[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

Fri Jun 22 07:26:54 AKDT 2007

Flying style has got everything to do with how your plane flies with
electric as compared to a glow motor.  We have flown in several contests
here in California where the wind is blowing in excess of 18mph and the
electric planes handle the wind equally, if not better, than the glow planes
- all due to the way the pilot flies the plane.  I do think that we are
leading the pack over here in electric usage though - 50% of a pattern
contest is usually running electric and that runs through all the classes -
not just the upper classes.  We have electric usage in Sportsman all the way
to FAI - and the planes are not expensive - these are run-of-the-mill planes
available from Tower/Horizon etc. and doing well.  Flying style also
dictates how many mah you are using in your batteries as well.  We have
several FAI pilots here that do not draw much more than 3600mah out of their
packs on a full P7 sequence in the wind and in little to no wind they are in
the 2900 range.

I can only imagine how well my Impact would fly if it was at 5kg instead of
its almost 6kg - yes, this was a conversion from glow to electric so there
are a few "weighs" to save weight now.

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jim Woodward
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 7:59 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

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/eb8bbdb0/attachment-0001.html 