[NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?
Rex LESHER
trexlesh at msn.com
Sun May 14 19:43:05 AKDT 2006
Ya, imagine that.... One thing that no one has addressed is the fact that eliminating the weight limit will have some bearing on the flying quality of the airplane. I'll give an example. I built an Electric Impact. Came out right at the weight limit. Wow, it flew really slow and soft. That's all fine and well, except that when you go to knife edge, the fuse wouldn't support the weight and it started falling out of the sky. So, here we go, right back to more speed to create the lift needed for rolling manuevers. There goes some of the benefits of slower flight. It wasn't quite as bad as it sounds, but if it weighed twelve pounds, I'd be flying around at full throttle. If it weighed half a pound less, it would work fine. This is precisely what everyone is going to find as we venture into the lack of a max weight limit. You can't change anything on a given plane without affecting something else. It's just a law of physics.... So, I guess I have to ask. Where are we going with this? I don't really care if there's a weight limit or not, as long as it doesn't cause some safety problems. I'm still going to build as light as I can. Next thing you know, we'll have to have a different plane for each weather condition.
Rex
---- Original Message -----
From: Dave Lockhart<mailto:davel322 at comcast.net>
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?
"Bigger" and more complex planes = more cost..hmmmmm.
Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Rex LESHER
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 11:03 PM
To: chad at f3acanada.org<mailto:chad at f3acanada.org>; NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?
The only thing I've seen that stopped the spread of the Double Vision, was the cost. $2600 for the kit was a bit extreme. Then you have to build it. Especially when you have all the ready made planes available for about half that price.
Hey Chad, See you at the DAM next weekend.... Looking forward to it. Looks like we'll bring 4-6 flyers up for it...
Rex
----- Original Message -----
From: Chad Northeast<mailto:chad at f3acanada.org>
To: NSRCA Mailing List<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?
Lest we not forget that bipes placed 2nd and 4th at the 2005 World
Champs......they are not everywhere....yet....increasing the weight
limit will only open the door for their development.
Chad
jivey61 at bellsouth.net<mailto:jivey61 at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Dave
> I agree and didn't Chip do this and it didn't take hold and stay
> around for long.
> Jim Ivey
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Dave Lockhart <mailto:davel322 at comcast.net<mailto:davel322 at comcast.net>>
> *To:* 'NSRCA Mailing List' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 10:19 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?
>
> Yes they are a PIA and I don't want to spend the extra time either.
>
> IMAC essentially has no limits, excepting the AMA 55 lb limit
> which is not really a factor.
>
> Bigger flies better, period. If an IMAC guy went through the fuss
> to build the monstrous bipe with wingspan similar to the big
> monoplanes, it would be "bigger" and it would fly better. No one
> wants to deal with that hassle and expense.
>
> A 2M bipe is bigger than a 2M monoplane. The 2M being bigger will
> fly better, period. And it will be more expense and it will result
> in some number of current day pattern competitors leaving the event.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Dave Lockhart
>
> DaveL322 at comcast.net<mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Robert Mairs
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 9:26 PM
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?
>
> I don't buy into the bipe theory. Bipes are a PIA. I wouldn't want
> to spend a half hour setting up and tearing down every day I went
> out flying. If bipes are so dominating why don't you see them on
> the IMAC circuit? They don't have any size or weight restrictions
> and they strive for the same type performance we do, yet they're a
> rarity. They're nice to see and may show up, but a flight line
> full of bipes, I doubt it.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Stuart Chale <mailto:schale at optonline.net<mailto:schale at optonline.net>>
>
> *To:* 'NSRCA Mailing List'
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 8:57 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?
>
> Any time a limit has been relaxed; there has been a change in
> airplane size and or design. It is not necessarily immediate
> but technology seems to adapt to the new limits. Just try to
> fly one of your 2M designs with a piped 60, or even a 120 4C.
> When 4C limits were increased to 1.2 cubic inches nothing
> changed. Some brave folks tried 4C but it didn't work until YS
> came out with a 4C engine that was more powerful than a 60 2C
> engine. Then the planes took a step larger and heavier. When
> the engine limit was removed planes got larger again. 120 AC
> engines were now only good for the beginner classes. (An
> oversimplification). Right now the weight limit works. Yes it
> is a bit harder to make a 2M pattern plane come in under 5 kg
> when made electric but it can be done. A gas engine 2M may be
> even more difficult. Relaxing the weight limit will make it
> easier for an electric conversion to make weight and make a
> gas powered version more feasible. But new designs will now
> show up pushing the new limits. The obvious direction is a 2 M
> bipe. A 14 pound 2 M bipe may present better than a monoplane,
> maybe not. If it does then everyone will "need" or at least
> want one. If people want to try something new and bigger then
> scrap the weight limit. If not then relaxing the weight limit
> to fit today's problems will have undesirable effects tomorrow J
>
> Stuart Chale
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf
> Of *vicenterc at comcast.net<mailto:*vicenterc at comcast.net>
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 8:06 PM
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List; NSRCA Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for electrics?
>
> I understood that the definition of model airplane states that
> weigh has to be below 5 Kg. That is consider international.
> The only exception is the scale that is a little higher. I am
> not sure if this single reason is going to make difficult to
> change the rule for F3A. For sure is going to help the gas
> engines. I don't think electric power plants are having a
> weigh problem.
>
> Vicente Bortone
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "John Ferrell" <johnferrell at earthlink.net<mailto:johnferrell at earthlink.net>>
>
> Yummy! Big Biplanes are coming in quantity!
>
> John Ferrell W8CCW
> "My Competition is not my enemy"
> http://DixieNC.US<http://dixienc.us/> <http://dixienc.us/<http://dixienc.us/>>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Bdrtschiger Urs
> <mailto:baertschiger-tai at bluewin.ch<mailto:baertschiger-tai at bluewin.ch>>
>
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2006 5:17 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight limits for
> electrics?
>
> This subject has been adressed officially. Based on
> what I have been told, the weight limit for F3A will
> be dropped with the next rules changes. What will
> remain however, is the 2M by 2M box.
>
> Urs
>
> NSRCA #3069
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060515/8ac05315/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list