FAI Weight Thread (gas)(electric)

Thu Feb 24 07:26:47 AKST 2005

I am converting a brand new Temptation to electric as well as building
(assembling?) an Impact for electric.  I have been holding off as long as
possible doing much on batteries and chargers as one hears of new
developments on those fronts almost weekly.  With doing some fairly easy
mods to the Temp. and using some of the newer high discharge rate batteries,
I THINK I'll be able to make weight on both.  The problem is the batteries
are very expensive and current technology dictates you have at least three
sets for practice at $5-900.00/set plus balancing is still an issue for
safety/longevity.  THIS year it looks like there will be some chargers,
balancers and batteries that will allow higher charge rates with certain
battery manufacturers--but they aren't quite there yet.  So I'm doing
SOMETHING (remember Rumsfeld?) with one of the promising ones that I hope
will work out long term.  BTW, I've got an almost new(maybe 30 flights)
Mintor 170 with Mintor header, pipe and Hyde clone mount for $525.00.

Richard S.
Prairie Village, Ks.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Hewitt" <phewitt at farmersagent.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>; <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:25 AM
Subject: RE: RE: FAI Weight Thread (gas)

> I am new to Pattern and I have not read all the post but I would like to
toss
> in my 2 cents worth. I have come over to pattern because I think we will
place
> a 2X2 Gas plane in the air this spring. just my thought from a new member
If
> you just keep the 2mX2m in tack all the rest will fall in place I just
can't
> see a 13# and up plane flying that well against a 10# to 11# pounder so
the
> weight will take care of it self.
>
>
> Pat Hewitt
> Paola, Kansas
>
> PS. go to www.rcaerobats.net and check out our new project
>
>
>
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> Received: 05:55 PM CST, 02/23/2005
> From: "Doug Cronkhite" <seefo at san.rr.com>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Subject: RE: RE: FAI Weight Thread
>
> Well then that's the trade-off isn't it. If you build a heavy airplane you
> pay the penalty of it flying poorly. The airplanes will not get bigger so
> long as the 2m x 2m box remains.
>
> I agree with what was said earlier that electrics suffer from a definition
> problem more than anything else. I personally like changing the weight
limit
> for F3A to a 'wet' limit but with a change such that no existing airframe
> combinations suddenly become illegal. That would be counter-productive at
> best, and outright stupid at worst.
>
> -Doug
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> > [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jim Ivey
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 3:50 PM
> > To: discussion at nsrca.org
> > Subject: Re: RE: FAI Weight Thread
> >
> > Ken
> >  By necessity the planes will have to get bigger or they will
> > fly like Eric says(jello on a plate). I liked that one.
> >
> > Jim Ivey
> > >
> > > From: "Ken Thompson III" <mrandmrst at comcast.net>
> > > Date: 2005/02/23 Wed PM 06:14:37 EST
> > > To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> > > Subject: Re: RE: FAI Weight Thread
> > >
> > > Jim,
> > > The size wouldn't change, just the weight limit.  You can
> > only go so
> > > heavy with a 2x2 airframe before the wing loading gets so high the
> > > plane flies like crap.  That will be the controlling
> > factor, wing load.
> > >
> > > Ken
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jim Ivey" <jivey61 at bellsouth.net>
> > > To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 5:54 PM
> > > Subject: Re: RE: FAI Weight Thread
> > >
> > >
> > > > Guys
> > > > So you raise it to 5.5 or even 12 lbs,where will it end.
> > In 2 years
> > > > someone will want 14 lbs so they can run their gas engine,then we
> > > > can go unlimited and be like IMAC where the sky is the limit with
> > > > weight. Then we move the box out another 50 yards and make it
> > > > unlimited width to accomodate the bigger planes.
> > > > I think leave well enough alone.
> > > >
> > > > Jim Ivey
> > > >>
> > > >> From: "Dean Pappas" <d.pappas at kodeos.com>
> > > >> Date: 2005/02/23 Wed PM 05:12:55 EST
> > > >> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> > > >> Subject: RE: FAI Weight Thread
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Ed,
> > > >> OK, so you agree.  5.5 Kg should be fine, no?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Dean Pappas
> > > >> Sr. Design Engineer
> > > >> Kodeos Communications
> > > >> 111 Corporate Blvd.
> > > >> South Plainfield, N.J. 07080
> > > >> (908) 222-7817 phone
> > > >> (908) 222-2392 fax
> > > >> d.pappas at kodeos.com
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> > > >> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ed Miller
> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:39 PM
> > > >> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> > > >> Subject: Re: FAI Weight Thread
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> 5Kg including fuel for glow planes will eliminate 2 of the 3
> > > >> pattern ships now I have, including my newest 2M ship as
> > I doubt I
> > > >> can fly the Master's schedule on 7 ounces of fuel.
> > Should it happen
> > > >> I guess I'll just sport fly my planes and another NSRCA
> > member and
> > > >> pattern flyer will be lost. I suspect over 90% of existing glow
> > > >> ships would now be technically illegal. If we keep screwing with
> > > >> rules that outdate or make planes overnight illegal,
> > pattern will
> > > >> be a very, very small crowd in a very short time. I
> > certainly don't
> > > >> care for the thought that my substantial $$ and time investment
> > > >> could be wiped out by a rule that accomplishes what ???
> > > >> Ed M.
> > > >>
> > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> From: Dean  <mailto:d.pappas at kodeos.com> Pappas
> > > >> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:27 AM
> > > >> Subject: RE: FAI Weight Thread
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Bob,
> > > >> Generally, the desireability of a quieter event is recognized.
> > > >> E-power suffers from a definition problem: we weigh
> > without fuel,
> > > >> but with batteries. A change to "ready for takeoff" will
> > even the
> > > >> playing field ... maybe even tilt it E-ward. Do you kake the
> > > >> present day ships pass a 5 Kg standard with fuel, or do you give
> > > >> everyone an additonal 1/2 Kg for fuel and or battery.
> > > >>
> > > >> While my druthers would be to make everyone meet 5Kg
> > wet/batteried,
> > > >> I suspect that there would be resistance to making
> > existing legal
> > > >> airplanes suddenly illegal. That's where 5.5 Kg might
> > come from. A
> > > >> total removal of the weight limit is exceedingly unlikely. Has
> > > >> anyone spoken to Chris Lakin or Ron Chidgey, lately?
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards to All,
> > > >>         Dean
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Dean Pappas
> > > >> Sr. Design Engineer
> > > >> Kodeos Communications
> > > >> 111 Corporate Blvd.
> > > >> South Plainfield, N.J. 07080
> > > >> (908) 222-7817 phone
> > > >> (908) 222-2392 fax
> > > >> d.pappas at kodeos.com
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> > > >> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bob Pastorello
> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 9:07 PM
> > > >> To: NSRCA
> > > >> Subject: FAI Weight Thread
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Over on RCU - apparently some Europeans are under the impression
> > > >> that the FAI will consider a proposal to either remove
> > the weight
> > > >> limit, or significantly raise it.
> > > >>
> > > >> Anybody know what's up with that?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Bob Pastorello
> > > >> NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
> > > >> rcaerobob at cox.net
> > > >> www.rcaerobats.net
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > =================================================
> > > > To access the email archives for this list, go to
> > > > http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> > > > To be removed from this list, go to
> > > > http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> > > > and follow the instructions.
> > > >
> > >
> > > =================================================
> > > To access the email archives for this list, go to
> > > http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> > > To be removed from this list, go to
> > > http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> > > and follow the instructions.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > =================================================
> > To access the email archives for this list, go to
> > http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> > To be removed from this list, go to
> > http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> > and follow the instructions.
> >
> >
>
> =================================================
> To access the email archives for this list, go to
> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
>
>
>
>
>
> To access the email archives for this list, go to
> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
>

=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.