ORIGINAL: patternflyer1
Some may disagree with part of this statement.
For me it's more practical to run the E.
The money I have invested in my E ship is the same as setting up a ship with a 160 DZ.
But to each his own.
The planes do have to be lighter though.
ORIGINAL: dick Hanson
Much more expensive than practical and the planes have to be lighter .
Now, keeping with the thread. Here's a design idea. I've mentioned this before somewhere. Yes the E planes need to be built lighter. Fair? Probably not IMO. Takeoff weights have to be lighter for E than they do for glow (not trying to start a discussion on this as it's already been covered). Therefore in the wind the glow plane can penetrate better. (I fly in a windy place) So flying slower with the E and being lighter isn't an advantage at times. So I have had the idea of mounting a fuel tank in my E plane and adding 16 to 20 ounces of fuel. It's gotta be legal right?
I may implement this in a future project when I get a little lighter. May even bring it to the nats.. That'll be interesting to hear what they have to say. LOL
C
Whats the advantage to carrying up more weight? I have always felt like a 10lb plane was easier to fly than 11, (or 11.5 and 12.5 wet weight). No matter what the wind condition. Takes less power to fly etc. Plus the lighter plane will slow much better and respond to throttle quicker than the heavier plane.
I have been patiently waiting for someone to come up with a gasser thats available and has a smooth idle, so much so that someone will take up the challenge do the R&D and carry it out; like Jason Shulman did for electric pattern.
Ive seen the ZDZ 40 in a plane, and the MVV 26 in a plane. Im really curious to see the ZDZ 40 F3A if they ever release it.