<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff bottomMargin=7 id=role_body leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7
style="COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" topMargin=7>
<DIV><SPAN class=020540503-10012005>Troy,</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=020540503-10012005> Good points. I understand what you're
saying. Sorry, I'm an Engineer so sometimes I have a hard time explaining
things that appear logical and obvious to me. All I was trying to say was
that if we worded the rules so that "Weight - Ready To Fly" really meant what it
said then you would weigh an electric with the batteries in it (charged) and a
glow / gas plane with a full tank of fuel. The way it is now, it's open to
interpretation - which fosters the type of behavior we see happening now. I'm
not trying to start trouble, just make everyone think and be more careful when
we draft and / or accept rules. In Engineering we work to a spec. When we're
done with the first prototype, the design either meets the spec. or deviates
from it in some way. This is all duly noted during the release process. When you
write a spec. you try to accomodate Marketing's interpretation of the spec. This
is called covering your a##. You have to make it immune to interpretaion as much
as possible. This is to avoid working on weekends (when you should be at the
field, not in the lab). Because of this, I've developed a fairly good sense of
what will hold water and what won't. This rule doesn't hold water. When 3
people can read it and come up with the answer they want to hear, then it needs
to be fixed / clarified. Here's some more "out-of-the-box" thinking: What
is the purpose of the weight limit? Safety I would think. Why is it a MAXIMUM
limit. Lately it seems we're trying so hard to build BIG, light airplanes that
some parts aren't strong enough (like wing tubes). In R/C car racing there's a
MINIMUM weight rule. Since I don't think anyone purposely sets out to build
a heavy plane, it just ends up that way (at least that's the problem I always
run into) why do we even need a maximum weight rule. Maybe this works for
"scale" models but I think it should be different for pattern planes.
Lighter weight is an advantage. Maybe, if what you really want is light
airplanes, have a MINIMUM weight rule. Everyone will try to work towards minimum
weight. End result - same as with a max. weight rule BUT no more "unfair"
advantages. Sure, some planes will be lighter than others, but none will be
shaved to ribbons trying to be "legal". Does this make sense, or am I
missing something? I understand that we're trying to keep things "safe" by
limiting the amount of potential damage an 11 lb. airplane can cause when the
wings fold, but...</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=020540503-10012005>
<P><FONT size=2>John Pavlick<BR><A href="http://www.idseng.com/"
target=_blank>http://www.idseng.com</A><BR> </FONT> </P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=020540503-10012005></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=020540503-10012005></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><SPAN class=020540503-10012005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><SPAN class=020540503-10012005> </SPAN>-----Original
Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> discussion-request@nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Troy A.
Newman<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, January 12, 2005 4:14 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
discussion@nsrca.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Technology and
Paticipation<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"></FONT>
<DIV>John et al,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>read this carefully. I'm not in favor or against any specific
technology...But I think this point blow needs to be understood very well by
us as a pattern community. Rules advantages to a given technology are a
slippery slope. Regardless of the technology we choose to help out.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Big thing in the current rules the battery is not the fuel. Its the fuel
tank! The electrons are the fuel. So weigh with a dead battery.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think that a case could be made that the current AMA rules could be
interpreted either way. FAI has already set a standard in that Jason's models
at the 2003 WC as well as those used at the Euro champ in 2004 were
weighed with the Batteries installed.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This is an interesting idea and I'm not taking a position on other to say
what the rules are giving us. I think that opening up the weight limit for
Electric only is not a very good idea. The reason is we are dealing with some
limits. These limits help keep our sport in a price range and in a performance
range. Allowing electrics to weigh without batts gives a huge advantage to the
electrics. Right now the limiting factors for electric are weight...Batteries
and motor combos. The power is equal to that of glow motors not more and not
less EQUAL or as the NFL would call it parity...the battery technology right
now is coming up short or just making the grade. The amount of power you can
have are very dependant on the batts we can use. More power means more battery
in today's technology an this mans the weight is higher 4P 8000mah packs vs
the 3P 6000mah packs. But the weight limit is keeping the batts to a specific
size and capacity. When the batts change and get lighter or more output the
weight will come down. This will allow you to make weight even with the batts
easier.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If you blow the weight limit higher now you are driving more and more
power in favor of the electric setup. This also drives costs. Example. Chip's
DV bipe is a very big model. But with the opportunity to make weight without
the batts...Chip now has a distinct advantage in using electric power. His
wing loading is better being the bipe as he can carry 13 or 14 lbs with
the extra wing. On the other hand a glow motor as it gets above a 140 to 160
becomes almost a problem in terms of fuel consumption vs power. Guys are
complaining about fuel consumption rates now on the glow motors. This will
drive people to gasoline...Not that Gasoline is bad...Just makes it now the
advantage over glow. The result is you are now driving the guy that don't want
electric away from glow over to gasoline.....So the glow systems are now the
antiques.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Then we change the rules to encourage glow motors to make a come
back....We did this with 2 stroke vs 4 stroke. The 4 strokes have less power
so let us give them extra cubes...60 2 stroke and 120 4 stroke. A couple
years later 4 strokes have the advantage and we give the 2 strokes a
boost...No engine limits just size and weight. Then the 2 strokes came back
with more power....and the limits of 2M and 5KG means the performance of the
models is way more than ever before and the rules evolve to make the flying
harder rolling loops, circle and snaps. Now electric comes on the scene and
gasoline too..The end result is a keeping up the Jones'</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Here is the JUST of my argument: So do we change the game again to
encourage these technologies or do we keep the game the same and make the
tools fit the game? We have already proven that an advantage in the rules will
drive the technology to that as the preferred choice. If we keep the
rules the same and make the technology come to us then the game is less
effected and there are more choices to do the job. YS 160, OS 160, Hacker,
ZDZ....Now everybody gets to play on equal footing...the game. No specific
equipment is getting the granny clause because its tough to make the
rules with it. It has been proven many times now that Electric is capable in
both performance and rules compliant. Gasoline is also in the works and being
ready to prove its mustard too. Glow is the preferred choice for
now. I'm in favor of keeping the game the same and letting the guys that
want the new technology to develop it to compete in the same game on the same
field. Giving a hand out to one technology over another has in the past driven
costs up, driven changes in the equipment and made the products we use even
more and more specialized than they already are. This means decline in
participation in my book.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Gasoline and Electric are already Viable and has proven to work in the
environment we already have. Yes perhaps your airframe choices are less if you
choose electric or gas today..But there will be more and more for both
gasoline and electric as time passes. The rules changes can't take place until
2007 regardless. In that 2 years today's models will be old news and something
new will be in works like Hydrogen power models or something.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Troy Newman<FONT face=Arial
id=role_document></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BODY></HTML>