[NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits

Sun Jun 24 14:46:39 AKDT 2007

Then you'd be able to fly the electric in the E-classes and the glow in the 
G-classes.... and you'd need 2 more backups.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "R. LIPRIE" <RLIPRIE at centurytel.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Airplane Weight Limits


> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>