Hi Dorin,
Yes, it is a can of worms! The F3A guys are waging the same losing battle as we speak.
Yes I say "losing" in passing, without making much fuss: only because ...

I believe we still possess a great advantage in that we have better consistency and the potential in the near future for better-behaved horsepower than any wet setup ever devised
Regards,
Dean Pappas

the pull test should be eliminated all together - it causes mor damage and breakages to planes than would happen in normal flight

You dont have to stress your airplane past the limit in RC - so why do we have to do it with CL?

the pull test should be eliminated all together - it causes mor damage and breakages to planes than would happen in normal flight

Can you justify this assertion with analysis?  I think you may have a misunderstanding of the nature of materials.  The wood and wire we use should be within their elastic limits (is that the right term?) during a pull test, so they should be good for thousands of pull test cycles without degradation.  The pull test does force you to build your airplane with a safety factor, which is prudent anyhow.  A pull test will discover unseen problems like kinked lines, which could cause you to lose an airplane.  That happened to me at a stunt contest a couple of years ago.  It saved me about two years of building.  All I had to do was change lines when one broke during the test.  

Howard that is absolutely right. It is the line thickness that is the issue. When a wet set up will get away with using thinner lines even though the weigh of the plane at take off exceeds the line thickness weigh, meanwhile we get penalized and are stuck with the thicker lines. And I believe this rule is just for convenience of not having a bunch of planes at appearance judging with fuel on board dripping all around hence we should get the credit for the fuel we would otherwise have on board as if our ship was a wet setup which would be fair.

I wish I could design a plane like a F1 car right on the other side of the edge of reliability.

Hello Dorin,
Hello All,
Let me put the shoe on thr other foot, if you please.
There have always been "sweet spots" in design: by definition, they live right next door to a bad-spot.
These sweet spots have been defined by conveniently available wood sizes, engine sizes, and now battery sizes.
On the negative side, there used to be a few "holes" in the size/weight/power capability of the better electric motors, but these are being closed up as the market expands.

In the old AMA (not FAI) all-wet world, there was another break-point: the jump from a two-stroke 40 and 0.012"/0.015" lines (solid/braided) to 0.015"/0.018" with just a small increase in displacement.
It speaks to the great suitability of the Tigre 46 for Stunt that we chose it, and the resulting bigger lines, over the best of 40's in large numbers back in the 70's.

Now we have a new set of break-points to add to the design decision, at least for AMA!
I predict that E-designers will be shooting for nothing but 38-ounce and 62-ounce airplanes.
The designs will be sized to force careful building of planes with wings as large as possible for these just-under-the-limit weights.
The centifics versus line size are at their best for the two figures stated.
Just as the RC Pattern guys have encountered, a little inattention in the finish or a repair will now take a plane across that break-point and turn an eagle into a groundhog.

The whole weighed batteried or wet issue needs settling in a sensible way. If the precedent in Stunt is without batteries (as per Kim) then we are golden.
If not, then plane size will drop a few percent, in the future. I realize that doesn't fix your problem, Dorin!

Best to All,
Dean Pappas

Yeah, Matt, but it still weighs 55 ounces at launch. The pull test should reflect that.

Bob Hunt

,,,,,,,,,,,so, at the end of the flight gas & electric are equal.  What could be fairer? 

Just go back to Deano's reply #1, the empty tank versus full tank issue will be moot before long... 

So, how much does 4 ounces of model fuel weigh ?

Is this a Dough question?

Can of worms it is.

All I am saying here is keep the rule as for weight line size. Then make the weighting part of it fair.

Option one: Electric has credit for fuel on boar on similar size plane.
Option two: If we have to have the battery on board then they should have fuel on board too.