[NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals

Mon Nov 6 10:51:14 AKST 2006

The newer batteries are not needed, agreed.  Everyone has been doing fine
with the older TP 5300 packs.  The only real reason to me to go with the
heavier packs and I went with Falcon is to possibly increase longevity.  If
the cells are driven less near their breaking points they should last
longer.  Who knows?  In a year or so maybe we will have some numbers from
those that fly several times a week on the same batteries.  If you have 2 or
3 sets of batteries it is hard to put over 100 flights on each pack in a
season, so only time will tell if there is any reason to go for the weight
penalty.

Stuart Chale

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
DaveL322 at comcast.net
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 2:05 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals

Agree.

Increasing the weight rule for IC or electric will usher in the next
generation of more expensive planes.  Looking at the current state of the
art, and where things are heading, allowing the electrics to weigh more
would accelerate the death of IC.

My Vivats are 9 lbs 14 oz + fuel (12 oz of 15% is plenty for 12+ minute
flights).

My Prestiges are 10 lbs even w/ 5300s (solid power for 10 minutes of
flying).

Both the Vivats and Prestiges could be lighter with some simple changes
(namely eliminating the redundant batteries/switches/regulators).

The older Vivat has about 1,000 flights and the airframe is still very solid
and has needed misc maintenance and preventive care on "vibration items" -
ie, canopy and BP attachments, servo gears.

The older Prestige has about 225 flights and is on pace for substantially
less maintenance.

The newer ~5000 mah ~20C lipos do add a couple oz (4 - 8 oz pretty much
covers the range), but, they certainly aren't needed for AMA classes - the
4300 - 4600 range stuff is the same weight as the 5300s and still has plenty
of reserve capacity.  I've been flying the PO7 in pretty heavy wind with the
TP 4600s Extremes without running out of capacity.  If the F3A schedules are
indeed shorter in 2008, capacity will cease to be an issue.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Stuart Chale <schale at optonline.net> 

> Weights are being made with electric. The airframes although made lighter 
> than their IC counterparts appear to be holding up although I doubt many 
> 500+ flight airframes are out there. Time will tell. Whenever there is 
> something new, be it 120 4 cycle, unlimited engine/motor size there have 
> been growing pains and people have adapted to make it work. With the 5300 
> TP packs weights are pretty easy to make these days unless you are trying
to 
> convert a heavy 2M IC plane to electric. With the new TP packs or other 
> packs made with Enerland cells there is an additional 4 oz weight penalty 
> that may need to be overcome. The new rule proposals give you an
additional 
> 50 grams to work with assuming that the scal! es bein g used are accurate.
I 
> suspect most digital scales are closer than 50 grams off at 5000. 
> 
> If the weight rule were to change it would have to be different rules for
IC 
> and electric, otherwise new targets for IC would allow changes in design 
> again. I am happy that there is no significant change in size and weight 
> even though I am flying electric. Unless you are ready to build/buy the 
> next generation of pattern plane work with the rules as we have them. 
> 
> Stuart Chale 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Richard 
> Strickland 
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:56 PM 
> To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals 
> 
> It would seem with the state of things as they are, quite a few
compromise! s 
& gt; have to be made on the E models compared to IC in the name of weight
savings 
> affecting reliability, cost, and safety of airframes. PLUS the fairness 
> issue. 
> 
> RS 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Del K. 
> Rykert 
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:58 AM 
> To: NSRCA Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals 
> 
> 
> Do I detect the sound of off tasting grapes.. ;+^ ( tic ) 
> 
> Del 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Richard Strickland" 
> To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" 
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:50 AM 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals 
> 
> 
> > Of course, j! ust to be fair; the IC airplanes are now weighed with
fuel? 
> > Yeah, right..... 
> > 
> > RS 
> > 
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dean
Pappas 
> > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:18 AM 
> > To: NSRCA Mailing List 
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals 
> > 
> > 
> > So they listened to my 50 gram scale accuracy argument! 
> > 
> > 
> > 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: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.ns! rca.org 
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Earl Haury

> > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:52 AM 
> > To: Discussion List, NSRCA 
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals 
> > 
> > 
> > Just reviewed the final draft of F3A rules proposals for '08 thru '11
(no 
> > sequences yet) and thought I'd share my quick take. They're well done
with 
> > some changes (or not) and consideration of a number of technical issues.

> > Understand that these are unapproved proposals at this point and will
not 
> > affect the '07 season. 
> > 
> > Most significant items are that there will be no weight limit change, 
> > scores 
> > will be normalized to the average (with some provisions for exclusion of

> > zero scores / excessively low scores from the average), take-off /
landing 
> > will not be jud! ged / s cored (no more procedure turn after take-off), 
> > sequences will be shorter with an eight minute time limit, wording to 
> > exempt 
> > rolling circles from the distance rules - 350 meters allowable. 
> > 
> > Tech issues include changes to address measuring equipment variability -

> > sound level (nose into the wind) will be 94.99 dBA max, max weight will
be 
> > 5000 grams with a 50 gram allowance (5050 gram fail point), power
battery 
> > max volts will be 42.99v in the ready box. 
> > 
> > There are several items regarding WC procedures including flight groups 
> > for 
> > prelims, team championships determined by finishing order (rather than 
> > scores), in the 5-10-5 judge arrangement the end judges will now judge
all 
> > turnarounds. 
> > 
> > Overall a very good effort with input from a broad spectrum of the world

! > &g t; pattern community. 
> > 
> > Earl 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> ---- 
> 
> 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > 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 
> 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 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________! 
&g t; 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/20061106/e27e61d0/attachment-0001.html 