[NSRCA-discussion] SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?

Del K. Rykert drykert2 at rochester.rr.com
Mon Jan 8 09:37:48 AKST 2007 

Its not..

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Glenn Hatfield" <randy10926 at comtekmail.com>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 
SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?


> Since when is constant speed a judging criteria?
>
> --- fhhuber at clearwire.net wrote:
>
> From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber at clearwire.net>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 
> SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?
> Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 21:54:15 -0600
>
> 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
>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list