[NSRCA-discussion] SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?

Fred Huber fhhuber at clearwire.net
Sun Jan 7 20:52:45 AKST 2007 

With e-power... changing props changes power.

13X6.5 and 14X6... the 14X6 will draw slightly less power.  Since we lost 
power but gained static thrust.. where's the power loss show up?  Lost 
speed.  If a plane is already a little marginal on speed for handling wind, 
reducing pitch is a problem.  Also if you want to try plaing the game of 
trading airspeed for vertical, loss of speed is a disaster.

Rated prop for my motor is the 14X8.  The 13X6.5 was being used because it 
was enough and gave the increased flight time for 2 rounds of the old 
schedule.

Find anyone flying Masters level flyer who thinks its a good idea to allow 
speed to change in a maneuver and will complain about downgrade if speed 
varies noticeably.  Maybe its one of the points that fall in S&G... I'm not 
bothering to look it up  Maneuvers that have speed vary when its not 
supposed to look sloppy.

The more advanced competitors who are coaching me are CONSTANTLY telling me 
to maintain constant speed throughout loops, half cubans, Immelman, Split S 
and the cobra...  Since they are likely to sit in the judges' chairs durring 
contests when I fly (they HAVE sat in judges chairs when I have flown at 
contests...) I know I had better maintain constant speed within any given 
maneuver.

And if its marginal at its current setup... then thats proof that the new 
schedule demands more from the plane than the old schedule.... Which means 
the new schedule increased the cost of entry to competition at Sportsman 
level.

Since this is supposed to be about how to entice beginners to fly Pattern 
(not about why my plane needs to be upgraded to meet the demands of the more 
difficult schedule) and percieved cost of getting started is one of the 
stumbling blocks to enticing beginners to the sport:  The new schedule 
demanding a higher performance plane is contrary to the purpose of the 
Sportsman class.  My aircraft performance issues are just an example of the 
increased performance demanded.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Thompson" <mrandmrst at comcast.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: 
[NSRCA-discussion]SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?


> While I certainly agree with the added expense of  larger battery packs
> would make this combo seem out of reach for most Sportsman pilots, an
> E-plane in general would do the same.  An increase of 500 to 700 mAh in 
> size
> would go a long way in increasing your time in the air while not adding a
> seriously detrimental increase in weight.
>
> I agree in the judging criteria for losing speed, hence my statement about
> increasing your speed into the maneuver.  You don't need to jerk the model
> into vertical to tighten the radii a "little".  The only reason for
> tightening that radii is to allow a tighter radii at the top, hence making
> them equal.  Considering the fact I said you could possibly shorten your
> uplines a little, certainly doesn't constitute an interpretation that I
> meant to shorten it to 5'.
>
> I agree with the slowing down in your upline of the stall turn, however,
> that isn't what makes a stall turn a stall turn.  It's the stopping at the
> top that makes it a stall turn.  Of course, I agree with you that the
> slowing down in your vertical line of the stall is inevitable.  If 
> someone's
> plane is running out of "climb" at the top of their stall turn, and they
> have to maintain fuul power to make a respectable height, their power is
> marginal, at best.
>
> The difference in props will not change your level flight speed enough to
> make your model incapable of handling windy conditions, only increase your
> pull in the up lines, which if you fly the path, not the nose, it will 
> help
> you with your vertical lines in the wind.
>
> As for the necessity of the 91 4-stroke motor over the 61 2-stroke, I 
> can't
> argue with that fact.  The 4-stroke has it's "power curve" in a lower RPM
> range while allowing it to swing a larger prop thus increasing thrust. 
> You
> could also decide to go to one of the 90 sized 2-strokes and have a ton of
> power while staying within the weight limits you are looking for, all 
> while
> saving money over the same size 4-stroke.  Please understand  I know all 
> of
> this motor talk costs money, that I won't dispute.
>
> I certainly wish I was close to you geographically, I would love to come
> over and see if there was some way we could work out your power problem 
> with
> the new sequence.
>
> Ken
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber at clearwire.net>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:54 PM
> Subject: Re:
> [NSRCA-discussion]SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?
>
>
>> these packs are $250 a set... Larger ($300 to $500 a set) brings model
>> weight up requiring larger motor (lets spend another $250 to $400) and 
>> you
>> end up at 1.5 KW before it will perform with the added weight.  So that 
>> is
>> not an option.
>>
>> CONSTANT SPEED is a judging criteria.  So unlimited vertical is a
>> requirement for a vertical up-line.... unless you want to be downgraded
>> for
>> losing speed.
>>
>> Stall turn you can slow down on the way up... you have to or its not a
>> stall-turn, its a wingover = 0'd the maneuver.
>>
>> If you have inadequate power for the up-line a tighter pull will kill
>> speed
>> due to  higher G forces... counterproductive.  And sticking 5 ft of
>> up-line
>> at 1/4 normal loop radius then pushing isn't going to score well even if
>> line length is not a judging factor.
>>
>> This is reality from actually flying the model.
>>
>> Sure, the 14X6 will give some more static thrust compared to the 
>> 13X6.5...
>> and lose airspeed... which equates to not handling wind.
>>
>> It all adds up to... what WOULD work for the old Sportsman WON'T do the
>> new
>> sequence.
>>
>> And I note you didn't comment on the glow power model's need for a change
>> from a .60 2-stroke to a .91 4-stroke for MARGINAL ability to do the
>> up-line
>> when the .61 was JUST FINE for the old sequence.
>>
>> These are planes I have actually flown.  Results that have been proven.
>>
>> The new Sportsman sequence needs more power:weight (static thrust, to get
>> vertical ascent capability as the main factor requiring more power) than
>> the
>> old sequence.
>>
>> Someone's going to pop up saying that a .61 2-stroke can make more BHP
>> than
>> a .91 4-stroke...  Sure... if you want to run the 2-stroke spinning a
>> small
>> prop as fast as the engine will turn. Measure static thrust with props
>> you'd
>> actually fly Pattern with.  USEABLE power from the .91 is superior... and
>> the 4-stroke with stock muffler weighs less than the 2- stroke with stock
>> muffler.  The .91 wins.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Ken Thompson" <mrandmrst at comcast.net>
>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:41 PM
>> Subject: Re:
>> [NSRCA-discussion]SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?
>>
>>
>>> Fred,
>>>
>>> At the risk of seeming  argumentative, I don't entirely agree with your
>>> statements.  I'm relatively new to flying, especially Pattern, but there
>>> are
>>> a few things I've learned in my 3 years of competition.
>>>
>>> In doing a stall turn, you want to run out of forward motion at the top,
>>> not
>>> necessarily power.  It's possible you may be trying to extend your lines
>>> too
>>> far.
>>>
>>> As for the vertical upline, carry more speed into the maneuver, tighten
>>> your
>>> radii a little, shorten your line and you should have enough "oomph" to
>>> carry over the top.
>>>
>>> Again, not to be argumentative, however, a 1.5:1 power to weight would
>>> give
>>> you unlimited vertical.  I would be extremely surprised if that kind of
>>> power would be necessary to carry a clean upline of  375 to 400 ft.,
>>> which
>>> should be considered a very respectable elevation to make your 
>>> transition
>>> to
>>> level flight.
>>>
>>> As for the Quest, a very nice plane I might add, you might want to try a
>>> 14
>>> x 6, if available.  The larger disk while maintaining the lower pitch,
>>> has
>>> always helped me increase my vertical abilities.  As for not being able
>>> to
>>> finish 2 sequences on 1 charge, larger packs are in order.
>>>
>>> Ken Thompson
>>> D6 Newbie
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber at clearwire.net>
>>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 8:47 PM
>>> Subject: Re:
>>> [NSRCA-discussion]SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?
>>>
>>>
>>>> The stall turn you can run out of power at the top and still complete
>>>> it.
>>>> (you NEED to run out of power at the top)
>>>>
>>>> The vertical up line you have to make a sustained straight up line at
>>>> constant speed and then have the "omph" left to make the same raius 
>>>> push
>>>> to
>>>> get back level as the radius used to pull into the up line.
>>>>
>>>> 1:1 power:weight would do the old Sportsman.  You need 1.5:1 to do that
>>>> up
>>>> line and have the power to wind compensate.
>>>>
>>>> A Golberg Tiger 60 with a .61 2-stroke in the nose could to the old
>>>> Sportman
>>>> sequence. (with just problems due to wanting to roll with rudder input)
>>>> With a .91 4-stroke.. (which gives a significant improvement in
>>>> up-lines)
>>>> It would be marginal at best.
>>>>
>>>> My Quest 3D e-powered was fine for the old Sportsman sequence using
>>>> 13X6.5
>>>> at 800 watts.  For the new sequence I had to prop-up to 14X8, drawing
>>>> 900
>>>> watts.  (fortunately the motor, battery and ESC are rated for that)  I
>>>> simply COULD NOT do the up line with the 13X6.5.
>>>> I put the E-powered Quest together specificly to fly sportsman, aiming
>>>> at
>>>> 2
>>>> rounds per battery charge.  I now can't count on having the power to
>>>> complete the second round. (longer sequence AND more power required to
>>>> do
>>>> it.)
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>> From: "Ken Thompson" <mrandmrst at comcast.net>
>>>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 7:03 PM
>>>> Subject: Re:
>>>> [NSRCA-discussion]SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Fred,
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that vertical upline any harder to complete than the old stall
>>>>> turn?
>>>>> They both end at the same elevation...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>> From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber at clearwire.net>
>>>>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 10:20 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
>>>>> SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I STILL think that the new Sportsman sequence is a mistake. Vertical
>>>>>> up-line
>>>>>> requires too much airplane performance and THAT is going to keep some
>>>>>> potential beginners from competing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FHH
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>>> From: "Mike Hester" <kerlock at comcast.net>
>>>>>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 10:06 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small
>>>>>> Models...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is because people are looking fo a magic fix that I am utterly,
>>>>>>> totally, absolutely convinced does not exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am also absolutely utterly convinced that messing with the rules
>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> over airframes in ANY class right now will ultimately have the
>>>>>>> opposite
>>>>>>> effect of what people are trying to accomplish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You guys know as well as I do that a major part of the draw in
>>>>>>> pattern
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> the planes themselves to a lot of people. Not all, but a substantial
>>>>>>> number.
>>>>>>> In the sportsman class, if a guy has the ambition to secure a 2 
>>>>>>> meter
>>>>>>> plane,
>>>>>>> history shows (around here anyway) that you're MUCH more likely to
>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>> him
>>>>>>> next year in intermediate. The guy with the Kaos.....more likely,
>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>> not because of cost, that is an excuse. Remove that excuse, they'll
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>> find another. And now you've screwed the guy who WOULD have been
>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>> next
>>>>>>> year....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So let me get this straight....if you want to fly a 2 meter plane
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> OS
>>>>>>> or YS160, you would have to fly advanced? Jeez, that's not a good
>>>>>>> idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I started, my first contest, I knew I was going to do it. I
>>>>>>> scratch
>>>>>>> built a 2 meter plane and went for it. I wasn't the only one, most
>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> sportsman also had 2 meter planes. One actually had bought a world
>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>> member's plane and was flying it....pretty well I might add...and I
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> say that even through masters and many years, that season was some 
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> best competition I have ever had. And we're still here. It produced
>>>>>>> myself,
>>>>>>> AC Glenn, Bryan Kennedy, Steve Homenda to name a few. Steve was the
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> who wasn't flying a 2 meter plane, he was flying a 40 sized Arresti
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> whipping everyone's tail with it. Oddly enough, he didn't get
>>>>>>> deterred
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> the big bad evil 2 meters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no magic change to the rules that's going to bring 
>>>>>>> newcomers
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> droves. You get creative, do what you can, and you make the best of
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> get. We're not driving people away in droves like some people seem 
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> think.
>>>>>>> If we are, it certainly isn't the rules regarding the size of the
>>>>>>> planes
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> cost. Maybe, just maybe it has more to do with a lot of the
>>>>>>> negativity?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's just my opinion, I could be wrong....but I'm pretty sure I'm
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> =)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -M
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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: 268.16.7/618 - Release Date:
>>>>>>> 1/6/2007
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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: 268.16.7/618 - Release Date:
>>>>> 1/6/2007
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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: 268.16.7/618 - Release Date: 1/6/2007
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 268.16.7/618 - Release Date: 1/6/2007
>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list