[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
Ron Van Putte
vanputte at cox.net
Fri Jun 22 17:48:18 AKDT 2007
I have a feeling that the glow-powered pilots will be begging for
mercy in a few years and will demand splitting the classes or relief
for the glow pilots.
Ron Van Putte
On Jun 22, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Fred Huber wrote:
> we could make things really complicated... and simple at the same
> time.
>
> split Pattern into electric and glow classes.
>
> E-power only competing vs e-power. Glow only vs glow.
>
> (awaiting major flameage)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Hester" <kerlock at comcast.net>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 6:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
>
>
>> That's too general of a statement. This doesn't have anything to
>> do with
>> whether or not electrics are viable, they are. This is about details.
>>
>> I watched people follow EXACTLY in the footsteps of the
>> successful....and
>> burn thier stuff to the ground in bad conditions. I have a lot
>> invested in
>> these planes as far as time and mental energy, and I can't put on a
>> blindfold to an issue. I'd much rather try and solve the issue.
>> Preferrably
>> without a rule change.
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Nat Penton" <natpenton at centurytel.net>
>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 7:01 PM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
>>
>>
>>> If nearly 50% of West Coast competitors are electric there must be a
>>> conflict in perception with the EAST Coast. The Gulf Coast ( if I
>>> may )
>>> loves thier electrics and sees no need for a rule change.
>>>
>>> Most tribulations with electric derived from not following in the
>>> footsteps
>>> of the successful. Nat
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Mike Hester" <kerlock at comcast.net>
>>> To: <chad at f3acanada.org>; "NSRCA Mailing List"
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 4:11 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
>>>
>>>
>>>> LOL
>>>>
>>>> Seriously that's real. I know that some people say they don't
>>>> have any
>>>> problems with speed/wind, but my eyes tell me different. I recently
>>>> watched
>>>> an avid electric competitor smoke 2 sets of packs, back to back,
>>>> and as
>>>> a
>>>> result will not compete in the 2007 Nats without a YS powered
>>>> plane. For
>>>> this person to make this kind of move, it's like one of the
>>>> signs of the
>>>> apocalypse. I watched the masters Nats finals last year (from
>>>> the judges
>>>> chair) and the lack of penetration was extremely evident in the
>>>> head
>>>> wind.
>>>> I
>>>> was not on the FAI line so I can't say one way or another how
>>>> things
>>>> went
>>>> there. But my eyes work, and I know what I have seen, there and
>>>> other
>>>> places
>>>> as well. When you have to bury the stick just to maintain any
>>>> forward
>>>> motion whatsoever, you will be hard pressed by the end of the
>>>> flight.
>>>> Simple
>>>> physics.
>>>>
>>>> The problem exists, however I'll be the very first to admit it
>>>> comes
>>>> down
>>>> to
>>>> mostly set up, equipment, and throttle management all combined.
>>>> Therefore
>>>> my
>>>> main concern is not how you guys handle it, it's how everybody else
>>>> does.
>>>>
>>>> I have spent countless hours on the phone with Dave Lockhart
>>>> discussing
>>>> these things, and I can't tell you how much I've learned in the
>>>> last
>>>> couple
>>>> of years. Keep in mind I have nothing to gain or lose either way, I
>>>> don't
>>>> fly electrics. But I do have to build them for others and one
>>>> thing I
>>>> hate
>>>> is when anyone has problems with a plane I built, regardless of the
>>>> source
>>>> of the problem. So, I sort of take it upon myself to try and
>>>> figure out
>>>> solutions.
>>>>
>>>> My conclusion is this: just like with any glow plane, there is no
>>>> substitute
>>>> for power. if you're marginal on your set up because of weight
>>>> restrictions,
>>>> available equipment, or most likely $$$, you will pay for it when
>>>> competition circumstances deteriorate. Especially with older
>>>> equipment.
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion, the answer does not lie in a rule change. It lies
>>>> squarely
>>>> on
>>>> the shoulders of the equipment manufacturers and the guys having
>>>> real
>>>> success to share thier findings in a truthful manner. We all know
>>>> electric
>>>> power is still very much in it's infancy and the progress made
>>>> in the
>>>> last
>>>> couple of years is nothing short of outstanding. We're just not
>>>> quite
>>>> "there" yet for Joe Average. But we're a LOT closer than we were
>>>> 2-3
>>>> years
>>>> ago, and closer than we were last year at this time. I'm really
>>>> excited
>>>> about it all, and I appreciate the guys who I build planes for
>>>> because I
>>>> can
>>>> do all of this research without having to spend my own money =) LOL
>>>>
>>>> One thing you touched on that is real to me is the need for
>>>> higher pitch
>>>> props in various sizes. I honestly believe the solutions to these
>>>> particular
>>>> problems lie down that path. More pitch=more speed=no problems.
>>>> I've
>>>> seen
>>>> set ups that handled these conditions fine (Like the plane I
>>>> built for
>>>> Emory
>>>> Schroeter, and his packs are NOT new by any means) but at the
>>>> same time
>>>> I
>>>> watch a more standard set up fry right next to it on the very next
>>>> flight.
>>>> John for instance was ok, but marginal. Luckily those packs were
>>>> brand
>>>> new,
>>>> but you can't tell me they didn't suffer damage. He put back more
>>>> capacity
>>>> than the battery was even rated for. When he took them out of
>>>> the plane
>>>> it
>>>> was uncomfortably hot to the touch. the packs measured about 130
>>>> degrees
>>>> F.
>>>>
>>>> maybe the real problem is that by the time he finally gets a set
>>>> up that
>>>> allows him to push the limits, the plane is pushing the weight
>>>> limit.
>>>> The
>>>> set up for this kind of power is really heavy. For reference, that
>>>> airframe
>>>> itself was less than 4 1/2 lbs finished on the gear. So I think
>>>> perhaps
>>>> what
>>>> has John's hackles up is that most other planes simply wouldn't
>>>> make
>>>> weight
>>>> with a set up like that one. hence the need for a really expensive
>>>> airframe
>>>> (I'm not cheap, but anyone with any building skill could do it
>>>> too...but
>>>> then what's your time worth? Personal choice there and a whole
>>>> 'nuther
>>>> can
>>>> of worms).
>>>>
>>>> Didn't mean to type a novel or even crack this one open in any more
>>>> detail,
>>>> but I wanted to underscore my personal opinions that the burden
>>>> lies
>>>> with
>>>> the manufacturers and test pilots. And they are doing a great
>>>> job, it
>>>> just
>>>> takes time.
>>>>
>>>> -Mike
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Chad Northeast" <chad at f3acanada.org>
>>>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:06 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Interestingly enough, up here we changed MAAC rules (similar to
>>>>> how you
>>>>> are setup with AMA/FAI separated), so that planes are weighed
>>>>> without
>>>>> batteries. Did it about two years ago so as to allow guys to
>>>>> use other
>>>>> technology than Lipos (A123's for instance). To date nobody
>>>>> has ever
>>>>> bothered to do anything different, and I am sure most planes
>>>>> have been
>>>>> close to the conventional weight limit, regardless of class.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for FAI, come 2008 weight limit wont matter much. With the
>>>>> shorter
>>>>> sequences you could run a smaller pack fairly comfortably. As
>>>>> well
>>>>> there is a 50 gram allowance I believe, so you could be 5050
>>>>> grams and
>>>>> still be ok. Just shortening the schedules will give electric
>>>>> a pretty
>>>>> nice boost, it will finally allow us to haul ass in a 7 min
>>>>> schedule
>>>>> and
>>>>> demonstrate the much needed wind killing speed that many say we
>>>>> dont
>>>>> have :-) Time to get APC to make that 20x16 :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Chad
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.4/860 - Release Date:
>> 6/21/2007
>> 5:53 PM
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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