"As somebody who has actually invested money and time in all four piston classes, my word is a lot more valid than that a casual comment from an outsider." If that is the case, perhaps someone who has competed in the piston classes and who has also competed in four electric classes might have an even more valid comment than one who knows nothing about electrics from experience. Allow me to correct some of the errors in fact that have been presented here and to present some opinions about the future of the events.
The electric carrier events started with Skyray, since these rules were owned by Sig and didn't need to go through a long process to come up with something to try. The Skyray rules, which combine electric and gas in the same event, have been very successful in that the scores for electric and gas Skyray have been basically the same: Sometime electric wins, sometime gas wins, just depending on how well the contestants fly that day and how well their particular Skyray works in the weather conditions of the day. Perhaps the reasons both types of power result in similar scores is the fact that Skyray, like .15, is a speed limit event. Also, the airplane (with sliders not allowed) doesn't fly all that well, so six minute low speeds aren't likely and reasonable battery weights will allow people to finish the low speed most of the time. The same result has happened with the .15 electric rules as published by the NCS: The electrics and gas models are competing with no one being dominant. We have electric and gas competing at the Nats and at Phoenix and the competition is hot every year, but electric has shown no advantage over gas. Each has its adherents and they are happy to compete against each other.
The NCS came up with a set of electric rules for the AMA classes. The charge to the committee that wrote them was to prepare rules that would not give electric a scoring advantage over gas, but to try to make it reasonably close. After three years of competition with electrics the results suggest that the rules have accomplished this. Electric carrier has not shown any advantage over gas. They are different, each with virtues and vices, but the electric scores are not better.
I have been working very hard to make electric work in all three classes. So far, I have found that gas gives better high speeds, better low speeds, and better reliability than electric. The better controllability of the electrics for low speed does not exist, as John mentioned. My gas stuff is all easier to fly than the electrics because it has better controllability and reliability. Electrics quit, and they fail to respond properly, and things fail because we push them hard in order to get close to the high speeds we want. The left hand rotation that some prefer has not been an advantage to me. As I mentioned in the past, I do not use reverse rotation in any of my gas engines and I don't miss it. I do not find it an advantage. For electric, sometimes the motors have so much torque (and low top rpm limits) that a very large prop is needed, a disadvantage that can be partly compensated for with reverse rotation. If you can find a decent pusher prop in the right size, that is.
I confess that I don't understand the advantage Joe mentioned, about electrics being able to increase speed to regain line tension without jumping backwards. I find my gas stuff is more controllable in all situations in low speed than the electrics.
All of us who have been working the electric for the AMA know that they do not perform as well as the gas classes, so to say that we are doing this because we have killer equipment is simply nonsense. I don't need "killer equipment" to win. I already have that, and it is gas powered. If I spent more time on gas and less on electric I would score even better in the standard events. And to say that John will put in electric .15 at Brodak so he can win the event is not only nonsense but an insult.
Many observers believe that the glow engine is dying out and electric is about all that will be left in a few years. Visit any R/C field and you can see evidence of that. Electric motors outsell gas by a large factor. So when somebody comes along to our contests to watch, and says he used to fly control line many years ago, but now just flies R/C, he may be talking about electric. So if I can show him how to get into carrier by building an airplane like he used to, and by putting in electric power like he is using now in R/C, he might be interested. And getting a few more people interested in Carrier is what this is all about. People watch us flying carrier, and they seem to be more interested in the electric ones than the gas ones. For some people, electric advantages of lower noise and less greasy mess are important and may make the difference between being able to participate or not.
Some people seem to worry about their competitor outspending them to beat them. Sorry, that's already true with gas. The glow engines needed for the top of competition usually cost hundreds more than most people want to spend. The electric motor I am working with in Profile, however, costs less than $80. It seems to have as good performance as more expensive motors in the same size and weight, at least close enough that I have found no reason to spend more. Performance is limited by the properties of materials (resistivity of copper, strength or magnets) and these are pretty much fixed, with little change expected. So improvements in motors are not going to be coming fast. We hope for improvements in batteries, too, but other than steadily decreasing cost, this has been pretty slow. We have quite a ways to go before the batteries are light enough to make electric performance equal to gas performance. The batteries are not cheap, at perhaps $100 for a Profile battery right now, but the fuel cost and battery cost over the battery lifetime are pretty similar. The electronics on board run between $60 and $120, so the electric propulsion system at $200 or so per Profile airplane, not counting "fuel" (battery) is pretty reasonable. (You still have to buy a battery charger and will probably buy other support equipment, but considering all the ground equipment we have for glow already, this is not likely to be very different.)
Joe Just is working to save carrier with his postal contests that might get new blood into the sport. I don't know if this will work or not, but I very much applaud him for trying and wish him all the success in the world. Those of us working with electric carrier are taking a different approach, trying to bring in new people to participate in the sport as well as give the experienced carrier fliers a new challenge which we believe they will find to be a lot of fun.
Electric carrier has shown no scoring advantage over gas carrier over the last four years of competition. My experience has shown me conclusively that electric has no advantage but rather is at a disadvantage to gas. But I find it to be more fun, and am willing to take a hit in score to have fun. Most of the contests I fly in have either combined gas and electric already, or have separate classes (Nats and Phoenix, for two examples that have separate classes.) It works both ways, but combining the events has an advantage, especially for local contests where participation is limited, of allowing the few electric fliers to join in, work on developing their stuff, and to show the way to the future. Having a separate set of rules for electric, as we do unofficially now but could have as separate AMA events in the future, and allowing contests to combine the events if they choose or separate them if participation warrants it, is one reasonable solution. But the idea of not flying in a contest because they allow electrics to compete against gas is not based on a rational evaluation of the competing technologies. The present rules work. Gas equipment will not be obsoleted, but the two can compete with each other.
Pete