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)<BR>> > > > > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > > So I can see an argument that the<BR>> > electrics have a weight advantage<BR>> > > > > when it comes to just the motor and<BR>> ESC. But<BR>> > with "fuel" electric
is<BR>> > at<BR>> > > > > a 20 ounce disadvantage.<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > > So if I build a plane for electric I<BR>> need to<BR>> > build it 20 plus ounces<BR>> > > > > lighter than if I was going to put a<BR>> nitro<BR>> > motor in it. How does that<BR>> > > > > make sense. I know I am missing<BR>> something<BR>> > important here, so educate<BR>> > me.<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > ><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><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><BR>> > <BR>> <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><BR>> <BR><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>_______________________________________________<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></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table>