[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

[Mark Atwood]

Wow Mike...that's a lot of words.  Shouldn't you be cutting foam???


:):):):)

-Mark


On 6/22/07 6:11 PM, "Mike Hester" <kerlock at comcast.net> wrote:

> 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