[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

Sun Jun 24 13:31:04 AKDT 2007

Yes, but what if you had an electric airplane for an main airplane, and a 
glow for a backup airplane?

--Matt
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber at clearwire.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

> 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
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/863 - Release Date: 6/23/2007 
> 11:08 AM
> 