[NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... goodforthefutureofthePattern Event?

Sat Jan 6 15:16:58 AKST 2007

You won't see "pattern performance" on 1800 watts and 11 lbs (163 watts /
lb).  The "best" electrics are currently pushing 250 watts / lb (and I have
flown 300 watt / lb setups) and the "best" glow setups are 275 + watts / lb.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Fred Huber
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 12:56 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ...
goodforthefutureofthePattern Event?

well... I have had a little discussion about the idea of a Pattern Twin with

another local Pattern flyer.

Glow power its a little impractical.  doubles your chances of an engine 
issue.  Adds significant weight for the 2 engine "pods" in the wing leading 
edges (no real advantage to doing push-pull type twin for Pattern)

For electric, the reliability is so high I've been wondering WHEN someoe 
will do it.  you'd have to TRY to flop a stall turn if you have the ability 
to flip a switch activating differential thrust to DRIVE one wing around the

other.  There's a report of someone who has an electric twin who does a 540 
"pinwheel" at the top of a stall turn this way. (I am trying to get a video 
clip of that...)

I have all the stuff to try the experiment, except an appropriate design. 2 
brushless outrunners capable of 900 watts each producing 9.5 lbs thrust each

on 6s LiPo  (19 lbs thrust @ 70 mph pitch speed on an 11 lb plane should 
give good performance...)

FHH
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Ferrell" <johnferrell at earthlink.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good 
forthefutureofthePattern Event?

>I remain opposed to that as a rule because I find it unnecessary. As I read
> the rules, the minimum distance to fly is set by safety and the box. We 
> have
> too many rules already.
>
> I believe my personal flying and enjoyment will be satisfied by flying 
> more.
> That means more unplanned trips to the field and possibly shorter 
> sessions.
> I am not purging the 2 meter collection.
>
> If the left over Prophecy kits don't sell I may shorten the tail and
> reconfigure to a 90 size.  I am seeking more fun for me!
>
> As I see it, we are flying a three design competition at this time. They 
> are
> all 2 m, 11 pounds and either electric, 2c or 4c.
>
> With the quirky international judging there may be something new crop up.
>
> How about a pattern twin?
>
> John Ferrell    W8CCW
> "My Competition is not my enemy"
> http://DixieNC.US
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Grow Pattern" <pattern4u at comcast.net>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 7:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good for
> thefutureofthePattern Event?
>
>
>> John,
>>         I thought that you might be interested in this information.
>>
>> In the 2005 NSRCA rules change survey (sent out in 2002) I compiled the
>> following question with the intent of encouraging 60-90 sized completive
>> airplane development.
>>
>> Judging of distances
>>
>>
>> Question-65
>>
>> Should we therefore consider and AMA pattern contest rule change that
>> states
>> the pilot should make the plane appear to be at the size of a 2-meter
>> plane
>> being flown at 150-175 meters.?
>>
>> YES = 71        NO = 100          RESULT = NO PROPOSED CHANGE .
>>
>> I had been advised that the existing selection-and-intent of the FAI
>> 150-metres rule was to create a relatively equal ease of visibility for 
>> 2M
>> airplanes to the judges??  Whether that was true or not I admit to being
>> very surprised when the idea was rejected so soundly by the survey
>> respondents.
>>
>> I had been thinking that the smaller planes would fare better if they 
>> were
>> flown in a bit closer. Our rough math had shown that a 60-72" airplane
>> would
>> look just about right at 100-110-M.
>>
>> What would the difference be for a 2-M airplane and a 1.5-M airplane if
>> flown at their relative distances?
>>
>> I also thought that the budding but slower electric planes of the day
>> could
>> use the closer in option and need less extreme (read expensive) power
>> systems.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Eric.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "John Ferrell" <johnferrell at earthlink.net>
>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 4:46 PM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good for the
>> futureofthePattern Event?
>>
>>
>>> There is no need to worry about rules changes at this time.
>>>
>>> Those of us dabbling with smaller planes are doing it with the existing
>>> rules. If winning trophies and satisfying judging problems are at the 
>>> top
>>> of
>>> your needs you will probably be best served with whatever is percieved 
>>> as
>>> the latest & greatest equipment.
>>>
>>> I have two boxes of trophies out in the shed. The smaller box is from
>>> when
>>> nobody better showed up. The larger box is from events that did not get
>>> enough attendance to give away the trophies. I don't have strong 
>>> feelings
>>> about either box!
>>>
>>> I just want to fly more and enjoy it more. Right now that appears to be
>>> with
>>> a little smaller airplane!
>>>
>>> John Ferrell    W8CCW
>>> "My Competition is not my enemy"
>>> http://DixieNC.US
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "george w. kennie" <geobet at gis.net>
>>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:40 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good for the future
>>> ofthePattern Event?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Deano,
>>>> When you reference " changing the shape of the event ", how deep are 
>>>> you
>>>> suggesting things go?  Are we losing sight of the fact that we are part
>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.6/617 - Release Date: 1/5/2007
>
> 

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