ORIGINAL: bjr_93tz
ORIGINAL: MTK
You fellas continue to discuss TAKE-OFF weight. To me, TO weight is not the correct measure for wet powered planes because gas is consumed. Although it is so in the current regs, empty weight is probably incorrect too. Compromise on the average weight between take off weight and empty weight. Make that the new standard max for both E and W
Of all people you should understand the problem with this. You're creating a rule based on what? The average fuel consumption of whose airframe/motor/flying style combination at which point in time??
Look at the rubbish that gets posted about 5kg. This is a thread about what FUTURE of F3A started 10 years back and it was interesting to see what points were being argued then, but it seems that today discussions get hijacked by electric (and some IC) flyers complaining about weight parity. The issue has been beat to death, voted on and the rules stand 5kg +50g, IC planes fuel out, Electric planes batteries in (with or without external arming plug
).
The change in weight for a YS powered ship from takeoff to landing should only be about 150g-170g and slightly less in lower classes. Is this 160g a real problem for the future of F3A that needs to be address?
Hi
If discussing the future rules is not relevant to the future of F3A in your view then you need to answer the following question for yourself.
What is F3A ??
You will find the answer in the rules that define F3A
.
I am not discussing the 160g of fuel that's used.
I am discussing the unlimited extra amount that can be carried.
What is the point in a weight specification.
Brian