[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

[Nat Penton]

It is self evident they did not follow exactly in the footsteps of the 
successful. Was it prop selection, cooling, throttle management, battery 
maintenance  ??                  Nat

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Hester" <kerlock at comcast.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 5:07 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
>