[NSRCA-discussion] Smaller Models

Thu Jan 4 10:22:57 AKST 2007

I did some testing last Summer for SPA purposes.  If you put the correct 3
bladed prop on the 61FX, it gives approximately the same thrust as the
Surpass II.  My Surpass II pumper gave 8.2 to 8.4 lbs of measured static
thrust over range of props running from 13x8 to 14x10 on CoolPower 30% Heli.
A Master Airscrew 12x6x3 gives 8.2 lbs at 11,600 on CoolPower 15% on a
nearly 100 degree Alabama afternoon.  The extra blade is the equalizer.

Steve Byrum 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jay Marshall
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 1:08 PM
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Smaller Models

According to the OS site, the 61FX is more powerful (1.9 hp) than the 91
Surpass II (1.6 hp). Unfortunately they don't talk about thrust which would
consider prop and RPM.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Fred Huber
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 1:27 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Smaller Models

While early 4-stroke may have needed 50% more displacement to produce the
same useful thrust as 2-stroke... the difference is closer to 25% now.  A
.91 OS FS-II has a HUGE power advantage over an OS FX .61 and with the stock
mufflers, the .91 4-stroke comes out LIGHTER. (That 2-stroke muffler is
HEAVY)  

A .72 4-stroke is now a near even match in useable power to a .61 2-stroke.
The 4-stroke swings a larger diameter prop at a lower rpm and that is
inherantly more efficient at converting the engine's power into thrust for
the model.

********

As to putting a minimum weight restriction on... you may as well just set
the rules and say that its a one-design contest. "You Will fly a Sig King
Kobra" (or some other kit or ARF)  And even then you won't be stopping the
high tech competition trend.  

Quickie 500 pylon was SUPPOSED to be a low cost event.  The aircraft design
and engines allowed were specified to a point where they thought it would
prevent the tech-war and it would be a bunch of identical models with
identical engines and identical radio systems... but people looking for
every advantage possible found out how to work within the rules and build
high tech palens that cost a bundle just to get 0.5 mph advantage over the
inexpensive wood structure modelt the event was INTENDED to use.

You can overspecify and even make the competitors all put the planes
together from a specific ARF, using a specific engine and a specific radio
system... and you still won't prevent the "tech war" aspect of any
competition.  Someone's going to choose to use different hinges... different
control horns..different pushrods.... ANYHING they can to get that tiny
advantage.

FHH

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Jay Marshall <mailto:lightfoot at sc.rr.com>  

To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 9:18 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Smaller Models

I like the idea of .60 2C / .90 4C. I also think that there should be a
minimum weight to keep the hi-tech, high cost, composites at a minimum.  I
believe that we would see more manufacturers producing aircraft in this
range if there was a potentially larger - sport flyers -  market than just
pattern flyers. The current cost of a maxed out pattern setup of $5000+ is
ridiculous. Even the lowest cost setup is greater than $1K. 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
ronlock at comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 9:51 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List; NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Smaller Models

The field is level now at 2 meter span/length & 11 lb limit.

It could also be level at 1.7 meters similiar as it was years ago using

a .60 displacement limit.

Personally, I found the commaraderie, sportsmanship, competition,

and such that make pattern a joy for me, were same then as now.  But

required less money, time, shop & vehicle space. Less investiment might

assist in attracting new folks and maybe in keeping already active pilots.

Then there is the huge issue of transitioning from the present equipment.

Ron Lockhart

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Keith Hoard" <khoard at gmail.com> 
I know everyone says "Larger models fly better". . . Well, if smaller models
are hard to fly, then wouldn't that naturally level the playing field a
little?

On 1/3/07, Ron Lockhart <ronlock at comcast.net> wrote: 

Yea, smaller has a number of advantages.   

 A reduction in money, time, hassle factor, etc., of models is a thought
toward increased participation.

(Yea, I know the established pilots, and new pilots, are allowed to fly
smaller models right now.  But we have a 

lot of history  that shows Dean's comment "Given that everyone will build or
buy up to the maximum size limit" is true. 

How does that Dixie thing go?....<G>

Ron Lockhart

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Dean Pappas <mailto:d.pappas at kodeos.com>  

To: NSRCA Mailing List  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 

Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 4:51 PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Header Brace

Hi John,

A year or so ago, I puit together an Excelleron 90 for a review and eventual
sale to a newbie.

Boy! Was it nice to drop a plane into the minivan in one piece!

It was almost as good as when a Phoenix 8 would fit into the back of a
hatchback Camaro in one piece.

Given that everyone will build or buy up to the maximum size limit,

is there a good enough reason to push on the rules bodies to legislate
Pattern plane sizes back down?

How about 1.6 or 1.7 meters square?

Will this affect cost and complexity enough to have a beneficial effect on
participation?

Or am I just whistling Dixie?

later,

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: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org ]On Behalf Of John Ferrell
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:07 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Header Brace

There seems to be a growing trend toward smaller airplanes among a lot of
folks. I sure am enjoying the 90 size Boxer I bought from Ed Miller last
summer. Less hassle to transport, assemble and fly. That means I can fly
more! 

John Ferrell    W8CCW
"My Competition is not my enemy"
http://DixieNC.US <http://dixienc.us/> 

  _____  

_______________________________________________
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 

-- 

Keith Hoard
Collierville, TN
khoard at gmail.com

  _____  

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

  _____  

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.5/616 - Release Date: 1/4/2007

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070104/77fbe3d3/attachment-0001.html 