[NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals

Mon Nov 6 12:52:23 AKST 2006

My only concern is how long will the older TP 5300's be available?  Some of 
us can't stand the additional weight of the newer cells.  Maybe Adam can 
give us some insight.

>From: Stuart Chale <schale at optonline.net>
>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] '08 F3A Rule Proposals
>Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 14:51:02 -0500
>
>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
>

>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion