[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

Fri Jun 22 06:59:23 AKDT 2007

I ditched those shoes after Round 3 of last years nats - which was the
3rd in a row with so much loss of power as to not be able to fly correct
maneuver geometry.  

However - electric has never been billed as "average-guy" pattern.  If
you decided to stray from setups like those used by Dave, Chad, Jason,
Jerry, Tony you will quickly find yourself paying your way through an
un-intended "R & D" circle.  The actual plane costs are going to be an
after-thought compared to the price of all the other components.  Given
the rapidly changing technology and reputation for degraded packs after
customer use or misuse, the resale market is basically-nill.  Also, it
turns out that one person who bought my packs from after the nats did so
only to find out some of the cells were bad - thankfully taken care of
my the manufacturer to my knowledge (and apologies to the buyer).  The
weight is really all about which batteries you use.  Are you selecting 3
lb packs or 2.5 lb packs...  It does suck though when restringing the
rudder from 4-40 gear to 2-56 becomes your option to reduce weight :-) .
The one thing I absolutely refused to do though was remove the wheel
pants.  Also, I think remembering that the APC 20x15E was noticeably
lighter than something like the 21x14.  I also bought small glow-motor
AL spinner-hubs, and drilled them out and tapped them to be used a the
actual prop bolt, saving weight by not using an actual prop bolt and
spinner - of course no switch was used, just a small 750 2-cell battery
into a Jaaico regulator, into the receiver pack.  However, I think
remembering that the TP5300's were something like 2.5 lbs.  With those I
would have been comfortably under weight and had power to spare for FAI
- should I have managed them correctly and such (used luxury items like
spinners and switches).

I think to fly electric well in a longevity sense, you need to be even
MORE "into" the power setup and essentially become and electric-flight
expert, than with the current glow setups.  It will be a difficult
transition if you are not totally committed to the E-systems nuisances
through the full realm of equipment and charging infrastructure.  If you
are not ready and enthused to become an E-expert, the PIA factor will
start to creep in and you'll start to think about just swinging an 18"
prop on a glow setup.  There is every bit the same need to carry "spare"
powertrain equipment with E as with Glow.  Also, another flyer in our
area simply noted that for him, more flying-time was the key to
improvement regardless of the platform.  Of course we all want the
absolute best flying plane and equipment we can get our hands on.  As
for my own decisions and "way" for which I can get flying time in and
such, it is more "valuable" to simply fill up and fly.  I felt for a
while that in calm air there was an advantage to the 20+ inch E-prop and
that there was a perceived "smoothness" gained with the E-setup.  In
retrospect if it is blowing past 10 mph that feeling is definitely gone
and anything higher, etc..... etc. etc., but now way off topic....

Anyway, just some of my experience.  

Thanks,

Jim W.

________________________________

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Van
Putte
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 10:27 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

It is said that you can't understand a person's problems until you've
walked a mile in their shoes.  John and I didn't understand what the
problems were regarding making weight with electric-powered airplanes
until he decided to compete with one.  I am still competing with a
glow-powered Focus.

John's airplane is under 5 Kg, but not by much.  Due to an extensive
weight-saving building job on his Black Magic by Mike Hester and John's
careful selection and installation of radio, batteries, ESC, prop,
motor, spinner, et al, his airplane is OK with weight, even in the kind
of winds we often see at the Nats.  He's thinking about the guys who
can't afford as much $$$ as he has invested in his setup.  The average
guy probably can't build an electric-powered 2 meter airplane that makes
weight and is competitive with the kind of budget required for a
glow-powered version of the same airplane.  

Ron Van Putte

The learning curve is very steep.  

On Jun 21, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Keith Black wrote:

I fly electric but still would be against this proposal. 

John F. makes some good points in his justification, however, I simply
think that Dave's counter points out "weigh" John's points.

I think if you read Dave's post with an open mind and not a
pre-conceived "position" you feel you have to protect you'll find his
logic very compelling. 

BTW, I find this change of heart by you and John quite amusing. This is
probably unfair but it almost sounds as if one of you can't get your new
e-plane to make weight with the current rules. I'm sure that's not true,
but from the outside it certainly appears that way.

I hope the real reason for "floating" this idea was to get people
opinions. If so I'm beginning to see a trend.

Keith Black 

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

	From: Ron Van Putte <mailto:vanputte at cox.net>  

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

	Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 7:38 PM

	Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

	I was also not aware that glow-powered airplanes needed the
handicap they already have.  I agree that, with innovative design and
$$$, electric-powered airplanes can compete with glow-powered airplanes.
The ones who suffer from the weight inequity are those who can't afford
the $$$ to overcome the weight inequity. 

	Ron Van Putte

	On Jun 21, 2007, at 6:59 PM, John Ferrell wrote:

	I did not realize that the Electrics were in need of a handicap.
They seem to be doing just fine against the recips under current rules. 

	If you really think they need a little help by all means give
them a rule book boost!

	John Ferrell    W8CCW
	"Life is easier if you learn to plow 
	       around the stumps"
	http://DixieNC.US

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

		From: Ron Van Putte <mailto:vanputte at cox.net>  

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

		Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:44 PM

		Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

		I just got this response from John Fuqua.

		Ron Van Putte

		The guys are missing the point.  It is not about what
can be achieved on weight.  It is what is permitted by the rules.  They
are not arguing the logic of what the rules allow (in most cases) but
examples of what has been achieved.   Please make that point. 

		John

		From: Ron Van Putte [mailto:vanputte at cox.net] 

		Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 1:18 PM

		To: Fuqua John D Mr CTR USAF 697 ARSF/EN

		Subject: Fwd: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Electric Weight
Proposal Logic and Rationale

	_______________________________________________

	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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070622/bf8766ac/attachment-0001.html 