From johnfuqua at embarqmail.com  Mon Jun  1 05:03:18 2009
From: johnfuqua at embarqmail.com (John Fuqua)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:03:18 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule Interpretation
In-Reply-To: <004201c9e25c$79e09600$6da1c200$@net>
References: <2C5731A5-9BBE-4273-A562-37F80D315672@cox.net><BAY139-DAV4D9660D22308D3CF34F99E84C0@phx.gbl>
	<004201c9e25c$79e09600$6da1c200$@net>
Message-ID: <00f601c9e2b9$4f993e80$7101a8c0@ltm733c31251f5>

You can pull the trigger by submitting a proposal.  Anybody can submit one
and you do not need any co-signers either.  Just download the Rules proposal
form (Word Document) fill it out and submit it to AMA via email.  You have
until Mar 2010.


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Burton
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 8:59 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule Interpretation

Just shoot me! Put me out of my misery! This mandatory advancement, points,
move to classes, move back from classes issue just keeps coming up over and
over.
To answer Ron's question, the Nationals is just another contest as far as
the rule book so he can move back to Sportsman if he wants after the
Nationals.
I hope all these points, advancement stuff rules get eliminated in the
coming rules cycle.
Dave Burton

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 9:45 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule Interpretation

How does he go to the Nats in the first place, unless he has registered in 
one of the classes being offered?  You can't just show up and start flying. 
If that Sportsman pilot registers properly for the Nats in Intermediate and 
then shows up and flies, doesn't that move him up to Intermediate?

Ed
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Van Putte" <vanputte at cox.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 9:04 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule Interpretation


> What if a pilot now flying in the Sportsman class goes to the Nats  and 
> wants to compete.  The Nats doesn't have a Sportsman class.  At  most 
> contests, a pilot may fly in another class, if his isn't offered  at that 
> contest and resume flying in his class afterward.  Is that  true of the 
> Nats?
>
> Ron Van Putte
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From burtona at atmc.net  Mon Jun  1 05:11:07 2009
From: burtona at atmc.net (Dave Burton)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:11:07 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule Interpretation
In-Reply-To: <00f601c9e2b9$4f993e80$7101a8c0@ltm733c31251f5>
References: <2C5731A5-9BBE-4273-A562-37F80D315672@cox.net><BAY139-DAV4D9660D22308D3CF34F99E84C0@phx.gbl>	<004201c9e25c$79e09600$6da1c200$@net>
	<00f601c9e2b9$4f993e80$7101a8c0@ltm733c31251f5>
Message-ID: <000901c9e2ba$7b2422d0$716c6870$@net>

Already done!

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Fuqua
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 9:03 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule Interpretation

You can pull the trigger by submitting a proposal.  Anybody can submit one
and you do not need any co-signers either.  Just download the Rules proposal
form (Word Document) fill it out and submit it to AMA via email.  You have
until Mar 2010.


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Burton
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 8:59 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule Interpretation

Just shoot me! Put me out of my misery! This mandatory advancement, points,
move to classes, move back from classes issue just keeps coming up over and
over.
To answer Ron's question, the Nationals is just another contest as far as
the rule book so he can move back to Sportsman if he wants after the
Nationals.
I hope all these points, advancement stuff rules get eliminated in the
coming rules cycle.
Dave Burton

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 9:45 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule Interpretation

How does he go to the Nats in the first place, unless he has registered in 
one of the classes being offered?  You can't just show up and start flying. 
If that Sportsman pilot registers properly for the Nats in Intermediate and 
then shows up and flies, doesn't that move him up to Intermediate?

Ed
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Van Putte" <vanputte at cox.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 9:04 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule Interpretation


> What if a pilot now flying in the Sportsman class goes to the Nats  and 
> wants to compete.  The Nats doesn't have a Sportsman class.  At  most 
> contests, a pilot may fly in another class, if his isn't offered  at that 
> contest and resume flying in his class afterward.  Is that  true of the 
> Nats?
>
> Ron Van Putte
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From don.ramsey at suddenlink.net  Mon Jun  1 05:29:18 2009
From: don.ramsey at suddenlink.net (Don Ramsey)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:29:18 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Results
In-Reply-To: <000901c9e2ba$7b2422d0$716c6870$@net>
References: <2C5731A5-9BBE-4273-A562-37F80D315672@cox.net><BAY139-DAV4D9660D22308D3CF34F99E84C0@phx.gbl>	<004201c9e25c$79e09600$6da1c200$@net>	<00f601c9e2b9$4f993e80$7101a8c0@ltm733c31251f5>
	<000901c9e2ba$7b2422d0$716c6870$@net>
Message-ID: <000b01c9e2bc$faf2e080$f0d8a180$@ramsey@suddenlink.net>

Full results for the American Turf Flyers Contest, Broken Arrow, OK is
posted on 

http://pages.suddenlink.net/donramsey/




From steveandlaurel at valornet.com  Mon Jun  1 05:33:16 2009
From: steveandlaurel at valornet.com (Steve Ford)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:33:16 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Tulsa
References: <001f01c9e250$1bae0420$6500a8c0@warrior>
Message-ID: <36D4472791DC4E5FACF2F952298B6C79@Home>

Thanks Dan, just a little calmer than last year.

Steve
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dan 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 7:30 PM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Tulsa


  Just a quick shout out to Steve Ford, Ken Kaut and the American Turf Flyers in Broken Arrown, OK.  Once again they hosted a great contest with solid competition, perfect weather and warm hospitality.  All ready looking forward to next year.

  Dan


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090601/5094760c/attachment.html>

From jaqfly at prodigy.net  Mon Jun  1 06:08:46 2009
From: jaqfly at prodigy.net (Jim Quinn)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:08:46 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] DI contest for 401,2,3 ONLY
In-Reply-To: <36D4472791DC4E5FACF2F952298B6C79@Home>
References: <001f01c9e250$1bae0420$6500a8c0@warrior>
	<36D4472791DC4E5FACF2F952298B6C79@Home>
Message-ID: <230980.35635.qm@web83304.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Hi,
?
I want to be sure you know about the FABULOUS NEW CONCEPT in NSRCA District I contests.
?
This coming weekend, June 6~7 the Aeroguidance Society will host a full contest for Sportsman, Intermediate, and Advanced ONLY!
?
Saturday morning will begin with a workshop with the legendary Bob Noll and other DI aerobatic pilots. 
?
It is only $25.00 entry fee which includes lunch on Saturday and Sunday and Dinner Saturday night.
?
There is camping on site!
?
The weather forecast even looks superb!
?
Come join us.
?
Jim Quinn
315.292.0309
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090601/20a233df/attachment.html>

From pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net  Mon Jun  1 11:43:11 2009
From: pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net (Ihncheol Park)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:43:11 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Iota 55 amp fuse replacement & surge protector
In-Reply-To: <36D4472791DC4E5FACF2F952298B6C79@Home>
References: <001f01c9e250$1bae0420$6500a8c0@warrior>
	<36D4472791DC4E5FACF2F952298B6C79@Home>
Message-ID: <000001c9e2f1$30b7d700$92278500$@net>

I have a couple of questions to those using Iota power supply

 

Has anyone replaced the fuse(s) on the Iota power supply?  I can't pull them
out at all.  Do I have to disassemble it?

 

Every time when I plug the power supply to the wall outlet, it sparks
causing the breaker to reset.

So, I've been using a surge protector, but today.  The surge protector died
with a spark.

 

Any suggestions for the surge protector?  

 

Thanks,

 

Ihncheol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090601/f2513519/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Mon Jun  1 11:58:32 2009
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:58:32 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Iota 55 amp fuse replacement & surge
 protector
In-Reply-To: <000001c9e2f1$30b7d700$92278500$@net>
References: <001f01c9e250$1bae0420$6500a8c0@warrior>
	<36D4472791DC4E5FACF2F952298B6C79@Home> 
	<000001c9e2f1$30b7d700$92278500$@net>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W34C4D20E7CA05BDA4CAD3A04C0@phx.gbl>


Your Iota is sick.

RS
 


From: pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 14:43:07 -0500
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Iota 55 amp fuse replacement & surge protector





I have a couple of questions to those using Iota power supply
 
Has anyone replaced the fuse(s) on the Iota power supply?  I can?t pull them out at all.  Do I have to disassemble it?
 
Every time when I plug the power supply to the wall outlet, it sparks causing the breaker to reset.
So, I?ve been using a surge protector, but today.  The surge protector died with a spark.
 
Any suggestions for the surge protector?  
 
Thanks,
 
Ihncheol
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage1_052009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090601/533e25b9/attachment.html>

From cjm767driver at hotmail.com  Mon Jun  1 12:13:17 2009
From: cjm767driver at hotmail.com (Chris Moon)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:13:17 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Iota 55 amp fuse replacement & surge
	protector
In-Reply-To: <000001c9e2f1$30b7d700$92278500$@net>
References: <001f01c9e250$1bae0420$6500a8c0@warrior>	<36D4472791DC4E5FACF2F952298B6C79@Home>
	<000001c9e2f1$30b7d700$92278500$@net>
Message-ID: <BLU137-DAV446C2189B9E4B41902049834C0@phx.gbl>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090601/16350ab1/attachment.html>

From shannah1806 at gmail.com  Mon Jun  1 12:44:12 2009
From: shannah1806 at gmail.com (steve hannah)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:44:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Iota 55 amp fuse replacement & surge
	protector
In-Reply-To: <000001c9e2f1$30b7d700$92278500$@net>
References: <001f01c9e250$1bae0420$6500a8c0@warrior>
	<36D4472791DC4E5FACF2F952298B6C79@Home>
	<000001c9e2f1$30b7d700$92278500$@net>
Message-ID: <c3f99b710906011344x3f2ee0a6u1da42bdc216282c7@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Incheol,

The fuse is easy to replace, but you have to loosen the screw on the
fuseholder.  If you look at the fuseholder you will see where to access the
screw.  Make sure the power cord is unplugged :-)


On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Ihncheol Park <pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net>wrote:

>  I have a couple of questions to those using Iota power supply
>
>
>
> Has anyone replaced the fuse(s) on the Iota power supply?  I can?t pull
> them out at all.  Do I have to disassemble it?
>
>
>
> Every time when I plug the power supply to the wall outlet, it sparks
> causing the breaker to reset.
>
> So, I?ve been using a surge protector, but today.  The surge protector died
> with a spark.
>
>
>
> Any suggestions for the surge protector?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Ihncheol
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090601/d8d6b2aa/attachment.html>

From geobet4 at verizon.net  Mon Jun  1 12:54:34 2009
From: geobet4 at verizon.net (George W.Kennie)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:54:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount
Message-ID: <D52B29EEE2294A22A28AB06C45863AED@CYBERPOWER>

Hey Guys,

I have a new project in the works and it involves mounting a 2K watt motor. This will be my first larger motor install so I felt that some advice from the Pros
would probably be appropriate.

The Motor is an outrunner and I can mount it from the back side directly to the firewall OR I can use standoffs and mount it from the front side of the motor.
I keep feeling that there needs to be some kind of a stabilizing bearing on the free end as there portends to be a significant amount of rotating mass if I just 
bolt the thing to the firewall while a pound of motor whirls around with a large prop exerting inertial rotating energy beyond the front of the cowl. It seems like 
If I use the stand-offs, there will be a more rigid area between the prop and the motor, but then I worry about the back end. Should I figure out some kind of a 
bearing mount on the firewall?

Somebody set me straight on the accepted procedure please. 

Thanks for you help,

Georgie 

-- 
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 25187 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090601/c379d905/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Mon Jun  1 13:03:30 2009
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:03:30 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Iota 55 amp fuse replacement & surge
 protector
In-Reply-To: <BAY128-W34C4D20E7CA05BDA4CAD3A04C0@phx.gbl>
References: <001f01c9e250$1bae0420$6500a8c0@warrior>
	<36D4472791DC4E5FACF2F952298B6C79@Home> 
	<000001c9e2f1$30b7d700$92278500$@net> 
	<BAY128-W34C4D20E7CA05BDA4CAD3A04C0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W21ED0EC4785A54DBA07026A04C0@phx.gbl>


You might look to see if your receptacle is properly grounded and your poles are consistent.  I've got a 75 with a 20 amp plug converted down to a 15 amp receptacle and run three chargers off of it--with no spark at all when I plug it in.  I only attach the chargers after that connection is made.
RS 


From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 14:58:29 -0500
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Iota 55 amp fuse replacement & surge protector



Your Iota is sick.
RS
 


From: pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 14:43:07 -0500
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Iota 55 amp fuse replacement & surge protector





I have a couple of questions to those using Iota power supply
 
Has anyone replaced the fuse(s) on the Iota power supply?  I can?t pull them out at all.  Do I have to disassemble it?
 
Every time when I plug the power supply to the wall outlet, it sparks causing the breaker to reset.
So, I?ve been using a surge protector, but today.  The surge protector died with a spark.
 
Any suggestions for the surge protector?  
 
Thanks,
 
Ihncheol


Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits. Check it out.
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090601/1a8a0f5d/attachment.html>

From dkrev at shaw.ca  Mon Jun  1 13:37:14 2009
From: dkrev at shaw.ca (dkrev at shaw.ca)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:37:14 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Iota 55 amp fuse replacement & surge
	protector
In-Reply-To: <BAY128-W34C4D20E7CA05BDA4CAD3A04C0@phx.gbl>
References: <001f01c9e250$1bae0420$6500a8c0@warrior><36D4472791DC4E5FACF2F952298B6C79@Home>
	<000001c9e2f1$30b7d700$92278500$@net><BAY128-W34C4D20E7CA05BDA4CAD3A04C0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <1477344724-1243892231-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-760230598-@bxe1058.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>


My Iota 55 will sometimes kick the 15 amp circuit in my garage.  I believe this is due to the inrush current being quite high. It only happens once in about ten plug ins??

I reset the breaker and it  works fine. I also run it through a surge protector that never seems to kick off. 

Dave
 
Sent from Dave's Crackberry

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com>

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:58:29 
To: General pattern discussion<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Iota 55 amp fuse replacement & surge protector


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

From glmiller3 at suddenlink.net  Mon Jun  1 14:07:29 2009
From: glmiller3 at suddenlink.net (glmiller3 at suddenlink.net)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:07:29 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler
Message-ID: <20090601170727.ZFVJF.3391405.root@Web03>

Hello all.

I need to tap the collective expertise here on the web.

As some of you know, I've been working on a gas conversion of an OS 160....it is running very well and I'm quite happy with the weight/performance and ease of use.  

BUT I'm having a problem with the muffler coupling. 

I'm using a Mueller header and an aeroslave carbon pipe.....the header has a 3/4 in outer diameter.  

My first coupling material was teflon tubing from McMasterCarr...the "thick walled" 3/4 inch ID tubing...

This held up pretty well as long as I had the space between the coupled pipes very small...but I was getting contact between the pipes (that was the metal "tinging" that you were hearing, Lance)..which eventually caused a burr on the tube and resulted in a hole in the coupling.....So I made the gap a little wider 1/4 inch or so and now the teflon coupler is melting through in a flight or two.....so I need an alternative material.

I remember that we used to use a thick silicone coupling material for helicopter header/muffler connections but I can't find it anymore...Surely someone here has some ideas and a source where I can get it.

Let's hear it!

Thanks in advance,

George Miller

From wemodels at cox.net  Mon Jun  1 14:24:33 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:24:33 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Hacker Programming Box
In-Reply-To: <20090601170727.ZFVJF.3391405.root@Web03>
References: <20090601170727.ZFVJF.3391405.root@Web03>
Message-ID: <4A24551E.6070106@cox.net>

 I'm looking for the programming box for the Hacker Master 90 O Acro ESC.

This is NOT the new box for the Spin models. It is the one that reads: 
"Master-Prog" on the front.

Hacker in Tempe does not have them and I have not been able to track one 
down at a retailer. Any info or sources is appreciated.

Thanks




From glmiller3 at suddenlink.net  Mon Jun  1 14:29:22 2009
From: glmiller3 at suddenlink.net (glmiller3 at suddenlink.net)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:29:22 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Hacker Programming Box
In-Reply-To: <4A24551E.6070106@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20090601172921.KHCCK.3391904.root@Web03>

Bill,

I think I have one that I don't need anymore.


I'll look in the shop and let you know

George Miller

---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote: 

=============
 I'm looking for the programming box for the Hacker Master 90 O Acro ESC.

This is NOT the new box for the Spin models. It is the one that reads: 
"Master-Prog" on the front.

Hacker in Tempe does not have them and I have not been able to track one 
down at a retailer. Any info or sources is appreciated.

Thanks



_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From trexlesh at msn.com  Mon Jun  1 15:02:22 2009
From: trexlesh at msn.com (Rex)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:02:22 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler
In-Reply-To: <20090601170727.ZFVJF.3391405.root@Web03>
References: <20090601170727.ZFVJF.3391405.root@Web03>
Message-ID: <BAY119-W21B7C7C0EDA4030EBACFCBCC4C0@phx.gbl>


George

 

In a totally different project years ago, I had a similar dilemma...  I used a piece of woven stainless

tubing, inside an outer jacket.  The tubing is made to slide over heater hoses, vaccum lines on engines.

I can't tell you right off hand where to get it, but I'd bet some of the better automotive stores would have

it or could get it.   I simply cut a piece a little longer than the hi temp rubber coupler, slid it inside the 

coupler, then slid both layers over the header/muffler fittings.  Seemed to work well, I never had any

blow through problems again....   You could slide this stuff into the teflon, then attach.  most of the heat

would slide right on through.  BTW, it was tough to cut, and I eventually settled on  a diamond wheel to 

get a clean cut.  The neat thing about this stuff is that it's like chinese finger cuffs...  you pull on each end

and it shrinks in diameter, push it together and it expands.

 

 

Rex
 
> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:07:27 -0500
> From: glmiller3 at suddenlink.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler
> 
> Hello all.
> 
> I need to tap the collective expertise here on the web.
> 
> As some of you know, I've been working on a gas conversion of an OS 160....it is running very well and I'm quite happy with the weight/performance and ease of use. 
> 
> BUT I'm having a problem with the muffler coupling. 
> 
> I'm using a Mueller header and an aeroslave carbon pipe.....the header has a 3/4 in outer diameter. 
> 
> My first coupling material was teflon tubing from McMasterCarr...the "thick walled" 3/4 inch ID tubing...
> 
> This held up pretty well as long as I had the space between the coupled pipes very small...but I was getting contact between the pipes (that was the metal "tinging" that you were hearing, Lance)..which eventually caused a burr on the tube and resulted in a hole in the coupling.....So I made the gap a little wider 1/4 inch or so and now the teflon coupler is melting through in a flight or two.....so I need an alternative material.
> 
> I remember that we used to use a thick silicone coupling material for helicopter header/muffler connections but I can't find it anymore...Surely someone here has some ideas and a source where I can get it.
> 
> Let's hear it!
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> George Miller
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090601/c409ef07/attachment.html>

From pcosky at comcast.net  Mon Jun  1 15:49:41 2009
From: pcosky at comcast.net (Pete Cosky)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:49:41 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler
Message-ID: <20090601234940.34C0B115F3@bridi.netexpress.com>

You could try summit racing or performance automotive wholesale. Those two should have it.

Pete Cosky
Sent from my Windows Mobile device

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex <trexlesh at msn.com>
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 7:02 PM
To: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler


George

 

In a totally different project years ago, I had a similar dilemma...  I used a piece of woven stainless

tubing, inside an outer jacket.  The tubing is made to slide over heater hoses, vaccum lines on engines.

I can't tell you right off hand where to get it, but I'd bet some of the better automotive stores would have

it or could get it.   I simply cut a piece a little longer than the hi temp rubber coupler, slid it inside the 

coupler, then slid both layers over the header/muffler fittings.  Seemed 

[The entire original message is not included]

From davidmichael1 at comcast.net  Mon Jun  1 15:52:36 2009
From: davidmichael1 at comcast.net (Dave Michael)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:52:36 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler
References: <20090601170727.ZFVJF.3391405.root@Web03>
	<BAY119-W21B7C7C0EDA4030EBACFCBCC4C0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <796D35472BE647B88DF03063149C5F6D@YOUR5FD3828D21>

Fred Lumb in Pennsylvania makes custom couplers for the IMAC guys and the gas engines.  He can even make them stepped inside so that one side has a smaller diameter than the other, for example.  I have used them on my gas engines and they have lasted no problem. 

His e-mail is  lum945 at aol.com
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rex 
  To: NSRCA-discussion 
  Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 7:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler


  George
   
  In a totally different project years ago, I had a similar dilemma...  I used a piece of woven stainless
  tubing, inside an outer jacket.  The tubing is made to slide over heater hoses, vaccum lines on engines.
  I can't tell you right off hand where to get it, but I'd bet some of the better automotive stores would have
  it or could get it.   I simply cut a piece a little longer than the hi temp rubber coupler, slid it inside the 
  coupler, then slid both layers over the header/muffler fittings.  Seemed to work well, I never had any
  blow through problems again....   You could slide this stuff into the teflon, then attach.  most of the heat
  would slide right on through.  BTW, it was tough to cut, and I eventually settled on  a diamond wheel to 
  get a clean cut.  The neat thing about this stuff is that it's like chinese finger cuffs...  you pull on each end
  and it shrinks in diameter, push it together and it expands.
   
   
  Rex
   
  > Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:07:27 -0500
  > From: glmiller3 at suddenlink.net
  > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler
  > 
  > Hello all.
  > 
  > I need to tap the collective expertise here on the web.
  > 
  > As some of you know, I've been working on a gas conversion of an OS 160....it is running very well and I'm quite happy with the weight/performance and ease of use. 
  > 
  > BUT I'm having a problem with the muffler coupling. 
  > 
  > I'm using a Mueller header and an aeroslave carbon pipe.....the header has a 3/4 in outer diameter. 
  > 
  > My first coupling material was teflon tubing from McMasterCarr...the "thick walled" 3/4 inch ID tubing...
  > 
  > This held up pretty well as long as I had the space between the coupled pipes very small...but I was getting contact between the pipes (that was the metal "tinging" that you were hearing, Lance)..which eventually caused a burr on the tube and resulted in a hole in the coupling.....So I made the gap a little wider 1/4 inch or so and now the teflon coupler is melting through in a flight or two.....so I need an alternative material.
  > 
  > I remember that we used to use a thick silicone coupling material for helicopter header/muffler connections but I can't find it anymore...Surely someone here has some ideas and a source where I can get it.
  > 
  > Let's hear it!
  > 
  > Thanks in advance,
  > 
  > George Miller
  > _______________________________________________
  > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090601/31cf09d9/attachment.html>

From jonlowe at aol.com  Mon Jun  1 16:06:27 2009
From: jonlowe at aol.com (Jon Lowe)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:06:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler
In-Reply-To: <20090601170727.ZFVJF.3391405.root@Web03>
References: <20090601170727.ZFVJF.3391405.root@Web03>
Message-ID: <8CBB12D01DABB74-340-239D@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>

Find Octura boat couplers.  It is a reinforced silicon tubing that 
lasts a long time, at least on my 1.60 glow engines.  Hard to find, and 
Octura doesn't have a website, but Graves in Orlando carries it.  They 
have both 3/4" and 7/8".  Don't know where to buy it bulk.


Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: glmiller3 at suddenlink.net
To: NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 5:07 pm
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler










Hello all.

I need to tap the collective expertise here on the web.

As some of you know, I've been working on a gas conversion of an OS 
160....it is
running very well and I'm quite happy with the weight/performance and 
ease of
use.

BUT I'm having a problem with the muffler coupling.

I'm using a Mueller header and an aeroslave carbon pipe.....the header 
has a 3/4
in outer diameter.

My first coupling material was teflon tubing from McMasterCarr...the 
"thick
walled" 3/4 inch ID tubing...

This held up pretty well as long as I had the space between the coupled 
pipes
very small...but I was getting contact between the pipes (that was the 
metal
"tinging" that you were hearing, Lance)..which eventually caused a burr 
on the
tube and resulted in a hole in the coupling.....So I made the gap a 
little wider
1/4 inch or so and now the teflon coupler is melting through in a 
flight or
two.....so I need an alternative material.

I remember that we used to use a thick silicone coupling material for 
helicopter
header/muffler connections but I can't find it anymore...Surely someone 
here has
some ideas and a source where I can get it.

Let's hear it!

Thanks in advance,

George Miller
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion






From bob at toprudder.com  Mon Jun  1 16:31:21 2009
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:31:21 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Iota 55 amp fuse replacement & surge
	protector
Message-ID: <147363.46690.qm@web1109.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

I don't have an Iota supply, so I can't comment on those. However, the typical breakers in a house should not trip from the inrush current. They are thermal breakers, and would have to be overcurrent for some period of time (several cycles minimum) before they trip from overcurrent - even if it is a short circuit. Heat is what makes them trip.? (Some industrial breakers will have a thermal as well as magnetic trip, but I don't think you will find those in residential applications).? However, there is a possibility that a ground fault circuit breaker may be tripping from what is senses as a ground fault. The typical garage circuits are required to be ground fault now. Just out of curiosity, are the circuits that are tripping actually ground fault protected?
?
Bob R.


--- On Mon, 6/1/09, dkrev at shaw.ca <dkrev at shaw.ca> wrote:


From: dkrev at shaw.ca <dkrev at shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Iota 55 amp fuse replacement & surge protector
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 6:35 PM



My Iota 55 will sometimes kick the 15 amp circuit in my garage.? I believe this is due to the inrush current being quite high. It only happens once in about ten plug ins??

I reset the breaker and it? works fine. I also run it through a surge protector that never seems to kick off. 

Dave

Sent from Dave's Crackberry

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com>

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:58:29 
To: General pattern discussion<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Iota 55 amp fuse replacement & surge protector


_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090602/2de185d7/attachment.html>

From KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com  Mon Jun  1 16:48:07 2009
From: KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com (Ken Thompson)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:48:07 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Dang...
Message-ID: <000801c9e31c$84cda970$0200a8c0@kencopepere>

I made the move to go electric...at least for the time being...my current plane has a Hacker C50 that needs the gearbox lubed, which I thought would be a piece of cake.  Now I find I need a couple of strap wrenches to take the gearbox apart, wish I'd known that when I was back in Michigan for my son's graduation...I drove right by a Sears Hardware, coulda' picked up a couple of wrench's when I was there.  I have 2 contest's in June I want to make and am not sure I can get any flight's in before teh first one if I need to order a set of wrench's.

Does Lowes or Home Depot carry a comperable wrench so I can get this box apart and get back in the air???

Thanks in advance...

Ken
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090602/e63a6eec/attachment.html>

From iflyrc24 at gmail.com  Mon Jun  1 16:51:32 2009
From: iflyrc24 at gmail.com (iflyrc24 at gmail.com)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:51:32 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Dang...
In-Reply-To: <000801c9e31c$84cda970$0200a8c0@kencopepere>
References: <000801c9e31c$84cda970$0200a8c0@kencopepere>
Message-ID: <1619710001-1243903886-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2104648839-@bxe1034.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

Ken
A hammer and chisel works well in a pinch. ;)
You should have came to our contest since you were so close. 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Ken Thompson" <KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com>

Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 19:53:10 
To: <NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Dang...


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Mon Jun  1 16:55:32 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:55:32 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Looking for a modern E-pattern plane
Message-ID: <32171.76408.qm@web82102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I know it is kind of a bad time of year for this, but I am in need of an electric pattern plane. I am looking for something modern that is in ARF or RTF condition. I would also be open to getting one of the painted in the mold type kits (Sickle, Spark, E-Motion, Xigris, or similar) if you have such an aircraft that you are willing to part with or know where I can find such a creature please drop me an email off list with the details and we can discuss it.
Thank youAnthony
aabdu at sbcglobal.net

South Euclid, Ohio

--- On Mon, 6/1/09, Ken Thompson <KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com> wrote:

From: Ken Thompson <KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Dang...
To: NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 8:53 PM



 
 


 
I made the move to go electric...at least for the 
time being...my current plane has a Hacker C50 that needs the gearbox lubed, 
which I thought would be a piece of cake.? Now I find I need a couple of 
strap wrenches to take the gearbox apart, wish I'd known that when I was back in 
Michigan for my son's graduation...I drove right by a Sears Hardware, coulda' 
picked up a couple of wrench's when I was there.? I have 2 contest's in 
June I want to make and am not sure I can get any flight's in before teh first 
one if I need to order a set of wrench's.
?
Does Lowes or Home Depot carry a comperable wrench 
so I can get this box apart and get back in the air???
?
Thanks in advance...
?
Ken 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090602/b9ee7933/attachment.html>

From homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  1 17:23:56 2009
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com (krishlan fitzsimmons)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 01:23:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Dang...
Message-ID: <280691.44983.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



Chris   ?  
Ken, 

Welcome to the dark side! 

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&productId=100648057

Chris


--- On Mon, 6/1/09, Ken Thompson <KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com> wrote:

From: Ken Thompson <KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Dang...
To: NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 5:53 PM



 
 

I made the move to go electric...at least for the 
time being...my current plane has a Hacker C50 that needs the gearbox lubed, 
which I thought would be a piece of cake.? Now I find I need a couple of 
strap wrenches to take the gearbox apart, wish I'd known that when I was back in 
Michigan for my son's graduation...I drove right by a Sears Hardware, coulda' 
picked up a couple of wrench's when I was there.? I have 2 contest's in 
June I want to make and am not sure I can get any flight's in before teh first 
one if I need to order a set of wrench's.
?
Does Lowes or Home Depot carry a comperable wrench 
so I can get this box apart and get back in the air???
?
Thanks in advance...
?
Ken
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090602/903a33cb/attachment.html>

From KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com  Mon Jun  1 17:28:24 2009
From: KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com (Ken Thompson)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 01:28:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Dang...
References: <280691.44983.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000d01c9e322$2dff5070$0200a8c0@kencopepere>

Thanks Chris!  I'll swing in tomorrow on the way home.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: krishlan fitzsimmons 
  To: Ken Thompson ; General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 8:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Dang...





        Chris 


        Ken, 

        Welcome to the dark side! 

        http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&productId=100648057

        Chris


        --- On Mon, 6/1/09, Ken Thompson <KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com> wrote:


          From: Ken Thompson <KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com>
          Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Dang...
          To: NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
          Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 5:53 PM


          I made the move to go electric...at least for the time being...my current plane has a Hacker C50 that needs the gearbox lubed, which I thought would be a piece of cake.  Now I find I need a couple of strap wrenches to take the gearbox apart, wish I'd known that when I was back in Michigan for my son's graduation...I drove right by a Sears Hardware, coulda' picked up a couple of wrench's when I was there.  I have 2 contest's in June I want to make and am not sure I can get any flight's in before teh first one if I need to order a set of wrench's.

          Does Lowes or Home Depot carry a comperable wrench so I can get this box apart and get back in the air???

          Thanks in advance...

          Ken

          -----Inline Attachment Follows-----


          _______________________________________________
          NSRCA-discussion mailing list
          NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
          http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090602/fd387bbc/attachment.html>

From plachance at cox.net  Mon Jun  1 18:18:42 2009
From: plachance at cox.net (Paul LaChance)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 02:18:42 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler
In-Reply-To: <20090601170727.ZFVJF.3391405.root@Web03>
References: <20090601170727.ZFVJF.3391405.root@Web03>
Message-ID: <5109AEF8948A4578837D9694500C98DE@PaulPC>

George,

I had similar problems back when I fly old ys 60's.  I used the green heater 
hose for trucks.  Had reinforcing and lasted very well, but was heavy 
compared to anything else you can use.  Try a good auto parts store or a 
commercial truck parts or repair facility.

Paul
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <glmiller3 at suddenlink.net>
To: "NSRCA List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 6:07 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler


> Hello all.
>
> I need to tap the collective expertise here on the web.
>
> As some of you know, I've been working on a gas conversion of an OS 
> 160....it is running very well and I'm quite happy with the 
> weight/performance and ease of use.
>
> BUT I'm having a problem with the muffler coupling.
>
> I'm using a Mueller header and an aeroslave carbon pipe.....the header has 
> a 3/4 in outer diameter.
>
> My first coupling material was teflon tubing from McMasterCarr...the 
> "thick walled" 3/4 inch ID tubing...
>
> This held up pretty well as long as I had the space between the coupled 
> pipes very small...but I was getting contact between the pipes (that was 
> the metal "tinging" that you were hearing, Lance)..which eventually caused 
> a burr on the tube and resulted in a hole in the coupling.....So I made 
> the gap a little wider 1/4 inch or so and now the teflon coupler is 
> melting through in a flight or two.....so I need an alternative material.
>
> I remember that we used to use a thick silicone coupling material for 
> helicopter header/muffler connections but I can't find it anymore...Surely 
> someone here has some ideas and a source where I can get it.
>
> Let's hear it!
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> George Miller
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 


From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Mon Jun  1 19:22:14 2009
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 03:22:14 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Dang...
In-Reply-To: <280691.44983.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <280691.44983.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W27513A4E03F276B9F85DADA04D0@phx.gbl>


Make sure you have loosened the two little embedded set screws 180 degrees apart in 2 of the eight holes on the gear box--like a 1mm allen wrench.  You might try TIGHTENING and then loosening them which might break any locktite on the main threads with a little heat from your heat gun and you might not need the strap wrench...

RS
 


Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 18:23:53 -0700
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com
To: KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Dang...








Chris 
 
Ken, 

Welcome to the dark side! 

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&productId=100648057

Chris


--- On Mon, 6/1/09, Ken Thompson <KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com> wrote:


From: Ken Thompson <KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Dang...
To: NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 5:53 PM





I made the move to go electric...at least for the time being...my current plane has a Hacker C50 that needs the gearbox lubed, which I thought would be a piece of cake.  Now I find I need a couple of strap wrenches to take the gearbox apart, wish I'd known that when I was back in Michigan for my son's graduation...I drove right by a Sears Hardware, coulda' picked up a couple of wrench's when I was there.  I have 2 contest's in June I want to make and am not sure I can get any flight's in before teh first one if I need to order a set of wrench's.
 
Does Lowes or Home Depot carry a comperable wrench so I can get this box apart and get back in the air???
 
Thanks in advance...
 
Ken
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd1_052009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090602/35f86efe/attachment.html>

From mtliprie at centurytel.net  Mon Jun  1 19:27:41 2009
From: mtliprie at centurytel.net (MATT LIPRIE)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 03:27:41 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler
References: <20090601170727.ZFVJF.3391405.root@Web03>
	<5109AEF8948A4578837D9694500C98DE@PaulPC>
Message-ID: <9E9850175D254819889402B2AA82F67E@deonna>

Titanium....



Matt
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul LaChance" <plachance at cox.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler


> George,
>
> I had similar problems back when I fly old ys 60's.  I used the green 
> heater
> hose for trucks.  Had reinforcing and lasted very well, but was heavy
> compared to anything else you can use.  Try a good auto parts store or a
> commercial truck parts or repair facility.
>
> Paul
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <glmiller3 at suddenlink.net>
> To: "NSRCA List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 6:07 PM
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler
>
>
>> Hello all.
>>
>> I need to tap the collective expertise here on the web.
>>
>> As some of you know, I've been working on a gas conversion of an OS
>> 160....it is running very well and I'm quite happy with the
>> weight/performance and ease of use.
>>
>> BUT I'm having a problem with the muffler coupling.
>>
>> I'm using a Mueller header and an aeroslave carbon pipe.....the header 
>> has
>> a 3/4 in outer diameter.
>>
>> My first coupling material was teflon tubing from McMasterCarr...the
>> "thick walled" 3/4 inch ID tubing...
>>
>> This held up pretty well as long as I had the space between the coupled
>> pipes very small...but I was getting contact between the pipes (that was
>> the metal "tinging" that you were hearing, Lance)..which eventually 
>> caused
>> a burr on the tube and resulted in a hole in the coupling.....So I made
>> the gap a little wider 1/4 inch or so and now the teflon coupler is
>> melting through in a flight or two.....so I need an alternative material.
>>
>> I remember that we used to use a thick silicone coupling material for
>> helicopter header/muffler connections but I can't find it 
>> anymore...Surely
>> someone here has some ideas and a source where I can get it.
>>
>> Let's hear it!
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> George Miller
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.49/2149 - Release Date: 06/01/09 
17:55:00


From humptybump at sbcglobal.net  Mon Jun  1 19:51:03 2009
From: humptybump at sbcglobal.net (Richard Lewis)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 03:51:03 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D6 Judge Certication Seminar at Crosby TX
	Contest - June 14
Message-ID: <880896.47792.qm@web80503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

All,

Andre Bouchard has offered to hold a judge certification seminar on?Sunday morning, June 14,?at the Lone Star Pattern Contest in Crosby.? The field faces East and we should have some down time while waiting for the sun to be high enouugh to permit flying.? The seminar will need to begin?at PROMPTLY 7:30 AM on Sunday morning to be completed by the time?we need to get?flying.? This is an opportunity for those going to the Nats?to complete certification to avoid having to attend the Monday seminar?in Muncie.? I would also encourage?ALL?contestants to attend if possible, as a judging seminar is beneficial to?new pilots and veterans alike.

Please e-mail me at?humptybump at sbcglobal.net if you are interested in?attending the seminar, so I can help Andre prepare for?it.

Many thanks to Andre for?putting this on with short notice.

Regards,
Richard Lewis?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090602/ce23b8a9/attachment.html>

From lodomjr at verizon.net  Mon Jun  1 21:06:19 2009
From: lodomjr at verizon.net (Larry Odom)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 05:06:19 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler
In-Reply-To: <20090601170727.ZFVJF.3391405.root@Web03>
Message-ID: <JGECJPKHFCGHOPOLPIAHGEFGCBAA.lodomjr@verizon.net>

George,
Here's the link to the vendor that has the Octura couplers.  You want the
high temp. silicone reinforced couplers.  They are red.

http://www.rocketcityracing.com/

Larry Odom

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of
glmiller3 at suddenlink.net
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 6:07 PM
To: NSRCA List
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler


Hello all.

I need to tap the collective expertise here on the web.

As some of you know, I've been working on a gas conversion of an OS
160....it is running very well and I'm quite happy with the
weight/performance and ease of use.

BUT I'm having a problem with the muffler coupling.

I'm using a Mueller header and an aeroslave carbon pipe.....the header has a
3/4 in outer diameter.

My first coupling material was teflon tubing from McMasterCarr...the "thick
walled" 3/4 inch ID tubing...

This held up pretty well as long as I had the space between the coupled
pipes very small...but I was getting contact between the pipes (that was the
metal "tinging" that you were hearing, Lance)..which eventually caused a
burr on the tube and resulted in a hole in the coupling.....So I made the
gap a little wider 1/4 inch or so and now the teflon coupler is melting
through in a flight or two.....so I need an alternative material.

I remember that we used to use a thick silicone coupling material for
helicopter header/muffler connections but I can't find it anymore...Surely
someone here has some ideas and a source where I can get it.

Let's hear it!

Thanks in advance,

George Miller
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com  Tue Jun  2 02:42:25 2009
From: KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com (Ken Thompson)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:42:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Dang...
References: <280691.44983.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<BAY128-W27513A4E03F276B9F85DADA04D0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <007201c9e36f$958fbcf0$0200a8c0@kencopepere>

Yep, got the screws loose, tried tightening and loosening to see if the slight movement would break the threads loose, no go.  Didn't try the heat gun yet, between that and a couple of strap wrenches I'll get it apart tonight.  I can't believe Hacker doesn't have instructions about this on their site, at least that I can find.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Strickland 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 10:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Dang...


  Make sure you have loosened the two little embedded set screws 180 degrees apart in 2 of the eight holes on the gear box--like a 1mm allen wrench.  You might try TIGHTENING and then loosening them which might break any locktite on the main threads with a little heat from your heat gun and you might not need the strap wrench...
  RS
   

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 18:23:53 -0700
  From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com
  To: KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Dang...




        Chris 


        Ken, 

        Welcome to the dark side! 

        http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&productId=100648057

        Chris


        --- On Mon, 6/1/09, Ken Thompson <KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com> wrote:


          From: Ken Thompson <KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com>
          Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Dang...
          To: NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
          Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 5:53 PM


          I made the move to go electric...at least for the time being...my current plane has a Hacker C50 that needs the gearbox lubed, which I thought would be a piece of cake.  Now I find I need a couple of strap wrenches to take the gearbox apart, wish I'd known that when I was back in Michigan for my son's graduation...I drove right by a Sears Hardware, coulda' picked up a couple of wrench's when I was there.  I have 2 contest's in June I want to make and am not sure I can get any flight's in before teh first one if I need to order a set of wrench's.

          Does Lowes or Home Depot carry a comperable wrench so I can get this box apart and get back in the air???

          Thanks in advance...

          Ken

          -----Inline Attachment Follows-----


          _______________________________________________
          NSRCA-discussion mailing list
          NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
          http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. See how. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090602/c76130e6/attachment.html>

From lagrue at hotmail.com  Tue Jun  2 03:33:47 2009
From: lagrue at hotmail.com (JEREMY CHINN)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:33:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Welcome you online shopping!
Message-ID: <BLU141-W293FB6BEE1642C6FF495BAC74D0@phx.gbl>


Welcome you online shopping!
i would like to introduce a good company who trades mainly in  electornic products.
Now the company is under sales promotion,all the products are  sold nearly at its cost.
They provide the best service to customers,they provide you  with original products of 
good  quality,and what is more,the price is a surprising  happiness to you!
It is realy a good chance for shopping.just grasp the  opportunity,Now or never!
The web address: (www.elecshopcn.com) 
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits. 
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090602/60f66dd0/attachment.html>

From glmiller3 at suddenlink.net  Tue Jun  2 03:43:32 2009
From: glmiller3 at suddenlink.net (glmiller3 at suddenlink.net)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:43:32 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler
In-Reply-To: <JGECJPKHFCGHOPOLPIAHGEFGCBAA.lodomjr@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <20090602064330.5KZ5Q.718204.root@Web04>

Thanks, Larry.  I've ordered a couple and I'll give'm a try.

George
---- Larry Odom <lodomjr at verizon.net> wrote: 

=============
George,
Here's the link to the vendor that has the Octura couplers.  You want the
high temp. silicone reinforced couplers.  They are red.

http://www.rocketcityracing.com/

Larry Odom

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of
glmiller3 at suddenlink.net
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 6:07 PM
To: NSRCA List
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler


Hello all.

I need to tap the collective expertise here on the web.

As some of you know, I've been working on a gas conversion of an OS
160....it is running very well and I'm quite happy with the
weight/performance and ease of use.

BUT I'm having a problem with the muffler coupling.

I'm using a Mueller header and an aeroslave carbon pipe.....the header has a
3/4 in outer diameter.

My first coupling material was teflon tubing from McMasterCarr...the "thick
walled" 3/4 inch ID tubing...

This held up pretty well as long as I had the space between the coupled
pipes very small...but I was getting contact between the pipes (that was the
metal "tinging" that you were hearing, Lance)..which eventually caused a
burr on the tube and resulted in a hole in the coupling.....So I made the
gap a little wider 1/4 inch or so and now the teflon coupler is melting
through in a flight or two.....so I need an alternative material.

I remember that we used to use a thick silicone coupling material for
helicopter header/muffler connections but I can't find it anymore...Surely
someone here has some ideas and a source where I can get it.

Let's hear it!

Thanks in advance,

George Miller
_______________________________________________
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


From billglaze at bellsouth.net  Tue Jun  2 04:58:56 2009
From: billglaze at bellsouth.net (Bill Glaze)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:58:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler
References: <20090601170727.ZFVJF.3391405.root@Web03><5109AEF8948A4578837D9694500C98DE@PaulPC>
	<9E9850175D254819889402B2AA82F67E@deonna>
Message-ID: <24BA76247BE7458B8B9E49BF2F7129B9@glazecstp32xp>

Matt:
Been out of contact--let me have your phone number offline, please.  Bill 
Glaze
billglaze at bellsouth.net
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "MATT LIPRIE" <mtliprie at centurytel.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler


> Titanium....
>
>
>
> Matt
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Paul LaChance" <plachance at cox.net>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 9:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler
>
>
>> George,
>>
>> I had similar problems back when I fly old ys 60's.  I used the green 
>> heater
>> hose for trucks.  Had reinforcing and lasted very well, but was heavy
>> compared to anything else you can use.  Try a good auto parts store or a
>> commercial truck parts or repair facility.
>>
>> Paul
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: <glmiller3 at suddenlink.net>
>> To: "NSRCA List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 6:07 PM
>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Header coupler
>>
>>
>>> Hello all.
>>>
>>> I need to tap the collective expertise here on the web.
>>>
>>> As some of you know, I've been working on a gas conversion of an OS
>>> 160....it is running very well and I'm quite happy with the
>>> weight/performance and ease of use.
>>>
>>> BUT I'm having a problem with the muffler coupling.
>>>
>>> I'm using a Mueller header and an aeroslave carbon pipe.....the header 
>>> has
>>> a 3/4 in outer diameter.
>>>
>>> My first coupling material was teflon tubing from McMasterCarr...the
>>> "thick walled" 3/4 inch ID tubing...
>>>
>>> This held up pretty well as long as I had the space between the coupled
>>> pipes very small...but I was getting contact between the pipes (that was
>>> the metal "tinging" that you were hearing, Lance)..which eventually 
>>> caused
>>> a burr on the tube and resulted in a hole in the coupling.....So I made
>>> the gap a little wider 1/4 inch or so and now the teflon coupler is
>>> melting through in a flight or two.....so I need an alternative 
>>> material.
>>>
>>> I remember that we used to use a thick silicone coupling material for
>>> helicopter header/muffler connections but I can't find it 
>>> anymore...Surely
>>> someone here has some ideas and a source where I can get it.
>>>
>>> Let's hear it!
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>
>>> George Miller
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.49/2149 - Release Date: 06/01/09 
> 17:55:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 


From lagrue at hotmail.com  Tue Jun  2 05:21:22 2009
From: lagrue at hotmail.com (JEREMY CHINN)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:21:22 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Apologies for the Spam
Message-ID: <BLU141-W25B8D3893DC752C8C693F5C74D0@phx.gbl>


Apparently something/someone got hold of my email account last night and fired off some Chinese Electronic Internet Spam (despite the appearance of my name, I'm not Chineses). 

 

I've ended up re-setting everything security/password wise in my systems to prevent this from happening in the future.

 

My apologies to the list.

 

 

_________________________________________________________________
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that?s right for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090602/7e94a100/attachment.html>

From glmiller3 at suddenlink.net  Tue Jun  2 05:24:16 2009
From: glmiller3 at suddenlink.net (glmiller3 at suddenlink.net)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:24:16 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Apologies for the Spam
In-Reply-To: <BLU141-W25B8D3893DC752C8C693F5C74D0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20090602082415.ZM9LA.720471.root@Web04>

Hey Jeremy,

I wondered if you were starting a new business and had forgotten how to speak southern English.

G
---- JEREMY CHINN <lagrue at hotmail.com> wrote: 

=============

Apparently something/someone got hold of my email account last night and fired off some Chinese Electronic Internet Spam (despite the appearance of my name, I'm not Chineses). 

 

I've ended up re-setting everything security/password wise in my systems to prevent this from happening in the future.

 

My apologies to the list.

 

 

_________________________________________________________________
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that?s right for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290

From ontheedge at epix.net  Tue Jun  2 12:41:33 2009
From: ontheedge at epix.net (Mark V.)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:41:33 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] =?utf-8?q?NEVRC_3rd_Annual_Pattern_Contest_?=
	=?utf-8?q?=E2=80=93Results?=
In-Reply-To: <1295149490.3434051243975173834.JavaMail.root@cl05-host01.roch.ny.frontiernet.net>
Message-ID: <983687772.3434321243975289487.JavaMail.root@cl05-host01.roch.ny.frontiernet.net>



NEVRC 3 rd ? Annual Pattern Contest ?Results 


? 

I?d like to once again thank all 26 of the pilots for another great contest. ? Hope you all enjoyed yourselves. ? Also, HUGE thanks to all the judges that stepped up and help kept the flight lines going. ? 

? 

The club once again did a great job with food service and no one went hungry this weekend. ? We?re talking about possibly doing a dinner at next years contest. ? Hope this works out as it should be fun. ? We?re a small club so staffing is the biggest hurdle. 

? 

I?d like to personally thank Ed Alt for all his behind the scenes help with the contest and time to time questions from me. ? Ed?s assistance started well before Friday. ? Ed, Cart Veit and Joe Lachowski were once again a big help with getting the lines sighted and painted. ? ( See what happens when you show up early after a rainy Thursday ;-) ) ?Dana Coe was also hard at work both days as our official sequence caller for FAI and his help was greatly apprcieated by me and moreover the judges who could keep their eyes in the sky. ? 

? 

Last but not least, I?d like to thank Mr. Lampron and Mr. Kissenberth for their support of their kid?s hobby. ?? All three of these young men are very talented as well as being very mature for their age. ?? They all have the passion and the drive to make precision aerobatics an important part of their modeling. ? All this could not have been achieved without the encouragement and support of their parents! ? 




If I forgot to thank anyone else it's only out of ?lack of memory, not intent. 


? 

Here are the first three results in each category: 

? 

Sportsman 

======== 

Bert Kiatkachon 

Dana, Coe 

Merrill Morsey 

? 

? 

Intermediate 

========= 

David Lampron 

Dean Lampron 

Riley Kissenberth 

? 

? 

Advanced 

======= 

Joe Zeigenfus 

John Tarpinian 

John Pavlick 

? 

Maters 

===== 

Steve Miller 

Joe Lachowski 

Ed Alt 

? 

FAI/F3A 

====== 




Dave Lockhart 

Ken Velez 

Harry Ells 

? 

Congratulations to all the pilots. ? Looking forward to seeing you again next year at the 4 th Annual Northeast Valley Radio Control Club Pattern Contest. 

? 

Regards, Mark Vukmanovich 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090602/bc69c39f/attachment.html>

From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun  2 13:02:35 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:02:35 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic but extremely interesting
	(acceleration)
Message-ID: <774514.49135.qm@web82101.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I love high performance stuff and very few things are higher performance than a top fuel dragster. This puts it into perspective:
?
Acceleration explained. 
? 
? 
* One Top Fuel dragster outfitted with a 500 cubic-inch replica Dodge (actually Keith Black, etc) Hemi engine makes more horsepower (8,000 HP) than the first 4 rows at NASCAR's Daytona 500. 

* Under full throttle, a dragster engine will consume 11.2 gallons of nitro methane per second; a fully loaded Boeing 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate but with 25% less energy being produced. 

* A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to merely drive the dragster's supercharger. 

* With 3000 CFM of air being rammed in by the supercharger on overdrive, the fuel mixture is compressed into a near-solid form before ignition. Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lockup at full throttle. 

* At the stoichio metric 1.7:1 air/fuel mixture for nitro methane the flame front temperature measures 7050 degrees F. 

* Nitro methane burns yellow. The spectacular white flame seen above the stacks at night is raw burning hydrogen, dissociated from atmospheric water vapor by the searing exhaust gases. 

* Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug. Which is typically the output of an electric arc welder in each cylinder. 

* Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed during a pass. After 1/2 way thru the run, the engine is 'dieseling' from compression and the glow of the exhaust valves at 1400 degrees F. ? The engine can only be shut down by cutting the fuel flow. 

* If spark momentarily fails early in the run, unburned nitro builds up in the affected cylinders and then explodes with enough sufficient force to blow the cylinder heads off the block in pieces or split the block in half !! 

* Dragsters reach over 300 MPH +... before you have completed reading this sentence. 

* In order to exceed 300 MPH in 4.5 seconds, a dragster must accelerate an average of over 4 G's. In order to reach 200 MPH well before reaching half-track, at launch the acceleration approaches 8 G's. 

* Top Fuel engines turn approximately 540 revolutions from light to light! 

* Including the burnout, the engine must only survive 900 revolutions under load. 

* The redline is actually quite high at 9500 RPM. 

* THE BOTTOM LINE: Assuming all the equipment is paid for, the pit crew is working for free, & NOTHING BLOWS UP, each run will cost an estimated $1,000 per second. 

0 to 100 MPH in .8 seconds (the first 60 feet of t he run) 
0 to 200 MPH in 2.2 seconds (the first 350 feet of the run) 
6 g-forces at the starting line (nothing accelerates faster on land) 
6 negative g-forces upon deployment of twin 'chutes at 300 MPH 

An NHRA Top Fuel Dragster accelerates quicker than any other land vehicle on earth . . quicker than a jet fighter plane . . . quicker than the space shuttle....or snapping your fingers !! 

The current Top Fuel dragster elapsed time record is 4.420 seconds for the quarter-mile (2004, Doug Kalitta). ? The top speed record is 337.58 MPH as measured over the last 66' of the run (2005, Tony Schumacher). 

Let's now put this all into perspective: 

Imagine this...........You are driving a new $140,000 Lingenfelter twin-turbo powered Corvette Z-06. Over a mile up the road, a Top Fuel dragster is staged & ready to 'launch' down a quarter-mile s trip as you pass. You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the 'Vette hard, on up through the gears and blast across the ?starting line & pass the dragster at an honest 200 MPH.... The 'tree' goes green for both of you at that exact moment. 

The dragster departs & starts after you. You keep your foot buried hard to the floor, and suddenly you hear an incredibly brutally screaming whine that seares and pummels your eardrums & within a mere 3 seconds the dragster effortlessly catches & passes you. ?He beats you to the finish line, a quarter-mile away from where you just passed him. Think about it - from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200 MPH.....and it not only caught, but nearly blasted you off the planet when he passed you within a mere 1320 foot long race !!!! 

That, my friends.....is acceleration. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090602/380f43e4/attachment.html>

From jpavlick at idseng.com  Tue Jun  2 13:15:36 2009
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:15:36 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic but extremely interesting
	(acceleration)
Message-ID: <737086.95619.qm@web80502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

And best of all a top fuel dragster runs on Nitromethane, just like REAL model airplane engines do! LOL
?
John Pavlick
?

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic but extremely interesting (acceleration)
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 5:02 PM







I love high performance stuff and very few things are higher performance than a top fuel dragster. This puts it into perspective:
?
Acceleration explained. 
? 
? 
* One Top Fuel dragster outfitted with a 500 cubic-inch replica Dodge (actually Keith Black, etc) Hemi engine makes more horsepower (8,000 HP) than the first 4 rows at NASCAR's Daytona 500. 

* Under full throttle, a dragster engine will consume 11.2 gallons of nitro methane per second; a fully loaded Boeing 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate but with 25% less energy being produced. 

* A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to merely drive the dragster's supercharger. 

* With 3000 CFM of air being rammed in by the supercharger on overdrive, the fuel mixture is compressed into a near-solid form before ignition. Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lockup at full throttle. 

* At the stoichio metric 1.7:1 air/fuel mixture for nitro methane the flame front temperature measures 7050 degrees F. 

* Nitro methane burns yellow. The spectacular white flame seen above the stacks at night is raw burning hydrogen, dissociated from atmospheric water vapor by the searing exhaust gases. 

* Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug. Which is typically the output of an electric arc welder in each cylinder. 

* Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed during a pass. After 1/2 way thru the run, the engine is 'dieseling' from compression and the glow of the exhaust valves at 1400 degrees F. ? The engine can only be shut down by cutting the fuel flow. 

* If spark momentarily fails early in the run, unburned nitro builds up in the affected cylinders and then explodes with enough sufficient force to blow the cylinder heads off the block in pieces or split the block in half !! 

* Dragsters reach over 300 MPH +... before you have completed reading this sentence. 

* In order to exceed 300 MPH in 4.5 seconds, a dragster must accelerate an average of over 4 G's. In order to reach 200 MPH well before reaching half-track, at launch the acceleration approaches 8 G's. 

* Top Fuel engines turn approximately 540 revolutions from light to light! 

* Including the burnout, the engine must only survive 900 revolutions under load. 

* The redline is actually quite high at 9500 RPM. 

* THE BOTTOM LINE: Assuming all the equipment is paid for, the pit crew is working for free, & NOTHING BLOWS UP, each run will cost an estimated $1,000 per second. 

0 to 100 MPH in .8 seconds (the first 60 feet of t he run) 
0 to 200 MPH in 2.2 seconds (the first 350 feet of the run) 
6 g-forces at the starting line (nothing accelerates faster on land) 
6 negative g-forces upon deployment of twin 'chutes at 300 MPH 

An NHRA Top Fuel Dragster accelerates quicker than any other land vehicle on earth . . quicker than a jet fighter plane . . . quicker than the space shuttle....or snapping your fingers !! 

The current Top Fuel dragster elapsed time record is 4.420 seconds for the quarter-mile (2004, Doug Kalitta). ? The top speed record is 337.58 MPH as measured over the last 66' of the run (2005, Tony Schumacher). 

Let's now put this all into perspective: 

Imagine this...........You are driving a new $140,000 Lingenfelter twin-turbo powered Corvette Z-06. Over a mile up the road, a Top Fuel dragster is staged & ready to 'launch' down a quarter-mile s trip as you pass. You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the 'Vette hard, on up through the gears and blast across the ?starting line & pass the dragster at an honest 200 MPH.... The 'tree' goes green for both of you at that exact moment. 

The dragster departs & starts after you. You keep your foot buried hard to the floor, and suddenly you hear an incredibly brutally screaming whine that seares and pummels your eardrums & within a mere 3 seconds the dragster effortlessly catches & passes you. ?He beats you to the finish line, a quarter-mile away from where you just passed him. Think about it - from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200 MPH.....and it not only caught, but nearly blasted you off the planet when he passed you within a mere 1320 foot long race !!!! 

That, my friends.....is acceleration. 
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090602/53150da1/attachment.html>

From billglaze at bellsouth.net  Tue Jun  2 13:59:56 2009
From: billglaze at bellsouth.net (Bill Glaze)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:59:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic but extremely
	interesting(acceleration)
References: <737086.95619.qm@web80502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ED86AD0896574E83A21E0C18612A54A8@glazecstp32xp>

About 1979, when I was racing Drag Boats, in Oklahoma City I was pitted next to a top fueler.  Their engine was removed from the boat and completely torn down between passes; the custom ground billet crank was changed for a new one after every 12 runs, but detail inspected after each run.  (A complete race usually meant anywhere from 6 to 8 passes, sometimes more.) There were separate crewmembers for the Blower, injectors, heads, magnetos, fuel, etc. at least 10 people.  Looked like a ballet when the boat went on the trailer.  I remember the crew chief asking the owner "do you want to win the next heat badly enough to waste 2 pistons?"  The owner said, without hesitation, "Sure." When they tore down the engine after the next pass, sure enough, 2 pistons were history.  Like they say:  Nitro eats bank accounts.  At that time, before the price went up, nitro was costing $1300 per drum.  Several drums per race.
Hope I don't get into too much trouble for being off-subject.

Bill Glaze
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Pavlick 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:15 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic but extremely interesting(acceleration)


        And best of all a top fuel dragster runs on Nitromethane, just like REAL model airplane engines do! LOL

        John Pavlick


        --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


          From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
          Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic but extremely interesting (acceleration)
          To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
          Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 5:02 PM


                I love high performance stuff and very few things are higher performance than a top fuel dragster. This puts it into perspective:

                Acceleration explained. 
                  
                  
                * One Top Fuel dragster outfitted with a 500 cubic-inch replica Dodge (actually Keith Black, etc) Hemi engine makes more horsepower (8,000 HP) than the first 4 rows at NASCAR's Daytona 500. 

                * Under full throttle, a dragster engine will consume 11.2 gallons of nitro methane per second; a fully loaded Boeing 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate but with 25% less energy being produced. 

                * A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to merely drive the dragster's supercharger. 

                * With 3000 CFM of air being rammed in by the supercharger on overdrive, the fuel mixture is compressed into a near-solid form before ignition. Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lockup at full throttle. 

                * At the stoichio metric 1.7:1 air/fuel mixture for nitro methane the flame front temperature measures 7050 degrees F. 

                * Nitro methane burns yellow. The spectacular white flame seen above the stacks at night is raw burning hydrogen, dissociated from atmospheric water vapor by the searing exhaust gases. 

                * Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug. Which is typically the output of an electric arc welder in each cylinder. 

                * Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed during a pass. After 1/2 way thru the run, the engine is 'dieseling' from compression and the glow of the exhaust valves at 1400 degrees F.   The engine can only be shut down by cutting the fuel flow. 

                * If spark momentarily fails early in the run, unburned nitro builds up in the affected cylinders and then explodes with enough sufficient force to blow the cylinder heads off the block in pieces or split the block in half !! 

                * Dragsters reach over 300 MPH +... before you have completed reading this sentence. 

                * In order to exceed 300 MPH in 4.5 seconds, a dragster must accelerate an average of over 4 G's. In order to reach 200 MPH well before reaching half-track, at launch the acceleration approaches 8 G's. 

                * Top Fuel engines turn approximately 540 revolutions from light to light! 

                * Including the burnout, the engine must only survive 900 revolutions under load. 

                * The redline is actually quite high at 9500 RPM. 

                * THE BOTTOM LINE: Assuming all the equipment is paid for, the pit crew is working for free, & NOTHING BLOWS UP, each run will cost an estimated $1,000 per second. 

                0 to 100 MPH in .8 seconds (the first 60 feet of t he run) 
                0 to 200 MPH in 2.2 seconds (the first 350 feet of the run) 
                6 g-forces at the starting line (nothing accelerates faster on land) 
                6 negative g-forces upon deployment of twin 'chutes at 300 MPH 

                An NHRA Top Fuel Dragster accelerates quicker than any other land vehicle on earth . . quicker than a jet fighter plane . . . quicker than the space shuttle....or snapping your fingers !! 

                The current Top Fuel dragster elapsed time record is 4.420 seconds for the quarter-mile (2004, Doug Kalitta).   The top speed record is 337.58 MPH as measured over the last 66' of the run (2005, Tony Schumacher). 

                Let's now put this all into perspective: 

                Imagine this...........You are driving a new $140,000 Lingenfelter twin-turbo powered Corvette Z-06. Over a mile up the road, a Top Fuel dragster is staged & ready to 'launch' down a quarter-mile s trip as you pass. You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the 'Vette hard, on up through the gears and blast across the  starting line & pass the dragster at an honest 200 MPH.... The 'tree' goes green for both of you at that exact moment. 

                The dragster departs & starts after you. You keep your foot buried hard to the floor, and suddenly you hear an incredibly brutally screaming whine that seares and pummels your eardrums & within a mere 3 seconds the dragster effortlessly catches & passes you.  He beats you to the finish line, a quarter-mile away from where you just passed him. Think about it - from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200 MPH.....and it not only caught, but nearly blasted you off the planet when he passed you within a mere 1320 foot long race !!!! 

                That, my friends.....is acceleration.  


          -----Inline Attachment Follows-----


          _______________________________________________
          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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090602/c65e1fd1/attachment.html>

From CHV69 at aol.com  Tue Jun  2 14:02:20 2009
From: CHV69 at aol.com (CHV69 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:02:20 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic but extremely interesting
	(acceleration)
Message-ID: <c6d.4ebb4b38.3756fb67@aol.com>

 
In a message dated 6/2/2009 5:16:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
jpavlick at idseng.com writes:

And best  of all a top fuel dragster runs on Nitromethane, just like REAL 
model airplane  engines do! LOL


You couldn't help yourself could you!!??
 
Carl
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy 
Steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222585042x1201462767/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=Jun
eExcfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090602/0e01685b/attachment.html>

From rforbus at hotmail.com  Tue Jun  2 14:11:39 2009
From: rforbus at hotmail.com (Randy Forbus)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:11:39 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic but
	extremely	interesting(acceleration)
In-Reply-To: <ED86AD0896574E83A21E0C18612A54A8@glazecstp32xp>
References: <737086.95619.qm@web80502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ED86AD0896574E83A21E0C18612A54A8@glazecstp32xp>
Message-ID: <COL118-W20C5E7FA661A58AFBD7FCA24D0@phx.gbl>


yeah they are sight to behold, they run to 1000ft now, hope they go back to 1320 soon
 


From: billglaze at bellsouth.net
To: jpavlick at idseng.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 17:59:55 -0400
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic but extremely interesting(acceleration)




About 1979, when I was racing Drag Boats, in Oklahoma City I was pitted next to a top fueler.  Their engine was removed from the boat and completely torn down between passes; the custom ground billet crank was changed for a new one after every 12 runs, but detail inspected after each run.  (A complete race usually meant anywhere from 6 to 8 passes, sometimes more.) There were separate crewmembers for the Blower, injectors, heads, magnetos, fuel, etc. at least 10 people.  Looked like a ballet when the boat went on the trailer.  I remember the crew chief asking the owner "do you want to win the next heat badly enough to waste 2 pistons?"  The owner said, without hesitation, "Sure." When they tore down the engine after the next pass, sure enough, 2 pistons were history.  Like they say:  Nitro eats bank accounts.  At that time, before the price went up, nitro was costing $1300 per drum.  Several drums per race.
Hope I don't get into too much trouble for being off-subject.
 
Bill Glaze

----- Original Message ----- 
From: John Pavlick 
To: General pattern discussion 
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic but extremely interesting(acceleration)






And best of all a top fuel dragster runs on Nitromethane, just like REAL model airplane engines do! LOL
 
John Pavlick
 

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic but extremely interesting (acceleration)
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 5:02 PM







I love high performance stuff and very few things are higher performance than a top fuel dragster. This puts it into perspective:
 
Acceleration explained. 
  
  
* One Top Fuel dragster outfitted with a 500 cubic-inch replica Dodge (actually Keith Black, etc) Hemi engine makes more horsepower (8,000 HP) than the first 4 rows at NASCAR's Daytona 500. 

* Under full throttle, a dragster engine will consume 11.2 gallons of nitro methane per second; a fully loaded Boeing 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate but with 25% less energy being produced. 

* A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to merely drive the dragster's supercharger. 

* With 3000 CFM of air being rammed in by the supercharger on overdrive, the fuel mixture is compressed into a near-solid form before ignition. Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lockup at full throttle. 

* At the stoichio metric 1.7:1 air/fuel mixture for nitro methane the flame front temperature measures 7050 degrees F. 

* Nitro methane burns yellow. The spectacular white flame seen above the stacks at night is raw burning hydrogen, dissociated from atmospheric water vapor by the searing exhaust gases. 

* Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug. Which is typically the output of an electric arc welder in each cylinder. 

* Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed during a pass. After 1/2 way thru the run, the engine is 'dieseling' from compression and the glow of the exhaust valves at 1400 degrees F.   The engine can only be shut down by cutting the fuel flow. 

* If spark momentarily fails early in the run, unburned nitro builds up in the affected cylinders and then explodes with enough sufficient force to blow the cylinder heads off the block in pieces or split the block in half !! 

* Dragsters reach over 300 MPH +... before you have completed reading this sentence. 

* In order to exceed 300 MPH in 4.5 seconds, a dragster must accelerate an average of over 4 G's. In order to reach 200 MPH well before reaching half-track, at launch the acceleration approaches 8 G's. 

* Top Fuel engines turn approximately 540 revolutions from light to light! 

* Including the burnout, the engine must only survive 900 revolutions under load. 

* The redline is actually quite high at 9500 RPM. 

* THE BOTTOM LINE: Assuming all the equipment is paid for, the pit crew is working for free, & NOTHING BLOWS UP, each run will cost an estimated $1,000 per second. 

0 to 100 MPH in .8 seconds (the first 60 feet of t he run) 
0 to 200 MPH in 2.2 seconds (the first 350 feet of the run) 
6 g-forces at the starting line (nothing accelerates faster on land) 
6 negative g-forces upon deployment of twin 'chutes at 300 MPH 

An NHRA Top Fuel Dragster accelerates quicker than any other land vehicle on earth . . quicker than a jet fighter plane . . . quicker than the space shuttle....or snapping your fingers !! 

The current Top Fuel dragster elapsed time record is 4.420 seconds for the quarter-mile (2004, Doug Kalitta).   The top speed record is 337.58 MPH as measured over the last 66' of the run (2005, Tony Schumacher). 

Let's now put this all into perspective: 

Imagine this...........You are driving a new $140,000 Lingenfelter twin-turbo powered Corvette Z-06. Over a mile up the road, a Top Fuel dragster is staged & ready to 'launch' down a quarter-mile s trip as you pass. You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the 'Vette hard, on up through the gears and blast across the  starting line & pass the dragster at an honest 200 MPH.... The 'tree' goes green for both of you at that exact moment. 

The dragster departs & starts after you. You keep your foot buried hard to the floor, and suddenly you hear an incredibly brutally screaming whine that seares and pummels your eardrums & within a mere 3 seconds the dragster effortlessly catches & passes you.  He beats you to the finish line, a quarter-mile away from where you just passed him. Think about it - from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200 MPH.....and it not only caught, but nearly blasted you off the planet when he passed you within a mere 1320 foot long race !!!! 

That, my friends.....is acceleration. 
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Get 25 GB of free online storage.
http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090602/f2e06288/attachment.html>

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  2 17:28:54 2009
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:28:54 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shootout
Message-ID: <659742.89492.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4 ! ! ! ! !



 Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com



      

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Tue Jun  2 18:16:54 2009
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:16:54 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E83EE@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

The short version...    YS1.70DZ - the brass fitting on the TOP of the head (towards the back) that has the black check valve pressed onto it blew out of the engine in flight!!  Needless to say the motor quit.

It appears to be a pressure fit.    I pressed it back in (I knew this wouldn't work, but what the heck), started the engine.  It idled great, ran up great, took off, and as soon as the motor warmed up (about two passes, pulled vertical and POP...dead as a rock.  Landed... and the fitting had popped out again.

So I have a few questions...

What caused this to pop out in the first place??
What do I do to put it back in SECURELY

HELP!!!!

-Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/6467a7a3/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  2 18:24:33 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:24:33 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shootout
Message-ID: <602320.23110.qm@web51005.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


NOT!!!!

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shootout
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 8:28 PM
> 
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4,
> D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4, D4 ! ! ! ! !
> 
> 
> 
>  Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> ? ? ? 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 


      

From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun  2 18:41:44 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:41:44 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
Message-ID: <613860.55210.qm@web82106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Mark,Bad news, you can not put that back in so it does not pup out again. From what I have read, that problem isn't really user serviceable. I have read posts of guys pressing them back in and even some guys using JB Weld to keep them in. Usually that is a problem that requires the engine to go back to YS.
Sorry to hear that!
Anthony

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:16 PM




 
 




 



The short version???? YS1.70DZ ?
the brass fitting on the TOP of the head (towards the back) that has the black
check valve pressed onto it blew out of the engine in flight!!? Needless
to say the motor quit. 

 ? 

It appears to be a pressure fit.??? I pressed
it back in (I knew this wouldn?t work, but what the heck), started the
engine.? It idled great, ran up great, took off, and as soon as the motor
warmed up (about two passes, pulled vertical and POP?dead as a
rock.? Landed? and the fitting had popped out again. 

 ? 

So I have a few questions? 

 ? 

What caused this to pop out in the first place?? 

What do I do to put it back in SECURELY 

 ? 

HELP!!!! 

 ? 

-Mark 



 



-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/912ee5bb/attachment.html>

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Tue Jun  2 18:43:50 2009
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:43:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
In-Reply-To: <613860.55210.qm@web82106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <613860.55210.qm@web82106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E83F1@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

In a word?  Crap!

Anyone else??  I?d like a second opinion!!!! (nothing personal Anthony but your opinion ..well?sucks. lol)   I have a feeling you?re correct though, much to my chagrin.  Not having a good YS moment.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:42 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

Mark,
Bad news, you can not put that back in so it does not pup out again. From what I have read, that problem isn't really user serviceable. I have read posts of guys pressing them back in and even some guys using JB Weld to keep them in. Usually that is a problem that requires the engine to go back to YS.

Sorry to hear that!

Anthony

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:16 PM
The short version?    YS1.70DZ ? the brass fitting on the TOP of the head (towards the back) that has the black check valve pressed onto it blew out of the engine in flight!!  Needless to say the motor quit.

It appears to be a pressure fit.    I pressed it back in (I knew this wouldn?t work, but what the heck), started the engine.  It idled great, ran up great, took off, and as soon as the motor warmed up (about two passes, pulled vertical and POP?dead as a rock.  Landed? and the fitting had popped out again.

So I have a few questions?

What caused this to pop out in the first place??
What do I do to put it back in SECURELY

HELP!!!!

-Mark

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org</mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 06/01/09 17:55:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/7476864a/attachment.html>

From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun  2 18:47:50 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:47:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Low run time YS 160 and other goodies for sale
Message-ID: <461668.61221.qm@web82101.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

For Sale
1- YS 160 DZ, very low run time and fresh back from YS service for a new thrust washer and rear bearing (wasn't really bad but had it done as a precaution). The engine has not been run since I got it back.
1- Brand new in box Hatori 821 short pipe
1- used Hatori wrap around header
1- lightly used (less than 20 flights) Hyde AR-80 engine mount
All equipment is in excellent shape and ready to be used. I am selling it because I am totally committed to electric and need to buy a generator.
Will sell all together or part out, no REASONABLE offer refused!!! Contact me off list.
AnthonySouth Euclid, Ohioaabdu at sbcglobal.net



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/d869d7ca/attachment.html>

From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun  2 18:55:35 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:55:35 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
Message-ID: <114726.53654.qm@web82105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

None taken :o)
I hope like hell I'm wrong!!!
Attached is a link to a thread in RCU titled "Injector coming out of head"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7197327/anchors_7210131/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#7210131

Speaking of YS and fun, I am pulling a half the niter converting my Black Magic to electric... Hmmmmmm Let me tell you, it was NOT fun trying to get the nose ring out, damn that thing was in there good. Other than that it is going fairly well actually almost done staring at it. ?

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:43 PM




 
 




 



In a word?? Crap! 

 ? 

Anyone else??? I?d like a second opinion!!!! (nothing personal
Anthony but your opinion ..well?sucks. lol)?? I have a feeling you?re correct
though, much to my chagrin.? Not having a good YS moment. 

 ? 



From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Abdullah

Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:42 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem 



 ? 


 
  
  Mark, 
  
  Bad news, you can not put that back in so it does not pup
  out again. From what I have read, that problem isn't really user serviceable.
  I have read posts of guys pressing them back in and even some guys using JB
  Weld to keep them in. Usually that is a problem that requires the engine to
  go back to YS. 
  
  
   ? 
  
  
  Sorry to hear that! 
  
  
   ? 
  
  
  Anthony

  

  --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
  wrote: 
  

  From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

  To: "General pattern discussion"
  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

  Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:16 PM 
  
  
  The
  short version???? YS1.70DZ ? the brass fitting on the TOP of
  the head (towards the back) that has the black check valve pressed onto it
  blew out of the engine in flight!!? Needless to say the motor quit. 
  ? 
  It
  appears to be a pressure fit.??? I pressed it back in (I knew
  this wouldn?t work, but what the heck), started the engine.? It idled
  great, ran up great, took off, and as soon as the motor warmed up (about two passes,
  pulled vertical and POP?dead as a rock.? Landed? and the fitting had
  popped out again. 
  ? 
  So
  I have a few questions? 
  ? 
  What
  caused this to pop out in the first place?? 
  What
  do I do to put it back in SECURELY 
  ? 
  HELP!!!! 
  ? 
  -Mark 
  
  
  

  -----Inline Attachment Follows----- 
  
  _______________________________________________

  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 - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 06/01/09
17:55:00 



 



-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/bd44aba0/attachment.html>

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Tue Jun  2 19:04:59 2009
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:04:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
In-Reply-To: <114726.53654.qm@web82105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <114726.53654.qm@web82105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E83F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

I?ll read the link?

Sounds good!  You missed a beautiful night to fly.  So did I ?

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:56 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

None taken :o)

I hope like hell I'm wrong!!!

Attached is a link to a thread in RCU titled "Injector coming out of head"

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7197327/anchors_7210131/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#7210131

Speaking of YS and fun, I am pulling a half the niter converting my Black Magic to electric... Hmmmmmm Let me tell you, it was NOT fun trying to get the nose ring out, damn that thing was in there good. Other than that it is going fairly well actually almost done staring at it.

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:43 PM
In a word?  Crap!

Anyone else??  I?d like a second opinion!!!! (nothing personal Anthony but your opinion ..well?sucks. lol)   I have a feeling you?re correct though, much to my chagrin.  Not having a good YS moment.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:42 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

Mark,
Bad news, you can not put that back in so it does not pup out again. From what I have read, that problem isn't really user serviceable. I have read posts of guys pressing them back in and even some guys using JB Weld to keep them in. Usually that is a problem that requires the engine to go back to YS.

Sorry to hear that!

Anthony

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:16 PM
The short version?    YS1.70DZ ? the brass fitting on the TOP of the head (towards the back) that has the black check valve pressed onto it blew out of the engine in flight!!  Needless to say the motor quit.

It appears to be a pressure fit.    I pressed it back in (I knew this wouldn?t work, but what the heck), started the engine.  It idled great, ran up great, took off, and as soon as the motor warmed up (about two passes, pulled vertical and POP?dead as a rock.  Landed? and the fitting had popped out again.

So I have a few questions?

What caused this to pop out in the first place??
What do I do to put it back in SECURELY

HELP!!!!

-Mark

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
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 - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 06/01/09 17:55:00

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org</mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 06/01/09 17:55:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/c65aa193/attachment.html>

From astafford at swtexas.net  Tue Jun  2 19:08:24 2009
From: astafford at swtexas.net (Archie Stafford)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:08:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
In-Reply-To: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E83F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
References: <114726.53654.qm@web82105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E83F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
Message-ID: <031601c9e3f8$86966e90$93c34bb0$@net>

That?s OK..I lost an almost brand new spinner tonight.  Didn?t have a YS kick to do it..I guess the bolt wasn?t as tight as I thought?just the cone came off?3 week old anodized Tru Turn?.grrr?.

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:05 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

 

I?ll read the link?

 

Sounds good!  You missed a beautiful night to fly.  So did I L

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:56 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

 


None taken :o)

 

I hope like hell I'm wrong!!!

 

Attached is a link to a thread in RCU titled "Injector coming out of head"

 

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7197327/anchors_7210131/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#7210131

 

Speaking of YS and fun, I am pulling a half the niter converting my Black Magic to electric... Hmmmmmm Let me tell you, it was NOT fun trying to get the nose ring out, damn that thing was in there good. Other than that it is going fairly well actually almost done staring at it.  

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:


From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:43 PM

In a word?  Crap!

 

Anyone else??  I?d like a second opinion!!!! (nothing personal Anthony but your opinion ..well?sucks. lol)   I have a feeling you?re correct though, much to my chagrin.  Not having a good YS moment.

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:42 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

 


Mark,

Bad news, you can not put that back in so it does not pup out again. >From what I have read, that problem isn't really user serviceable. I have read posts of guys pressing them back in and even some guys using JB Weld to keep them in. Usually that is a problem that requires the engine to go back to YS.

 

Sorry to hear that!

 

Anthony

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:


From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:16 PM

The short version?    YS1.70DZ ? the brass fitting on the TOP of the head (towards the back) that has the black check valve pressed onto it blew out of the engine in flight!!  Needless to say the motor quit.

 

It appears to be a pressure fit.    I pressed it back in (I knew this wouldn?t work, but what the heck), started the engine.  It idled great, ran up great, took off, and as soon as the motor warmed up (about two passes, pulled vertical and POP?dead as a rock.  Landed? and the fitting had popped out again.

 

So I have a few questions?

 

What caused this to pop out in the first place??

What do I do to put it back in SECURELY

 

HELP!!!!

 

-Mark


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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 - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 06/01/09 17:55:00


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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 - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 06/01/09 17:55:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/cc302755/attachment.html>

From jonlowe at aol.com  Tue Jun  2 19:24:42 2009
From: jonlowe at aol.com (Jon Lowe)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:24:42 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
In-Reply-To: <031601c9e3f8$86966e90$93c34bb0$@net>
References: <114726.53654.qm@web82105.mail.mud.yahoo.com><99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E83F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<031601c9e3f8$86966e90$93c34bb0$@net>
Message-ID: <8CBB211EA11C45F-9A4-2A87@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>

I had a bolt break in two, no kick, and I had the same thing happen.  
Was the end of your bolt still in the adapter?  I now change bolts 
semi-frequently.  Of course it had to happen in the middle of a judged 
round, Jason Shulman was judging and saw it, so I zeroed the round from 
that point on.


Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:08 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem






















That?s OK..I lost an almost brand new spinner tonight.? Didn?t
have a YS kick to do it..I guess the bolt wasn?t as tight as I 
thought?just the
cone came off?3 week old anodized Tru Turn?.grrr?.



?









From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark

Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:05 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem









?



I?ll read the link?



?



Sounds good!? You missed a beautiful night to fly.? So
did I L



?






From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org0D
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Abdullah

Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:56 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem






?










None taken :o)




?






I hope like hell I'm wrong!!!






?






Attached is a link to a thread in RCU titled
  "Injector coming out of head"






?






http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7197327/anchors_7210131/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#7210131






?






Speaking of YS and fun, I am pulling a half the niter converting
   my Black Magic to electric... Hmmmmmm Let me tell you, it was NOT fun 
trying
   to get the nose ring out, damn that thing was in there good. Other 
than that
  it is going fairly well actually almost done staring at it. ?



  --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
  wrote:




  From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

  To: "General pattern discussion"
  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

  Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:43 PM






In
  a word?? Crap!


?


Anyone
   else??? I?d
 like a second opinion!!!! (nothing personal Anthony but 
your
  opinion ..well?sucks. lol)?? I have a feeling you?re correct
  though, much to my chagrin.? Not having a good YS moment.


?




From:
   nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
  On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah

  Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:42 PM

  To: General pattern discussion

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem




?









Mark,




Bad news, you can not put that back in so it does not pup out again.
     From what I have read, that problem isn't really user serviceable. 
I have
     read posts of guys pressing them back in and even some guys using 
JB Weld
     to keep them in. Usually that is a problem that requires the engine 
to go
    back to YS.






?






Sorry to hear that!






?






Anthony



    --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
    wrote:




    From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

    Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

    To: "General pattern discussion"
    <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

    Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:16 PM

0D




The short version???? YS1.70DZ ? the brass fitting on
     the TOP of the head (towards the back) that has the black check 
valve
    pressed onto it blew out of the engine in flight!!? Needless to say
    the motor quit.


?


It appears to be a pressure fit.??? I pressed it back
    in (I knew this wouldn?t work, but what the heck), started the
    engine.? It idled great, ran up great, took off, and as soon as the
    motor warmed up (about two passes, pulled vertical and POP?dead as a
    rock.? Landed? and the fitting had popped out again.


?


So I have a few questions?


?


What caused this to pop out in the first place??


What do I do to put it back in SECURELY


?


HELP!!!!


?


-Mark








    -----Inline Attachment Follows-----




_______________________________________________

    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 - www.avg.com

   Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 
06/01/09
  17:
55:00








  -----Inline Attachment Follows-----




_______________________________________________

  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 - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 
06/01/09
17:55:00












_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion






From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun  2 19:29:54 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:29:54 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
Message-ID: <504358.20385.qm@web82103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Mark,I have the El Nino and all the associated equipment (starter, battery, fuel, fuel pump, etc) loaded up and will be headed to the field from work tomorrow.
If you can get ahold of some JB Weld I will see you there.

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 11:04 PM




 
 




 



I?ll read the link? 

 ? 

Sounds good!? You missed a beautiful night to fly.? So did I L 

 ? 



From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Abdullah

Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:56 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem 



 ? 


 
  
  None taken :o) 
  
   ? 
  
  
  I hope like hell I'm wrong!!! 
  
  
   ? 
  
  
  Attached is a link to a thread in RCU titled
  "Injector coming out of head" 
  
  
   ? 
  
  
  http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7197327/anchors_7210131/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#7210131 
  
  
   ? 
  
  
  Speaking of YS and fun, I am pulling a half the niter
  converting my Black Magic to electric... Hmmmmmm Let me tell you, it was NOT
  fun trying to get the nose ring out, damn that thing was in there good. Other
  than that it is going fairly well actually almost done staring at it. ?

  

  --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
  wrote: 
  

  From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

  To: "General pattern discussion"
  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

  Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:43 PM 
  
  
  In
  a word?? Crap! 
  ? 
  Anyone
  else??? I?d like a second opinion!!!! (nothing personal Anthony but your
  opinion ..well?sucks. lol)?? I have a feeling you?re correct
  though, much to my chagrin.? Not having a good YS moment. 
  ? 
  
  From:
  nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
  Abdullah

  Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:42 PM

  To: General pattern discussion

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem 
  
  ? 
  
   
    
    Mark, 
    
    Bad news, you can not put that back in so it does not pup out again.
    From what I have read, that problem isn't really user serviceable. I have
    read posts of guys pressing them back in and even some guys using JB Weld
    to keep them in. Usually that is a problem that requires the engine to go
    back to YS. 
    
    
    ? 
    
    
    Sorry to hear that! 
    
    
    ? 
    
    
    Anthony

    

    --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
    wrote: 
    

    From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

    Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

    To: "General pattern discussion"
    <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

    Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:16 PM 
    
    
    The short version???? YS1.70DZ ? the brass fitting on
    the TOP of the head (towards the back) that has the black check valve
    pressed onto it blew out of the engine in flight!!? Needless to say
    the motor quit. 
    ? 
    It appears to be a pressure fit.??? I pressed it back
    in (I knew this wouldn?t work, but what the heck), started the
    engine.? It idled great, ran up great, took off, and as soon as the
    motor warmed up (about two passes, pulled vertical and POP?dead as a
    rock.? Landed? and the fitting had popped out again. 
    ? 
    So I have a few questions? 
    ? 
    What caused this to pop out in the first place?? 
    What do I do to put it back in SECURELY 
    ? 
    HELP!!!! 
    ? 
    -Mark 
    
    
    

    -----Inline Attachment Follows----- 
    
    _______________________________________________

    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 - www.avg.com

  Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 06/01/09
  17:55:00 
  
  
  

  -----Inline Attachment Follows----- 
  
  _______________________________________________

  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 - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 06/01/09
17:55:00 



 



-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/5f3648ad/attachment.html>

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Tue Jun  2 19:32:12 2009
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:32:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
In-Reply-To: <504358.20385.qm@web82103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <504358.20385.qm@web82103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E83FC@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

Unfortunately today was my last day to fly prior to Muncie  (GO D4!!!!!!)

I?ll have to wait and try it there?  And bring a spare motor in case it doesn?t run.

I actually have a spare head that I will put back on (the non CDI head).  So that SHOULD work just fine.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 11:30 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

Mark,
I have the El Nino and all the associated equipment (starter, battery, fuel, fuel pump, etc) loaded up and will be headed to the field from work tomorrow.

If you can get ahold of some JB Weld I will see you there.

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 11:04 PM
I?ll read the link?

Sounds good!  You missed a beautiful night to fly.  So did I ?

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:56 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

None taken :o)

I hope like hell I'm wrong!!!

Attached is a link to a thread in RCU titled "Injector coming out of head"

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7197327/anchors_7210131/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#7210131

Speaking of YS and fun, I am pulling a half the niter converting my Black Magic to electric... Hmmmmmm Let me tell you, it was NOT fun trying to get the nose ring out, damn that thing was in there good. Other than that it is going fairly well actually almost done staring at it.

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:43 PM
In a word?  Crap!

Anyone else??  I?d like a second opinion!!!! (nothing personal Anthony but your opinion ..well?sucks. lol)   I have a feeling you?re correct though, much to my chagrin.  Not having a good YS moment.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:42 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

Mark,
Bad news, you can not put that back in so it does not pup out again. From what I have read, that problem isn't really user serviceable. I have read posts of guys pressing them back in and even some guys using JB Weld to keep them in. Usually that is a problem that requires the engine to go back to YS.

Sorry to hear that!

Anthony

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:16 PM
The short version?    YS1.70DZ ? the brass fitting on the TOP of the head (towards the back) that has the black check valve pressed onto it blew out of the engine in flight!!  Needless to say the motor quit.

It appears to be a pressure fit.    I pressed it back in (I knew this wouldn?t work, but what the heck), started the engine.  It idled great, ran up great, took off, and as soon as the motor warmed up (about two passes, pulled vertical and POP?dead as a rock.  Landed? and the fitting had popped out again.

So I have a few questions?

What caused this to pop out in the first place??
What do I do to put it back in SECURELY

HELP!!!!

-Mark

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
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 - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 06/01/09 17:55:00

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
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 - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 06/01/09 17:55:00

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org</mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 06/01/09 17:55:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/b2deb8e6/attachment.html>

From astafford at swtexas.net  Tue Jun  2 19:32:17 2009
From: astafford at swtexas.net (Archie Stafford)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:32:17 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
In-Reply-To: <8CBB211EA11C45F-9A4-2A87@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>
References: <114726.53654.qm@web82105.mail.mud.yahoo.com><99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E83F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>	<031601c9e3f8$86966e90$93c34bb0$@net>
	<8CBB211EA11C45F-9A4-2A87@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <033201c9e3fb$db396d00$91ac4700$@net>

Nope, bolt was gone.  I thought it might have broken also, but it didn't.  I guess it just loosened up over time.  I used to make it a point to check it periodically, but got out of the habit...

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:24 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

I had a bolt break in two, no kick, and I had the same thing happen.  
Was the end of your bolt still in the adapter?  I now change bolts 
semi-frequently.  Of course it had to happen in the middle of a judged 
round, Jason Shulman was judging and saw it, so I zeroed the round from 
that point on.


Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:08 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem






















That?s OK..I lost an almost brand new spinner tonight.  Didn?t
have a YS kick to do it..I guess the bolt wasn?t as tight as I 
thought?just the
cone came off?3 week old anodized Tru Turn?.grrr?.



 









From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark

Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:05 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem









 



I?ll read the link?



 



Sounds good!  You missed a beautiful night to fly.  So
did I L



 






From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org0D
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Abdullah

Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:56 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem






 










None taken :o)




 






I hope like hell I'm wrong!!!






 






Attached is a link to a thread in RCU titled
  "Injector coming out of head"






 






http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7197327/anchors_7210131/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#7210131






 






Speaking of YS and fun, I am pulling a half the niter converting
   my Black Magic to electric... Hmmmmmm Let me tell you, it was NOT fun 
trying
   to get the nose ring out, damn that thing was in there good. Other 
than that
  it is going fairly well actually almost done staring at it.  



  --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
  wrote:




  From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

  To: "General pattern discussion"
  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

  Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:43 PM






In
  a word?  Crap!


 


Anyone
   else??  I?d
 like a second opinion!!!! (nothing personal Anthony but 
your
  opinion ..well?sucks. lol)   I have a feeling you?re correct
  though, much to my chagrin.  Not having a good YS moment.


 




From:
   nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
  On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah

  Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:42 PM

  To: General pattern discussion

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem




 









Mark,




Bad news, you can not put that back in so it does not pup out again.
     From what I have read, that problem isn't really user serviceable. 
I have
     read posts of guys pressing them back in and even some guys using 
JB Weld
     to keep them in. Usually that is a problem that requires the engine 
to go
    back to YS.






 






Sorry to hear that!






 






Anthony



    --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
    wrote:




    From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

    Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

    To: "General pattern discussion"
    <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

    Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:16 PM

0D




The short version?    YS1.70DZ ? the brass fitting on
     the TOP of the head (towards the back) that has the black check 
valve
    pressed onto it blew out of the engine in flight!!  Needless to say
    the motor quit.


 


It appears to be a pressure fit.    I pressed it back
    in (I knew this wouldn?t work, but what the heck), started the
    engine.  It idled great, ran up great, took off, and as soon as the
    motor warmed up (about two passes, pulled vertical and POP?dead as a
    rock.  Landed? and the fitting had popped out again.


 


So I have a few questions?


 


What caused this to pop out in the first place??


What do I do to put it back in SECURELY


 


HELP!!!!


 


-Mark








    -----Inline Attachment Follows-----




_______________________________________________

    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 - www.avg.com

   Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 
06/01/09
  17:
55:00








  -----Inline Attachment Follows-----




_______________________________________________

  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 - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 
06/01/09
17:55:00












_______________________________________________
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


From astafford at swtexas.net  Tue Jun  2 19:54:33 2009
From: astafford at swtexas.net (Archie Stafford)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:54:33 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
In-Reply-To: <033201c9e3fb$db396d00$91ac4700$@net>
References: <114726.53654.qm@web82105.mail.mud.yahoo.com><99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E83F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>	<031601c9e3f8$86966e90$93c34bb0$@net>	<8CBB211EA11C45F-9A4-2A87@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>
	<033201c9e3fb$db396d00$91ac4700$@net>
Message-ID: <033901c9e3fe$f968c0c0$ec3a4240$@net>

Which of the plastic spinners are some of the Japanese and others running?  I see it has an aluminum backplate, but definitely has a plastic front.  I have one of the Great Planes with the aluminum backplate that I'm going to try.  With the CDI, I don?t mind it because it starts so easily.



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Archie Stafford
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:32 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

Nope, bolt was gone.  I thought it might have broken also, but it didn't.  I guess it just loosened up over time.  I used to make it a point to check it periodically, but got out of the habit...

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:24 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

I had a bolt break in two, no kick, and I had the same thing happen.  
Was the end of your bolt still in the adapter?  I now change bolts 
semi-frequently.  Of course it had to happen in the middle of a judged 
round, Jason Shulman was judging and saw it, so I zeroed the round from 
that point on.


Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:08 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem






















That?s OK..I lost an almost brand new spinner tonight.  Didn?t
have a YS kick to do it..I guess the bolt wasn?t as tight as I 
thought?just the
cone came off?3 week old anodized Tru Turn?.grrr?.



 









From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark

Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:05 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem









 



I?ll read the link?



 



Sounds good!  You missed a beautiful night to fly.  So
did I L



 






From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org0D
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Abdullah

Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:56 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem






 










None taken :o)




 






I hope like hell I'm wrong!!!






 






Attached is a link to a thread in RCU titled
  "Injector coming out of head"






 






http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7197327/anchors_7210131/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#7210131






 






Speaking of YS and fun, I am pulling a half the niter converting
   my Black Magic to electric... Hmmmmmm Let me tell you, it was NOT fun 
trying
   to get the nose ring out, damn that thing was in there good. Other 
than that
  it is going fairly well actually almost done staring at it.  



  --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
  wrote:




  From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

  To: "General pattern discussion"
  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

  Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:43 PM






In
  a word?  Crap!


 


Anyone
   else??  I?d
 like a second opinion!!!! (nothing personal Anthony but 
your
  opinion ..well?sucks. lol)   I have a feeling you?re correct
  though, much to my chagrin.  Not having a good YS moment.


 




From:
   nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
  On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah

  Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:42 PM

  To: General pattern discussion

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem




 









Mark,




Bad news, you can not put that back in so it does not pup out again.
     From what I have read, that problem isn't really user serviceable. 
I have
     read posts of guys pressing them back in and even some guys using 
JB Weld
     to keep them in. Usually that is a problem that requires the engine 
to go
    back to YS.






 






Sorry to hear that!






 






Anthony



    --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
    wrote:




    From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

    Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

    To: "General pattern discussion"
    <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

    Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:16 PM

0D




The short version?    YS1.70DZ ? the brass fitting on
     the TOP of the head (towards the back) that has the black check 
valve
    pressed onto it blew out of the engine in flight!!  Needless to say
    the motor quit.


 


It appears to be a pressure fit.    I pressed it back
    in (I knew this wouldn?t work, but what the heck), started the
    engine.  It idled great, ran up great, took off, and as soon as the
    motor warmed up (about two passes, pulled vertical and POP?dead as a
    rock.  Landed? and the fitting had popped out again.


 


So I have a few questions?


 


What caused this to pop out in the first place??


What do I do to put it back in SECURELY


 


HELP!!!!


 


-Mark








    -----Inline Attachment Follows-----




_______________________________________________

    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 - www.avg.com

   Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 
06/01/09
  17:
55:00








  -----Inline Attachment Follows-----




_______________________________________________

  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 - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 
06/01/09
17:55:00












_______________________________________________
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


From jpavlick at idseng.com  Tue Jun  2 20:13:59 2009
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 04:13:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic but extremely
	interesting(acceleration)
References: <c6d.4ebb4b38.3756fb67@aol.com>
Message-ID: <00a001c9e401$b56d4ff0$9501a8c0@GW7422>

Nope. :)

John Pavlick
http://www.idseng.com
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: CHV69 at aol.com 
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 6:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic but extremely interesting(acceleration)


  In a message dated 6/2/2009 5:16:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jpavlick at idseng.com writes:
    And best of all a top fuel dragster runs on Nitromethane, just like REAL model airplane engines do! LOL
  You couldn't help yourself could you!!??

  Carl


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/203aca0b/attachment.html>

From smaragdz at bellsouth.net  Tue Jun  2 20:23:25 2009
From: smaragdz at bellsouth.net (Ryan Smith)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 04:23:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
In-Reply-To: <033901c9e3fe$f968c0c0$ec3a4240$@net>
References: <114726.53654.qm@web82105.mail.mud.yahoo.com><99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E83F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>	<031601c9e3f8$86966e90$93c34bb0$@net>	<8CBB211EA11C45F-9A4-2A87@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com><033201c9e3fb$db396d00$91ac4700$@net>
	<033901c9e3fe$f968c0c0$ec3a4240$@net>
Message-ID: <060320090423.18168.4A25FAB90009CCB7000046F822218683269B0A02D2089B9A019C04040A0DBF960B090E9D0E039C@att.net>

Archie,

I saw on Japanese build thread for a Starcraft Addiction that the owner was using a Great Planes spinner. I've used them on a couple of airplanes and like them.

Mark,

Did the brass fitting come out or just the check valve pop off of the fitting? I was breaking in a 1.70 for a friend of mine and after fooling around with it for quite a while it ran for about one minute before it quit. I started trying to start it again, and I felt something hitting the glow driver when I was putting it back on the plug and I noticed a little fuel dripping.

I took the chin cowl off and the actual check valve had melted at the bottom and mushroomed out and fell off of the fitting. It turns out it was because the low end setting was about one turn lean. I stole a check valve off of a 1.60 and richened the low end up a turn and it ran like a top. Granted, you've got more time on your motor than this one did when I ran into the problem, but I thought I'd at least offer my experience.
-------------- Original message from "Archie Stafford" <astafford at swtexas.net>: -------------- 

Which of the plastic spinners are some of the Japanese and others running? I see it has an aluminum backplate, but definitely has a plastic front. I have one of the Great Planes with the aluminum backplate that I'm going to try. With 
> the CDI, I don?t mind it because it starts so easily. 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Archie Stafford 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:32 PM 
> To: 'General pattern discussion' 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem 
> Nope, bolt was gone. I thought it might have broken also, but it didn't. I guess it just loosened up over time. I used to make it a point to check it 
> periodically, but got out of the habit... 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:24 PM 
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem 
> 
> I had a bolt break in two, no kick, and I had the same thing happen. 
> Was the end of your bolt still in the adapter? I now change bolts 
> semi-frequently. Of course it had to happen in the middle of a judged 
> round, Jason Shulman was judging and saw it, so I zeroed the round from 
> that point on. 
> 
> 
> Jon Lowe 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Archie Stafford 
> To: 'General pattern discussion' 
> Sent: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:08 pm 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That?s OK..I lost an almost brand new spinner tonight. Didn?t 
> have a YS kick to do it..I guess the bolt wasn?t as tight as I 
> thought?just the 
> cone came off?3 week old anodized Tru Turn?.grrr?. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: 
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] 
> On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark 
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:05 PM 
> 
> To: General pattern discussion 
> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I?ll read the link? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds good! You missed a beautiful night to fly. So 
> did I L 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org0D 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony 
> Abdullah 
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:56 PM 
> 
> To: General pattern discussion 
> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None taken :o) 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope like hell I'm wrong!!! 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attached is a link to a thread in RCU titled 
> "Injector coming out of head" 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7197327/anchors_7210131/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm 
> .htm#7210131 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of YS and fun, I am pulling a half the niter converting 
> my Black Magic to electric... Hmmmmmm Let me tell you, it was NOT fun 
> trying 
> to get the nose ring out, damn that thing was in there good. Other 
> than that 
> it is going fairly well actually almost done staring at it. 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark 
> wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Atwood, Mark 
> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem 
> 
> To: "General pattern discussion" 
> 
> 
> Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:43 PM 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 
> a word? Crap! 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone 
> else?? I?d 
> like a second opinion!!!! (nothing personal Anthony but 
> your 
> opinion ..well?sucks. lol) I have a feeling you?re correct 
> though, much to my chagrin. Not having a good YS moment. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: 
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] 
> On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah 
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:42 PM 
> 
> To: General pattern discussion 
> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark, 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad news, you can not put that back in so it does not pup out again. 
> From what I have read, that problem isn't really user serviceable. 
> I have 
> read posts of guys pressing them back in and even some guys using 
> JB Weld 
> to keep them in. Usually that is a problem that requires the engine 
> to go 
> back to YS. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear that! 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anthony 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark 
> wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Atwood, Mark 
> 
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem 
> 
> To: "General pattern discussion" 
> 
> 
> Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:16 PM 
> 
> 0D 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The short version? YS1.70DZ ? the brass fitting on 
> the TOP of the head (towards the back) that has the black check 
> valve 
> pressed onto it blew out of the engine in flight!! Needless to say 
> the motor quit. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears to be a pressure fit. I pressed it back 
> in (I knew this wouldn?t work, but what the heck), started the 
> engine. It idled great, ran up great, took off, and as soon as the 
> motor warmed up (about two passes, pulled vertical and POP?dead as a 
> rock. Landed? and the fitting had popped out again. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I have a few questions? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What caused this to pop out in the first place?? 
> 
> 
> What do I do to put it back in SECURELY 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HELP!!!! 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Mark 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 
> 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 - www.avg.com 
> 
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 
> 06/01/09 
> 17: 
> 55:00 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 
> 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 - www.avg.com 
> 
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 
> 06/01/09 
> 17:55:00 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list 
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/6e11d5aa/attachment.html>

From astafford at swtexas.net  Tue Jun  2 20:24:58 2009
From: astafford at swtexas.net (Archie Stafford)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 04:24:58 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
In-Reply-To: <060320090423.18168.4A25FAB90009CCB7000046F822218683269B0A02D2089B9A019C04040A0DBF960B090E9D0E039C@att.net>
References: <114726.53654.qm@web82105.mail.mud.yahoo.com><99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E83F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>	<031601c9e3f8$86966e90$93c34bb0$@net>	<8CBB211EA11C45F-9A4-2A87@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com><033201c9e3fb$db396d00$91ac4700$@net>	<033901c9e3fe$f968c0c0$ec3a4240$@net>
	<060320090423.18168.4A25FAB90009CCB7000046F822218683269B0A02D2089B9A019C04040A0DBF960B090E9D0E039C@att.net>
Message-ID: <034701c9e403$38ab1220$aa013660$@net>

Ryan,

 

Mark lost the entire fitting, not just the check valve.  

 

Arch

 

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Smith
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 11:23 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

 

Archie,

 

I saw on Japanese build thread for a Starcraft Addiction that the owner was using a Great Planes spinner. I've used them on a couple of airplanes and like them.

 

Mark,

 

Did the brass fitting come out or just the check valve pop off of the fitting? I was breaking in a 1.70 for a friend of mine and after fooling around with it for quite a while it ran for about one minute before it quit. I started trying to start it again, and I felt something hitting the glow driver when I was putting it back on the plug and I noticed a little fuel dripping.

 

I took the chin cowl off and the actual check valve had melted at the bottom and mushroomed out and fell off of the fitting. It turns out it was because the low end setting was about one turn lean. I stole a check valve off of a 1.60 and richened the low end up a turn and it ran like a top. Granted, you've got more time on your motor than this one did when I ran into the problem, but I thought I'd at least offer my experience.

-------------- Original message from "Archie Stafford" <astafford at swtexas.net>: -------------- 

Which of the plastic spinners are some of the Japanese and others running? I see it has an aluminum backplate, but definitely has a plastic front. I have one of the Great Planes with the aluminum backplate that I'm going to try. With 
> the CDI, I don?t mind it because it starts so easily. 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Archie Stafford 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:32 PM 
> To: 'General pattern discussion' 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem 
> Nope, bolt was gone. I thought it might have broken also, but it didn't. I guess it just loosened up over time. I used to make it a point to check it 
> periodically, but got out of the habit... 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:24 PM 
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem 
> 
> I had a bolt break in two, no kick, and I had the same thing happen. 
> Was the end of your bolt still in the adapter? I now change bolts 
> semi-frequently. Of course it had to happen in the middle of a judged 
> round, Jason Shulman was judging and saw it, so I zeroed the round from 
> that point on. 
> 
> 
> Jon Lowe 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Archie Stafford 
> To: 'General pattern discussion' 
> Sent: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:08 pm 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That?s OK..I lost an almost brand new spinner tonight. Didn?t 
> have a YS kick to do it..I guess the bolt wasn?t as tight as I 
> thought?just the 
> cone came off?3 week old anodized Tru Turn?.grrr?. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: 
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] 
> On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark 
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:05 PM 
> 
> To: General pattern discussion 
> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I?ll read the link? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds good! You missed a beautiful night to fly. So 
> did I L 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org0D 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony 
> Abdullah 
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:56 PM 
> 
> To: General pattern discussion 
> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None taken :o) 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope like hell I'm wrong!!! 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attached is a link to a thread in RCU titled 
> "Injector coming out of head" 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7197327/anchors_7210131/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm 
> .htm#7210131 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of YS and fun, I am pulling a half the niter converting 
> my Black Magic to electric... Hmmmmmm Let me tell you, it was NOT fun 
> trying 
> to get the nose ring out, damn that thing was in there good. Other 
> than that 
> it is going fairly well actually almost done staring at it. 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark 
> wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Atwood, Mark 
> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem 
> 
> To: "General pattern discussion" 
> 
> 
> Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:43 PM 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 
> a word? Crap! 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone 
> else?? I?d 
> like a second opinion!!!! (nothing personal Anthony but 
> your 
> opinion ..well?sucks. lol) I have a feeling you?re correct 
> though, much to my chagrin. Not having a good YS moment. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: 
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] 
> On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah 
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:42 PM 
> 
> To: General pattern discussion 
> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark, 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad news, you can not put that back in so it does not pup out again. 
> From what I have read, that problem isn't really user serviceable. 
> I have 
> read posts of guys pressing them back in and even some guys using 
> JB Weld 
> to keep them in. Usually that is a problem that requires the engine 
> to go 
> back to YS. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear that! 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anthony 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark 
> wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Atwood, Mark 
> 
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem 
> 
> To: "General pattern discussion" 
> 
> 
> Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:16 PM 
> 
> 0D 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The short version? YS1.70DZ ? the brass fitting on 
> the TOP of the head (towards the back) that has the black check 
> valve 
> pressed onto it blew out of the engine in flight!! Needless to say 
> the motor quit. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears to be a pressure fit. I pressed it back 
> in (I knew this wouldn?t work, but what the heck), started the 
> engine. It idled great, ran up great, took off, and as soon as the 
> motor warmed up (about two passes, pulled vertical and POP?dead as a 
> rock. Landed? and the fitting had popped out again. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I have a few questions? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What caused this to pop out in the first place?? 
> 
> 
> What do I do to put it back in SECURELY 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HELP!!!! 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Mark 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 
> 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 - www.avg.com 
> 
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 
> 06/01/09 
> 17: 
> 55:00 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 
> 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 - www.avg.com 
> 
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 
> 06/01/09 
> 17:55:00 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list 
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/89a5d008/attachment.html>

From verne at twmi.rr.com  Tue Jun  2 20:33:54 2009
From: verne at twmi.rr.com (Verne Koester)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 04:33:54 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
In-Reply-To: <8CBB211EA11C45F-9A4-2A87@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>
References: <114726.53654.qm@web82105.mail.mud.yahoo.com><99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E83F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>	<031601c9e3f8$86966e90$93c34bb0$@net>
	<8CBB211EA11C45F-9A4-2A87@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <009001c9e404$81a6bc80$84f43580$@rr.com>

I had that problem a long time ago on a Rossi. Lost a bunch of spinner cones before a fellow club member gave me the answer. Turns out the spinner backplate would slip on the drive hub which tightened the spinner screw so tight the head would break off with the spinner departing shortly thereafter. The fix was to cut a disk out of emery cloth and put it between the backplate and drive hub. Never lost another one after that. Might be worth looking at the backplate to see if it's been slipping. You can also pin the backplate to the drive hub which will save or at least minimize the damage from a backfire. Hope this helps.

Verne Koester

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 11:24 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

I had a bolt break in two, no kick, and I had the same thing happen.  
Was the end of your bolt still in the adapter?  I now change bolts 
semi-frequently.  Of course it had to happen in the middle of a judged 
round, Jason Shulman was judging and saw it, so I zeroed the round from 
that point on.


Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:08 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem






















That?s OK..I lost an almost brand new spinner tonight.  Didn?t
have a YS kick to do it..I guess the bolt wasn?t as tight as I 
thought?just the
cone came off?3 week old anodized Tru Turn?.grrr?.



 









From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark

Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:05 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem









 



I?ll read the link?



 



Sounds good!  You missed a beautiful night to fly.  So
did I L



 






From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org0D
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Abdullah

Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:56 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem






 










None taken :o)




 






I hope like hell I'm wrong!!!






 






Attached is a link to a thread in RCU titled
  "Injector coming out of head"






 






http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7197327/anchors_7210131/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#7210131






 






Speaking of YS and fun, I am pulling a half the niter converting
   my Black Magic to electric... Hmmmmmm Let me tell you, it was NOT fun 
trying
   to get the nose ring out, damn that thing was in there good. Other 
than that
  it is going fairly well actually almost done staring at it.  



  --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
  wrote:




  From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

  To: "General pattern discussion"
  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

  Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:43 PM






In
  a word?  Crap!


 


Anyone
   else??  I?d
 like a second opinion!!!! (nothing personal Anthony but 
your
  opinion ..well?sucks. lol)   I have a feeling you?re correct
  though, much to my chagrin.  Not having a good YS moment.


 




From:
   nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
  On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah

  Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:42 PM

  To: General pattern discussion

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem




 









Mark,




Bad news, you can not put that back in so it does not pup out again.
     From what I have read, that problem isn't really user serviceable. 
I have
     read posts of guys pressing them back in and even some guys using 
JB Weld
     to keep them in. Usually that is a problem that requires the engine 
to go
    back to YS.






 






Sorry to hear that!






 






Anthony



    --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
    wrote:




    From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

    Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

    To: "General pattern discussion"
    <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

    Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:16 PM

0D




The short version?    YS1.70DZ ? the brass fitting on
     the TOP of the head (towards the back) that has the black check 
valve
    pressed onto it blew out of the engine in flight!!  Needless to say
    the motor quit.


 


It appears to be a pressure fit.    I pressed it back
    in (I knew this wouldn?t work, but what the heck), started the
    engine.  It idled great, ran up great, took off, and as soon as the
    motor warmed up (about two passes, pulled vertical and POP?dead as a
    rock.  Landed? and the fitting had popped out again.


 


So I have a few questions?


 


What caused this to pop out in the first place??


What do I do to put it back in SECURELY


 


HELP!!!!


 


-Mark








    -----Inline Attachment Follows-----




_______________________________________________

    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 - www.avg.com

   Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 
06/01/09
  17:
55:00








  -----Inline Attachment Follows-----




_______________________________________________

  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 - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 
06/01/09
17:55:00












_______________________________________________
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



From verne at twmi.rr.com  Tue Jun  2 20:35:09 2009
From: verne at twmi.rr.com (Verne Koester)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 04:35:09 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
In-Reply-To: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E83FC@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
References: <504358.20385.qm@web82103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E83FC@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
Message-ID: <009101c9e404$ae4ca330$0ae5e990$@rr.com>

Andrew and I won?t be there to do your wrenching?.

 

Verne

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 11:32 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

 

Unfortunately today was my last day to fly prior to Muncie  (GO D4!!!!!!)

 

I?ll have to wait and try it there?  And bring a spare motor in case it doesn?t run.

 

I actually have a spare head that I will put back on (the non CDI head).  So that SHOULD work just fine.  

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 11:30 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

 


Mark,

I have the El Nino and all the associated equipment (starter, battery, fuel, fuel pump, etc) loaded up and will be headed to the field from work tomorrow.

 

If you can get ahold of some JB Weld I will see you there.

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:


From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 11:04 PM

I?ll read the link?

 

Sounds good!  You missed a beautiful night to fly.  So did I L

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:56 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

 


None taken :o)

 

I hope like hell I'm wrong!!!

 

Attached is a link to a thread in RCU titled "Injector coming out of head"

 

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7197327/anchors_7210131/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#7210131

 

Speaking of YS and fun, I am pulling a half the niter converting my Black Magic to electric... Hmmmmmm Let me tell you, it was NOT fun trying to get the nose ring out, damn that thing was in there good. Other than that it is going fairly well actually almost done staring at it.  

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:


From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:43 PM

In a word?  Crap!

 

Anyone else??  I?d like a second opinion!!!! (nothing personal Anthony but your opinion ..well?sucks. lol)   I have a feeling you?re correct though, much to my chagrin.  Not having a good YS moment.

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:42 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

 


Mark,

Bad news, you can not put that back in so it does not pup out again. >From what I have read, that problem isn't really user serviceable. I have read posts of guys pressing them back in and even some guys using JB Weld to keep them in. Usually that is a problem that requires the engine to go back to YS.

 

Sorry to hear that!

 

Anthony

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:


From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:16 PM

The short version?    YS1.70DZ ? the brass fitting on the TOP of the head (towards the back) that has the black check valve pressed onto it blew out of the engine in flight!!  Needless to say the motor quit.

 

It appears to be a pressure fit.    I pressed it back in (I knew this wouldn?t work, but what the heck), started the engine.  It idled great, ran up great, took off, and as soon as the motor warmed up (about two passes, pulled vertical and POP?dead as a rock.  Landed? and the fitting had popped out again.

 

So I have a few questions?

 

What caused this to pop out in the first place??

What do I do to put it back in SECURELY

 

HELP!!!!

 

-Mark


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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 - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 06/01/09 17:55:00


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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 - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 06/01/09 17:55:00


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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 - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 06/01/09 17:55:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/41cc43a1/attachment.html>

From Tom.Koenig at actewagl.com.au  Tue Jun  2 21:13:00 2009
From: Tom.Koenig at actewagl.com.au (Koenig, Tom)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 05:13:00 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
In-Reply-To: <033901c9e3fe$f968c0c0$ec3a4240$@net>
References: <114726.53654.qm@web82105.mail.mud.yahoo.com><99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E83F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<031601c9e3f8$86966e90$93c34bb0$@net>
	<8CBB211EA11C45F-9A4-2A87@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>
	<033201c9e3fb$db396d00$91ac4700$@net>
	<033901c9e3fe$f968c0c0$ec3a4240$@net>
Message-ID: <724ADB95DA93CC4BA53B10F84AF85777C53948B9@CBRMAIL10.actewagl.production.com.au>

Hi Archie,

The brand I believe you are looking for is "TY-1". They are readily available down here, lots of guys use them.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Archie Stafford
Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 1:54 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

Which of the plastic spinners are some of the Japanese and others running?  I see it has an aluminum backplate, but definitely has a plastic front.  I have one of the Great Planes with the aluminum backplate that I'm going to try.  With the CDI, I don't mind it because it starts so easily.



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Archie Stafford
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:32 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

Nope, bolt was gone.  I thought it might have broken also, but it didn't.  I guess it just loosened up over time.  I used to make it a point to check it periodically, but got out of the habit...

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:24 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

I had a bolt break in two, no kick, and I had the same thing happen.
Was the end of your bolt still in the adapter?  I now change bolts
semi-frequently.  Of course it had to happen in the middle of a judged
round, Jason Shulman was judging and saw it, so I zeroed the round from
that point on.


Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:08 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem






















That's OK..I lost an almost brand new spinner tonight.  Didn't
have a YS kick to do it..I guess the bolt wasn't as tight as I
thought...just the
cone came off...3 week old anodized Tru Turn....grrr....













From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark

Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:05 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem













I'll read the link...







Sounds good!  You missed a beautiful night to fly.  So
did I L










From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org0D
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Abdullah

Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:56 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

















None taken :o)











I hope like hell I'm wrong!!!













Attached is a link to a thread in RCU titled
  "Injector coming out of head"













http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7197327/anchors_7210131/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#7210131













Speaking of YS and fun, I am pulling a half the niter converting
   my Black Magic to electric... Hmmmmmm Let me tell you, it was NOT fun
trying
   to get the nose ring out, damn that thing was in there good. Other
than that
  it is going fairly well actually almost done staring at it.



  --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
  wrote:




  From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

  To: "General pattern discussion"
  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

  Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:43 PM






In
  a word...  Crap!





Anyone
   else??  I'd
 like a second opinion!!!! (nothing personal Anthony but
your
  opinion ..well...sucks. lol)   I have a feeling you're correct
  though, much to my chagrin.  Not having a good YS moment.







From:
   nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
  On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah

  Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:42 PM

  To: General pattern discussion

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem














Mark,




Bad news, you can not put that back in so it does not pup out again.
     From what I have read, that problem isn't really user serviceable.
I have
     read posts of guys pressing them back in and even some guys using
JB Weld
     to keep them in. Usually that is a problem that requires the engine
to go
    back to YS.













Sorry to hear that!













Anthony



    --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
    wrote:




    From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

    Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

    To: "General pattern discussion"
    <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

    Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:16 PM

0D




The short version...    YS1.70DZ - the brass fitting on
     the TOP of the head (towards the back) that has the black check
valve
    pressed onto it blew out of the engine in flight!!  Needless to say
    the motor quit.





It appears to be a pressure fit.    I pressed it back
    in (I knew this wouldn't work, but what the heck), started the
    engine.  It idled great, ran up great, took off, and as soon as the
    motor warmed up (about two passes, pulled vertical and POP...dead as a
    rock.  Landed... and the fitting had popped out again.





So I have a few questions...





What caused this to pop out in the first place??


What do I do to put it back in SECURELY





HELP!!!!





-Mark








    -----Inline Attachment Follows-----




_______________________________________________

    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 - www.avg.com

   Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date:
06/01/09
  17:
55:00








  -----Inline Attachment Follows-----




_______________________________________________

  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 - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date:
06/01/09
17:55:00












_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

************************************************************************
*PLEASE NOTE* This email and any attachments may
be confidential. If received in error, please delete all
copies and advise the sender. The reproduction or
dissemination of this email or its attachments is
prohibited without the consent of the sender.

WARNING RE VIRUSES: Our computer systems sweep
outgoing email to guard against viruses, but no warranty
is given that this email or its attachments are virus free.
Before opening or using attachments, please check for
viruses. Our liability is limited to the re-supply of any
affected attachments.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views of the
organisation.
************************************************************************

From ed_alt at hotmail.com  Wed Jun  3 00:43:27 2009
From: ed_alt at hotmail.com (Ed Alt)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:43:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Spinner adapter to use for YS 170?
Message-ID: <BAY139-DAV4AE05FC9D747B3906E7BFE84A0@phx.gbl>

What spinner adapter kit is best to use on the YS 170?  They sent me the short shaft double jam nut kit, which requires that you ream the front of the propr hub 3/8" deep, 1/2" diameter.  This is for "thick props" according to the instructions.  I'm concerned that this may really weaken the prop hub too much.  I'm also not crazy about needing to find a reamer for this at the last minute.  Any good sources for that? It seems like that would be custom made for this task, because the 1'2"D hole is not the next size up from the existing hole in the hub, i.e., there's got to be a smooth 10 mm guide section to keep the reaming tool aligned.

Ed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/39e8b359/attachment.html>

From schroetere at bellsouth.net  Wed Jun  3 04:09:04 2009
From: schroetere at bellsouth.net (Emory Schroeter)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:09:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Andersonville contest this weekend
Message-ID: <10528913-03AB-44D6-B788-506F4129034F@bellsouth.net>

Hey Guys,

I hope to see a bunch of folks this weekend at the Andersonville, GA  
contest. The field will be open for practice on Friday. We will have a  
pilots meeting at 8:30 Saturday morning and will begin flying shortly  
thereafter. Cost will be $30 which will include lunch on Saturday.

There will be a judging seminar on Saturday evening which will be held  
at the Ryan's Steakhouse in Americus, GA. We have a room reserved from  
6-9pm. So come to eat and then discuss the finer points of judging.

If I can answer any questions, please send me an email.

Thanks,
Emory


From jonlowe at aol.com  Wed Jun  3 04:10:25 2009
From: jonlowe at aol.com (Jon Lowe)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:10:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
In-Reply-To: <724ADB95DA93CC4BA53B10F84AF85777C53948B9@CBRMAIL10.actewagl.production.com.au>
References: <114726.53654.qm@web82105.mail.mud.yahoo.com><99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E83F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com><031601c9e3f8$86966e90$93c34bb0$@net><8CBB211EA11C45F-9A4-2A87@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com><033201c9e3fb$db396d00$91ac4700$@net><033901c9e3fe$f968c0c0$ec3a4240$@net>
	<724ADB95DA93CC4BA53B10F84AF85777C53948B9@CBRMAIL10.actewagl.production.com.au>
Message-ID: <8CBB25B4DDC3657-9A4-32DD@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>

Arch,
Esprit Helis (!) carries the TY-1 spinners in the US, 
http://www.espritmodel.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=2452.  
However, they appear to be relabeled Great Planes spinners (or vice 
versa), as the manufacturers part numbers are identical to what I found 
on the Tower Hobbies website.  They are limited to 3" and 3.25" in the 
larger sizes, but if you have one of them, you are golden.

I've used them in smaller sizes, and they were much lighter than the 
equivalent TruTurn.  The downside is having to line up the backplate to 
the prop exactly so you can get the screws in.  I don't know how the 
length compares to the FAI TruTurns. Could be a problem if you are 
close to the 2 meter limit.


Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: Koenig, Tom <Tom.Koenig at actewagl.com.au>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:12 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem










Hi Archie,

The brand I believe you are looking for is "TY-1". They are readily 
available
down here, lots of guys use them.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
 From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of Archie Stafford
Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 1:54 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

Which of the plastic spinners are some of the Japanese and others 
running?  I
see it has an aluminum backplate, but definitely has a plastic front.  
I have
one of the Great Planes with the aluminum backplate that I'm going to 
try.  With
the CDI, I don't mind it because it starts so easily.



-----Original Message-----
 From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of Archie Stafford
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:32 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

Nope, bolt was gone.  I thought it might have broken also, but it 
didn't.  I
guess it just loosened up over time.  I used to make it a point to 
check it
periodically, but got out of the habit...

-----Original Message-----
 From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:24 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

I had a bolt break in two, no kick, and I had the same thing happen.
Was the end of your bolt still in the adapter?  I now change bolts
semi-frequently.  Of course it had to happen in the middle of a judged
round, Jason Shulman was judging and saw it, so I zeroed the round from
that point on.


Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:08 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem






















That's OK..I lost an almost brand new spinner tonight.  Didn't
have a YS kick to do it..I guess the bolt wasn't as tight as I
thought...just the
cone came off...3 week old anodized Tru Turn....grrr....













From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark

Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:05 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem













I'll read the link...







Sounds good!  You missed a beautiful night to fly.  So
did I L










From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org0D
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Abdullah

Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:56 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

















None taken :o)











I hope like hell I'm wrong!!!













Attached is a link to a thread in RCU titled
  "Injector coming out of head"













http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7197327/anchors_7210131/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#7210131













Speaking of YS and fun, I am pulling a half the niter converting
   my Black Magic to electric... Hmmmmmm Let me tell you, it was NOT fun
trying
   to get the nose ring out, damn that thing was in there good. Other
than that
  it is going fairly well actually almost done staring at it.



  --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
  wrote:




  From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

  To: "General pattern discussion"
  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

  Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:43 PM






In
  a word...  Crap!





Anyone
   else??  I'd
 like a second opinion!!!! (nothing personal Anthony but
your
  opinion ..well...sucks. lol)   I have a feeling you're correct
  though, much to my chagrin.  Not having a good YS moment.







From:
   nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
  On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah

  Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:42 PM

  To: General pattern discussion

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem














Mark,




Bad news, you can not put that back in so it does not pup out again.
     From what I have read, that problem isn't really user serviceable.
I have
     read posts of guys pressing them back in and even some guys using
JB Weld
     to keep them in. Usually that is a problem that requires the engine
to go
    back to YS.













Sorry to hear that!













Anthony



    --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
    wrote:




    From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

    Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem

    To: "General pattern discussion"
    <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

    Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:16 PM

0D




The short version...    YS1.70DZ - the brass fitting on
     the TOP of the head (towards the back) that has the black check
valve
    pressed onto it blew out of the engine in flight!!  Needless to say
    the motor quit.





It appears to be a pressure fit.    I pressed it back
    in (I knew this wouldn't work, but what the heck), started the
    engine.  It idled great, ran up great, took off, and as soon as the
     motor warmed up (about two passes, pulled vertical and POP...dead 
as a
    rock.  Landed... and the fitting had popped out again.





So I have a few questions...





What caused this to pop out in the first place??


What do I do to put it back in SECURELY





HELP!!!!





-Mark








    -----Inline Attachment Follows-----




_______________________________________________

    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 - www.avg.com

   Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date:
06/01/09
  17:
55:00








  -----Inline Attachment Follows-----




_______________________________________________

  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 - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date:
06/01/09
17:55:00












_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

************************************************************************
*PLEASE NOTE* This email and any attachments may
be confidential. If received in error, please delete all
copies and advise the sender. The reproduction or
dissemination of this email or its attachments is
prohibited without the consent of the sender.

WARNING RE VIRUSES: Our computer systems sweep
outgoing email to guard against viruses, but no warranty
is given that this email or its attachments are virus free.
Before opening or using attachments, please check for
viruses. Our liability is limited to the re-supply of any
affected attachments.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views of the
organisation.
************************************************************************
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion






From jonlowe at aol.com  Wed Jun  3 04:21:50 2009
From: jonlowe at aol.com (Jon Lowe)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:21:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Andersonville contest this weekend
In-Reply-To: <10528913-03AB-44D6-B788-506F4129034F@bellsouth.net>
References: <10528913-03AB-44D6-B788-506F4129034F@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <8CBB25CF6CEF03C-9A4-335B@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>

Yeah, I have a question.  Do you guarantee no rain, and winds not 
blowing in at 30 mph?  That's all we've seemed to have this year!


Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: Emory Schroeter <schroetere at bellsouth.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 7:08 am
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Andersonville contest this weekend









Hey Guys,?
?

I hope to see a bunch of folks this weekend at the Andersonville, GA 
contest. The field will be open for practice on Friday. We will have a 
pilots meeting at 8:30 Saturday morning and will begin flying shortly 
thereafter. Cost will be $30 which will include lunch on Saturday.?
?

There will be a judging seminar on Saturday evening which will be held 
at the Ryan's Steakhouse in Americus, GA. We have a room reserved from 
6-9pm. So come to eat and then discuss the finer points of judging.?
?

If I can answer any questions, please send me an email.?
?

Thanks,?

Emory?
?

_______________________________________________?

NSRCA-discussion mailing list?

NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org?

http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion?






From schroetere at bellsouth.net  Wed Jun  3 04:33:31 2009
From: schroetere at bellsouth.net (Emory Schroeter)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:33:31 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Andersonville contest this weekend
In-Reply-To: <8CBB25CF6CEF03C-9A4-335B@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>
References: <10528913-03AB-44D6-B788-506F4129034F@bellsouth.net>
	<8CBB25CF6CEF03C-9A4-335B@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <159092.25982.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Come on Jon. This is supposed to be a primer for the NATS. What would a pattern contest be without those elements? However, on a serious note, the weather does look good. Chance of scattered rain on Friday, but Saturday and Sunday look good for now. Temps should be in the mid to high 80's and I'm not sure about the winds.

Later,
Emory

?



________________________________
From: Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 8:21:32 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Andersonville contest this weekend

Yeah, I have a question.? Do you guarantee no rain, and winds not blowing in at 30 mph?? That's all we've seemed to have this year!


Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: Emory Schroeter <schroetere at bellsouth.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 7:08 am
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Andersonville contest this weekend









Hey Guys,?
?

I hope to see a bunch of folks this weekend at the Andersonville, GA contest. The field will be open for practice on Friday. We will have a pilots meeting at 8:30 Saturday morning and will begin flying shortly thereafter. Cost will be $30 which will include lunch on Saturday.?
?

There will be a judging seminar on Saturday evening which will be held at the Ryan's Steakhouse in Americus, GA. We have a room reserved from 6-9pm. So come to eat and then discuss the finer points of judging.?
?

If I can answer any questions, please send me an email.?
?

Thanks,?

Emory?
?

_______________________________________________?

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/0a65c2e8/attachment.html>

From jferrell13 at triad.rr.com  Wed Jun  3 04:49:57 2009
From: jferrell13 at triad.rr.com (John Ferrell)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:49:57 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount
References: <D52B29EEE2294A22A28AB06C45863AED@CYBERPOWER>
Message-ID: <4E9CE280BC3C453992E6819FF174392C@xppro2>

FWIW:
I am interested in an answer to your question too! It sure looks to me like some kind of nose bearing would be prudent...

John Ferrell  W8CCW
 
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
...."The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."  
   MARGARET THATCHER 
http://DixieNC.US

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: George W.Kennie 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:54 PM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount


  Hey Guys,

  I have a new project in the works and it involves mounting a 2K watt motor. This will be my first larger motor install so I felt that some advice from the Pros
  would probably be appropriate.

  The Motor is an outrunner and I can mount it from the back side directly to the firewall OR I can use standoffs and mount it from the front side of the motor.
  I keep feeling that there needs to be some kind of a stabilizing bearing on the free end as there portends to be a significant amount of rotating mass if I just 
  bolt the thing to the firewall while a pound of motor whirls around with a large prop exerting inertial rotating energy beyond the front of the cowl. It seems like 
  If I use the stand-offs, there will be a more rigid area between the prop and the motor, but then I worry about the back end. Should I figure out some kind of a 
  bearing mount on the firewall?

  Somebody set me straight on the accepted procedure please. 

  Thanks for you help,

  Georgie 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter.
  We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
  SPAMfighter has removed 25187 of my spam emails to date.
  The Professional version does not have this message.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/b7011c8a/attachment.html>

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  3 05:10:34 2009
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:10:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set
Message-ID: <826094.75830.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Anybody have a spare set of NMP axles (the kind that bolt through CF gear legs, Central part #NMPAXLEFGL)
AND are coming to the D4-D5 Shootout in Muncie this weekend? I have a new set on order but they won't get here in time. I decided to replace the tires on my Temptation and was surprised how worn the axles are.  Normally no big deal, but the new tires are narrower than the original set and I need to use the shorter E-clip slot and it is almost worn away.

Thanks.

 Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com



      

From brian_w_young at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  3 05:11:01 2009
From: brian_w_young at yahoo.com (brian young)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:11:01 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic but extremely
	interesting(acceleration)
Message-ID: <701594.52117.qm@web35207.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

"* THE BOTTOM LINE: Assuming all the equipment is paid for, the pit crew is working for free, & NOTHING BLOWS UP, each run will cost an estimated $1,000 per second. "
?
So the faster you go the less it costs?.....??? lol


--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Bill Glaze <billglaze at bellsouth.net> wrote:


From: Bill Glaze <billglaze at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic but extremely interesting(acceleration)
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 4:59 PM





About 1979, when I was racing Drag Boats, in Oklahoma City I was pitted next to a top fueler.? Their engine was removed from the boat and completely torn down between passes; the custom ground billet crank was changed for a new one after every 12 runs, but detail inspected after each run.? (A complete race usually meant anywhere from 6 to 8 passes, sometimes more.) There were separate crewmembers for the Blower, injectors, heads, magnetos, fuel, etc. at least 10 people.? Looked like a ballet when the boat went on the trailer.? I remember the crew chief asking the owner "do you want to win the next heat badly enough to waste 2 pistons?"? The owner said, without hesitation, "Sure." When they tore down the engine after the next pass, sure enough, 2 pistons were history.? Like they say:? Nitro eats bank accounts.? At that time, before the price went up, nitro was costing $1300 per drum.? Several drums per race.
Hope I don't get into too much trouble for being off-subject.
?
Bill Glaze

----- Original Message ----- 
From: John Pavlick 
To: General pattern discussion 
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic but extremely interesting(acceleration)






And best of all a top fuel dragster runs on Nitromethane, just like REAL model airplane engines do! LOL
?
John Pavlick
?

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic but extremely interesting (acceleration)
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 5:02 PM







I love high performance stuff and very few things are higher performance than a top fuel dragster. This puts it into perspective:
?
Acceleration explained. 
? 
? 
* One Top Fuel dragster outfitted with a 500 cubic-inch replica Dodge (actually Keith Black, etc) Hemi engine makes more horsepower (8,000 HP) than the first 4 rows at NASCAR's Daytona 500. 

* Under full throttle, a dragster engine will consume 11.2 gallons of nitro methane per second; a fully loaded Boeing 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate but with 25% less energy being produced. 

* A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to merely drive the dragster's supercharger. 

* With 3000 CFM of air being rammed in by the supercharger on overdrive, the fuel mixture is compressed into a near-solid form before ignition. Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lockup at full throttle. 

* At the stoichio metric 1.7:1 air/fuel mixture for nitro methane the flame front temperature measures 7050 degrees F. 

* Nitro methane burns yellow. The spectacular white flame seen above the stacks at night is raw burning hydrogen, dissociated from atmospheric water vapor by the searing exhaust gases. 

* Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug. Which is typically the output of an electric arc welder in each cylinder. 

* Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed during a pass. After 1/2 way thru the run, the engine is 'dieseling' from compression and the glow of the exhaust valves at 1400 degrees F. ? The engine can only be shut down by cutting the fuel flow. 

* If spark momentarily fails early in the run, unburned nitro builds up in the affected cylinders and then explodes with enough sufficient force to blow the cylinder heads off the block in pieces or split the block in half !! 

* Dragsters reach over 300 MPH +... before you have completed reading this sentence. 

* In order to exceed 300 MPH in 4.5 seconds, a dragster must accelerate an average of over 4 G's. In order to reach 200 MPH well before reaching half-track, at launch the acceleration approaches 8 G's. 

* Top Fuel engines turn approximately 540 revolutions from light to light! 

* Including the burnout, the engine must only survive 900 revolutions under load. 

* The redline is actually quite high at 9500 RPM. 

* THE BOTTOM LINE: Assuming all the equipment is paid for, the pit crew is working for free, & NOTHING BLOWS UP, each run will cost an estimated $1,000 per second. 

0 to 100 MPH in .8 seconds (the first 60 feet of t he run) 
0 to 200 MPH in 2.2 seconds (the first 350 feet of the run) 
6 g-forces at the starting line (nothing accelerates faster on land) 
6 negative g-forces upon deployment of twin 'chutes at 300 MPH 

An NHRA Top Fuel Dragster accelerates quicker than any other land vehicle on earth . . quicker than a jet fighter plane . . . quicker than the space shuttle....or snapping your fingers !! 

The current Top Fuel dragster elapsed time record is 4.420 seconds for the quarter-mile (2004, Doug Kalitta). ? The top speed record is 337.58 MPH as measured over the last 66' of the run (2005, Tony Schumacher). 

Let's now put this all into perspective: 

Imagine this...........You are driving a new $140,000 Lingenfelter twin-turbo powered Corvette Z-06. Over a mile up the road, a Top Fuel dragster is staged & ready to 'launch' down a quarter-mile s trip as you pass. You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the 'Vette hard, on up through the gears and blast across the ?starting line & pass the dragster at an honest 200 MPH.... The 'tree' goes green for both of you at that exact moment. 

The dragster departs & starts after you. You keep your foot buried hard to the floor, and suddenly you hear an incredibly brutally screaming whine that seares and pummels your eardrums & within a mere 3 seconds the dragster effortlessly catches & passes you. ?He beats you to the finish line, a quarter-mile away from where you just passed him. Think about it - from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200 MPH.....and it not only caught, but nearly blasted you off the planet when he passed you within a mere 1320 foot long race !!!! 

That, my friends.....is acceleration. 
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/da87e19b/attachment.html>

From chuenkan at comcast.net  Wed Jun  3 05:16:23 2009
From: chuenkan at comcast.net (Phil Spelt)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:16:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
In-Reply-To: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E83F1@PEVM01.paragon-
	inc.com>
References: <613860.55210.qm@web82106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E83F1@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
Message-ID: <20090603131622.D03BE115FC@bridi.netexpress.com>

IS there even such a thing?????

At 10:43 PM 6/2/2009, you wrote:
>  Not having a good YS moment.

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Webmaster & Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member, SPA--177
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/1cbe9bd0/attachment.html>

From Timjesky at charter.net  Wed Jun  3 05:35:23 2009
From: Timjesky at charter.net (Tim Jesky)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:35:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set
References: <826094.75830.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000b01c9e44f$d81ba710$335b804b@tim3fba4063879>

Bob,
I've got a set. I'm heading up your way this afternoon and will put them in 
your mailbox.
Tim
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Kane" <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; "D4" <dist4 at nsrca.org>; "D5" 
<dist5 at nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:10 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set


>
> Anybody have a spare set of NMP axles (the kind that bolt through CF gear 
> legs, Central part #NMPAXLEFGL)
> AND are coming to the D4-D5 Shootout in Muncie this weekend? I have a new 
> set on order but they won't get here in time. I decided to replace the 
> tires on my Temptation and was surprised how worn the axles are.  Normally 
> no big deal, but the new tires are narrower than the original set and I 
> need to use the shorter E-clip slot and it is almost worn away.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 


From getterflash at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  3 05:38:51 2009
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:38:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set
In-Reply-To: <000b01c9e44f$d81ba710$335b804b@tim3fba4063879>
References: <826094.75830.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<000b01c9e44f$d81ba710$335b804b@tim3fba4063879>
Message-ID: <993847.18930.qm@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Great, thanks !!!

 Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com



----- Original Message ----
From: Tim Jesky <Timjesky at charter.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:33:13 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set

Bob,
I've got a set. I'm heading up your way this afternoon and will put them in your mailbox.
Tim
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Kane" <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; "D4" <dist4 at nsrca.org>; "D5" <dist5 at nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:10 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set


> 
> Anybody have a spare set of NMP axles (the kind that bolt through CF gear legs, Central part #NMPAXLEFGL)
> AND are coming to the D4-D5 Shootout in Muncie this weekend? I have a new set on order but they won't get here in time. I decided to replace the tires on my Temptation and was surprised how worn the axles are.  Normally no big deal, but the new tires are narrower than the original set and I need to use the shorter E-clip slot and it is almost worn away.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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



      

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  3 05:44:17 2009
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:44:17 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set
In-Reply-To: <000b01c9e44f$d81ba710$335b804b@tim3fba4063879>
References: <826094.75830.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<000b01c9e44f$d81ba710$335b804b@tim3fba4063879>
Message-ID: <456429.22143.qm@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


I forgot to ask, how much for shipping?    :)


 Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com



----- Original Message ----
From: Tim Jesky <Timjesky at charter.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:33:13 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set

Bob,
I've got a set. I'm heading up your way this afternoon and will put them in your mailbox.
Tim
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Kane" <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; "D4" <dist4 at nsrca.org>; "D5" <dist5 at nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:10 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set


> 
> Anybody have a spare set of NMP axles (the kind that bolt through CF gear legs, Central part #NMPAXLEFGL)
> AND are coming to the D4-D5 Shootout in Muncie this weekend? I have a new set on order but they won't get here in time. I decided to replace the tires on my Temptation and was surprised how worn the axles are.  Normally no big deal, but the new tires are narrower than the original set and I need to use the shorter E-clip slot and it is almost worn away.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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



      

From patternrules at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  3 06:05:33 2009
From: patternrules at yahoo.com (Steven Maxwell)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:05:33 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set
Message-ID: <48834.72155.qm@web111310.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

?Bob you of all people should have known to check there first.Steve Maxwell?

--- On Wed, 6/3/09, Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 9:44 AM


I forgot to ask, how much for shipping?? ? :)


 Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com



----- Original Message ----
From: Tim Jesky <Timjesky at charter.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:33:13 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set

Bob,
I've got a set. I'm heading up your way this afternoon and will put them in your mailbox.
Tim
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Kane" <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; "D4" <dist4 at nsrca.org>; "D5" <dist5 at nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:10 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set


> 
> Anybody have a spare set of NMP axles (the kind that bolt through CF gear legs, Central part #NMPAXLEFGL)
> AND are coming to the D4-D5 Shootout in Muncie this weekend? I have a new set on order but they won't get here in time. I decided to replace the tires on my Temptation and was surprised how worn the axles are.? Normally no big deal, but the new tires are narrower than the original set and I need to use the shorter E-clip slot and it is almost worn away.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/10521f9c/attachment.html>

From astafford at swtexas.net  Wed Jun  3 06:05:38 2009
From: astafford at swtexas.net (Archie Stafford)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:05:38 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set
In-Reply-To: <456429.22143.qm@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <826094.75830.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<000b01c9e44f$d81ba710$335b804b@tim3fba4063879>
	<456429.22143.qm@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <038b01c9e454$55193170$ff4b9450$@net>

Same Day Delivery...shipping will be CRAZY!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Kane
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:44 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set


I forgot to ask, how much for shipping?    :)


 Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com



----- Original Message ----
From: Tim Jesky <Timjesky at charter.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:33:13 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set

Bob,
I've got a set. I'm heading up your way this afternoon and will put them in
your mailbox.
Tim
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Kane" <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; "D4" <dist4 at nsrca.org>; "D5"
<dist5 at nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:10 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set


> 
> Anybody have a spare set of NMP axles (the kind that bolt through CF gear
legs, Central part #NMPAXLEFGL)
> AND are coming to the D4-D5 Shootout in Muncie this weekend? I have a new
set on order but they won't get here in time. I decided to replace the tires
on my Temptation and was surprised how worn the axles are.  Normally no big
deal, but the new tires are narrower than the original set and I need to use
the shorter E-clip slot and it is almost worn away.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From Timjesky at charter.net  Wed Jun  3 06:06:04 2009
From: Timjesky at charter.net (Tim Jesky)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:06:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set
References: <826094.75830.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com><000b01c9e44f$d81ba710$335b804b@tim3fba4063879>
	<456429.22143.qm@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <001601c9e454$215d53c0$335b804b@tim3fba4063879>

You don't want to know,next hour air is pretty spendy.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Kane" <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set


>
> I forgot to ask, how much for shipping?    :)
>
>
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Tim Jesky <Timjesky at charter.net>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:33:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set
>
> Bob,
> I've got a set. I'm heading up your way this afternoon and will put them 
> in your mailbox.
> Tim
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Kane" <getterflash at yahoo.com>
> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; "D4" <dist4 at nsrca.org>; "D5" 
> <dist5 at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:10 AM
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set
>
>
>>
>> Anybody have a spare set of NMP axles (the kind that bolt through CF gear 
>> legs, Central part #NMPAXLEFGL)
>> AND are coming to the D4-D5 Shootout in Muncie this weekend? I have a new 
>> set on order but they won't get here in time. I decided to replace the 
>> tires on my Temptation and was surprised how worn the axles are. 
>> Normally no big deal, but the new tires are narrower than the original 
>> set and I need to use the shorter E-clip slot and it is almost worn away.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Bob Kane
>> getterflash at yahoo.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 


From iflyrc24 at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 06:08:06 2009
From: iflyrc24 at gmail.com (iflyrc24 at gmail.com)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:08:06 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set
In-Reply-To: <001601c9e454$215d53c0$335b804b@tim3fba4063879>
References: <826094.75830.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com><000b01c9e44f$d81ba710$335b804b@tim3fba4063879><456429.22143.qm@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001601c9e454$215d53c0$335b804b@tim3fba4063879>
Message-ID: <552415266-1244038081-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1237354766-@bxe1034.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

Yes but nothing but the best gold service for a pattern flyer 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Tim Jesky" <Timjesky at charter.net>

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:03:54 
To: General pattern discussion<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set


You don't want to know,next hour air is pretty spendy.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Kane" <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set


>
> I forgot to ask, how much for shipping?    :)
>
>
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Tim Jesky <Timjesky at charter.net>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:33:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set
>
> Bob,
> I've got a set. I'm heading up your way this afternoon and will put them 
> in your mailbox.
> Tim
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Kane" <getterflash at yahoo.com>
> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; "D4" <dist4 at nsrca.org>; "D5" 
> <dist5 at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:10 AM
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set
>
>
>>
>> Anybody have a spare set of NMP axles (the kind that bolt through CF gear 
>> legs, Central part #NMPAXLEFGL)
>> AND are coming to the D4-D5 Shootout in Muncie this weekend? I have a new 
>> set on order but they won't get here in time. I decided to replace the 
>> tires on my Temptation and was surprised how worn the axles are. 
>> Normally no big deal, but the new tires are narrower than the original 
>> set and I need to use the shorter E-clip slot and it is almost worn away.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Bob Kane
>> getterflash at yahoo.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

From wemodels at cox.net  Wed Jun  3 06:08:24 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:08:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <456429.22143.qm@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <826094.75830.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<000b01c9e44f$d81ba710$335b804b@tim3fba4063879>
	<456429.22143.qm@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net>

 I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was off doing other 
things, but can anyone explain this:


Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5) 
kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff. 
Electric models are weighed with batteries.

Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??  Is 
a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??

I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes no 
logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and can weigh 
right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12 ounces of 
weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight 
11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.

Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared to a 
motor+ESC+batteries?

Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces

Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces

YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-

 So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight advantage 
when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" electric is at 
a 20 ounce disadvantage.

So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus ounces 
lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does that 
make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so educate me.




From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Wed Jun  3 06:47:12 2009
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:47:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net>
Message-ID: <7BFCC9B34BF844A6BCEC85D2B11D55C7@jaysdesktop>

You can takeoff and land with 1 oz of fuel, but would you try it with a 5%
charge on your batteries?

Jay Marshall

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill's Email
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:08 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

 I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was off doing other 
things, but can anyone explain this:


Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5) 
kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff. 
Electric models are weighed with batteries.

Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??  Is 
a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??

I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes no 
logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and can weigh 
right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12 ounces of 
weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight 
11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.

Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared to a 
motor+ESC+batteries?

Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces

Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces

YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-

 So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight advantage 
when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" electric is at 
a 20 ounce disadvantage.

So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus ounces 
lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does that 
make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so educate me.



_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From verne at twmi.rr.com  Wed Jun  3 06:51:59 2009
From: verne at twmi.rr.com (verne at twmi.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:51:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20090603145157.HCBHT.38757.root@hrndva-web01-z01>

Bill,
I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that very issue. Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board anytime soon. In the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the glow to electric comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much internal reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational effects to contend with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter airframes being acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the Rx and servos. An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same flight in glow is typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots will tell you that making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive proposition with a limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually vacuum-bagged composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making weight will also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive motors and batteries. There are exceptions, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of them, but I'll be able to point to just as many examples of guys that fly overweight at local contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing they're really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest batteries and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're flying are the same as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm working on is not self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting there is both too expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't be to allow electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh less, but without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that electric motors are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well as the reduced structural requirements. It will limit the mah of permissible packs to control that end of the equation and there's already a voltage limit on the books which is fine as it stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the contests I go to to see where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal on this list soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their opinions to their respective Contest Board reps.

Verne Koester
AMA District 7 
Contest Board
---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote: 
>  I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was off doing other 
> things, but can anyone explain this:
> 
> 
> Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5) 
> kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff. 
> Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> 
> Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??  Is 
> a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
> 
> I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes no 
> logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and can weigh 
> right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12 ounces of 
> weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight 
> 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
> 
> Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared to a 
> motor+ESC+batteries?
> 
> Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> 
> Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> 
> YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> 
>  So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight advantage 
> when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" electric is at 
> a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> 
> So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus ounces 
> lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does that 
> make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so educate me.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  3 06:52:21 2009
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:52:21 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net>
References: <826094.75830.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<000b01c9e44f$d81ba710$335b804b@tim3fba4063879><456429.22143.qm@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net>
Message-ID: <49591D47FD2348AFBADDAD09B88CDE56@davedesktop>

Bill,

I'll try to keep it short, as you are correct, this has been beat to death a
million times prior.  Bottom line is this - the current rules which require
electrics to include batteries within the 5 kg results in electrics which
are competitive with glow.

Compared to glow, electric is in it's infancy and will only become more
powerful and lighter (by measurable jumps), while glow will continue to be
refined (tiny steps).

If you weigh electrics without batteries, they will gain a huge
(insurmountable) performance advantage, and you will also see a huge
increase in the size and cost of airplanes.  Review the NSRCA archives for
more on this aspect - there is a difference between a small 2M plane and a
large 2M plane - the latter of which costs a lot more $$$.  The size of the
average electric will grow substantially, and any left running glow will
find themselves at a competitive disadvantage no matter how much $$$ is
spent on the airframe and powerplant.

So far as your weights - the main thing you are missing is the weight
reductions possible in a properly engineered electric - much weight can be
saved without the need to fuel proof and vibration proof a plane.  As I am
very familiar with the Prestige from Wistmodel, consider -
- multiple glow (2C and 4C) versions have been built at 9.25 - 9.75 lbs.
- multiple electric versions have been built at 10 to 10.5 lbs.

Oh yes, and if you are making the argument that AMA rules should not blindly
follow FAI (as has been done in the past), I couldn't agree more - AMA
pattern should never blindly follow/adopt FAI rules, but can always choose
to equal them after careful evaluation.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart
DaveL322 at comcast.net


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill's Email
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:08 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

 I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was off doing other 
things, but can anyone explain this:


Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5) 
kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff. 
Electric models are weighed with batteries.

Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??  Is 
a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??

I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes no 
logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and can weigh 
right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12 ounces of 
weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight 
11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.

Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared to a 
motor+ESC+batteries?

Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces

Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces

YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-

 So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight advantage 
when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" electric is at 
a 20 ounce disadvantage.

So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus ounces 
lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does that 
make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so educate me.



_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From wemodels at cox.net  Wed Jun  3 07:06:10 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:06:10 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <49591D47FD2348AFBADDAD09B88CDE56@davedesktop>
References: <826094.75830.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<000b01c9e44f$d81ba710$335b804b@tim3fba4063879><456429.22143.qm@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net>
	<49591D47FD2348AFBADDAD09B88CDE56@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <4A26915F.8040101@cox.net>

 I guess I should make a couple of things clear. First, I am not really 
trying to argue one way or the other, it was just something that struck 
as interesting. I left out structural weight and such for the sake of 
simplicity.
 
I have no personal ax to grind, I fly an electric that is absurdly light 
so I am not trying to do anything there. 

I guess the real question is, what is the objective of the weight limit 
rule in the first place? Is there an advantage in being heavier??




From patternrules at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  3 07:11:18 2009
From: patternrules at yahoo.com (Steven Maxwell)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:11:18 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <16046.60279.qm@web111316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

?If your just looking for reading check the search the archives theres lots about this.

--- On Wed, 6/3/09, Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:

From: Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 11:06 AM

I guess I should make a couple of things clear. First, I am not really trying to argue one way or the other, it was just something that struck as interesting. I left out structural weight and such for the sake of simplicity.

I have no personal ax to grind, I fly an electric that is absurdly light so I am not trying to do anything there. 
I guess the real question is, what is the objective of the weight limit rule in the first place? Is there an advantage in being heavier??



_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/84b9d37f/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Wed Jun  3 07:16:03 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:16:03 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <16046.60279.qm@web111316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <16046.60279.qm@web111316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4A2693B0.5090708@cox.net>

Steven Maxwell wrote:
>  If your just looking for reading check the search the archives theres 
> lots about this.
>
Tough group. Actually I was looking for a current discussion of the 
topic.  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/96608feb/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  3 07:22:08 2009
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:22:08 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <20090603145157.HCBHT.38757.root@hrndva-web01-z01>
References: <4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net>
	<20090603145157.HCBHT.38757.root@hrndva-web01-z01>
Message-ID: <59CE921363B44B8A9B0B11471B1FD5C1@davedesktop>

Verne,

If you goal is to make pattern cheaper, I'm all for that (and the most
expensive setup right now is a YS CDI setup), but I can't see how a proposal
based on your description can effectively accomplish that.

Is the goal to reduce cost of the electric (which I can argue is cheaper
than glow at the top levels of each) or to make electric and glow airplanes
have the same cost for equal performance?  As electric technology rapidly
advances, any proposal based on current day planes will be obsolete by the
time it in place.

Limits on pack mah will certainly add to the complexity of tech inspections
of planes....to say nothing of the fact that all "20C" lipos do not weigh
the same thing, and all batteries of a marked capacity are not the same
either - the door will be wide open for "creative" labeling of mah capacity
on batteries.

Just as there are examples of overweight glow planes (I do hope you are
getting weights on glow planes as well during your surveys???), there are
overweight examples of electrics - neither should be accommodated by a
change in the rules.  Each competitor should evaluate the rules, and prepare
to compete with whatever setup best suits there budget, time, resources, and
is within the RULES.

Electric may cost more upfront, but it is rapidly getting cheaper (and glow
is getting more expensive).  The big hurdle for electric right now is that
all the costs are upfront, making it expensive to enter.

Regards,

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
verne at twmi.rr.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:52 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Bill,
I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that very issue.
Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board anytime soon. In
the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the glow to electric
comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much internal
reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational effects to contend
with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter airframes being
acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the Rx and servos.
An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same flight in glow is
typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots will tell you that
making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive proposition with a
limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually vacuum-bagged
composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making weight will
also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive motors and
batteries. There are exceptio
 ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of them, but I'll be able
to point to just as many examples of guys that fly overweight at local
contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing they're
really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest batteries
and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're flying are the same
as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm working on is not
self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting there is both too
expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't be to allow
electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh less, but
without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that electric motors
are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well as the reduced
structural requirements. It will limit the mah of permissible packs to
control that end of the equation and there's already a voltage limit on the
books which is fine as it 
 stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the contests I go to to see
where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal on this list
soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their opinions to their
respective Contest Board reps.

Verne Koester
AMA District 7 
Contest Board
---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote: 
>  I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was off doing other 
> things, but can anyone explain this:
> 
> 
> Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5) 
> kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff. 
> Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> 
> Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??  Is 
> a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
> 
> I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes no 
> logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and can weigh 
> right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12 ounces of 
> weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight 
> 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
> 
> Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared to a 
> motor+ESC+batteries?
> 
> Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> 
> Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> 
> YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> 
>  So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight advantage 
> when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" electric is at 
> a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> 
> So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus ounces 
> lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does that 
> make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so educate me.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  3 07:30:51 2009
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:30:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <4A26915F.8040101@cox.net>
References: <826094.75830.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<000b01c9e44f$d81ba710$335b804b@tim3fba4063879><456429.22143.qm@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net><49591D47FD2348AFBADDAD09B88CDE56@davedesktop>
	<4A26915F.8040101@cox.net>
Message-ID: <12B6EEC9594B42B69A354AFF0E4B7C5D@davedesktop>

Bill,

Starting from the position of a well designed plane (with proper wing
loading), adding weight will not provide an advantage.  What the weight
limit rule does is limit the size the plane - larger planes will fly better
which does provide an advantage.

The historical vs current perspective on this discussion point (which is
well covered in the archives) boils down to this - 
- in the mid 1990s, planes with 2M wingspans and fuse length were common,
and none are competitive today.
- there is a difference between a skinny 2M plane of the past and a large 2M
plane of today...the larger plane flies better.
- allow the weight of planes to increase, and you will see even larger 2M
planes (increased cost and complexity) that will obsolete the current crop
of planes.  This would not seem to be favored by anyone, and making the
event more expensive will further limit those that can afford the event, and
reduce numbers in the event.

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill's Email
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

 I guess I should make a couple of things clear. First, I am not really 
trying to argue one way or the other, it was just something that struck 
as interesting. I left out structural weight and such for the sake of 
simplicity.
 
I have no personal ax to grind, I fly an electric that is absurdly light 
so I am not trying to do anything there. 

I guess the real question is, what is the objective of the weight limit 
rule in the first place? Is there an advantage in being heavier??



_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From wemodels at cox.net  Wed Jun  3 07:43:48 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:43:48 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <12B6EEC9594B42B69A354AFF0E4B7C5D@davedesktop>
References: <826094.75830.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<000b01c9e44f$d81ba710$335b804b@tim3fba4063879><456429.22143.qm@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net><49591D47FD2348AFBADDAD09B88CDE56@davedesktop>	<4A26915F.8040101@cox.net>
	<12B6EEC9594B42B69A354AFF0E4B7C5D@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <4A269A32.7010909@cox.net>

Dave wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Starting from the position of a well designed plane (with proper wing
> loading), adding weight will not provide an advantage.  What the weight
> limit rule does is limit the size the plane - larger planes will fly better
> which does provide an advantage.
>   


OK, I thought a size limit would do that better than a weight limit. As 
far as saying that the larger 2-meter planes have an advantage over 
smaller 2-meter I assume you are talking about fuselage volume and not 
actual size, since 2 meters is 2 meters. And again, how is it a weight 
limit keeps the plane smaller? Wouldn't making a size limit rule 
defining a maximum wingspan, fuse length/width/height dimension do a 
better job of that??

Cost arguments never made sense to me. The real problem is attracting 
people to competition. Fact is of the total AMA membership only 8% on 
average enter any kind of sanctioned rulebook event in a given year. And 
that includes ALL rule book events. People who want to compete spend 
what it takes to be competitive. The issue is that not that many people 
want to compete. 

Anyway, it was an interesting thought that I incorrectly assumed would 
make for a good discussion. 





From jpavlick at idseng.com  Wed Jun  3 07:49:45 2009
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:49:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <28424.67536.qm@web80505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

The bottom line is this: the current rules encourage you to build a lighter plane no matter what power system you use. What's wrong with that? If you change?the rules?to allow heavier airplanes (of any type), then things will get weird. Right now the glow and electric airplanes are competitive with each other and both can make weight if you pay attention to details. Personally?I don't like the way the rules are written because yes, there is a disparity between the electric vs. glow requirements but as?I said, the bottom line is the current rules encourage you to build lighter.?I don't see a problem with that.
?
John Pavlick

--- On Wed, 6/3/09, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:


From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 11:30 AM


Bill,

Starting from the position of a well designed plane (with proper wing
loading), adding weight will not provide an advantage.? What the weight
limit rule does is limit the size the plane - larger planes will fly better
which does provide an advantage.

The historical vs current perspective on this discussion point (which is
well covered in the archives) boils down to this - 
- in the mid 1990s, planes with 2M wingspans and fuse length were common,
and none are competitive today.
- there is a difference between a skinny 2M plane of the past and a large 2M
plane of today...the larger plane flies better.
- allow the weight of planes to increase, and you will see even larger 2M
planes (increased cost and complexity) that will obsolete the current crop
of planes.? This would not seem to be favored by anyone, and making the
event more expensive will further limit those that can afford the event, and
reduce numbers in the event.

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill's Email
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

I guess I should make a couple of things clear. First, I am not really 
trying to argue one way or the other, it was just something that struck 
as interesting. I left out structural weight and such for the sake of 
simplicity.

I have no personal ax to grind, I fly an electric that is absurdly light 
so I am not trying to do anything there. 

I guess the real question is, what is the objective of the weight limit 
rule in the first place? Is there an advantage in being heavier??



_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/e8d24c81/attachment.html>

From mwickizer at msn.com  Wed Jun  3 07:58:08 2009
From: mwickizer at msn.com (Michael Wickizer)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:58:08 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Great Planes spinner
Message-ID: <COL117-W2738EEC7EFA0B1693DA47BA4A0@phx.gbl>


I've looked at these before and in fact have used them on electric setups and have seen others use them on glow setups.

 

My question / concern was that the nose was too pointed and didn't meet the minimum radius required.  It is very possible I don't really understand the rule or how to measure it.

 

Any thoughts?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/46de9668/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  3 08:01:46 2009
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:01:46 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <4A269A32.7010909@cox.net>
References: <826094.75830.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<000b01c9e44f$d81ba710$335b804b@tim3fba4063879><456429.22143.qm@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net><49591D47FD2348AFBADDAD09B88CDE56@davedesktop>	<4A26915F.8040101@cox.net><12B6EEC9594B42B69A354AFF0E4B7C5D@davedesktop>
	<4A269A32.7010909@cox.net>
Message-ID: <E98D9199BDB849D88467D19EB2E7C85C@davedesktop>

Bill,

It is just a discussion that has occurred many times over, and all the info
is in the archives - point being, there is a huge volume of existing
discussion you can access there (much of it is good reading).

"As far as saying that the larger 2-meter planes have an advantage over 
smaller 2-meter I assume you are talking about fuselage volume and not 
actual size, since 2 meters is 2 meters."
**********Yes, the larger fuse volume flies better.  The 2M "yard darts" of
the past like Elan, Arch Nemesis, Sequel, etc are not competitive today as
they were in the past.

"And again, how is it a weight limit keeps the plane smaller?"
***********You can only add so much volume before exceeding the weight
limit.  It also limits the size of a biplane (which if purpose built for
pattern could easily be 15 lbs within 2M dimensions).

"Wouldn't making a size limit rule defining a maximum wingspan, fuse
length/width/height dimension do a better job of that??"
***********I think not.  I think the component you may be overlooking is the
biplane component - a large volume fuse 2M biplane is much bigger plane (and
therefore better flying) than a large volume monoplane.  Including the
weight limit essentially limits the size of the biplane.  And a lesser point
is that the current rules require weight check, and max dimension check -
simpler than checking all dimensions.

Going back several years, the weight limit was never an issue because the
limiting factor was available power (electrics were not viable at the time),
and then the power limits were mucked with several times, to the point at
which dimensional and weight limits became the limiting factors.  Keep in
mind another limiting factor is noise - bigger planes require more power
which equals more noise (or more expense to quiet the additional power).

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill's Email
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:44 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Dave wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Starting from the position of a well designed plane (with proper wing
> loading), adding weight will not provide an advantage.  What the weight
> limit rule does is limit the size the plane - larger planes will fly
better
> which does provide an advantage.
>   


OK, I thought a size limit would do that better than a weight limit. As 
far as saying that the larger 2-meter planes have an advantage over 
smaller 2-meter I assume you are talking about fuselage volume and not 
actual size, since 2 meters is 2 meters. And again, how is it a weight 
limit keeps the plane smaller? Wouldn't making a size limit rule 
defining a maximum wingspan, fuse length/width/height dimension do a 
better job of that??

Cost arguments never made sense to me. The real problem is attracting 
people to competition. Fact is of the total AMA membership only 8% on 
average enter any kind of sanctioned rulebook event in a given year. And 
that includes ALL rule book events. People who want to compete spend 
what it takes to be competitive. The issue is that not that many people 
want to compete. 

Anyway, it was an interesting thought that I incorrectly assumed would 
make for a good discussion. 




_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From jshulman at cfl.rr.com  Wed Jun  3 08:03:42 2009
From: jshulman at cfl.rr.com (J Shu)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:03:42 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Great Planes spinner
In-Reply-To: <COL117-W2738EEC7EFA0B1693DA47BA4A0@phx.gbl>
References: <COL117-W2738EEC7EFA0B1693DA47BA4A0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <10C218D900004475A1E571BF742DBCC1@UncleJasPC>

Since we're on the topic of the nose radius required... how does the 'motor in the nose' meet that requirement with a big gaping hole in the front?

Regards,
Jason
www.shulmanaviation.com
www.composite-arf.com

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Michael Wickizer 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:58 AM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Great Planes spinner


  I've looked at these before and in fact have used them on electric setups and have seen others use them on glow setups.
   
  My question / concern was that the nose was too pointed and didn't meet the minimum radius required.  It is very possible I don't really understand the rule or how to measure it.
   
  Any thoughts?



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/71d3b0d7/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Wed Jun  3 08:07:11 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:07:11 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <E98D9199BDB849D88467D19EB2E7C85C@davedesktop>
References: <826094.75830.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<000b01c9e44f$d81ba710$335b804b@tim3fba4063879><456429.22143.qm@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net><49591D47FD2348AFBADDAD09B88CDE56@davedesktop>	<4A26915F.8040101@cox.net><12B6EEC9594B42B69A354AFF0E4B7C5D@davedesktop>	<4A269A32.7010909@cox.net>
	<E98D9199BDB849D88467D19EB2E7C85C@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <4A269FAD.6070609@cox.net>

Dave wrote:
> Bill,
>
> It is just a discussion that has occurred many times over, and all the info
> is in the archives - point being, there is a huge volume of existing
> discussion you can access there (much of it is good reading).
>   

I understand, thanks. I should have more throughly researched the matter 
before posting the question. 
 




From jnhiller at earthlink.net  Wed Jun  3 08:13:27 2009
From: jnhiller at earthlink.net (J N Hiller)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:13:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <28424.67536.qm@web80505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPKEFIEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>

Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.
Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
build one for a long time.
Bring it on.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of John Pavlick
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:50 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

The bottom line is this: the current rules encourage you to build a lighter
plane no matter what power system you use. What's wrong with that? If you
change the rules to allow heavier airplanes (of any type), then things will
get weird. Right now the glow and electric airplanes are competitive with
each other and both can make weight if you pay attention to details.
Personally I don't like the way the rules are written because yes, there is
a disparity between the electric vs. glow requirements but as I said, the
bottom line is the current rules encourage you to build lighter. I don't see
a problem with that.

John Pavlick

--- On Wed, 6/3/09, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:

From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 11:30 AM
Bill,

Starting from the position of a well designed plane (with proper wing
loading), adding weight will not provide an advantage.  What the weight
limit rule does is limit the size the plane - larger planes will fly better
which does provide an advantage.

The historical vs current perspective on this discussion point (which is
well covered in the archives) boils down to this -
- in the mid 1990s, planes with 2M wingspans and fuse length were common,
and none are competitive today.
- there is a difference between a skinny 2M plane of the past and a large 2M
plane of today...the larger plane flies better.
- allow the weight of planes to increase, and you will see even larger 2M
planes (increased cost and complexity) that will obsolete the current crop
of planes.  This would not seem to be favored by anyone, and making the
event more expensive will further limit those that can afford the event, and
reduce numbers in the event.

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists
.nsrca.org>
[mailto: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists
.nsrca.org> ] On Behalf Of Bill's Email
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

I guess I should make a couple of things clear. First, I am not really
trying to argue one way or the other, it was just something that struck
as interesting. I left out structural weight and such for the sake of
simplicity.

I have no personal ax to grind, I fly an electric that is absurdly light
so I am not trying to do anything there.

I guess the real question is, what is the objective of the weight limit
rule in the first place? Is there an advantage in being heavier??



_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/fe6ada28/attachment.html>

From derekkoopowitz at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 08:23:47 2009
From: derekkoopowitz at gmail.com (Derek Koopowitz)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:23:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
In-Reply-To: <033901c9e3fe$f968c0c0$ec3a4240$@net>
References: <114726.53654.qm@web82105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E83F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<031601c9e3f8$86966e90$93c34bb0$@net>
	<8CBB211EA11C45F-9A4-2A87@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>
	<033201c9e3fb$db396d00$91ac4700$@net>
	<033901c9e3fe$f968c0c0$ec3a4240$@net>
Message-ID: <3454543c0906030923r4ed13a6g232b7b16c66d05a1@mail.gmail.com>

Arch,

I've been using the GP spinners... work well and they also are customizable
to allow for different size props.

-Derek

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net>wrote:

> Which of the plastic spinners are some of the Japanese and others running?
>  I see it has an aluminum backplate, but definitely has a plastic front.  I
> have one of the Great Planes with the aluminum backplate that I'm going to
> try.  With the CDI, I don?t mind it because it starts so easily.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Archie Stafford
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:32 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
>
> Nope, bolt was gone.  I thought it might have broken also, but it didn't.
>  I guess it just loosened up over time.  I used to make it a point to check
> it periodically, but got out of the habit...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:24 PM
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
>
> I had a bolt break in two, no kick, and I had the same thing happen.
> Was the end of your bolt still in the adapter?  I now change bolts
> semi-frequently.  Of course it had to happen in the middle of a judged
> round, Jason Shulman was judging and saw it, so I zeroed the round from
> that point on.
>
>
> Jon Lowe
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net>
> To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:08 pm
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That?s OK..I lost an almost brand new spinner tonight.  Didn?t
> have a YS kick to do it..I guess the bolt wasn?t as tight as I
> thought?just the
> cone came off?3 week old anodized Tru Turn?.grrr?.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:05 PM
>
> To: General pattern discussion
>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I?ll read the link?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sounds good!  You missed a beautiful night to fly.  So
> did I L
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org0D
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
> Abdullah
>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:56 PM
>
> To: General pattern discussion
>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> None taken :o)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I hope like hell I'm wrong!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Attached is a link to a thread in RCU titled
>  "Injector coming out of head"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7197327/anchors_7210131/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#7210131
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Speaking of YS and fun, I am pulling a half the niter converting
>   my Black Magic to electric... Hmmmmmm Let me tell you, it was NOT fun
> trying
>   to get the nose ring out, damn that thing was in there good. Other
> than that
>  it is going fairly well actually almost done staring at it.
>
>
>
>  --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>  From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>
>  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
>
>  To: "General pattern discussion"
>  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
>  Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:43 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In
>  a word?  Crap!
>
>
>
>
>
> Anyone
>   else??  I?d
>  like a second opinion!!!! (nothing personal Anthony but
> your
>  opinion ..well?sucks. lol)   I have a feeling you?re correct
>  though, much to my chagrin.  Not having a good YS moment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
>   nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
>  On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah
>
>  Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:42 PM
>
>  To: General pattern discussion
>
>  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark,
>
>
>
>
> Bad news, you can not put that back in so it does not pup out again.
>     From what I have read, that problem isn't really user serviceable.
> I have
>     read posts of guys pressing them back in and even some guys using
> JB Weld
>     to keep them in. Usually that is a problem that requires the engine
> to go
>    back to YS.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry to hear that!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Anthony
>
>
>
>    --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>    wrote:
>
>
>
>
>    From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>
>    Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Problem
>
>    To: "General pattern discussion"
>    <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
>    Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:16 PM
>
> 0D
>
>
>
>
> The short version?    YS1.70DZ ? the brass fitting on
>     the TOP of the head (towards the back) that has the black check
> valve
>    pressed onto it blew out of the engine in flight!!  Needless to say
>    the motor quit.
>
>
>
>
>
> It appears to be a pressure fit.    I pressed it back
>    in (I knew this wouldn?t work, but what the heck), started the
>    engine.  It idled great, ran up great, took off, and as soon as the
>    motor warmed up (about two passes, pulled vertical and POP?dead as a
>    rock.  Landed? and the fitting had popped out again.
>
>
>
>
>
> So I have a few questions?
>
>
>
>
>
> What caused this to pop out in the first place??
>
>
> What do I do to put it back in SECURELY
>
>
>
>
>
> HELP!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
> -Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>    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 - www.avg.com
>
>   Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date:
> 06/01/09
>  17:
> 55:00
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>  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 - www.avg.com
>
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date:
> 06/01/09
> 17:55:00
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/d8abfb9e/attachment.html>

From precisionaero at hotmail.com  Wed Jun  3 08:30:05 2009
From: precisionaero at hotmail.com (Michael Cohen)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:30:05 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set
In-Reply-To: <001601c9e454$215d53c0$335b804b@tim3fba4063879>
References: <826094.75830.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com><000b01c9e44f$d81ba710$335b804b@tim3fba4063879>
	<456429.22143.qm@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 
	<001601c9e454$215d53c0$335b804b@tim3fba4063879>
Message-ID: <BLU115-W219BE1F6BC67C75F2C1E0FA04A0@phx.gbl>


Mr. Jesky, I need a set of good scores for the rest of the contest season.  Being able to actually do that on my own is not looking good, so can you drop off filled out scoresheets for any contest I might attend?  Please?
 
> From: Timjesky at charter.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:03:54 -0400
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set
> 
> You don't want to know,next hour air is pretty spendy.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bob Kane" <getterflash at yahoo.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set
> 
> 
> >
> > I forgot to ask, how much for shipping? :)
> >
> >
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Tim Jesky <Timjesky at charter.net>
> > To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:33:13 AM
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set
> >
> > Bob,
> > I've got a set. I'm heading up your way this afternoon and will put them 
> > in your mailbox.
> > Tim
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Kane" <getterflash at yahoo.com>
> > To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; "D4" <dist4 at nsrca.org>; "D5" 
> > <dist5 at nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:10 AM
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] NMP axle set
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Anybody have a spare set of NMP axles (the kind that bolt through CF gear 
> >> legs, Central part #NMPAXLEFGL)
> >> AND are coming to the D4-D5 Shootout in Muncie this weekend? I have a new 
> >> set on order but they won't get here in time. I decided to replace the 
> >> tires on my Temptation and was surprised how worn the axles are. 
> >> Normally no big deal, but the new tires are narrower than the original 
> >> set and I need to use the shorter E-clip slot and it is almost worn away.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Bob Kane
> >> getterflash at yahoo.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits. 
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/a87f0bd7/attachment.html>

From derekkoopowitz at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 08:52:46 2009
From: derekkoopowitz at gmail.com (Derek Koopowitz)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:52:46 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <20090603145157.HCBHT.38757.root@hrndva-web01-z01>
References: <4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net>
	<20090603145157.HCBHT.38757.root@hrndva-web01-z01>
Message-ID: <3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>

Verne,

When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the proposals which was
passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the weight limit for their
helicopters effective 1/1/2010.  Here is the new wording:

a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (*with *fuel *or *batteries)
must not exceed *6.5 *kg.

Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective 01/01/10.

I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A sub-committee members to see if
there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to 5.5kg.  What does
everyone think about this?

-Derek
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:

> Bill,
> I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that very issue.
> Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board anytime soon. In
> the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the glow to electric
> comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much internal
> reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational effects to contend
> with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter airframes being
> acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the Rx and servos.
> An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same flight in glow is
> typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots will tell you that
> making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive proposition with a
> limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually vacuum-bagged
> composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making weight will
> also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive motors and
> batteries. There are exceptio
>  ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of them, but I'll be able
> to point to just as many examples of guys that fly overweight at local
> contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing they're
> really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest batteries
> and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're flying are the same
> as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm working on is not
> self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting there is both too
> expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't be to allow
> electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh less, but
> without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that electric motors
> are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well as the reduced
> structural requirements. It will limit the mah of permissible packs to
> control that end of the equation and there's already a voltage limit on the
> books which is fine as it
>  stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the contests I go to to see
> where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal on this list
> soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their opinions to their
> respective Contest Board reps.
>
> Verne Koester
> AMA District 7
> Contest Board
>  ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:
> >  I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was off doing other
> > things, but can anyone explain this:
> >
> >
> > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5)
> > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff.
> > Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> >
> > Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??  Is
> > a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
> >
> > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes no
> > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and can weigh
> > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12 ounces of
> > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight
> > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
> >
> > Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared to a
> > motor+ESC+batteries?
> >
> > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> >
> > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> >
> > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> >
> >  So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight advantage
> > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" electric is at
> > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> >
> > So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus ounces
> > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does that
> > make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so educate me.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/cafc0c00/attachment.html>

From verne at twmi.rr.com  Wed Jun  3 08:59:14 2009
From: verne at twmi.rr.com (verne at twmi.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:59:14 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <59CE921363B44B8A9B0B11471B1FD5C1@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <20090603165912.COOWF.40385.root@hrndva-web01-z01>

Yes, the goal is to make it cheaper. What I'm trying to do is take the weight of the batteries out of the equation just like fuel is. With rare exception, cheaper batteries equals more weight. The reason for including a mah restriction (probably 6000mah as rated by the mfg) is to keep things under control and avoid someone taking advantage with larger batteries. What I'm hearing out of my district is guys wanting to try electric and getting scared off with the high cost of kits, batteries, and motors that will make weight. I'm well aware that the Prestige, Spark, Integral, and a few others can make weight with the right batteries and motor. I'm also aware of what that costs. My goal is to make it possible for someone to build a Black Magic without the building skills of Zen that'll make weight with an Axi and Zippy packs.

Verne


---- Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote: 
> Verne,
> 
> If you goal is to make pattern cheaper, I'm all for that (and the most
> expensive setup right now is a YS CDI setup), but I can't see how a proposal
> based on your description can effectively accomplish that.
> 
> Is the goal to reduce cost of the electric (which I can argue is cheaper
> than glow at the top levels of each) or to make electric and glow airplanes
> have the same cost for equal performance?  As electric technology rapidly
> advances, any proposal based on current day planes will be obsolete by the
> time it in place.
> 
> Limits on pack mah will certainly add to the complexity of tech inspections
> of planes....to say nothing of the fact that all "20C" lipos do not weigh
> the same thing, and all batteries of a marked capacity are not the same
> either - the door will be wide open for "creative" labeling of mah capacity
> on batteries.
> 
> Just as there are examples of overweight glow planes (I do hope you are
> getting weights on glow planes as well during your surveys???), there are
> overweight examples of electrics - neither should be accommodated by a
> change in the rules.  Each competitor should evaluate the rules, and prepare
> to compete with whatever setup best suits there budget, time, resources, and
> is within the RULES.
> 
> Electric may cost more upfront, but it is rapidly getting cheaper (and glow
> is getting more expensive).  The big hurdle for electric right now is that
> all the costs are upfront, making it expensive to enter.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> verne at twmi.rr.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:52 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> Bill,
> I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that very issue.
> Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board anytime soon. In
> the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the glow to electric
> comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much internal
> reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational effects to contend
> with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter airframes being
> acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the Rx and servos.
> An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same flight in glow is
> typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots will tell you that
> making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive proposition with a
> limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually vacuum-bagged
> composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making weight will
> also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive motors and
> batteries. There are exceptio
>  ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of them, but I'll be able
> to point to just as many examples of guys that fly overweight at local
> contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing they're
> really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest batteries
> and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're flying are the same
> as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm working on is not
> self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting there is both too
> expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't be to allow
> electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh less, but
> without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that electric motors
> are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well as the reduced
> structural requirements. It will limit the mah of permissible packs to
> control that end of the equation and there's already a voltage limit on the
> books which is fine as it 
>  stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the contests I go to to see
> where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal on this list
> soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their opinions to their
> respective Contest Board reps.
> 
> Verne Koester
> AMA District 7 
> Contest Board
> ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote: 
> >  I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was off doing other 
> > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > 
> > 
> > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5) 
> > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff. 
> > Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> > 
> > Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??  Is 
> > a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
> > 
> > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes no 
> > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and can weigh 
> > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12 ounces of 
> > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight 
> > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
> > 
> > Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared to a 
> > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > 
> > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > 
> > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > 
> > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > 
> >  So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight advantage 
> > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" electric is at 
> > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > 
> > So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus ounces 
> > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does that 
> > make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so educate me.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

From duane.e.beck at comcast.net  Wed Jun  3 09:05:38 2009
From: duane.e.beck at comcast.net (Duane Beck)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:05:38 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPKEFIEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <1063572082.215051244048736415.JavaMail.root@sz0056a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>

http://www.mini-iac.com/
DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)

Duane

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net> 
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight 


Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines. 

Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to build one for a long time. 

Bring it on. 

Jim Hiller 

From rob at koolsoft.com  Wed Jun  3 09:15:45 2009
From: rob at koolsoft.com (Robert L. Beaubien)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:15:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net><20090603145157.HCBHT.38757.root@hrndva-web01-z01>
	<3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201512443@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>

I'm not sure that rule suggestion is well thought out.  How do you
enforce the rule?  Now you have to have the competitor disassemble their
plane to show it is full of fuel. How much air in the tank constitutes a
full tank?  And the weight of fuel changes with temperature.  What temp
are you going to keep the plane to check the weight?

 

- Robert Beaubien

- NSRCA, District 7 Webmaster

-

"No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, however a large
number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced."

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Derek
Koopowitz
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:53 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

 

Verne,

 

When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the proposals which was
passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the weight limit for
their helicopters effective 1/1/2010.  Here is the new wording:

 

a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (with fuel or batteries)
must not exceed 6.5 kg.

Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective 01/01/10.

I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A sub-committee members to see
if there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to 5.5kg.  What
does everyone think about this?

-Derek

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:

Bill,
I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that very issue.
Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board anytime
soon. In the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the glow
to electric comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as
much internal reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational
effects to contend with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter
airframes being acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power
the Rx and servos. An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The
same flight in glow is typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric
pilots will tell you that making weight in electric is generally a
pretty expensive proposition with a limited number of 2 meter planes
available that are usually vacuum-bagged composite affairs. In addition,
your best chances for making weight will also necessitate the lightest
and generally most expensive motors and batteries. There are exceptio
 ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of them, but I'll be
able to point to just as many examples of guys that fly overweight at
local contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing
they're really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the
lightest batteries and motors cost. In every other way, the planes
they're flying are the same as the ones they're competing against. The
proposal I'm working on is not self-serving because my planes make
weight, but getting there is both too expensive and unreasonable, in my
opinion. My proposal won't be to allow electric planes to weigh more,
it'll require that they weigh less, but without the "fuel". The proposal
will take into account that electric motors are inherently lighter than
their glow counterparts as well as the reduced structural requirements.
It will limit the mah of permissible packs to control that end of the
equation and there's already a voltage limit on the books which is fine
as it
 stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the contests I go to to see
where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal on this list
soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their opinions to
their respective Contest Board reps.

Verne Koester
AMA District 7
Contest Board

---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:
>  I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was off doing
other
> things, but can anyone explain this:
>
>
> Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5)
> kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff.
> Electric models are weighed with batteries.
>
> Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??
Is
> a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
>
> I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes no
> logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and can
weigh
> right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12 ounces
of
> weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight
> 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
>
> Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared to a
> motor+ESC+batteries?
>
> Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
>
> Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
>
> YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
>
>  So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight advantage
> when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" electric is
at
> a 20 ounce disadvantage.
>
> So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus ounces
> lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does that
> make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so educate
me.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/1657301e/attachment.html>

From geobet4 at verizon.net  Wed Jun  3 09:27:39 2009
From: geobet4 at verizon.net (George W.Kennie)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:27:39 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount
References: <D52B29EEE2294A22A28AB06C45863AED@CYBERPOWER>
	<4E9CE280BC3C453992E6819FF174392C@xppro2>
Message-ID: <3939450F975246468D3AE08EC65742C0@CYBERPOWER>


Hi John,

Sorry to have to tell you that I received no replies to my inquiry.

I have the feeling that most people are just not addressing this issue.

It would make a great product for somebody like Jerry or Chris to produce.All that would be required is 
an X brace with an oversize receptacle at center to receive plastic inserts (like props) sized to fit shaft
bearings.

Georgie






  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Ferrell 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:50 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount


  FWIW:
  I am interested in an answer to your question too! It sure looks to me like some kind of nose bearing would be prudent...

  John Ferrell  W8CCW
   
  "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
  ...."The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."  
     MARGARET THATCHER 
  http://DixieNC.US

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: George W.Kennie 
    To: NSRCA Mailing List 
    Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:54 PM
    Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount


    Hey Guys,

    I have a new project in the works and it involves mounting a 2K watt motor. This will be my first larger motor install so I felt that some advice from the Pros
    would probably be appropriate.

    The Motor is an outrunner and I can mount it from the back side directly to the firewall OR I can use standoffs and mount it from the front side of the motor.
    I keep feeling that there needs to be some kind of a stabilizing bearing on the free end as there portends to be a significant amount of rotating mass if I just 
    bolt the thing to the firewall while a pound of motor whirls around with a large prop exerting inertial rotating energy beyond the front of the cowl. It seems like 
    If I use the stand-offs, there will be a more rigid area between the prop and the motor, but then I worry about the back end. Should I figure out some kind of a 
    bearing mount on the firewall?

    Somebody set me straight on the accepted procedure please. 

    Thanks for you help,

    Georgie 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter.
    We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
    SPAMfighter has removed 25187 of my spam emails to date.
    The Professional version does not have this message.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    _______________________________________________
    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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/88aaa0bd/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Wed Jun  3 09:31:11 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:31:11 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201512443@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
References: <4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net><20090603145157.HCBHT.38757.root@hrndva-web01-z01>	<3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201512443@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A26B35D.7000101@cox.net>

Robert L. Beaubien wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that rule suggestion is well thought out.  How do you 
> enforce the rule?  Now you have to have the competitor disassemble 
> their plane to show it is full of fuel. How much air in the tank 
> constitutes a full tank?  And the weight of fuel changes with 
> temperature.  What temp are you going to keep the plane to check the 
> weight?
>
>  
>
> - Robert Beaubien
>
> - NSRCA, District 7 Webmaster
>
> -
>

Keep in mind that they are talking about helicopters here. Even in a 
full on F3C heli with the fuse on you can easily see the tank. Plus if 
it is a FAI contest they simply will make you top off just before 
putting it on the scales, no big deal.


And to the idea of a 50cc 2-meter Biplane, I've flown a DA50 powered 75 
inch Double Vision biplane. Trust me, I would much rather have any 
pattern mono plane instead!! But if that is the fear, then cap the 
displacement at 26cc, which will more than handle any monoplane. Gas 
engines below 50cc have not proven to have the right power to weight 
ratio to justify their use in aerobatic planes.

Also, go to an IMAC contest. You will notice something right off the 
bat. No biplanes.  Go figure.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/e088b89e/attachment.html>

From rob at koolsoft.com  Wed Jun  3 09:40:00 2009
From: rob at koolsoft.com (Robert L. Beaubien)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:40:00 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <4A26B35D.7000101@cox.net>
References: <4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net><20090603145157.HCBHT.38757.root@hrndva-web01-z01>	<3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com><F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201512443@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<4A26B35D.7000101@cox.net>
Message-ID: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201512445@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>

I was referring to the rule being presented to the F3A sub-committee
members.

 

- Robert Beaubien

- NSRCA, District 7 Webmaster

-

"No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, however a large
number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced."

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill's
Email
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:31 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

 

Robert L. Beaubien wrote: 

I'm not sure that rule suggestion is well thought out.  How do you
enforce the rule?  Now you have to have the competitor disassemble their
plane to show it is full of fuel. How much air in the tank constitutes a
full tank?  And the weight of fuel changes with temperature.  What temp
are you going to keep the plane to check the weight?

 

- Robert Beaubien

- NSRCA, District 7 Webmaster

-


Keep in mind that they are talking about helicopters here. Even in a
full on F3C heli with the fuse on you can easily see the tank. Plus if
it is a FAI contest they simply will make you top off just before
putting it on the scales, no big deal.


And to the idea of a 50cc 2-meter Biplane, I've flown a DA50 powered 75
inch Double Vision biplane. Trust me, I would much rather have any
pattern mono plane instead!! But if that is the fear, then cap the
displacement at 26cc, which will more than handle any monoplane. Gas
engines below 50cc have not proven to have the right power to weight
ratio to justify their use in aerobatic planes.

Also, go to an IMAC contest. You will notice something right off the
bat. No biplanes.  Go figure.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/1e680bf4/attachment.html>

From jnhiller at earthlink.net  Wed Jun  3 09:46:40 2009
From: jnhiller at earthlink.net (J N Hiller)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:46:40 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <1063572082.215051244048736415.JavaMail.root@sz0056a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPAEFLEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>

I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

http://www.mini-iac.com/
DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)

Duane

----- Original Message -----
From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.

Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
build one for a long time.

Bring it on.

Jim Hiller
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  3 09:51:10 2009
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:51:10 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <20090603165912.COOWF.40385.root@hrndva-web01-z01>
References: <59CE921363B44B8A9B0B11471B1FD5C1@davedesktop>
	<20090603165912.COOWF.40385.root@hrndva-web01-z01>
Message-ID: <A7BD85B09A70407D84196F6BADA52AB6@davedesktop>

Verne,

You probably want to keep the mah limit at 5300....because at a 5S
configuration, that is the maximum size allowed by TSA for airline travel
(based on watts, equivalent lithium content, etc.....5s5300 works out to be
98.5% of what is allowed, based on nominal voltage of 3.7 per cell).

The price of motors and batteries is rapidly dropping....by the time you
would get a rule proposal completed, approved, and in place, technology will
have solved the problem.  What will not change is the price of the top end
electric and glow setups - they will always be expensive, as that is the
nature of the latest/greatest/best.

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: verne at twmi.rr.com [mailto:verne at twmi.rr.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:59 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Cc: Dave
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Yes, the goal is to make it cheaper. What I'm trying to do is take the
weight of the batteries out of the equation just like fuel is. With rare
exception, cheaper batteries equals more weight. The reason for including a
mah restriction (probably 6000mah as rated by the mfg) is to keep things
under control and avoid someone taking advantage with larger batteries. What
I'm hearing out of my district is guys wanting to try electric and getting
scared off with the high cost of kits, batteries, and motors that will make
weight. I'm well aware that the Prestige, Spark, Integral, and a few others
can make weight with the right batteries and motor. I'm also aware of what
that costs. My goal is to make it possible for someone to build a Black
Magic without the building skills of Zen that'll make weight with an Axi and
Zippy packs.

Verne


---- Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote: 
> Verne,
> 
> If you goal is to make pattern cheaper, I'm all for that (and the most
> expensive setup right now is a YS CDI setup), but I can't see how a
proposal
> based on your description can effectively accomplish that.
> 
> Is the goal to reduce cost of the electric (which I can argue is cheaper
> than glow at the top levels of each) or to make electric and glow
airplanes
> have the same cost for equal performance?  As electric technology rapidly
> advances, any proposal based on current day planes will be obsolete by the
> time it in place.
> 
> Limits on pack mah will certainly add to the complexity of tech
inspections
> of planes....to say nothing of the fact that all "20C" lipos do not weigh
> the same thing, and all batteries of a marked capacity are not the same
> either - the door will be wide open for "creative" labeling of mah
capacity
> on batteries.
> 
> Just as there are examples of overweight glow planes (I do hope you are
> getting weights on glow planes as well during your surveys???), there are
> overweight examples of electrics - neither should be accommodated by a
> change in the rules.  Each competitor should evaluate the rules, and
prepare
> to compete with whatever setup best suits there budget, time, resources,
and
> is within the RULES.
> 
> Electric may cost more upfront, but it is rapidly getting cheaper (and
glow
> is getting more expensive).  The big hurdle for electric right now is that
> all the costs are upfront, making it expensive to enter.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> verne at twmi.rr.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:52 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> Bill,
> I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that very issue.
> Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board anytime soon.
In
> the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the glow to electric
> comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much internal
> reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational effects to contend
> with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter airframes being
> acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the Rx and servos.
> An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same flight in glow
is
> typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots will tell you
that
> making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive proposition with
a
> limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually vacuum-bagged
> composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making weight will
> also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive motors and
> batteries. There are exceptio
>  ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of them, but I'll be able
> to point to just as many examples of guys that fly overweight at local
> contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing they're
> really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest
batteries
> and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're flying are the
same
> as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm working on is not
> self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting there is both too
> expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't be to allow
> electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh less, but
> without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that electric
motors
> are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well as the reduced
> structural requirements. It will limit the mah of permissible packs to
> control that end of the equation and there's already a voltage limit on
the
> books which is fine as it 
>  stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the contests I go to to see
> where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal on this list
> soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their opinions to
their
> respective Contest Board reps.
> 
> Verne Koester
> AMA District 7 
> Contest Board
> ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote: 
> >  I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was off doing other 
> > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > 
> > 
> > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5) 
> > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff. 
> > Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> > 
> > Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??  Is

> > a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
> > 
> > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes no 
> > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and can weigh 
> > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12 ounces of

> > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight 
> > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
> > 
> > Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared to a 
> > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > 
> > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > 
> > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > 
> > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > 
> >  So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight advantage 
> > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" electric is at 
> > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > 
> > So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus ounces 
> > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does that 
> > make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so educate me.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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


From derekkoopowitz at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 09:51:55 2009
From: derekkoopowitz at gmail.com (Derek Koopowitz)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:51:55 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201512445@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
References: <4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net>
	<20090603145157.HCBHT.38757.root@hrndva-web01-z01>
	<3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201512443@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<4A26B35D.7000101@cox.net>
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201512445@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
Message-ID: <3454543c0906031051j2c489384qf039a9c1021ad421@mail.gmail.com>

What rule being presented?  I made a statement that I wanted to run it by
the sub-committee members to see what their interest is in raising the
limit.  Please don't jump to any conclusions on what the wording on any rule
will be before it is even crafted and proposed.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Robert L. Beaubien <rob at koolsoft.com>wrote:

>  I was referring to the rule being presented to the F3A sub-committee
> members.
>
>
>
> - Robert Beaubien
>
> - NSRCA, District 7 Webmaster
>
> -
>
> "No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, however a large
> number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced."
>
>
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Bill's Email
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:31 AM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>
>
>
> Robert L. Beaubien wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that rule suggestion is well thought out.  How do you enforce
> the rule?  Now you have to have the competitor disassemble their plane to
> show it is full of fuel. How much air in the tank constitutes a full tank?
> And the weight of fuel changes with temperature.  What temp are you going to
> keep the plane to check the weight?
>
>
>
> - Robert Beaubien
>
> - NSRCA, District 7 Webmaster
>
> -
>
>
> Keep in mind that they are talking about helicopters here. Even in a full
> on F3C heli with the fuse on you can easily see the tank. Plus if it is a
> FAI contest they simply will make you top off just before putting it on the
> scales, no big deal.
>
>
> And to the idea of a 50cc 2-meter Biplane, I've flown a DA50 powered 75
> inch Double Vision biplane. Trust me, I would much rather have any pattern
> mono plane instead!! But if that is the fear, then cap the displacement at
> 26cc, which will more than handle any monoplane. Gas engines below 50cc have
> not proven to have the right power to weight ratio to justify their use in
> aerobatic planes.
>
> Also, go to an IMAC contest. You will notice something right off the bat.
> No biplanes.  Go figure.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/745140e4/attachment.html>

From verne at twmi.rr.com  Wed Jun  3 09:53:28 2009
From: verne at twmi.rr.com (verne at twmi.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:53:28 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090603175326.8D8S1.33727.root@hrndva-web26-z02>

Derek,
We've discussed raising the weight before and it's always been voted down. I believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart has steadfastly argued that raising the weight limit will inevitably increase the size of our planes, obsoleting anything that preceded it. I agree with him. 

What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for someone wanting to try electric to be able to do so without having to buy the most expensive equipment available. For example, at a contest last weekend, a friend and fellow pattern pilot had a set of Zippy packs that weighed roughly 5.5 ounces more than my FlightPower packs. Pretty much the same difference when compared to Andrew's TP packs. The Zippy's as we all know, were less than half the cost. I know for sure that my friend would have made weight with my FP's or Andrew's TP's, but he couldn't afford that after all the other "electric" purchases. 

What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked out, is that electric airplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be weighed without their "fuel", just like glow. The Rx battery will have to be in the plane, just like glow. Yes, I realize that there are UBEC's out there but I don't know of anyone who trusts them with the kind of current we're running. In any event, my preliminary research indicates that roughly 8.7 pounds should be just about right, but I want to make sure before I submit the proposal.

Verne

  
---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com> wrote: 
> Verne,
> 
> When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the proposals which was
> passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the weight limit for their
> helicopters effective 1/1/2010.  Here is the new wording:
> 
> a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (*with *fuel *or *batteries)
> must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
> 
> Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective 01/01/10.
> 
> I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A sub-committee members to see if
> there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to 5.5kg.  What does
> everyone think about this?
> 
> -Derek
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > Bill,
> > I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that very issue.
> > Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board anytime soon. In
> > the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the glow to electric
> > comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much internal
> > reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational effects to contend
> > with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter airframes being
> > acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the Rx and servos.
> > An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same flight in glow is
> > typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots will tell you that
> > making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive proposition with a
> > limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually vacuum-bagged
> > composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making weight will
> > also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive motors and
> > batteries. There are exceptio
> >  ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of them, but I'll be able
> > to point to just as many examples of guys that fly overweight at local
> > contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing they're
> > really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest batteries
> > and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're flying are the same
> > as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm working on is not
> > self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting there is both too
> > expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't be to allow
> > electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh less, but
> > without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that electric motors
> > are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well as the reduced
> > structural requirements. It will limit the mah of permissible packs to
> > control that end of the equation and there's already a voltage limit on the
> > books which is fine as it
> >  stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the contests I go to to see
> > where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal on this list
> > soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their opinions to their
> > respective Contest Board reps.
> >
> > Verne Koester
> > AMA District 7
> > Contest Board
> >  ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:
> > >  I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was off doing other
> > > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > >
> > >
> > > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5)
> > > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff.
> > > Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> > >
> > > Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??  Is
> > > a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
> > >
> > > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes no
> > > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and can weigh
> > > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12 ounces of
> > > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight
> > > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
> > >
> > > Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared to a
> > > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > >
> > > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > >
> > > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > >
> > > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > >
> > >  So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight advantage
> > > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" electric is at
> > > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > >
> > > So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus ounces
> > > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does that
> > > make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so educate me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  3 09:53:58 2009
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:53:58 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net><20090603145157.HCBHT.38757.root@hrndva-web01-z01>
	<3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C43A11734763447ABE95316D1E941999@davedesktop>

Absolutely not.  Leave F3A as it.

 

Regards,

 

Dave

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Derek
Koopowitz
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:53 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

 

Verne,

 

When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the proposals which was
passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the weight limit for their
helicopters effective 1/1/2010.  Here is the new wording:

 

a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (with fuel or batteries) must
not exceed 6.5 kg.

Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective 01/01/10.

I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A sub-committee members to see if
there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to 5.5kg.  What does
everyone think about this?

-Derek

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:

Bill,
I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that very issue.
Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board anytime soon. In
the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the glow to electric
comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much internal
reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational effects to contend
with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter airframes being
acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the Rx and servos.
An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same flight in glow is
typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots will tell you that
making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive proposition with a
limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually vacuum-bagged
composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making weight will
also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive motors and
batteries. There are exceptio
 ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of them, but I'll be able
to point to just as many examples of guys that fly overweight at local
contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing they're
really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest batteries
and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're flying are the same
as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm working on is not
self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting there is both too
expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't be to allow
electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh less, but
without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that electric motors
are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well as the reduced
structural requirements. It will limit the mah of permissible packs to
control that end of the equation and there's already a voltage limit on the
books which is fine as it
 stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the contests I go to to see
where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal on this list
soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their opinions to their
respective Contest Board reps.

Verne Koester
AMA District 7
Contest Board

---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:
>  I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was off doing other
> things, but can anyone explain this:
>
>
> Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5)
> kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff.
> Electric models are weighed with batteries.
>
> Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??  Is
> a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
>
> I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes no
> logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and can weigh
> right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12 ounces of
> weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight
> 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
>
> Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared to a
> motor+ESC+batteries?
>
> Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
>
> Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
>
> YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
>
>  So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight advantage
> when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" electric is at
> a 20 ounce disadvantage.
>
> So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus ounces
> lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does that
> make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so educate me.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/b941ea0a/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  3 09:57:39 2009
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:57:39 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPAEFLEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>
References: <1063572082.215051244048736415.JavaMail.root@sz0056a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
	<HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPAEFLEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <234B09C21B6A403B9A7FA7BB7520FB00@davedesktop>

<96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
specs with whatever equipment you choose.

Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes up.
If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
your DA-50 Bipe.

Regards,

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

http://www.mini-iac.com/
DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)

Duane

----- Original Message -----
From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.

Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
build one for a long time.

Bring it on.

Jim Hiller
_______________________________________________
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


From jonlowe at aol.com  Wed Jun  3 09:59:52 2009
From: jonlowe at aol.com (Jon Lowe)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:59:52 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount
In-Reply-To: <3939450F975246468D3AE08EC65742C0@CYBERPOWER>
References: <D52B29EEE2294A22A28AB06C45863AED@CYBERPOWER><4E9CE280BC3C453992E6819FF174392C@xppro2>
	<3939450F975246468D3AE08EC65742C0@CYBERPOWER>
Message-ID: <8CBB28C25BEF46C-FDC-A43@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>

Georgie,
I think you sent this to the wrong "John"!


Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: George W.Kennie <geobet4 at verizon.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:47 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount
















?


Hi John,


?


Sorry to have to tell you that I received no
replies to my inquiry.


?


I have the feeling that most people are just not
addressing this issue.


?


It would make a great product for somebody like
Jerry or Chris to produce.All that would be required is


an X brace with an oversize receptacle at center to
receive plastic inserts (like props) sized to fit shaft


bearings.


?


Georgie


?


?


?


?


?


?




----- Original Message -----


From:
  John
  Ferrell


To: General pattern discussion



Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:50
  AM


Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor
  Mount






FWIW:


I am interested in an answer to your question
  too! It sure looks to me like some kind of nose bearing would be
  prudent...


?


John Ferrell? W8CCW
?
"A
ll that is necessary for the
  triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
...."The
   problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other 
people's
  money."?
?? MARGARET THATCHER
http://DixieNC.US





----- Original Message -----


From:
    George
    W.Kennie


To: NSRCA Mailing List


Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:54
    PM


Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor
    Mount






Hey Guys,


?


I have a new project in the works and it
     involves mounting a 2K watt motor. This will be my first larger 
motor
    install so I felt that some advice from the Pros


would probably be appropriate.


?


The Motor is an outrunner and I can mount it
     from the back side?directly to the firewall OR I can use standoffs 
and
    mount it from the front side of the motor.


I keep feeling that there needs to be some kind
    of a stabilizing bearing on the free end as there portends to be a
    significant amount of rotating mass if I just


bolt the thing to the firewall while a pound of
     motor whirls around with a large prop exerting inertial rotating 
energy
    beyond the front of the cowl. It seems like


If I use the stand-offs, there will be a more0D
     rigid area between the prop and the motor, but then I worry about 
the back
    end. Should I figure out some kind of a


bearing mount on the firewall?


?


Somebody set me straight on the accepted
    procedure please.


?


Thanks for you help,


?


Georgie?





    I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community
    of 6 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 25187 of my
    spam emails to date.
The Professional version does not have this
    message.










_______________________________________________
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






From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Wed Jun  3 10:01:26 2009
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:01:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <234B09C21B6A403B9A7FA7BB7520FB00@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <BAC7410240F7469491692C373A02AE7B@jaysdesktop>

Why not have different weight limits for fuel and electric powered planes?
This could be changed as necessary to equalize the aircraft as technology
changes.

Jay Marshall

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:57 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

<96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
specs with whatever equipment you choose.

Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes up.
If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
your DA-50 Bipe.

Regards,

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

http://www.mini-iac.com/
DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)

Duane

----- Original Message -----
From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.

Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
build one for a long time.

Bring it on.

Jim Hiller
_______________________________________________
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


From derekkoopowitz at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 10:03:56 2009
From: derekkoopowitz at gmail.com (Derek Koopowitz)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:03:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <C43A11734763447ABE95316D1E941999@davedesktop>
References: <4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net>
	<20090603145157.HCBHT.38757.root@hrndva-web01-z01>
	<3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
	<C43A11734763447ABE95316D1E941999@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <3454543c0906031103t7d56a46bn4b8d6db4f9223e3e@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the feedback, Dave.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:

>  Absolutely not.  Leave F3A as it.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Dave
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Derek Koopowitz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:53 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>
>
>
> Verne,
>
>
>
> When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the proposals which was
> passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the weight limit for their
> helicopters effective 1/1/2010.  Here is the new wording:
>
>
>
> a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (*with *fuel *or *batteries)
> must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
>
> Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective 01/01/10.
>
> I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A sub-committee members to see if
> there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to 5.5kg.  What does
> everyone think about this?
>
> -Derek
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Bill,
> I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that very issue.
> Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board anytime soon. In
> the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the glow to electric
> comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much internal
> reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational effects to contend
> with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter airframes being
> acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the Rx and servos.
> An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same flight in glow is
> typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots will tell you that
> making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive proposition with a
> limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually vacuum-bagged
> composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making weight will
> also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive motors and
> batteries. There are exceptio
>  ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of them, but I'll be able
> to point to just as many examples of guys that fly overweight at local
> contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing they're
> really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest batteries
> and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're flying are the same
> as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm working on is not
> self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting there is both too
> expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't be to allow
> electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh less, but
> without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that electric motors
> are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well as the reduced
> structural requirements. It will limit the mah of permissible packs to
> control that end of the equation and there's already a voltage limit on the
> books which is fine as it
>  stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the contests I go to to see
> where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal on this list
> soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their opinions to their
> respective Contest Board reps.
>
> Verne Koester
> AMA District 7
> Contest Board
>
> ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:
> >  I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was off doing other
> > things, but can anyone explain this:
> >
> >
> > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5)
> > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff.
> > Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> >
> > Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??  Is
> > a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
> >
> > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes no
> > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and can weigh
> > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12 ounces of
> > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight
> > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
> >
> > Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared to a
> > motor+ESC+batteries?
> >
> > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> >
> > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> >
> > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> >
> >  So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight advantage
> > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" electric is at
> > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> >
> > So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus ounces
> > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does that
> > make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so educate me.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/2ee33029/attachment.html>

From jnhiller at earthlink.net  Wed Jun  3 10:04:24 2009
From: jnhiller at earthlink.net (J N Hiller)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:04:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <234B09C21B6A403B9A7FA7BB7520FB00@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPCEFMEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>

A monoplane will have higher wing loading. How high is too high?
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:57 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

<96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
specs with whatever equipment you choose.

Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes up.
If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
your DA-50 Bipe.

Regards,

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

http://www.mini-iac.com/
DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)

Duane

----- Original Message -----
From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.

Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
build one for a long time.

Bring it on.

Jim Hiller
_______________________________________________
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


From jonlowe at aol.com  Wed Jun  3 10:04:36 2009
From: jonlowe at aol.com (Jon Lowe)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:04:36 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount
In-Reply-To: <8CBB28C25BEF46C-FDC-A43@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>
References: <D52B29EEE2294A22A28AB06C45863AED@CYBERPOWER><4E9CE280BC3C453992E6819FF174392C@xppro2><3939450F975246468D3AE08EC65742C0@CYBERPOWER>
	<8CBB28C25BEF46C-FDC-A43@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <8CBB28CC589BAF4-FDC-A80@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>

Whoops, sorry.  Meant it to go to Georgie!


Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:59 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount









Georgie,?

I think you sent this to the wrong "John"!?
?


Jon Lowe?
?


-----Original Message-----?

From: George W.Kennie <geobet4 at verizon.net>?

To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>?

Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:47 am?

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount?
?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?


??
?


Hi John,?
?


??
?


Sorry to have to tell you that I received no?

replies to my inquiry.?
?


??
?


I have the feeling that most people are just not?

addressing this issue.?
?


??
?


It would make a great product for somebody like?

Jerry or Chris to produce.All that would be required is?
?


an X brace with an oversize receptacle at center to?

receive plastic inserts (like props) sized to fit shaft?
?


bearings.?
?


??
?


Georgie?
?


0A??
?


??
?


??
?


??
?


??
?


??
?

?


----- Original Message -----?
?


From:?

?John?

?Ferrell?
?


To: General pattern discussion?
?

?

Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:50?

?AM?
?


Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor?

?Mount?
?

?

?


FWIW:?
?


I am interested in an answer to your question?

?too! It sure looks to me like some kind of nose bearing would be?

?prudent...?
?


??
?


John Ferrell? W8CCW?

??

"A?

ll that is necessary for the?

?triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke?

...."The?

? problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's?

?money."??

?? MARGARET THATCHER?

http://DixieNC.US?
?

?

?

----- Original Message -----?
?


From:?

?  George?

?  W.Kennie?
?


To: NSRCA Mailing List?
?


Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:54?

?  PM?
?


Subje
ct: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor?

?  Mount?
?

?

?


Hey Guys,?
?


??
?


I have a new project in the works and it?

?   involves mounting a 2K watt motor. This will be my first larger
motor?

?  install so I felt that some advice from the Pros?
?


would probably be appropriate.?
?


??
?


The Motor is an outrunner and I can mount it?

?   from the back side?directly to the firewall OR I can use standoffs
and?

?  mount it from the front side of the motor.?
?


I keep feeling that there needs to be some kind?

?  of a stabilizing bearing on the free end as there portends to be a?

?  significant amount of rotating mass if I just?
?


bolt the thing to the firewall while a pound of?

?   motor whirls around with a large prop exerting inertial rotating
energy?

?  beyond the front of the cowl. It seems like?
?


If I use the stand-offs, there will be a more0D?

?   rigid area between the prop and the motor, but then I worry about
the back?

?  end. Should I figure out some kind of a?
?


bearing mount on the firewall??
?


??
?

=0
D
Somebody set me straight on the accepted?

?  procedure please.?
?


??
?


Thanks for you help,?
?


??
?


Georgie??
?

?

?

?  I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter.?

We are a community?

?  of 6 million users fighting spam.?

SPAMfighter has removed 25187 of my?

?  spam emails to date.?

The Professional version does not have this?

?  message.?
?

?

?

?

?


_______________________________________________?

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?
?

?

?

_______________________________________________?

NSRCA-discussion mailing list?

NSRCA-discussion at lists.
nsrca.org?

http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion?






From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  3 10:05:01 2009
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:05:01 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount
In-Reply-To: <3939450F975246468D3AE08EC65742C0@CYBERPOWER>
References: <D52B29EEE2294A22A28AB06C45863AED@CYBERPOWER><4E9CE280BC3C453992E6819FF174392C@xppro2>
	<3939450F975246468D3AE08EC65742C0@CYBERPOWER>
Message-ID: <9EC6CCE4EE6C4759BCE3358D984B02BB@davedesktop>

George,

 

Motors designed to be mounted on one end only in airframes with structure
strong enough to handle the substantial cantilevered rotating mass work just
fine.  Several years ago, several planes (different designs and
manufacturers) with several motor types had problems with "whirl flutter"
and motors broke loose, departed the plane, or tore the nose off the plane.
Having run softmounted, hardmounted, firewall mounted, nosering mounted, and
mounted on both ends, I've found it easiest to control resonances in the
plane when the mount is at both ends, and even better when a softmount is
used.  A number of guys in D1 are running the Hacker A60 hardmounted to the
nosering with a hardmounted aft bearing support - which the motor is
designed for (Hacker sells a mount, or you can buy a flange bearing and
setup your own aft support mechanism).

 

Regards,

 

Dave

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of George
W.Kennie
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:48 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount

 

 

Hi John,

 

Sorry to have to tell you that I received no replies to my inquiry.

 

I have the feeling that most people are just not addressing this issue.

 

It would make a great product for somebody like Jerry or Chris to
produce.All that would be required is 

an X brace with an oversize receptacle at center to receive plastic inserts
(like props) sized to fit shaft

bearings.

 

Georgie

 

 

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: John <mailto:jferrell13 at triad.rr.com>  Ferrell 

To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:50 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount

 

FWIW:

I am interested in an answer to your question too! It sure looks to me like
some kind of nose bearing would be prudent...

 

John Ferrell  W8CCW
 
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Edmund Burke
...."The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money."  
   MARGARET THATCHER 
http://DixieNC.US

----- Original Message ----- 

From: George W.Kennie <mailto:geobet4 at verizon.net>  

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:54 PM

Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount

 

Hey Guys,

 

I have a new project in the works and it involves mounting a 2K watt motor.
This will be my first larger motor install so I felt that some advice from
the Pros

would probably be appropriate.

 

The Motor is an outrunner and I can mount it from the back side directly to
the firewall OR I can use standoffs and mount it from the front side of the
motor.

I keep feeling that there needs to be some kind of a stabilizing bearing on
the free end as there portends to be a significant amount of rotating mass
if I just 

bolt the thing to the firewall while a pound of motor whirls around with a
large prop exerting inertial rotating energy beyond the front of the cowl.
It seems like 

If I use the stand-offs, there will be a more rigid area between the prop
and the motor, but then I worry about the back end. Should I figure out some
kind of a 

bearing mount on the firewall?

 

Somebody set me straight on the accepted procedure please. 

 

Thanks for you help,

 

Georgie 

 


  _____  


I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/len>
.
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 25187 of my spam emails to date.
The Professional version does not have this message.


  _____  


_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/b1c6e797/attachment.html>

From mjfrederick at cox.net  Wed Jun  3 10:05:10 2009
From: mjfrederick at cox.net (Matthew Frederick)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:05:10 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <20090603175326.8D8S1.33727.root@hrndva-web26-z02>
References: <20090603175326.8D8S1.33727.root@hrndva-web26-z02>
Message-ID: <A1D811B6-1E12-4798-BE56-5F45112C9DEC@cox.net>

Someone who is going to "try" electric pattern is probably not going  
to attend the nats and therefore will never be weighed and therefore  
it won't matter if they're a half pound overweight because they bought  
cheap batteries... When they decide to get serious they can buy  
serious batteries.

Matt

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2009, at 12:53 PM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:

> Derek,
> We've discussed raising the weight before and it's always been voted  
> down. I believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart has steadfastly  
> argued that raising the weight limit will inevitably increase the  
> size of our planes, obsoleting anything that preceded it. I agree  
> with him.
>
> What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for someone wanting  
> to try electric to be able to do so without having to buy the most  
> expensive equipment available. For example, at a contest last  
> weekend, a friend and fellow pattern pilot had a set of Zippy packs  
> that weighed roughly 5.5 ounces more than my FlightPower packs.  
> Pretty much the same difference when compared to Andrew's TP packs.  
> The Zippy's as we all know, were less than half the cost. I know for  
> sure that my friend would have made weight with my FP's or Andrew's  
> TP's, but he couldn't afford that after all the other "electric"  
> purchases.
>
> What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked out, is that  
> electric airplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be weighed  
> without their "fuel", just like glow. The Rx battery will have to be  
> in the plane, just like glow. Yes, I realize that there are UBEC's  
> out there but I don't know of anyone who trusts them with the kind  
> of current we're running. In any event, my preliminary research  
> indicates that roughly 8.7 pounds should be just about right, but I  
> want to make sure before I submit the proposal.
>
> Verne
>
>
> ---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Verne,
>>
>> When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the proposals which  
>> was
>> passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the weight limit  
>> for their
>> helicopters effective 1/1/2010.  Here is the new wording:
>>
>> a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (*with *fuel *or  
>> *batteries)
>> must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
>>
>> Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective 01/01/10.
>>
>> I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A sub-committee members to  
>> see if
>> there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to 5.5kg.  What  
>> does
>> everyone think about this?
>>
>> -Derek
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill,
>>> I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that very  
>>> issue.
>>> Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board  
>>> anytime soon. In
>>> the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the glow to  
>>> electric
>>> comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much  
>>> internal
>>> reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational effects to  
>>> contend
>>> with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter airframes being
>>> acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the Rx and  
>>> servos.
>>> An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same flight  
>>> in glow is
>>> typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots will tell  
>>> you that
>>> making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive  
>>> proposition with a
>>> limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually vacuum- 
>>> bagged
>>> composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making  
>>> weight will
>>> also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive motors  
>>> and
>>> batteries. There are exceptio
>>> ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of them, but I'll  
>>> be able
>>> to point to just as many examples of guys that fly overweight at  
>>> local
>>> contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing  
>>> they're
>>> really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest  
>>> batteries
>>> and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're flying are  
>>> the same
>>> as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm working on  
>>> is not
>>> self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting there is  
>>> both too
>>> expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't be to  
>>> allow
>>> electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh less,  
>>> but
>>> without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that  
>>> electric motors
>>> are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well as the  
>>> reduced
>>> structural requirements. It will limit the mah of permissible  
>>> packs to
>>> control that end of the equation and there's already a voltage  
>>> limit on the
>>> books which is fine as it
>>> stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the contests I go to to  
>>> see
>>> where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal on  
>>> this list
>>> soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their opinions  
>>> to their
>>> respective Contest Board reps.
>>>
>>> Verne Koester
>>> AMA District 7
>>> Contest Board
>>> ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:
>>>> I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was off doing  
>>>> other
>>>> things, but can anyone explain this:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5)
>>>> kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff.
>>>> Electric models are weighed with batteries.
>>>>
>>>> Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces of  
>>>> fuel??  Is
>>>> a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
>>>>
>>>> I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes no
>>>> logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and can  
>>>> weigh
>>>> right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12  
>>>> ounces of
>>>> weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight
>>>> 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
>>>>
>>>> Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared to a
>>>> motor+ESC+batteries?
>>>>
>>>> Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
>>>> Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
>>>> 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
>>>>
>>>> Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
>>>> AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
>>>>
>>>> YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
>>>> AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
>>>>
>>>> So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight advantage
>>>> when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" electric  
>>>> is at
>>>> a 20 ounce disadvantage.
>>>>
>>>> So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus  
>>>> ounces
>>>> lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does  
>>>> that
>>>> make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so  
>>>> educate me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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

From mjfrederick at cox.net  Wed Jun  3 10:17:42 2009
From: mjfrederick at cox.net (Matthew Frederick)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:17:42 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <20090603165912.COOWF.40385.root@hrndva-web01-z01>
References: <20090603165912.COOWF.40385.root@hrndva-web01-z01>
Message-ID: <8F9B71BB-B4E0-480C-A3AD-EBC2E7EFE452@cox.net>

The rules should drive technology used, not the other way around.  
Otherwise we go back to the fantasy contests where you fly when you  
feel like it, judge yourself, and everyone gets a trophy. Changing the  
rules to accomadate such a small amount of people sets a bad  
precedent. Convince me pattern participation would increase 50% due to  
a rules change and I'll be on board.

Matt

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2009, at 11:59 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:

> Yes, the goal is to make it cheaper. What I'm trying to do is take  
> the weight of the batteries out of the equation just like fuel is.  
> With rare exception, cheaper batteries equals more weight. The  
> reason for including a mah restriction (probably 6000mah as rated by  
> the mfg) is to keep things under control and avoid someone taking  
> advantage with larger batteries. What I'm hearing out of my district  
> is guys wanting to try electric and getting scared off with the high  
> cost of kits, batteries, and motors that will make weight. I'm well  
> aware that the Prestige, Spark, Integral, and a few others can make  
> weight with the right batteries and motor. I'm also aware of what  
> that costs. My goal is to make it possible for someone to build a  
> Black Magic without the building skills of Zen that'll make weight  
> with an Axi and Zippy packs.
>
> Verne
>
>
> ---- Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:
>> Verne,
>>
>> If you goal is to make pattern cheaper, I'm all for that (and the  
>> most
>> expensive setup right now is a YS CDI setup), but I can't see how a  
>> proposal
>> based on your description can effectively accomplish that.
>>
>> Is the goal to reduce cost of the electric (which I can argue is  
>> cheaper
>> than glow at the top levels of each) or to make electric and glow  
>> airplanes
>> have the same cost for equal performance?  As electric technology  
>> rapidly
>> advances, any proposal based on current day planes will be obsolete  
>> by the
>> time it in place.
>>
>> Limits on pack mah will certainly add to the complexity of tech  
>> inspections
>> of planes....to say nothing of the fact that all "20C" lipos do not  
>> weigh
>> the same thing, and all batteries of a marked capacity are not the  
>> same
>> either - the door will be wide open for "creative" labeling of mah  
>> capacity
>> on batteries.
>>
>> Just as there are examples of overweight glow planes (I do hope you  
>> are
>> getting weights on glow planes as well during your surveys???),  
>> there are
>> overweight examples of electrics - neither should be accommodated  
>> by a
>> change in the rules.  Each competitor should evaluate the rules,  
>> and prepare
>> to compete with whatever setup best suits there budget, time,  
>> resources, and
>> is within the RULES.
>>
>> Electric may cost more upfront, but it is rapidly getting cheaper  
>> (and glow
>> is getting more expensive).  The big hurdle for electric right now  
>> is that
>> all the costs are upfront, making it expensive to enter.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> -----Original Message-----

From jonlowe at aol.com  Wed Jun  3 10:19:29 2009
From: jonlowe at aol.com (Jon Lowe)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:19:29 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <234B09C21B6A403B9A7FA7BB7520FB00@davedesktop>
References: <1063572082.215051244048736415.JavaMail.root@sz0056a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net><HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPAEFLEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>
	<234B09C21B6A403B9A7FA7BB7520FB00@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <8CBB28EE0B9D0AF-FDC-B8B@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>

Amen.  The theory was, when they went to 2 meters, unlimited engines 
and 11 lbs that things would get cheaper because they could use larger, 
less finicky engines than the .61's at the time.  Yeah, right.  My YS 
is fuel injected, supercharged, CDI, and running on 30%.  The planes 
will change to fit ANY new rules,and cost will likely rise along with 
it.

My attitude is that both fuel and electric airplanes are weighed 
without fuel.  My fuel weighs a lot, electric fuel doesn't weigh 
anything.   Electrics just have a heavy fuel tank.  They are at a 
definite advantage in many cases because they never weigh more than 11 
lbs in flight, while a fuel airplane often does.

Dave is right, the cost curve is starting to favor electrics, assuming 
you have no current investment in either technology.  The Zippy packs 
will get better and better, and the cost of electric continues to come 
down.  Go to hobbycity.com and look around at their motors, speed 
controllers, batteries and chargers if you don't believe me.  The only 
advantage for me right now with YS's other than the fact I have 
invested in them, is that I get get two practice sequences per flight.  
Plus, they don't try to burn my house down.  ;)

Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:57 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight










<96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
specs with whatever equipment you choose.

Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes 
up.
If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
your DA-50 Bipe.

Regards,

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N 
Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

http://www.mini-iac.com/
DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)

Duane

----- Original Message -----
From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.

Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
build one for a long time.

Bring it on.

Jim Hiller
_______________________________________________
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






From gfowler at raytheon.com  Wed Jun  3 10:19:33 2009
From: gfowler at raytheon.com (Gray E Fowler)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:19:33 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <A7BD85B09A70407D84196F6BADA52AB6@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <OF80C448D0.5C5B47FF-ON862575CA.00626959-862575CA.0064980C@mck.us.ray.com>

Eventually I think pattern will be all electric, but this is still a ways 
off. Electric car development will utilize battery technology that we can 
eventually use. This will be billions in development-good thing the US car 
industry has such an efficient, reliable finance partner.

Changing the rules like Dave says will quickly be behind the curve. 
Besides, eliminating the weight limit will result in Biplanes  going to 
Triplanes. Everyone knows that Triplanes score better than Biplanes. Then 
comes Quadwings, on and on. 



Gray Fowler
Senior Principal Chemical Engineer
Radomes and Specialty Apertures
Technical Staff Composites Engineering
Raytheon



"Dave" <DaveL322 at comcast.net> 
Sent by: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
06/03/2009 12:51 PM
Please respond to
General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>


To
<verne at twmi.rr.com>, "'General pattern discussion'" 
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
cc

Subject
Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight






Verne,

You probably want to keep the mah limit at 5300....because at a 5S
configuration, that is the maximum size allowed by TSA for airline travel
(based on watts, equivalent lithium content, etc.....5s5300 works out to 
be
98.5% of what is allowed, based on nominal voltage of 3.7 per cell).

The price of motors and batteries is rapidly dropping....by the time you
would get a rule proposal completed, approved, and in place, technology 
will
have solved the problem.  What will not change is the price of the top end
electric and glow setups - they will always be expensive, as that is the
nature of the latest/greatest/best.

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: verne at twmi.rr.com [mailto:verne at twmi.rr.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:59 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Cc: Dave
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Yes, the goal is to make it cheaper. What I'm trying to do is take the
weight of the batteries out of the equation just like fuel is. With rare
exception, cheaper batteries equals more weight. The reason for including 
a
mah restriction (probably 6000mah as rated by the mfg) is to keep things
under control and avoid someone taking advantage with larger batteries. 
What
I'm hearing out of my district is guys wanting to try electric and getting
scared off with the high cost of kits, batteries, and motors that will 
make
weight. I'm well aware that the Prestige, Spark, Integral, and a few 
others
can make weight with the right batteries and motor. I'm also aware of what
that costs. My goal is to make it possible for someone to build a Black
Magic without the building skills of Zen that'll make weight with an Axi 
and
Zippy packs.

Verne


---- Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote: 
> Verne,
> 
> If you goal is to make pattern cheaper, I'm all for that (and the most
> expensive setup right now is a YS CDI setup), but I can't see how a
proposal
> based on your description can effectively accomplish that.
> 
> Is the goal to reduce cost of the electric (which I can argue is cheaper
> than glow at the top levels of each) or to make electric and glow
airplanes
> have the same cost for equal performance?  As electric technology 
rapidly
> advances, any proposal based on current day planes will be obsolete by 
the
> time it in place.
> 
> Limits on pack mah will certainly add to the complexity of tech
inspections
> of planes....to say nothing of the fact that all "20C" lipos do not 
weigh
> the same thing, and all batteries of a marked capacity are not the same
> either - the door will be wide open for "creative" labeling of mah
capacity
> on batteries.
> 
> Just as there are examples of overweight glow planes (I do hope you are
> getting weights on glow planes as well during your surveys???), there 
are
> overweight examples of electrics - neither should be accommodated by a
> change in the rules.  Each competitor should evaluate the rules, and
prepare
> to compete with whatever setup best suits there budget, time, resources,
and
> is within the RULES.
> 
> Electric may cost more upfront, but it is rapidly getting cheaper (and
glow
> is getting more expensive).  The big hurdle for electric right now is 
that
> all the costs are upfront, making it expensive to enter.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> verne at twmi.rr.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:52 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> Bill,
> I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that very issue.
> Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board anytime 
soon.
In
> the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the glow to 
electric
> comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much 
internal
> reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational effects to 
contend
> with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter airframes being
> acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the Rx and 
servos.
> An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same flight in 
glow
is
> typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots will tell you
that
> making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive proposition 
with
a
> limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually 
vacuum-bagged
> composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making weight will
> also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive motors and
> batteries. There are exceptio
>  ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of them, but I'll be 
able
> to point to just as many examples of guys that fly overweight at local
> contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing 
they're
> really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest
batteries
> and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're flying are the
same
> as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm working on is 
not
> self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting there is both 
too
> expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't be to allow
> electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh less, but
> without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that electric
motors
> are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well as the 
reduced
> structural requirements. It will limit the mah of permissible packs to
> control that end of the equation and there's already a voltage limit on
the
> books which is fine as it 
>  stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the contests I go to to see
> where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal on this list
> soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their opinions to
their
> respective Contest Board reps.
> 
> Verne Koester
> AMA District 7 
> Contest Board
> ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote: 
> >  I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was off doing 
other 
> > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > 
> > 
> > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5) 
> > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff. 
> > Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> > 
> > Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel?? 
Is

> > a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
> > 
> > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes no 
> > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and can 
weigh 
> > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12 ounces 
of

> > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight 
> > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
> > 
> > Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared to a 
> > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > 
> > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > 
> > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > 
> > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > 
> >  So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight advantage 
> > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" electric is 
at 
> > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > 
> > So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus ounces 
> > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does that 
> > make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so educate 
me.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

The following line is added for your protection and will be used for 
analysis if this message is reported as spam:

(Raytheon Analysis: IP=209.112.194.3; 
e-from=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org; 
from=DaveL322 at comcast.net; date=Jun 3, 2009 5:51:29 PM; subject=Re: 
[NSRCA-discussion] Weight)



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/be62645f/attachment.html>

From astafford at swtexas.net  Wed Jun  3 10:28:15 2009
From: astafford at swtexas.net (Archie Stafford)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:28:15 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <8CBB28EE0B9D0AF-FDC-B8B@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>
References: <1063572082.215051244048736415.JavaMail.root@sz0056a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net><HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPAEFLEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>	<234B09C21B6A403B9A7FA7BB7520FB00@davedesktop>
	<8CBB28EE0B9D0AF-FDC-B8B@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <041801c9e479$057e7880$107b6980$@net>

I agree with Jon and Dave.  Getting rid of the weight limit or even changing
it is a bad idea.  The price of batteries keeps dropping.  PATTERN IS NEVER
GOING TO BE CHEAP, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE WANT IT TO BE.  It is always going
to be expensive to go to contests, so saving 100-200 on a set of batteries
is offset by the other costs associated with it.  There are airframes out
there that you could use heavy packs and still be under weight.  Dave
Lockhart is under 10lbs flying electric, so he could definitely go with
significantly heavier batteries.  I know that there is a set of Black Magics
that are easily under using about the heaviest electric setup known now and
it is still legal.  There are options out there without changing the rules.
It wasn't that many years ago people swore you couldn't build the large 2
meter stuff under 11 lbs, now there are full built up balsa kits coming in
at 9.5lbs.  It can be done even with the heavier electric stuff.

Arch


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:19 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Amen.  The theory was, when they went to 2 meters, unlimited engines 
and 11 lbs that things would get cheaper because they could use larger, 
less finicky engines than the .61's at the time.  Yeah, right.  My YS 
is fuel injected, supercharged, CDI, and running on 30%.  The planes 
will change to fit ANY new rules,and cost will likely rise along with 
it.

My attitude is that both fuel and electric airplanes are weighed 
without fuel.  My fuel weighs a lot, electric fuel doesn't weigh 
anything.   Electrics just have a heavy fuel tank.  They are at a 
definite advantage in many cases because they never weigh more than 11 
lbs in flight, while a fuel airplane often does.

Dave is right, the cost curve is starting to favor electrics, assuming 
you have no current investment in either technology.  The Zippy packs 
will get better and better, and the cost of electric continues to come 
down.  Go to hobbycity.com and look around at their motors, speed 
controllers, batteries and chargers if you don't believe me.  The only 
advantage for me right now with YS's other than the fact I have 
invested in them, is that I get get two practice sequences per flight.  
Plus, they don't try to burn my house down.  ;)

Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:57 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight










<96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
specs with whatever equipment you choose.

Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes 
up.
If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
your DA-50 Bipe.

Regards,

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N 
Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

http://www.mini-iac.com/
DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)

Duane

----- Original Message -----
From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.

Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
build one for a long time.

Bring it on.

Jim Hiller
_______________________________________________
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





_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From verne at twmi.rr.com  Wed Jun  3 10:32:53 2009
From: verne at twmi.rr.com (verne at twmi.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:32:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <8F9B71BB-B4E0-480C-A3AD-EBC2E7EFE452@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20090603183251.DEGHI.33540.root@hrndva-web12-z02>

At what point was it determined that electric airplanes have to weighed with their batteries? How was that decided and by whom? I REALLY am asking because I don't know the answer. I'm quite certain that it wasn't always just there.

Verne


---- Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net> wrote: 
> The rules should drive technology used, not the other way around.  
> Otherwise we go back to the fantasy contests where you fly when you  
> feel like it, judge yourself, and everyone gets a trophy. Changing the  
> rules to accomadate such a small amount of people sets a bad  
> precedent. Convince me pattern participation would increase 50% due to  
> a rules change and I'll be on board.
> 
> Matt
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jun 3, 2009, at 11:59 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > Yes, the goal is to make it cheaper. What I'm trying to do is take  
> > the weight of the batteries out of the equation just like fuel is.  
> > With rare exception, cheaper batteries equals more weight. The  
> > reason for including a mah restriction (probably 6000mah as rated by  
> > the mfg) is to keep things under control and avoid someone taking  
> > advantage with larger batteries. What I'm hearing out of my district  
> > is guys wanting to try electric and getting scared off with the high  
> > cost of kits, batteries, and motors that will make weight. I'm well  
> > aware that the Prestige, Spark, Integral, and a few others can make  
> > weight with the right batteries and motor. I'm also aware of what  
> > that costs. My goal is to make it possible for someone to build a  
> > Black Magic without the building skills of Zen that'll make weight  
> > with an Axi and Zippy packs.
> >
> > Verne
> >
> >
> > ---- Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Verne,
> >>
> >> If you goal is to make pattern cheaper, I'm all for that (and the  
> >> most
> >> expensive setup right now is a YS CDI setup), but I can't see how a  
> >> proposal
> >> based on your description can effectively accomplish that.
> >>
> >> Is the goal to reduce cost of the electric (which I can argue is  
> >> cheaper
> >> than glow at the top levels of each) or to make electric and glow  
> >> airplanes
> >> have the same cost for equal performance?  As electric technology  
> >> rapidly
> >> advances, any proposal based on current day planes will be obsolete  
> >> by the
> >> time it in place.
> >>
> >> Limits on pack mah will certainly add to the complexity of tech  
> >> inspections
> >> of planes....to say nothing of the fact that all "20C" lipos do not  
> >> weigh
> >> the same thing, and all batteries of a marked capacity are not the  
> >> same
> >> either - the door will be wide open for "creative" labeling of mah  
> >> capacity
> >> on batteries.
> >>
> >> Just as there are examples of overweight glow planes (I do hope you  
> >> are
> >> getting weights on glow planes as well during your surveys???),  
> >> there are
> >> overweight examples of electrics - neither should be accommodated  
> >> by a
> >> change in the rules.  Each competitor should evaluate the rules,  
> >> and prepare
> >> to compete with whatever setup best suits there budget, time,  
> >> resources, and
> >> is within the RULES.
> >>
> >> Electric may cost more upfront, but it is rapidly getting cheaper  
> >> (and glow
> >> is getting more expensive).  The big hurdle for electric right now  
> >> is that
> >> all the costs are upfront, making it expensive to enter.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

From verne at twmi.rr.com  Wed Jun  3 10:45:21 2009
From: verne at twmi.rr.com (verne at twmi.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:45:21 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <041801c9e479$057e7880$107b6980$@net>
Message-ID: <20090603184519.91JJ5.33696.root@hrndva-web12-z02>

Arch,
How many Black Magics are out there that made weight by someone who built one the first time, or even the second? I know Mike and Dean can do it, that's what I meant by the "building skills of Zen". What I'm talking about and who I'm listening to are the totally unsponsored guys who can't just pick up the phone and get something right now because of their reputation and also have to pay full price for everything. This isn't a shot at anyone who has any level of sponsorship. I fall into that category myself. I'm just hearing a lot of frustration on the contest trail and have been for a couple of years. 

Verne

---- Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net> wrote: 
> I agree with Jon and Dave.  Getting rid of the weight limit or even changing
> it is a bad idea.  The price of batteries keeps dropping.  PATTERN IS NEVER
> GOING TO BE CHEAP, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE WANT IT TO BE.  It is always going
> to be expensive to go to contests, so saving 100-200 on a set of batteries
> is offset by the other costs associated with it.  There are airframes out
> there that you could use heavy packs and still be under weight.  Dave
> Lockhart is under 10lbs flying electric, so he could definitely go with
> significantly heavier batteries.  I know that there is a set of Black Magics
> that are easily under using about the heaviest electric setup known now and
> it is still legal.  There are options out there without changing the rules.
> It wasn't that many years ago people swore you couldn't build the large 2
> meter stuff under 11 lbs, now there are full built up balsa kits coming in
> at 9.5lbs.  It can be done even with the heavier electric stuff.
> 
> Arch
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:19 PM
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> Amen.  The theory was, when they went to 2 meters, unlimited engines 
> and 11 lbs that things would get cheaper because they could use larger, 
> less finicky engines than the .61's at the time.  Yeah, right.  My YS 
> is fuel injected, supercharged, CDI, and running on 30%.  The planes 
> will change to fit ANY new rules,and cost will likely rise along with 
> it.
> 
> My attitude is that both fuel and electric airplanes are weighed 
> without fuel.  My fuel weighs a lot, electric fuel doesn't weigh 
> anything.   Electrics just have a heavy fuel tank.  They are at a 
> definite advantage in many cases because they never weigh more than 11 
> lbs in flight, while a fuel airplane often does.
> 
> Dave is right, the cost curve is starting to favor electrics, assuming 
> you have no current investment in either technology.  The Zippy packs 
> will get better and better, and the cost of electric continues to come 
> down.  Go to hobbycity.com and look around at their motors, speed 
> controllers, batteries and chargers if you don't believe me.  The only 
> advantage for me right now with YS's other than the fact I have 
> invested in them, is that I get get two practice sequences per flight.  
> Plus, they don't try to burn my house down.  ;)
> 
> Jon Lowe
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:57 pm
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
> specs with whatever equipment you choose.
> 
> Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes 
> up.
> If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
> proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
> your DA-50 Bipe.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N 
> Hiller
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
> Jim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> http://www.mini-iac.com/
> DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)
> 
> Duane
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> 
> Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
> displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.
> 
> Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
> build one for a long time.
> 
> Bring it on.
> 
> Jim Hiller
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

From verne at twmi.rr.com  Wed Jun  3 10:47:25 2009
From: verne at twmi.rr.com (verne at twmi.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:47:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <20090603184519.91JJ5.33696.root@hrndva-web12-z02>
Message-ID: <20090603184722.DJQGU.33730.root@hrndva-web12-z02>

Correction, I meant electric Black Magics.

Verne


---- verne at twmi.rr.com wrote: 
> Arch,
> How many Black Magics are out there that made weight by someone who built one the first time, or even the second? I know Mike and Dean can do it, that's what I meant by the "building skills of Zen". What I'm talking about and who I'm listening to are the totally unsponsored guys who can't just pick up the phone and get something right now because of their reputation and also have to pay full price for everything. This isn't a shot at anyone who has any level of sponsorship. I fall into that category myself. I'm just hearing a lot of frustration on the contest trail and have been for a couple of years. 
> 
> Verne
> 
> ---- Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net> wrote: 
> > I agree with Jon and Dave.  Getting rid of the weight limit or even changing
> > it is a bad idea.  The price of batteries keeps dropping.  PATTERN IS NEVER
> > GOING TO BE CHEAP, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE WANT IT TO BE.  It is always going
> > to be expensive to go to contests, so saving 100-200 on a set of batteries
> > is offset by the other costs associated with it.  There are airframes out
> > there that you could use heavy packs and still be under weight.  Dave
> > Lockhart is under 10lbs flying electric, so he could definitely go with
> > significantly heavier batteries.  I know that there is a set of Black Magics
> > that are easily under using about the heaviest electric setup known now and
> > it is still legal.  There are options out there without changing the rules.
> > It wasn't that many years ago people swore you couldn't build the large 2
> > meter stuff under 11 lbs, now there are full built up balsa kits coming in
> > at 9.5lbs.  It can be done even with the heavier electric stuff.
> > 
> > Arch
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:19 PM
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > 
> > Amen.  The theory was, when they went to 2 meters, unlimited engines 
> > and 11 lbs that things would get cheaper because they could use larger, 
> > less finicky engines than the .61's at the time.  Yeah, right.  My YS 
> > is fuel injected, supercharged, CDI, and running on 30%.  The planes 
> > will change to fit ANY new rules,and cost will likely rise along with 
> > it.
> > 
> > My attitude is that both fuel and electric airplanes are weighed 
> > without fuel.  My fuel weighs a lot, electric fuel doesn't weigh 
> > anything.   Electrics just have a heavy fuel tank.  They are at a 
> > definite advantage in many cases because they never weigh more than 11 
> > lbs in flight, while a fuel airplane often does.
> > 
> > Dave is right, the cost curve is starting to favor electrics, assuming 
> > you have no current investment in either technology.  The Zippy packs 
> > will get better and better, and the cost of electric continues to come 
> > down.  Go to hobbycity.com and look around at their motors, speed 
> > controllers, batteries and chargers if you don't believe me.  The only 
> > advantage for me right now with YS's other than the fact I have 
> > invested in them, is that I get get two practice sequences per flight.  
> > Plus, they don't try to burn my house down.  ;)
> > 
> > Jon Lowe
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> > To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:57 pm
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > <96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
> > specs with whatever equipment you choose.
> > 
> > Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes 
> > up.
> > If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
> > proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
> > your DA-50 Bipe.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Dave
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N 
> > Hiller
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > 
> > I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
> > Jim
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > 
> > http://www.mini-iac.com/
> > DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)
> > 
> > Duane
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> > To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > 
> > 
> > Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
> > displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.
> > 
> > Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
> > build one for a long time.
> > 
> > Bring it on.
> > 
> > Jim Hiller
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

From kerlock at comcast.net  Wed Jun  3 11:33:50 2009
From: kerlock at comcast.net (Mike Hester)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:33:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
References: <20090603184519.91JJ5.33696.root@hrndva-web12-z02>
Message-ID: <C62F50034201468897736211D7B7181C@Sanity>



Verne you're pretty much talking about just about everybody flying pattern. 
Even a lot of the sponsored guys don't get nearly as much help as one would 
think (you've been around Andrew and others so this is pretty common 
knowledge). Very very few get a lot of support. Most of us pay through the 
nose to compete. Honestly one of the things I wanted to do was make it a 
little cheaper if you're willing to do the work on it, but even then it's 
not "cheap". if there's a real answer I don't know what it is.

What I can answer is the Black Magic question, because you asked =) As far 
as I know, better than 90-95% of them made weight right off the table. The 
ones who didn't, you can usually find a common denominator somewhere that 
had they done it different, they wouldn't have been overweight. At least the 
few I am aware of. But almost all of them that I am aware of that are flying 
made it the first time. Some are even lighter than I have yet achieved. I 
know of a few exceptions but don't know of any that didn't make it 
eventually after some tweaking. If you follow the directions to the letter 
and never get complacent, you'll make it. Usually with room to spare. In 
almost every case the extra weight was picked up on the finish/paint, or in 
the selection and methods of sheeting. I don't know personally of anyone who 
didn't make it easily on the second attept.

So, it can be done. But I won't kid you, it's a lot of work. The reward IMHO 
is the durability. I am still amazed at how much these things can take 
before they break! (I thought Archie's was toast for sure last year at 
Cincy!)

LOL Zen building....ok, I won't argue that, me and Dean do have that 
mindset. We actually enjoy the process. It's not work (unless it isn't 
mine). We know we're the minority as far as that goes. Most people just want 
to fly, NOW. But I enjoy the shop stuff as much as the flying.

I really don't know of many planes that "can't" make weight under the 
current rules. Some are just easier than others. But just for the record, 
the Black Magics have a pretty good track record overall, thus far. But they 
aren't for everyone. There are plenty of composite planes that can easily 
make weight. Although you sort of get what you get, and hope it's light 
enough in almost all cases. The only way to totally avoid that is to do it 
all yourself. And although there are a suprising number of people who will, 
a lot can't, or won't.

FWIW the future is looking better than ever, across the board. Equipment is 
better and more reliable, newer airframes are SOLID and the quality is 
getting better, the only thing not getting better is the price tag.

-Mike

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <verne at twmi.rr.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


> Arch,
> How many Black Magics are out there that made weight by someone who built 
> one the first time, or even the second? I know Mike and Dean can do it, 
> that's what I meant by the "building skills of Zen". What I'm talking 
> about and who I'm listening to are the totally unsponsored guys who can't 
> just pick up the phone and get something right now because of their 
> reputation and also have to pay full price for everything. This isn't a 
> shot at anyone who has any level of sponsorship. I fall into that category 
> myself. I'm just hearing a lot of frustration on the contest trail and 
> have been for a couple of years.
>
> Verne
>
> ---- Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net> wrote:
>> I agree with Jon and Dave.  Getting rid of the weight limit or even 
>> changing
>> it is a bad idea.  The price of batteries keeps dropping.  PATTERN IS 
>> NEVER
>> GOING TO BE CHEAP, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE WANT IT TO BE.  It is always 
>> going
>> to be expensive to go to contests, so saving 100-200 on a set of 
>> batteries
>> is offset by the other costs associated with it.  There are airframes out
>> there that you could use heavy packs and still be under weight.  Dave
>> Lockhart is under 10lbs flying electric, so he could definitely go with
>> significantly heavier batteries.  I know that there is a set of Black 
>> Magics
>> that are easily under using about the heaviest electric setup known now 
>> and
>> it is still legal.  There are options out there without changing the 
>> rules.
>> It wasn't that many years ago people swore you couldn't build the large 2
>> meter stuff under 11 lbs, now there are full built up balsa kits coming 
>> in
>> at 9.5lbs.  It can be done even with the heavier electric stuff.
>>
>> Arch
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:19 PM
>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>>
>> Amen.  The theory was, when they went to 2 meters, unlimited engines
>> and 11 lbs that things would get cheaper because they could use larger,
>> less finicky engines than the .61's at the time.  Yeah, right.  My YS
>> is fuel injected, supercharged, CDI, and running on 30%.  The planes
>> will change to fit ANY new rules,and cost will likely rise along with
>> it.
>>
>> My attitude is that both fuel and electric airplanes are weighed
>> without fuel.  My fuel weighs a lot, electric fuel doesn't weigh
>> anything.   Electrics just have a heavy fuel tank.  They are at a
>> definite advantage in many cases because they never weigh more than 11
>> lbs in flight, while a fuel airplane often does.
>>
>> Dave is right, the cost curve is starting to favor electrics, assuming
>> you have no current investment in either technology.  The Zippy packs
>> will get better and better, and the cost of electric continues to come
>> down.  Go to hobbycity.com and look around at their motors, speed
>> controllers, batteries and chargers if you don't believe me.  The only
>> advantage for me right now with YS's other than the fact I have
>> invested in them, is that I get get two practice sequences per flight.
>> Plus, they don't try to burn my house down.  ;)
>>
>> Jon Lowe
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
>> To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:57 pm
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
>> specs with whatever equipment you choose.
>>
>> Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes
>> up.
>> If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
>> proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
>> your DA-50 Bipe.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N
>> Hiller
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
>> To: General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>>
>> I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
>> Jim
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
>> To: General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>>
>> http://www.mini-iac.com/
>> DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)
>>
>> Duane
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
>> To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>>
>>
>> Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
>> displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.
>>
>> Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
>> build one for a long time.
>>
>> Bring it on.
>>
>> Jim Hiller
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 


From verne at twmi.rr.com  Wed Jun  3 11:54:25 2009
From: verne at twmi.rr.com (verne at twmi.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:54:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <C62F50034201468897736211D7B7181C@Sanity>
Message-ID: <20090603195422.S9ZM4.56148.root@hrndva-web11-z01>

Mike, 
I mis-spoke and hopefully my correction made it on the list. I meant ELECTRIC Black Magic. I know you and Dean have pulled it off in Zen-like fashion. I'm not aware of any others, though I'm sure you'll correct me shortly. The point is that most guys won't be able to pull it off or will have enough self-doubts to even try. That leaves them with Sparks, Integrals, Prestiges, Abbras and a few more that may or not be obtainable in a reasonable time frame. And most of those won't make weight with a combination of less-expensive (spelled heavier) motors and battery packs. Many that do would become instantly obsolete if any significant repair such as torn-out landing gear enters the equation. What I'm going to propose is to take the motor batteries (not Rx battery) out of the equation and require a weight significantly lighter than a glow plane (my preliminary research indicates 8.7 pounds which is 2-1/4 pounds lighter than a glow plane). This isn't really my idea. I've just worked up what I believe to be a solution to comments I've been hearing on the contest trail for a few years now. Everybody has the right to an opinion on it and should make their feelings known to their respective AMA Contest Board rep when the time comes.

Verne


---- Mike Hester <kerlock at comcast.net> wrote: 
> 
> 
> Verne you're pretty much talking about just about everybody flying pattern. 
> Even a lot of the sponsored guys don't get nearly as much help as one would 
> think (you've been around Andrew and others so this is pretty common 
> knowledge). Very very few get a lot of support. Most of us pay through the 
> nose to compete. Honestly one of the things I wanted to do was make it a 
> little cheaper if you're willing to do the work on it, but even then it's 
> not "cheap". if there's a real answer I don't know what it is.
> 
> What I can answer is the Black Magic question, because you asked =) As far 
> as I know, better than 90-95% of them made weight right off the table. The 
> ones who didn't, you can usually find a common denominator somewhere that 
> had they done it different, they wouldn't have been overweight. At least the 
> few I am aware of. But almost all of them that I am aware of that are flying 
> made it the first time. Some are even lighter than I have yet achieved. I 
> know of a few exceptions but don't know of any that didn't make it 
> eventually after some tweaking. If you follow the directions to the letter 
> and never get complacent, you'll make it. Usually with room to spare. In 
> almost every case the extra weight was picked up on the finish/paint, or in 
> the selection and methods of sheeting. I don't know personally of anyone who 
> didn't make it easily on the second attept.
> 
> So, it can be done. But I won't kid you, it's a lot of work. The reward IMHO 
> is the durability. I am still amazed at how much these things can take 
> before they break! (I thought Archie's was toast for sure last year at 
> Cincy!)
> 
> LOL Zen building....ok, I won't argue that, me and Dean do have that 
> mindset. We actually enjoy the process. It's not work (unless it isn't 
> mine). We know we're the minority as far as that goes. Most people just want 
> to fly, NOW. But I enjoy the shop stuff as much as the flying.
> 
> I really don't know of many planes that "can't" make weight under the 
> current rules. Some are just easier than others. But just for the record, 
> the Black Magics have a pretty good track record overall, thus far. But they 
> aren't for everyone. There are plenty of composite planes that can easily 
> make weight. Although you sort of get what you get, and hope it's light 
> enough in almost all cases. The only way to totally avoid that is to do it 
> all yourself. And although there are a suprising number of people who will, 
> a lot can't, or won't.
> 
> FWIW the future is looking better than ever, across the board. Equipment is 
> better and more reliable, newer airframes are SOLID and the quality is 
> getting better, the only thing not getting better is the price tag.
> 
> -Mike
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> 
> > Arch,
> > How many Black Magics are out there that made weight by someone who built 
> > one the first time, or even the second? I know Mike and Dean can do it, 
> > that's what I meant by the "building skills of Zen". What I'm talking 
> > about and who I'm listening to are the totally unsponsored guys who can't 
> > just pick up the phone and get something right now because of their 
> > reputation and also have to pay full price for everything. This isn't a 
> > shot at anyone who has any level of sponsorship. I fall into that category 
> > myself. I'm just hearing a lot of frustration on the contest trail and 
> > have been for a couple of years.
> >
> > Verne
> >
> > ---- Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net> wrote:
> >> I agree with Jon and Dave.  Getting rid of the weight limit or even 
> >> changing
> >> it is a bad idea.  The price of batteries keeps dropping.  PATTERN IS 
> >> NEVER
> >> GOING TO BE CHEAP, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE WANT IT TO BE.  It is always 
> >> going
> >> to be expensive to go to contests, so saving 100-200 on a set of 
> >> batteries
> >> is offset by the other costs associated with it.  There are airframes out
> >> there that you could use heavy packs and still be under weight.  Dave
> >> Lockhart is under 10lbs flying electric, so he could definitely go with
> >> significantly heavier batteries.  I know that there is a set of Black 
> >> Magics
> >> that are easily under using about the heaviest electric setup known now 
> >> and
> >> it is still legal.  There are options out there without changing the 
> >> rules.
> >> It wasn't that many years ago people swore you couldn't build the large 2
> >> meter stuff under 11 lbs, now there are full built up balsa kits coming 
> >> in
> >> at 9.5lbs.  It can be done even with the heavier electric stuff.
> >>
> >> Arch
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:19 PM
> >> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >> Amen.  The theory was, when they went to 2 meters, unlimited engines
> >> and 11 lbs that things would get cheaper because they could use larger,
> >> less finicky engines than the .61's at the time.  Yeah, right.  My YS
> >> is fuel injected, supercharged, CDI, and running on 30%.  The planes
> >> will change to fit ANY new rules,and cost will likely rise along with
> >> it.
> >>
> >> My attitude is that both fuel and electric airplanes are weighed
> >> without fuel.  My fuel weighs a lot, electric fuel doesn't weigh
> >> anything.   Electrics just have a heavy fuel tank.  They are at a
> >> definite advantage in many cases because they never weigh more than 11
> >> lbs in flight, while a fuel airplane often does.
> >>
> >> Dave is right, the cost curve is starting to favor electrics, assuming
> >> you have no current investment in either technology.  The Zippy packs
> >> will get better and better, and the cost of electric continues to come
> >> down.  Go to hobbycity.com and look around at their motors, speed
> >> controllers, batteries and chargers if you don't believe me.  The only
> >> advantage for me right now with YS's other than the fact I have
> >> invested in them, is that I get get two practice sequences per flight.
> >> Plus, they don't try to burn my house down.  ;)
> >>
> >> Jon Lowe
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> >> To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:57 pm
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> <96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
> >> specs with whatever equipment you choose.
> >>
> >> Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes
> >> up.
> >> If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
> >> proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
> >> your DA-50 Bipe.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N
> >> Hiller
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
> >> To: General pattern discussion
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >> I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
> >> Jim
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
> >> To: General pattern discussion
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >> http://www.mini-iac.com/
> >> DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)
> >>
> >> Duane
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> >> To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
> >> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >>
> >> Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
> >> displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.
> >>
> >> Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
> >> build one for a long time.
> >>
> >> Bring it on.
> >>
> >> Jim Hiller
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Wed Jun  3 11:57:27 2009
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:57:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net>
	<20090603145157.HCBHT.38757.root@hrndva-web01-z01>
	<3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E842D@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

Judging from the amount of email I have, I'm clearly late to this party.  Verne and I have talked at length, and while I'm NOT a fan of rule changes, I do think we have a flawed system in NOT weighing TAKEOFF weight.  I leave the ground at 12lbs 8oz...and I'm legal.  (yeah, I fly with a 24oz fuel tank).    Point is that we would not be favoring a technology if we had a limit on take off weight rather than what we use now.  That appears to be were the Heli group went.

5.5Kg is probably a good number (though I'd have to shrink my tank!)



From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Derek Koopowitz
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:53 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Verne,

When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the proposals which was passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the weight limit for their helicopters effective 1/1/2010.  Here is the new wording:

a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (with fuel or batteries) must not exceed 6.5 kg.

Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective 01/01/10.
I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A sub-committee members to see if there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to 5.5kg.  What does everyone think about this?

-Derek
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com<mailto:verne at twmi.rr.com>> wrote:
Bill,
I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that very issue. Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board anytime soon. In the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the glow to electric comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much internal reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational effects to contend with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter airframes being acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the Rx and servos. An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same flight in glow is typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots will tell you that making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive proposition with a limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually vacuum-bagged composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making weight will also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive motors and batteries. There are exceptio
 ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of them, but I'll be able to point to just as many examples of guys that fly overweight at local contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing they're really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest batteries and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're flying are the same as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm working on is not self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting there is both too expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't be to allow electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh less, but without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that electric motors are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well as the reduced structural requirements. It will limit the mah of permissible packs to control that end of the equation and there's already a voltage limit on the books which is fine as it
 stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the contests I go to to see where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal on this list soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their opinions to their respective Contest Board reps.

Verne Koester
AMA District 7
Contest Board
---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net<mailto:wemodels at cox.net>> wrote:
>  I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was off doing other
> things, but can anyone explain this:
>
>
> Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5)
> kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff.
> Electric models are weighed with batteries.
>
> Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??  Is
> a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
>
> I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes no
> logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and can weigh
> right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12 ounces of
> weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight
> 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
>
> Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared to a
> motor+ESC+batteries?
>
> Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
>
> Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
>
> YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
>
>  So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight advantage
> when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" electric is at
> a 20 ounce disadvantage.
>
> So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus ounces
> lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does that
> make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so educate me.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 06/01/09 17:55:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/0048d45f/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  3 12:05:40 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:05:40 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <10282.55524.qm@web51011.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 I think Verne is right on this. We need some form of fairness here and the current system is not fair or logical. Mike

--- On Wed, 6/3/09, verne at twmi.rr.com <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:

> From: verne at twmi.rr.com <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 12:53 PM
> Derek,
> We've discussed raising the weight before and it's always
> been voted down. I believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart
> has steadfastly argued that raising the weight limit will
> inevitably increase the size of our planes, obsoleting
> anything that preceded it. I agree with him. 
> 
> What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for someone
> wanting to try electric to be able to do so without having
> to buy the most expensive equipment available. For example,
> at a contest last weekend, a friend and fellow pattern pilot
> had a set of Zippy packs that weighed roughly 5.5 ounces
> more than my FlightPower packs. Pretty much the same
> difference when compared to Andrew's TP packs. The Zippy's
> as we all know, were less than half the cost. I know for
> sure that my friend would have made weight with my FP's or
> Andrew's TP's, but he couldn't afford that after all the
> other "electric" purchases. 
> 
> What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked out, is
> that electric airplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be
> weighed without their "fuel", just like glow. The Rx battery
> will have to be in the plane, just like glow. Yes, I realize
> that there are UBEC's out there but I don't know of anyone
> who trusts them with the kind of current we're running. In
> any event, my preliminary research indicates that roughly
> 8.7 pounds should be just about right, but I want to make
> sure before I submit the proposal.
> 
> Verne
> 
> ? 
> ---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
> wrote: 
> > Verne,
> > 
> > When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the
> proposals which was
> > passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the
> weight limit for their
> > helicopters effective 1/1/2010.? Here is the new
> wording:
> > 
> > a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (*with
> *fuel *or *batteries)
> > must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
> > 
> > Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective
> 01/01/10.
> > 
> > I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A
> sub-committee members to see if
> > there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to
> 5.5kg.? What does
> > everyone think about this?
> > 
> > -Derek
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > > Bill,
> > > I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to
> address that very issue.
> > > Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the
> contest board anytime soon. In
> > > the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention
> in the glow to electric
> > > comparison and that's that an electric plane
> doesn't need as much internal
> > > reinforcement because there's virtually no
> vibrational effects to contend
> > > with that you do with glow. That equates to
> lighter airframes being
> > > acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to
> power the Rx and servos.
> > > An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah.
> The same flight in glow is
> > > typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric
> pilots will tell you that
> > > making weight in electric is generally a pretty
> expensive proposition with a
> > > limited number of 2 meter planes available that
> are usually vacuum-bagged
> > > composite affairs. In addition, your best chances
> for making weight will
> > > also necessitate the lightest and generally most
> expensive motors and
> > > batteries. There are exceptio
> > >? ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about
> most of them, but I'll be able
> > > to point to just as many examples of guys that
> fly overweight at local
> > > contests where they know they won't be weighed
> and the only thing they're
> > > really guilty of is not spending the extra money
> that the lightest batteries
> > > and motors cost. In every other way, the planes
> they're flying are the same
> > > as the ones they're competing against. The
> proposal I'm working on is not
> > > self-serving because my planes make weight, but
> getting there is both too
> > > expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My
> proposal won't be to allow
> > > electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that
> they weigh less, but
> > > without the "fuel". The proposal will take into
> account that electric motors
> > > are inherently lighter than their glow
> counterparts as well as the reduced
> > > structural requirements. It will limit the mah of
> permissible packs to
> > > control that end of the equation and there's
> already a voltage limit on the
> > > books which is fine as it
> > >? stands. I'm currently doing survey work at
> the contests I go to to see
> > > where everybody is at weight-wise and will post
> my proposal on this list
> > > soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to
> voice their opinions to their
> > > respective Contest Board reps.
> > >
> > > Verne Koester
> > > AMA District 7
> > > Contest Board
> > >? ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
> wrote:
> > > >? I am certain this has been beaten to
> death while I was off doing other
> > > > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may
> weigh more than five (5)
> > > > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding
> fuel, ready for takeoff.
> > > > Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> > > >
> > > > Why can't an electric "deduct" the
> equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??? Is
> > > > a plane without fuel rally "ready for
> takeoff"??
> > > >
> > > > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI
> rule, but it makes no
> > > > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed
> without fuel and can weigh
> > > > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could
> add another 10 to 12 ounces of
> > > > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with
> batteries weight
> > > > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight
> by the rules.
> > > >
> > > > Put another way, what does a YS and full
> fuel weigh compared to a
> > > > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > > >
> > > > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > > > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > > > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > > >
> > > > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > > > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > > >
> > > > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > > > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > > >
> > > >? So I can see an argument that the
> electrics have a weight advantage
> > > > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But
> with "fuel" electric is at
> > > > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > > >
> > > > So if I build a plane for electric I need to
> build it 20 plus ounces
> > > > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro
> motor in it. How does that
> > > > make sense. I know I am missing something
> important here, so educate me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> 


      

From jpavlick at idseng.com  Wed Jun  3 12:08:08 2009
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:08:08 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <252080.54328.qm@web80501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

So then electric planes will need to have the motor and batteries removed when they're weighed?
?
John Pavlick

--- On Wed, 6/3/09, verne at twmi.rr.com <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:


From: verne at twmi.rr.com <verne at twmi.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 3:54 PM


Mike, 
I mis-spoke and hopefully my correction made it on the list. I meant ELECTRIC Black Magic. I know you and Dean have pulled it off in Zen-like fashion. I'm not aware of any others, though I'm sure you'll correct me shortly. The point is that most guys won't be able to pull it off or will have enough self-doubts to even try. That leaves them with Sparks, Integrals, Prestiges, Abbras and a few more that may or not be obtainable in a reasonable time frame. And most of those won't make weight with a combination of less-expensive (spelled heavier) motors and battery packs. Many that do would become instantly obsolete if any significant repair such as torn-out landing gear enters the equation. What I'm going to propose is to take the motor batteries (not Rx battery) out of the equation and require a weight significantly lighter than a glow plane (my preliminary research indicates 8.7 pounds which is 2-1/4 pounds lighter than a glow plane). This isn't really my
 idea. I've just worked
? up what I believe to be a solution to comments I've been hearing on the contest trail for a few years now. Everybody has the right to an opinion on it and should make their feelings known to their respective AMA Contest Board rep when the time comes.

Verne


---- Mike Hester <kerlock at comcast.net> wrote: 
> 
> 
> Verne you're pretty much talking about just about everybody flying pattern. 
> Even a lot of the sponsored guys don't get nearly as much help as one would 
> think (you've been around Andrew and others so this is pretty common 
> knowledge). Very very few get a lot of support. Most of us pay through the 
> nose to compete. Honestly one of the things I wanted to do was make it a 
> little cheaper if you're willing to do the work on it, but even then it's 
> not "cheap". if there's a real answer I don't know what it is.
> 
> What I can answer is the Black Magic question, because you asked =) As far 
> as I know, better than 90-95% of them made weight right off the table. The 
> ones who didn't, you can usually find a common denominator somewhere that 
> had they done it different, they wouldn't have been overweight. At least the 
> few I am aware of. But almost all of them that I am aware of that are flying 
> made it the first time. Some are even lighter than I have yet achieved. I 
> know of a few exceptions but don't know of any that didn't make it 
> eventually after some tweaking. If you follow the directions to the letter 
> and never get complacent, you'll make it. Usually with room to spare. In 
> almost every case the extra weight was picked up on the finish/paint, or in 
> the selection and methods of sheeting. I don't know personally of anyone who 
> didn't make it easily on the second attept.
> 
> So, it can be done. But I won't kid you, it's a lot of work. The reward IMHO 
> is the durability. I am still amazed at how much these things can take 
> before they break! (I thought Archie's was toast for sure last year at 
> Cincy!)
> 
> LOL Zen building....ok, I won't argue that, me and Dean do have that 
> mindset. We actually enjoy the process. It's not work (unless it isn't 
> mine). We know we're the minority as far as that goes. Most people just want 
> to fly, NOW. But I enjoy the shop stuff as much as the flying.
> 
> I really don't know of many planes that "can't" make weight under the 
> current rules. Some are just easier than others. But just for the record, 
> the Black Magics have a pretty good track record overall, thus far. But they 
> aren't for everyone. There are plenty of composite planes that can easily 
> make weight. Although you sort of get what you get, and hope it's light 
> enough in almost all cases. The only way to totally avoid that is to do it 
> all yourself. And although there are a suprising number of people who will, 
> a lot can't, or won't.
> 
> FWIW the future is looking better than ever, across the board. Equipment is 
> better and more reliable, newer airframes are SOLID and the quality is 
> getting better, the only thing not getting better is the price tag.
> 
> -Mike
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> 
> > Arch,
> > How many Black Magics are out there that made weight by someone who built 
> > one the first time, or even the second? I know Mike and Dean can do it, 
> > that's what I meant by the "building skills of Zen". What I'm talking 
> > about and who I'm listening to are the totally unsponsored guys who can't 
> > just pick up the phone and get something right now because of their 
> > reputation and also have to pay full price for everything. This isn't a 
> > shot at anyone who has any level of sponsorship. I fall into that category 
> > myself. I'm just hearing a lot of frustration on the contest trail and 
> > have been for a couple of years.
> >
> > Verne
> >
> > ---- Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net> wrote:
> >> I agree with Jon and Dave.? Getting rid of the weight limit or even 
> >> changing
> >> it is a bad idea.? The price of batteries keeps dropping.? PATTERN IS 
> >> NEVER
> >> GOING TO BE CHEAP, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE WANT IT TO BE.? It is always 
> >> going
> >> to be expensive to go to contests, so saving 100-200 on a set of 
> >> batteries
> >> is offset by the other costs associated with it.? There are airframes out
> >> there that you could use heavy packs and still be under weight.? Dave
> >> Lockhart is under 10lbs flying electric, so he could definitely go with
> >> significantly heavier batteries.? I know that there is a set of Black 
> >> Magics
> >> that are easily under using about the heaviest electric setup known now 
> >> and
> >> it is still legal.? There are options out there without changing the 
> >> rules.
> >> It wasn't that many years ago people swore you couldn't build the large 2
> >> meter stuff under 11 lbs, now there are full built up balsa kits coming 
> >> in
> >> at 9.5lbs.? It can be done even with the heavier electric stuff.
> >>
> >> Arch
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:19 PM
> >> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >> Amen.? The theory was, when they went to 2 meters, unlimited engines
> >> and 11 lbs that things would get cheaper because they could use larger,
> >> less finicky engines than the .61's at the time.? Yeah, right.? My YS
> >> is fuel injected, supercharged, CDI, and running on 30%.? The planes
> >> will change to fit ANY new rules,and cost will likely rise along with
> >> it.
> >>
> >> My attitude is that both fuel and electric airplanes are weighed
> >> without fuel.? My fuel weighs a lot, electric fuel doesn't weigh
> >> anything.???Electrics just have a heavy fuel tank.? They are at a
> >> definite advantage in many cases because they never weigh more than 11
> >> lbs in flight, while a fuel airplane often does.
> >>
> >> Dave is right, the cost curve is starting to favor electrics, assuming
> >> you have no current investment in either technology.? The Zippy packs
> >> will get better and better, and the cost of electric continues to come
> >> down.? Go to hobbycity.com and look around at their motors, speed
> >> controllers, batteries and chargers if you don't believe me.? The only
> >> advantage for me right now with YS's other than the fact I have
> >> invested in them, is that I get get two practice sequences per flight.
> >> Plus, they don't try to burn my house down.? ;)
> >>
> >> Jon Lowe
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> >> To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:57 pm
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> <96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.? Your challenge is to meet those
> >> specs with whatever equipment you choose.
> >>
> >> Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes
> >> up.
> >> If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
> >> proposal.? And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
> >> your DA-50 Bipe.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N
> >> Hiller
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
> >> To: General pattern discussion
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >> I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
> >> Jim
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
> >> To: General pattern discussion
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >> http://www.mini-iac.com/
> >> DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.? Have at it.? :-)
> >>
> >> Duane
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> >> To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
> >> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >>
> >> Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
> >> displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.
> >>
> >> Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
> >> build one for a long time.
> >>
> >> Bring it on.
> >>
> >> Jim Hiller
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/205c48ca/attachment.html>

From jpavlick at idseng.com  Wed Jun  3 12:12:00 2009
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:12:00 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <582558.65125.qm@web80503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Oops?I misread the description. Sorry. 
?
John Pavlick

--- On Wed, 6/3/09, John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com> wrote:


From: John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 4:08 PM







So then electric planes will need to have the motor and batteries removed when they're weighed?
?
John Pavlick

--- On Wed, 6/3/09, verne at twmi.rr.com <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:


From: verne at twmi.rr.com <verne at twmi.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 3:54 PM


Mike, 
I mis-spoke and hopefully my correction made it on the list. I meant ELECTRIC Black Magic. I know you and Dean have pulled it off in Zen-like fashion. I'm not aware of any others, though I'm sure you'll correct me shortly. The point is that most guys won't be able to pull it off or will have enough self-doubts to even try. That leaves them with Sparks, Integrals, Prestiges, Abbras and a few more that may or not be obtainable in a reasonable time frame. And most of those won't make weight with a combination of less-expensive (spelled heavier) motors and battery packs. Many that do would become instantly obsolete if any significant repair such as torn-out landing gear enters the equation. What I'm going to propose is to take the motor batteries (not Rx battery) out of the equation and require a weight significantly lighter than a glow plane (my preliminary research indicates 8.7 pounds which is 2-1/4 pounds lighter than a glow plane). This isn't really my
 idea. I've just worked
? up what I believe to be a solution to comments I've been hearing on the contest trail for a few years now. Everybody has the right to an opinion on it and should make their feelings known to their respective AMA Contest Board rep when the time comes.

Verne


---- Mike Hester <kerlock at comcast.net> wrote: 
> 
> 
> Verne you're pretty much talking about just about everybody flying pattern. 
> Even a lot of the sponsored guys don't get nearly as much help as one would 
> think (you've been around Andrew and others so this is pretty common 
> knowledge). Very very few get a lot of support. Most of us pay through the 
> nose to compete. Honestly one of the things I wanted to do was make it a 
> little cheaper if you're willing to do the work on it, but even then it's 
> not "cheap". if there's a real answer I don't know what it is.
> 
> What I can answer is the Black Magic question, because you asked =) As far 
> as I know, better than 90-95% of them made weight right off the table. The 
> ones who didn't, you can usually find a common denominator somewhere that 
> had they done it different, they wouldn't have been overweight. At least the 
> few I am aware of. But almost all of them that I am aware of that are flying 
> made it the first time. Some are even lighter than I have yet achieved. I 
> know of a few exceptions but don't know of any that didn't make it 
> eventually after some tweaking. If you follow the directions to the letter 
> and never get complacent, you'll make it. Usually with room to spare. In 
> almost every case the extra weight was picked up on the finish/paint, or in 
> the selection and methods of sheeting. I don't know personally of anyone who 
> didn't make it easily on the second attept.
> 
> So, it can be done. But I won't kid you, it's a lot of work. The reward IMHO 
> is the durability. I am still amazed at how much these things can take 
> before they break! (I thought Archie's was toast for sure last year at 
> Cincy!)
> 
> LOL Zen building....ok, I won't argue that, me and Dean do have that 
> mindset. We actually enjoy the process. It's not work (unless it isn't 
> mine). We know we're the minority as far as that goes. Most people just want 
> to fly, NOW. But I enjoy the shop stuff as much as the flying.
> 
> I really don't know of many planes that "can't" make weight under the 
> current rules. Some are just easier than others. But just for the record, 
> the Black Magics have a pretty good track record overall, thus far. But they 
> aren't for everyone. There are plenty of composite planes that can easily 
> make weight. Although you sort of get what you get, and hope it's light 
> enough in almost all cases. The only way to totally avoid that is to do it 
> all yourself. And although there are a suprising number of people who will, 
> a lot can't, or won't.
> 
> FWIW the future is looking better than ever, across the board. Equipment is 
> better and more reliable, newer airframes are SOLID and the quality is 
> getting better, the only thing not getting better is the price tag.
> 
> -Mike
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> 
> > Arch,
> > How many Black Magics are out there that made weight by someone who built 
> > one the first time, or even the second? I know Mike and Dean can do it, 
> > that's what I meant by the "building skills of Zen". What I'm talking 
> > about and who I'm listening to are the totally unsponsored guys who can't 
> > just pick up the phone and get something right now because of their 
> > reputation and also have to pay full price for everything. This isn't a 
> > shot at anyone who has any level of sponsorship. I fall into that category 
> > myself. I'm just hearing a lot of frustration on the contest trail and 
> > have been for a couple of years.
> >
> > Verne
> >
> > ---- Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net> wrote:
> >> I agree with Jon and Dave.? Getting rid of the weight limit or even 
> >> changing
> >> it is a bad idea.? The price of batteries keeps dropping.? PATTERN IS 
> >> NEVER
> >> GOING TO BE CHEAP, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE WANT IT TO BE.? It is always 
> >> going
> >> to be expensive to go to contests, so saving 100-200 on a set of 
> >> batteries
> >> is offset by the other costs associated with it.? There are airframes out
> >> there that you could use heavy packs and still be under weight.? Dave
> >> Lockhart is under 10lbs flying electric, so he could definitely go with
> >> significantly heavier batteries.? I know that there is a set of Black 
> >> Magics
> >> that are easily under using about the heaviest electric setup known now 
> >> and
> >> it is still legal.? There are options out there without changing the 
> >> rules.
> >> It wasn't that many years ago people swore you couldn't build the large 2
> >> meter stuff under 11 lbs, now there are full built up balsa kits coming 
> >> in
> >> at 9.5lbs.? It can be done even with the heavier electric stuff.
> >>
> >> Arch
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:19 PM
> >> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >> Amen.? The theory was, when they went to 2 meters, unlimited engines
> >> and 11 lbs that things would get cheaper because they could use larger,
> >> less finicky engines than the .61's at the time.? Yeah, right.? My YS
> >> is fuel injected, supercharged, CDI, and running on 30%.? The planes
> >> will change to fit ANY new rules,and cost will likely rise along with
> >> it.
> >>
> >> My attitude is that both fuel and electric airplanes are weighed
> >> without fuel.? My fuel weighs a lot, electric fuel doesn't weigh
> >> anything.???Electrics just have a heavy fuel tank.? They are at a
> >> definite advantage in many cases because they never weigh more than 11
> >> lbs in flight, while a fuel airplane often does.
> >>
> >> Dave is right, the cost curve is starting to favor electrics, assuming
> >> you have no current investment in either technology.? The Zippy packs
> >> will get better and better, and the cost of electric continues to come
> >> down.? Go to hobbycity.com and look around at their motors, speed
> >> controllers, batteries and chargers if you don't believe me.? The only
> >> advantage for me right now with YS's other than the fact I have
> >> invested in them, is that I get get two practice sequences per flight.
> >> Plus, they don't try to burn my house down.? ;)
> >>
> >> Jon Lowe
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> >> To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:57 pm
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> <96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.? Your challenge is to meet those
> >> specs with whatever equipment you choose.
> >>
> >> Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes
> >> up.
> >> If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
> >> proposal.? And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
> >> your DA-50 Bipe.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N
> >> Hiller
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
> >> To: General pattern discussion
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >> I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
> >> Jim
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
> >> To: General pattern discussion
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >> http://www.mini-iac.com/
> >> DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.? Have at it.? :-)
> >>
> >> Duane
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> >> To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
> >> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >>
> >> Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
> >> displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.
> >>
> >> Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
> >> build one for a long time.
> >>
> >> Bring it on.
> >>
> >> Jim Hiller
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/716ec5de/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  3 12:20:16 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:20:16 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <469545.45836.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 I think the proposal is a tweak not a reinvention of the wheel. It would be better that the cheaper options can be used and the planes can be made a little stronger. Mike

--- On Wed, 6/3/09, John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com> wrote:

> From: John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 3:11 PM
> Oops?I misread the
> description. Sorry. 
> ?
> John Pavlick
> 
> --- On Wed, 6/3/09, John Pavlick
> <jpavlick at idseng.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> To: "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 4:08 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then electric planes will need to have the motor
> and batteries removed when they're weighed?
> ?
> John Pavlick
> 
> --- On Wed, 6/3/09, verne at twmi.rr.com
> <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: verne at twmi.rr.com <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> To: "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 3:54 PM
> 
> 
> Mike, 
> I mis-spoke and hopefully my correction made it on the
> list. I meant ELECTRIC Black Magic. I know you and Dean have
> pulled it off in Zen-like fashion. I'm not aware of any
> others, though I'm sure you'll correct me shortly.
> The point is that most guys won't be able to pull it off
> or will have enough self-doubts to even try. That leaves
> them with Sparks, Integrals, Prestiges, Abbras and a few
> more that may or not be obtainable in a reasonable time
> frame. And most of those won't make weight with a
> combination of less-expensive (spelled heavier) motors and
> battery packs. Many that do would become instantly obsolete
> if any significant repair such as torn-out landing gear
> enters the equation. What I'm going to propose is to
> take the motor batteries (not Rx battery) out of the
> equation and require a weight significantly lighter than a
> glow plane (my preliminary research indicates 8.7 pounds
> which is 2-1/4 pounds lighter than a
>  glow plane). This isn't really my idea. I've just
> worked
> ? up what I believe to be a solution to comments
> I've been hearing on the contest trail for a few years
> now. Everybody has the right to an opinion on it and should
> make their feelings known to their respective AMA Contest
> Board rep when the time comes.
> 
> Verne
> 
> 
> ---- Mike Hester <kerlock at comcast.net>
> wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > Verne you're pretty much talking about just about
> everybody flying pattern. 
> > Even a lot of the sponsored guys don't get nearly
> as much help as one would 
> > think (you've been around Andrew and others so
> this is pretty common 
> > knowledge). Very very few get a lot of support. Most
> of us pay through the 
> > nose to compete. Honestly one of the things I wanted
> to do was make it a 
> > little cheaper if you're
>  willing to do the work on it, but even then it's 
> > not "cheap". if there's a real answer I
> don't know what it is.
> > 
> > What I can answer is the Black Magic question, because
> you asked =) As far 
> > as I know, better than 90-95% of them made weight
> right off the table. The 
> > ones who didn't, you can usually find a common
> denominator somewhere that 
> > had they done it different, they wouldn't have
> been overweight. At least the 
> > few I am aware of. But almost all of them that I am
> aware of that are flying 
> > made it the first time. Some are even lighter than I
> have yet achieved. I 
> > know of a few exceptions but don't know of any
> that didn't make it 
> > eventually after some tweaking. If you follow the
> directions to the letter 
> > and never get complacent, you'll make it. Usually
> with room to spare. In 
> > almost every case the extra weight was picked up on
> the finish/paint, or in
>  
> > the selection and methods of sheeting. I don't
> know personally of anyone who 
> > didn't make it easily on the second attept.
> > 
> > So, it can be done. But I won't kid you, it's
> a lot of work. The reward IMHO 
> > is the durability. I am still amazed at how much these
> things can take 
> > before they break! (I thought Archie's was toast
> for sure last year at 
> > Cincy!)
> > 
> > LOL Zen building....ok, I won't argue that, me and
> Dean do have that 
> > mindset. We actually enjoy the process. It's not
> work (unless it isn't 
> > mine). We know we're the minority as far as that
> goes. Most people just want 
> > to fly, NOW. But I enjoy the shop stuff as much as the
> flying.
> > 
> > I really don't know of many planes that
> "can't" make weight under the 
> > current rules. Some are just easier than others. But
> just for the record, 
> > the Black Magics have a pretty good track record
>  overall, thus far. But they 
> > aren't for everyone. There are plenty of composite
> planes that can easily 
> > make weight. Although you sort of get what you get,
> and hope it's light 
> > enough in almost all cases. The only way to totally
> avoid that is to do it 
> > all yourself. And although there are a suprising
> number of people who will, 
> > a lot can't, or won't.
> > 
> > FWIW the future is looking better than ever, across
> the board. Equipment is 
> > better and more reliable, newer airframes are SOLID
> and the quality is 
> > getting better, the only thing not getting better is
> the price tag.
> > 
> > -Mike
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > 
> > 
> > > Arch,
> > > How many Black Magics are out there that made
> weight by someone who built 
> > > one the first time, or even the second? I know
> Mike and Dean can do it, 
> > > that's what I meant by the "building
> skills of Zen". What I'm talking 
> > > about and who I'm listening to are the
> totally unsponsored guys who can't 
> > > just pick up the phone and get something right
> now because of their 
> > > reputation and also have to pay full price for
> everything. This isn't a 
> > > shot at anyone who has any level of sponsorship.
> I fall into that category 
> > > myself. I'm just hearing a lot of frustration
> on the contest trail
>  and 
> > > have been for a couple of years.
> > >
> > > Verne
> > >
> > > ---- Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net>
> wrote:
> > >> I agree with Jon and Dave.? Getting rid
> of the weight limit or even 
> > >> changing
> > >> it is a bad idea.? The price of
> batteries keeps dropping.? PATTERN IS 
> > >> NEVER
> > >> GOING TO BE CHEAP, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE WANT
> IT TO BE.? It is always 
> > >> going
> > >> to be expensive to go to contests, so saving
> 100-200 on a set of 
> > >> batteries
> > >> is offset by the other costs associated with
> it.? There are airframes out
> > >> there that you could use heavy packs and
> still be under weight.? Dave
> > >> Lockhart is under 10lbs
>  flying electric, so he could definitely go with
> > >> significantly heavier batteries.? I know
> that there is a set of Black 
> > >> Magics
> > >> that are easily under using about the
> heaviest electric setup known now 
> > >> and
> > >> it is still legal.? There are options
> out there without changing the 
> > >> rules.
> > >> It wasn't that many years ago people
> swore you couldn't build the large 2
> > >> meter stuff under 11 lbs, now there are full
> built up balsa kits coming 
> > >> in
> > >> at 9.5lbs.? It can be done even with the
> heavier electric stuff.
> > >>
> > >> Arch
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:19 PM
> > >> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > >>
> > >> Amen.? The theory was, when they went to
> 2 meters, unlimited engines
> > >> and 11 lbs that things would get cheaper
> because they could use larger,
> > >> less finicky engines than the .61's at
> the time.? Yeah, right.? My YS
> > >> is fuel injected, supercharged, CDI, and
> running on 30%.? The planes
> > >> will
>  change to fit ANY new rules,and cost will likely rise
> along with
> > >> it.
> > >>
> > >> My attitude is that both fuel and electric
> airplanes are weighed
> > >> without fuel.? My fuel weighs a lot,
> electric fuel doesn't weigh
> > >> anything.???Electrics just
> have a heavy fuel tank.? They are at a
> > >> definite advantage in many cases because they
> never weigh more than 11
> > >> lbs in flight, while a fuel airplane often
> does.
> > >>
> > >> Dave is right, the cost curve is starting to
> favor electrics, assuming
> > >> you have no current investment in either
> technology.? The Zippy packs
> > >> will get better and better, and the cost of
> electric continues to come
> > >> down.? Go to hobbycity.com and look
> around at their motors, speed
> > >> controllers, batteries and chargers if you
> don't
>  believe me.? The only
> > >> advantage for me right now with YS's
> other than the fact I have
> > >> invested in them, is that I get get two
> practice sequences per flight.
> > >> Plus, they don't try to burn my house
> down.? ;)
> > >>
> > >> Jon Lowe
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> > >> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >> Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:57 pm
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>  >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> <96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is
> legal.? Your challenge is to meet those
> > >> specs with whatever equipment you choose.
> > >>
> > >> Raise any of those limits, and the cost and
> complexity of pattern goes
> > >> up.
> > >> If you think what pattern needs is more cost
> and complexity, submit the
> > >> proposal.? And as Duane notes, the new
> breed of monoplanes will obsolete
> > >> your DA-50 Bipe.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >>
> > >> Dave
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of J N
> > >> Hiller
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
> > >> To: General pattern discussion
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > >>
> > >> I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
> > >> Jim
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On
> Behalf Of Duane Beck
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, June
>  03, 2009 10:06 AM
> > >> To: General pattern discussion
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > >>
> > >> http://www.mini-iac.com/
> > >> DA-50's and larger biplanes very
> common.? Have at it.? :-)
> > >>
> > >> Duane
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> > >> To: jpavlick at idseng.com,
> "General pattern discussion"
> > >> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT
> -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Interesting discussion. I always felt the
> weight limit replaced the
> > >> displacement limit prevent the use of very
> large engines.
> > >>
> > >> Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger
> biplanes. I have wanted to
> > >> build one for a long time.
> > >>
> > >> Bring it on.
> > >>
> > >> Jim Hiller
> > >>
> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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
> 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  3 12:24:32 2009
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:24:32 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPCEFMEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>
References: <234B09C21B6A403B9A7FA7BB7520FB00@davedesktop>
	<HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPCEFMEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <D2240C9D2E1F46E2A8113EF420208B53@davedesktop>

Jim,

Monoplanes are at 74" span now, and about 900 squares because that is where
the current schedules have pushed the designs to.  The wings don't need to
be any bigger for the 11 lb weight limit.  But at 74" and 900 squares, there
is plenty of room to grow the monoplane bigger if the weight limit is
increased.

The bottom line doesn't change - bigger bipe, bigger monoplane, bigger any
plane will increase costs.

If you think pattern needs more cost and complexity, whether it be biplanes
or monoplanes, submit a proposal.

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:03 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

A monoplane will have higher wing loading. How high is too high?
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:57 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

<96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
specs with whatever equipment you choose.

Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes up.
If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
your DA-50 Bipe.

Regards,

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

http://www.mini-iac.com/
DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)

Duane

----- Original Message -----
From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.

Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
build one for a long time.

Bring it on.

Jim Hiller
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From jshulman at cfl.rr.com  Wed Jun  3 12:27:57 2009
From: jshulman at cfl.rr.com (J Shu)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:27:57 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <469545.45836.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <469545.45836.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <45937A0A75044346A0499E91B35882D9@UncleJasPC>

I think we should wait until the electrics are built to light in the wrong areas and watch it implode in flight and cause damage to 
whatever. Then maybe we can get a little more room for electrics in the weight department.

Regards,
Jason
www.shulmanaviation.com
www.composite-arf.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
To: <jpavlick at idseng.com>; "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight



 I think the proposal is a tweak not a reinvention of the wheel. It would be better that the cheaper options can be used and the 
planes can be made a little stronger. Mike

--- On Wed, 6/3/09, John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com> wrote:

> From: John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 3:11 PM
> Oops I misread the
> description. Sorry.
>
> John Pavlick
>
> --- On Wed, 6/3/09, John Pavlick
> <jpavlick at idseng.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> To: "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 4:08 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So then electric planes will need to have the motor
> and batteries removed when they're weighed?
>
> John Pavlick
>
> --- On Wed, 6/3/09, verne at twmi.rr.com
> <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: verne at twmi.rr.com <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> To: "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 3:54 PM
>
>
> Mike,
> I mis-spoke and hopefully my correction made it on the
> list. I meant ELECTRIC Black Magic. I know you and Dean have
> pulled it off in Zen-like fashion. I'm not aware of any
> others, though I'm sure you'll correct me shortly.
> The point is that most guys won't be able to pull it off
> or will have enough self-doubts to even try. That leaves
> them with Sparks, Integrals, Prestiges, Abbras and a few
> more that may or not be obtainable in a reasonable time
> frame. And most of those won't make weight with a
> combination of less-expensive (spelled heavier) motors and
> battery packs. Many that do would become instantly obsolete
> if any significant repair such as torn-out landing gear
> enters the equation. What I'm going to propose is to
> take the motor batteries (not Rx battery) out of the
> equation and require a weight significantly lighter than a
> glow plane (my preliminary research indicates 8.7 pounds
> which is 2-1/4 pounds lighter than a
>  glow plane). This isn't really my idea. I've just
> worked
> up what I believe to be a solution to comments
> I've been hearing on the contest trail for a few years
> now. Everybody has the right to an opinion on it and should
> make their feelings known to their respective AMA Contest
> Board rep when the time comes.
>
> Verne
>
>
> ---- Mike Hester <kerlock at comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Verne you're pretty much talking about just about
> everybody flying pattern.
> > Even a lot of the sponsored guys don't get nearly
> as much help as one would
> > think (you've been around Andrew and others so
> this is pretty common
> > knowledge). Very very few get a lot of support. Most
> of us pay through the
> > nose to compete. Honestly one of the things I wanted
> to do was make it a
> > little cheaper if you're
>  willing to do the work on it, but even then it's
> > not "cheap". if there's a real answer I
> don't know what it is.
> >
> > What I can answer is the Black Magic question, because
> you asked =) As far
> > as I know, better than 90-95% of them made weight
> right off the table. The
> > ones who didn't, you can usually find a common
> denominator somewhere that
> > had they done it different, they wouldn't have
> been overweight. At least the
> > few I am aware of. But almost all of them that I am
> aware of that are flying
> > made it the first time. Some are even lighter than I
> have yet achieved. I
> > know of a few exceptions but don't know of any
> that didn't make it
> > eventually after some tweaking. If you follow the
> directions to the letter
> > and never get complacent, you'll make it. Usually
> with room to spare. In
> > almost every case the extra weight was picked up on
> the finish/paint, or in
>
> > the selection and methods of sheeting. I don't
> know personally of anyone who
> > didn't make it easily on the second attept.
> >
> > So, it can be done. But I won't kid you, it's
> a lot of work. The reward IMHO
> > is the durability. I am still amazed at how much these
> things can take
> > before they break! (I thought Archie's was toast
> for sure last year at
> > Cincy!)
> >
> > LOL Zen building....ok, I won't argue that, me and
> Dean do have that
> > mindset. We actually enjoy the process. It's not
> work (unless it isn't
> > mine). We know we're the minority as far as that
> goes. Most people just want
> > to fly, NOW. But I enjoy the shop stuff as much as the
> flying.
> >
> > I really don't know of many planes that
> "can't" make weight under the
> > current rules. Some are just easier than others. But
> just for the record,
> > the Black Magics have a pretty good track record
>  overall, thus far. But they
> > aren't for everyone. There are plenty of composite
> planes that can easily
> > make weight. Although you sort of get what you get,
> and hope it's light
> > enough in almost all cases. The only way to totally
> avoid that is to do it
> > all yourself. And although there are a suprising
> number of people who will,
> > a lot can't, or won't.
> >
> > FWIW the future is looking better than ever, across
> the board. Equipment is
> > better and more reliable, newer airframes are SOLID
> and the quality is
> > getting better, the only thing not getting better is
> the price tag.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >
> >
> > > Arch,
> > > How many Black Magics are out there that made
> weight by someone who built
> > > one the first time, or even the second? I know
> Mike and Dean can do it,
> > > that's what I meant by the "building
> skills of Zen". What I'm talking
> > > about and who I'm listening to are the
> totally unsponsored guys who can't
> > > just pick up the phone and get something right
> now because of their
> > > reputation and also have to pay full price for
> everything. This isn't a
> > > shot at anyone who has any level of sponsorship.
> I fall into that category
> > > myself. I'm just hearing a lot of frustration
> on the contest trail
>  and
> > > have been for a couple of years.
> > >
> > > Verne
> > >
> > > ---- Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net>
> wrote:
> > >> I agree with Jon and Dave. Getting rid
> of the weight limit or even
> > >> changing
> > >> it is a bad idea. The price of
> batteries keeps dropping. PATTERN IS
> > >> NEVER
> > >> GOING TO BE CHEAP, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE WANT
> IT TO BE. It is always
> > >> going
> > >> to be expensive to go to contests, so saving
> 100-200 on a set of
> > >> batteries
> > >> is offset by the other costs associated with
> it. There are airframes out
> > >> there that you could use heavy packs and
> still be under weight. Dave
> > >> Lockhart is under 10lbs
>  flying electric, so he could definitely go with
> > >> significantly heavier batteries. I know
> that there is a set of Black
> > >> Magics
> > >> that are easily under using about the
> heaviest electric setup known now
> > >> and
> > >> it is still legal. There are options
> out there without changing the
> > >> rules.
> > >> It wasn't that many years ago people
> swore you couldn't build the large 2
> > >> meter stuff under 11 lbs, now there are full
> built up balsa kits coming
> > >> in
> > >> at 9.5lbs. It can be done even with the
> heavier electric stuff.
> > >>
> > >> Arch
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:19 PM
> > >> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > >>
> > >> Amen. The theory was, when they went to
> 2 meters, unlimited engines
> > >> and 11 lbs that things would get cheaper
> because they could use larger,
> > >> less finicky engines than the .61's at
> the time. Yeah, right. My YS
> > >> is fuel injected, supercharged, CDI, and
> running on 30%. The planes
> > >> will
>  change to fit ANY new rules,and cost will likely rise
> along with
> > >> it.
> > >>
> > >> My attitude is that both fuel and electric
> airplanes are weighed
> > >> without fuel. My fuel weighs a lot,
> electric fuel doesn't weigh
> > >> anything. Electrics just
> have a heavy fuel tank. They are at a
> > >> definite advantage in many cases because they
> never weigh more than 11
> > >> lbs in flight, while a fuel airplane often
> does.
> > >>
> > >> Dave is right, the cost curve is starting to
> favor electrics, assuming
> > >> you have no current investment in either
> technology. The Zippy packs
> > >> will get better and better, and the cost of
> electric continues to come
> > >> down. Go to hobbycity.com and look
> around at their motors, speed
> > >> controllers, batteries and chargers if you
> don't
>  believe me. The only
> > >> advantage for me right now with YS's
> other than the fact I have
> > >> invested in them, is that I get get two
> practice sequences per flight.
> > >> Plus, they don't try to burn my house
> down. ;)
> > >>
> > >> Jon Lowe
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> > >> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >> Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:57 pm
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>  >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> <96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is
> legal. Your challenge is to meet those
> > >> specs with whatever equipment you choose.
> > >>
> > >> Raise any of those limits, and the cost and
> complexity of pattern goes
> > >> up.
> > >> If you think what pattern needs is more cost
> and complexity, submit the
> > >> proposal. And as Duane notes, the new
> breed of monoplanes will obsolete
> > >> your DA-50 Bipe.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >>
> > >> Dave
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of J N
> > >> Hiller
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
> > >> To: General pattern discussion
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > >>
> > >> I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
> > >> Jim
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On
> Behalf Of Duane Beck
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, June
>  03, 2009 10:06 AM
> > >> To: General pattern discussion
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > >>
> > >> http://www.mini-iac.com/
> > >> DA-50's and larger biplanes very
> common. Have at it. :-)
> > >>
> > >> Duane
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> > >> To: jpavlick at idseng.com,
> "General pattern discussion"
> > >> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT
> -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Interesting discussion. I always felt the
> weight limit replaced the
> > >> displacement limit prevent the use of very
> large engines.
> > >>
> > >> Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger
> biplanes. I have wanted to
> > >> build one for a long time.
> > >>
> > >> Bring it on.
> > >>
> > >> Jim Hiller
> > >>
> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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
>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 


From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Wed Jun  3 13:19:25 2009
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:19:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <45937A0A75044346A0499E91B35882D9@UncleJasPC>
References: <469545.45836.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<45937A0A75044346A0499E91B35882D9@UncleJasPC>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W127AD387CAC98D071C6A25A04A0@phx.gbl>


All I want is a little 'elbow room' in the weight department--a few ounces and ALL my stuff in ANY combination would make it--even with a minor prang or two.

I still feel this was a fairly arbitrary decision to weigh WITH power batteries--could have just as well gone the other way...
RS 
> From: jshulman at cfl.rr.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:27:49 -0400
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> I think we should wait until the electrics are built to light in the wrong areas and watch it implode in flight and cause damage to 
> whatever. Then maybe we can get a little more room for electrics in the weight department.
> 
> Regards,
> Jason
> www.shulmanaviation.com
> www.composite-arf.com
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> To: <jpavlick at idseng.com>; "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> 
> 
> I think the proposal is a tweak not a reinvention of the wheel. It would be better that the cheaper options can be used and the 
> planes can be made a little stronger. Mike
> 
> --- On Wed, 6/3/09, John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 3:11 PM
> > Oops I misread the
> > description. Sorry.
> >
> > John Pavlick
> >
> > --- On Wed, 6/3/09, John Pavlick
> > <jpavlick at idseng.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > To: "General pattern discussion"
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 4:08 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > So then electric planes will need to have the motor
> > and batteries removed when they're weighed?
> >
> > John Pavlick
> >
> > --- On Wed, 6/3/09, verne at twmi.rr.com
> > <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: verne at twmi.rr.com <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > To: "General pattern discussion"
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 3:54 PM
> >
> >
> > Mike,
> > I mis-spoke and hopefully my correction made it on the
> > list. I meant ELECTRIC Black Magic. I know you and Dean have
> > pulled it off in Zen-like fashion. I'm not aware of any
> > others, though I'm sure you'll correct me shortly.
> > The point is that most guys won't be able to pull it off
> > or will have enough self-doubts to even try. That leaves
> > them with Sparks, Integrals, Prestiges, Abbras and a few
> > more that may or not be obtainable in a reasonable time
> > frame. And most of those won't make weight with a
> > combination of less-expensive (spelled heavier) motors and
> > battery packs. Many that do would become instantly obsolete
> > if any significant repair such as torn-out landing gear
> > enters the equation. What I'm going to propose is to
> > take the motor batteries (not Rx battery) out of the
> > equation and require a weight significantly lighter than a
> > glow plane (my preliminary research indicates 8.7 pounds
> > which is 2-1/4 pounds lighter than a
> > glow plane). This isn't really my idea. I've just
> > worked
> > up what I believe to be a solution to comments
> > I've been hearing on the contest trail for a few years
> > now. Everybody has the right to an opinion on it and should
> > make their feelings known to their respective AMA Contest
> > Board rep when the time comes.
> >
> > Verne
> >
> >
> > ---- Mike Hester <kerlock at comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Verne you're pretty much talking about just about
> > everybody flying pattern.
> > > Even a lot of the sponsored guys don't get nearly
> > as much help as one would
> > > think (you've been around Andrew and others so
> > this is pretty common
> > > knowledge). Very very few get a lot of support. Most
> > of us pay through the
> > > nose to compete. Honestly one of the things I wanted
> > to do was make it a
> > > little cheaper if you're
> > willing to do the work on it, but even then it's
> > > not "cheap". if there's a real answer I
> > don't know what it is.
> > >
> > > What I can answer is the Black Magic question, because
> > you asked =) As far
> > > as I know, better than 90-95% of them made weight
> > right off the table. The
> > > ones who didn't, you can usually find a common
> > denominator somewhere that
> > > had they done it different, they wouldn't have
> > been overweight. At least the
> > > few I am aware of. But almost all of them that I am
> > aware of that are flying
> > > made it the first time. Some are even lighter than I
> > have yet achieved. I
> > > know of a few exceptions but don't know of any
> > that didn't make it
> > > eventually after some tweaking. If you follow the
> > directions to the letter
> > > and never get complacent, you'll make it. Usually
> > with room to spare. In
> > > almost every case the extra weight was picked up on
> > the finish/paint, or in
> >
> > > the selection and methods of sheeting. I don't
> > know personally of anyone who
> > > didn't make it easily on the second attept.
> > >
> > > So, it can be done. But I won't kid you, it's
> > a lot of work. The reward IMHO
> > > is the durability. I am still amazed at how much these
> > things can take
> > > before they break! (I thought Archie's was toast
> > for sure last year at
> > > Cincy!)
> > >
> > > LOL Zen building....ok, I won't argue that, me and
> > Dean do have that
> > > mindset. We actually enjoy the process. It's not
> > work (unless it isn't
> > > mine). We know we're the minority as far as that
> > goes. Most people just want
> > > to fly, NOW. But I enjoy the shop stuff as much as the
> > flying.
> > >
> > > I really don't know of many planes that
> > "can't" make weight under the
> > > current rules. Some are just easier than others. But
> > just for the record,
> > > the Black Magics have a pretty good track record
> > overall, thus far. But they
> > > aren't for everyone. There are plenty of composite
> > planes that can easily
> > > make weight. Although you sort of get what you get,
> > and hope it's light
> > > enough in almost all cases. The only way to totally
> > avoid that is to do it
> > > all yourself. And although there are a suprising
> > number of people who will,
> > > a lot can't, or won't.
> > >
> > > FWIW the future is looking better than ever, across
> > the board. Equipment is
> > > better and more reliable, newer airframes are SOLID
> > and the quality is
> > > getting better, the only thing not getting better is
> > the price tag.
> > >
> > > -Mike
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> > > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:45 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > >
> > >
> > > > Arch,
> > > > How many Black Magics are out there that made
> > weight by someone who built
> > > > one the first time, or even the second? I know
> > Mike and Dean can do it,
> > > > that's what I meant by the "building
> > skills of Zen". What I'm talking
> > > > about and who I'm listening to are the
> > totally unsponsored guys who can't
> > > > just pick up the phone and get something right
> > now because of their
> > > > reputation and also have to pay full price for
> > everything. This isn't a
> > > > shot at anyone who has any level of sponsorship.
> > I fall into that category
> > > > myself. I'm just hearing a lot of frustration
> > on the contest trail
> > and
> > > > have been for a couple of years.
> > > >
> > > > Verne
> > > >
> > > > ---- Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net>
> > wrote:
> > > >> I agree with Jon and Dave. Getting rid
> > of the weight limit or even
> > > >> changing
> > > >> it is a bad idea. The price of
> > batteries keeps dropping. PATTERN IS
> > > >> NEVER
> > > >> GOING TO BE CHEAP, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE WANT
> > IT TO BE. It is always
> > > >> going
> > > >> to be expensive to go to contests, so saving
> > 100-200 on a set of
> > > >> batteries
> > > >> is offset by the other costs associated with
> > it. There are airframes out
> > > >> there that you could use heavy packs and
> > still be under weight. Dave
> > > >> Lockhart is under 10lbs
> > flying electric, so he could definitely go with
> > > >> significantly heavier batteries. I know
> > that there is a set of Black
> > > >> Magics
> > > >> that are easily under using about the
> > heaviest electric setup known now
> > > >> and
> > > >> it is still legal. There are options
> > out there without changing the
> > > >> rules.
> > > >> It wasn't that many years ago people
> > swore you couldn't build the large 2
> > > >> meter stuff under 11 lbs, now there are full
> > built up balsa kits coming
> > > >> in
> > > >> at 9.5lbs. It can be done even with the
> > heavier electric stuff.
> > > >>
> > > >> Arch
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > > >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> > On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:19 PM
> > > >> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > > >>
> > > >> Amen. The theory was, when they went to
> > 2 meters, unlimited engines
> > > >> and 11 lbs that things would get cheaper
> > because they could use larger,
> > > >> less finicky engines than the .61's at
> > the time. Yeah, right. My YS
> > > >> is fuel injected, supercharged, CDI, and
> > running on 30%. The planes
> > > >> will
> > change to fit ANY new rules,and cost will likely rise
> > along with
> > > >> it.
> > > >>
> > > >> My attitude is that both fuel and electric
> > airplanes are weighed
> > > >> without fuel. My fuel weighs a lot,
> > electric fuel doesn't weigh
> > > >> anything. Electrics just
> > have a heavy fuel tank. They are at a
> > > >> definite advantage in many cases because they
> > never weigh more than 11
> > > >> lbs in flight, while a fuel airplane often
> > does.
> > > >>
> > > >> Dave is right, the cost curve is starting to
> > favor electrics, assuming
> > > >> you have no current investment in either
> > technology. The Zippy packs
> > > >> will get better and better, and the cost of
> > electric continues to come
> > > >> down. Go to hobbycity.com and look
> > around at their motors, speed
> > > >> controllers, batteries and chargers if you
> > don't
> > believe me. The only
> > > >> advantage for me right now with YS's
> > other than the fact I have
> > > >> invested in them, is that I get get two
> > practice sequences per flight.
> > > >> Plus, they don't try to burn my house
> > down. ;)
> > > >>
> > > >> Jon Lowe
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> > > >> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > >> Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:57 pm
> > > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> <96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is
> > legal. Your challenge is to meet those
> > > >> specs with whatever equipment you choose.
> > > >>
> > > >> Raise any of those limits, and the cost and
> > complexity of pattern goes
> > > >> up.
> > > >> If you think what pattern needs is more cost
> > and complexity, submit the
> > > >> proposal. And as Duane notes, the new
> > breed of monoplanes will obsolete
> > > >> your DA-50 Bipe.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >>
> > > >> Dave
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > > >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> > On Behalf Of J N
> > > >> Hiller
> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
> > > >> To: General pattern discussion
> > > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > > >>
> > > >> I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
> > > >> Jim
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > > >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On
> > Behalf Of Duane Beck
> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June
> > 03, 2009 10:06 AM
> > > >> To: General pattern discussion
> > > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > > >>
> > > >> http://www.mini-iac.com/
> > > >> DA-50's and larger biplanes very
> > common. Have at it. :-)
> > > >>
> > > >> Duane
> > > >>
> > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> > > >> To: jpavlick at idseng.com,
> > "General pattern discussion"
> > > >> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT
> > -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> > > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Interesting discussion. I always felt the
> > weight limit replaced the
> > > >> displacement limit prevent the use of very
> > large engines.
> > > >>
> > > >> Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger
> > biplanes. I have wanted to
> > > >> build one for a long time.
> > > >>
> > > >> Bring it on.
> > > >>
> > > >> Jim Hiller
> > > >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > > >> 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
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > > >> 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
> >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. 
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/62987945/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  3 13:25:53 2009
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:25:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <10282.55524.qm@web51011.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <10282.55524.qm@web51011.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9CDC16C02D2E460D8F36DA248C41E651@davedesktop>

As has been noted many times previously, no one is going to get disqualified
at a local contest because their current day design and equipped plane is
slightly overweight.  And has been discussed previously, the NATs is a
different animal - if you go to the NATs and will be in contention, you
ought to be in compliance with the rules.  Ergo, my following discussion
assumes planes of legal weight.

So what is the average weight of a glow plane now at takeoff?  I think 12
lbs (5.5 kg previously quoted) is probably close to right - and that is some
guys that are carrying enough fuel to practice 2 sequences (tho that has
always eluded me, I don't see the point of practicing while carrying around
an extra pound of dead weight).  And there are some glow planes that will
run out of fuel if they took off at 12 lbs (either because they weigh more
than 11 lbs dry, or they need more than 16 oz of fuel by weight to complete
the sequence).  And the lightest stuff is down around 9.25 - 9.5 lbs dry and
only needs 10 oz for a full Masters schedule.
 
Electrics weigh anywhere from 9.75 lbs to 11 pounds, and the average is
probably 10.75 lbs.

So....you put in a rule change that allows weight (12 lbs) to be measured at
takeoff, and you have just given the electrics a 1.25 lb advantage (nothing
fair about that if you are a glow flyer and can't afford to convert to
electric).  The electrics do not now, and certainly not in the future, need
an advantage.  Giving electrics another 1.25 lbs to work with WILL ESCALATE
the size, cost, and complexity of the average pattern plane.  Trying to
legislate different takeoff weights for glow and electric (and let's add
gas, and distinguish between 2C and 4C while we are at it) would be an
administrative nightmare, would always be contentious, and always be in a
state of flux as technology changes.


Verne - How/when/who/why it was decided electrics should be weighed with
batteries is mute at this point - it is done and established.  It could have
gone either way, and if it had gone the other way, I suspect there would be
very few glow flyers left in pattern.  With the performance electrics
already have (arguably superior), giving them an additional advantage will
accelerate the death of glow (which is imminent as electrics improve).
Trying to legislate room for heavy electric motors and heavy electric
batteries will only allow the top end electric stuff to increase in
performance (and cost) and the cheaper heavier electric stuff will still be
uncompetitive (and further bury glow).  In competitive events, competitors
push and exploit the rules.  The history in pattern is very clear......"we"
eliminated engine displacement rules to allow larger, cheaper sport glow and
gas engines to compete......it didn't work because the performance bar was
raised as the rules were exploited by YS and OS.  The same thing will happen
with electric if the rules are changed to allow it.


Mike, not picking on you.....but what has fairness got to do with
competition?  Competition has rules, and if everyone plays by the rules, and
the cheaters are disqualified, it is a level playing field and it is fair.
Back in the day, my first pattern motor was a Super Tigre S-61 with the
heavy finned ST header and heavy ST pipe because I couldn't afford the
latest Rossi at 3 times the cost, and probably a couple month wait.  I beat
the crap out of a lot of Rossi flyers because I practiced more.  Current
day, electrics and the YS CDI are the latest and greatest, and there is
nothing fair about some people not being able to afford them, but that is
the nature of open competition.  The rules should no more be changed to help
the cheaper heavier True RC / Rhino lipo than they should be changed to
allow everyone to run a CDI.
 
Regards,

Dave



 
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of mike mueller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:06 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


 I think Verne is right on this. We need some form of fairness here and the
current system is not fair or logical. Mike

--- On Wed, 6/3/09, verne at twmi.rr.com <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:

> From: verne at twmi.rr.com <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 12:53 PM
> Derek,
> We've discussed raising the weight before and it's always
> been voted down. I believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart
> has steadfastly argued that raising the weight limit will
> inevitably increase the size of our planes, obsoleting
> anything that preceded it. I agree with him. 
> 
> What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for someone
> wanting to try electric to be able to do so without having
> to buy the most expensive equipment available. For example,
> at a contest last weekend, a friend and fellow pattern pilot
> had a set of Zippy packs that weighed roughly 5.5 ounces
> more than my FlightPower packs. Pretty much the same
> difference when compared to Andrew's TP packs. The Zippy's
> as we all know, were less than half the cost. I know for
> sure that my friend would have made weight with my FP's or
> Andrew's TP's, but he couldn't afford that after all the
> other "electric" purchases. 
> 
> What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked out, is
> that electric airplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be
> weighed without their "fuel", just like glow. The Rx battery
> will have to be in the plane, just like glow. Yes, I realize
> that there are UBEC's out there but I don't know of anyone
> who trusts them with the kind of current we're running. In
> any event, my preliminary research indicates that roughly
> 8.7 pounds should be just about right, but I want to make
> sure before I submit the proposal.
> 
> Verne
> 
> ? 
> ---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
> wrote: 
> > Verne,
> > 
> > When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the
> proposals which was
> > passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the
> weight limit for their
> > helicopters effective 1/1/2010.? Here is the new
> wording:
> > 
> > a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (*with
> *fuel *or *batteries)
> > must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
> > 
> > Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective
> 01/01/10.
> > 
> > I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A
> sub-committee members to see if
> > there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to
> 5.5kg.? What does
> > everyone think about this?
> > 
> > -Derek
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > > Bill,
> > > I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to
> address that very issue.
> > > Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the
> contest board anytime soon. In
> > > the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention
> in the glow to electric
> > > comparison and that's that an electric plane
> doesn't need as much internal
> > > reinforcement because there's virtually no
> vibrational effects to contend
> > > with that you do with glow. That equates to
> lighter airframes being
> > > acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to
> power the Rx and servos.
> > > An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah.
> The same flight in glow is
> > > typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric
> pilots will tell you that
> > > making weight in electric is generally a pretty
> expensive proposition with a
> > > limited number of 2 meter planes available that
> are usually vacuum-bagged
> > > composite affairs. In addition, your best chances
> for making weight will
> > > also necessitate the lightest and generally most
> expensive motors and
> > > batteries. There are exceptio
> > >? ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about
> most of them, but I'll be able
> > > to point to just as many examples of guys that
> fly overweight at local
> > > contests where they know they won't be weighed
> and the only thing they're
> > > really guilty of is not spending the extra money
> that the lightest batteries
> > > and motors cost. In every other way, the planes
> they're flying are the same
> > > as the ones they're competing against. The
> proposal I'm working on is not
> > > self-serving because my planes make weight, but
> getting there is both too
> > > expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My
> proposal won't be to allow
> > > electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that
> they weigh less, but
> > > without the "fuel". The proposal will take into
> account that electric motors
> > > are inherently lighter than their glow
> counterparts as well as the reduced
> > > structural requirements. It will limit the mah of
> permissible packs to
> > > control that end of the equation and there's
> already a voltage limit on the
> > > books which is fine as it
> > >? stands. I'm currently doing survey work at
> the contests I go to to see
> > > where everybody is at weight-wise and will post
> my proposal on this list
> > > soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to
> voice their opinions to their
> > > respective Contest Board reps.
> > >
> > > Verne Koester
> > > AMA District 7
> > > Contest Board
> > >? ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
> wrote:
> > > >? I am certain this has been beaten to
> death while I was off doing other
> > > > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may
> weigh more than five (5)
> > > > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding
> fuel, ready for takeoff.
> > > > Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> > > >
> > > > Why can't an electric "deduct" the
> equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??? Is
> > > > a plane without fuel rally "ready for
> takeoff"??
> > > >
> > > > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI
> rule, but it makes no
> > > > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed
> without fuel and can weigh
> > > > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could
> add another 10 to 12 ounces of
> > > > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with
> batteries weight
> > > > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight
> by the rules.
> > > >
> > > > Put another way, what does a YS and full
> fuel weigh compared to a
> > > > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > > >
> > > > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > > > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > > > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > > >
> > > > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > > > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > > >
> > > > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > > > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > > >
> > > >? So I can see an argument that the
> electrics have a weight advantage
> > > > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But
> with "fuel" electric is at
> > > > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > > >
> > > > So if I build a plane for electric I need to
> build it 20 plus ounces
> > > > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro
> motor in it. How does that
> > > > make sense. I know I am missing something
> important here, so educate me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> 


      
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From Tom.Koenig at actewagl.com.au  Wed Jun  3 14:03:37 2009
From: Tom.Koenig at actewagl.com.au (Koenig, Tom)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:03:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net>
	<20090603145157.HCBHT.38757.root@hrndva-web01-z01>
	<3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <724ADB95DA93CC4BA53B10F84AF85777C53948BA@CBRMAIL10.actewagl.production.com.au>

Hi all and Derek,

Speaking only for myself (in no way for the country) but I think the rest of the world will shout you down? The US is merely one country, one vote.

I would like to mention something I have thus far not read in this discussion. Let's consider that in many countries the cars are (much) smaller, (most) flying fields are extremely noise conscious and; houses/flats are in general smaller.
I seem to remember the two meter rule having something to do with the size of a door and being able to manhandle a 2m model through such door?

Personally, I am with Dave L, the FAI rules should not be messed with.

I can't wait until someone does a (competitive) 2 m, 5 kg turbo prop??!!

Best regards

Tom

________________________________
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Derek Koopowitz
Sent: Thursday, 4 June 2009 2:53 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Verne,

When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the proposals which was passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the weight limit for their helicopters effective 1/1/2010.  Here is the new wording:

a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (with fuel or batteries) must not exceed 6.5 kg.

Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective 01/01/10.
I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A sub-committee members to see if there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to 5.5kg.  What does everyone think about this?

-Derek
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com<mailto:verne at twmi.rr.com>> wrote:
Bill,
I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that very issue. Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board anytime soon. In the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the glow to electric comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much internal reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational effects to contend with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter airframes being acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the Rx and servos. An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same flight in glow is typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots will tell you that making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive proposition with a limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually vacuum-bagged composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making weight will also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive motors and batteries. There are exceptio
 ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of them, but I'll be able to point to just as many examples of guys that fly overweight at local contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing they're really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest batteries and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're flying are the same as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm working on is not self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting there is both too expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't be to allow electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh less, but without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that electric motors are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well as the reduced structural requirements. It will limit the mah of permissible packs to control that end of the equation and there's already a voltage limit on the books which is fine as it
 stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the contests I go to to see where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal on this list soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their opinions to their respective Contest Board reps.

Verne Koester
AMA District 7
Contest Board
---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net<mailto:wemodels at cox.net>> wrote:
>  I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was off doing other
> things, but can anyone explain this:
>
>
> Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5)
> kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff.
> Electric models are weighed with batteries.
>
> Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??  Is
> a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
>
> I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes no
> logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and can weigh
> right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12 ounces of
> weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight
> 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
>
> Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared to a
> motor+ESC+batteries?
>
> Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
>
> Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
>
> YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
>
>  So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight advantage
> when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" electric is at
> a 20 ounce disadvantage.
>
> So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus ounces
> lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does that
> make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so educate me.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


________________________________
************************************************************************
*PLEASE NOTE* This email and any attachments may
be confidential. If received in error, please delete all
copies and advise the sender. The reproduction or
dissemination of this email or its attachments is
prohibited without the consent of the sender.

WARNING RE VIRUSES: Our computer systems sweep
outgoing email to guard against viruses, but no warranty
is given that this email or its attachments are virus free.
Before opening or using attachments, please check for
viruses. Our liability is limited to the re-supply of any
affected attachments.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views of the
organisation.
************************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/53a21f14/attachment.html>

From johnfuqua at embarqmail.com  Wed Jun  3 15:02:30 2009
From: johnfuqua at embarqmail.com (John Fuqua)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:02:30 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <724ADB95DA93CC4BA53B10F84AF85777C53948BA@CBRMAIL10.actewagl.production.com.au>
References: <4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net><20090603145157.HCBHT.38757.root@hrndva-web01-z01><3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
	<724ADB95DA93CC4BA53B10F84AF85777C53948BA@CBRMAIL10.actewagl.production.com.au>
Message-ID: <02c001c9e49f$587e3950$7101a8c0@ltm733c31251f5>

For those of us who were around at the time of that rule change and remember
Ron Chidgey who was the CIAM F3A Chairman may also remember the rule about
2 stoke .60s and 4 stroke 1.20s.   The solution Ron pushed that was adopted
was to limit airplane size and weight but eliminate engine size as a
criteria.   This brought us 1.40, 2 and 4 stroke engines and now electrics.


 

By the way we would need a rule change for turbo props (LOL!!!)

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Koenig, Tom
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:04 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

 

Hi all and Derek,

 

Speaking only for myself (in no way for the country) but I think the rest of
the world will shout you down? The US is merely one country, one vote.

 

I would like to mention something I have thus far not read in this
discussion. Let's consider that in many countries the cars are (much)
smaller, (most) flying fields are extremely noise conscious and;
houses/flats are in general smaller.

I seem to remember the two meter rule having something to do with the size
of a door and being able to manhandle a 2m model through such door?

 

Personally, I am with Dave L, the FAI rules should not be messed with.

 

I can't wait until someone does a (competitive) 2 m, 5 kg turbo prop??!!

 

Best regards

 

Tom

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Derek
Koopowitz
Sent: Thursday, 4 June 2009 2:53 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

 

Verne,

 

When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the proposals which was
passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the weight limit for their
helicopters effective 1/1/2010.  Here is the new wording:

 

a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (with fuel or batteries) must
not exceed 6.5 kg.

Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective 01/01/10.

I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A sub-committee members to see if
there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to 5.5kg.  What does
everyone think about this?

-Derek

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:

Bill,
I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that very issue.
Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board anytime soon. In
the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the glow to electric
comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much internal
reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational effects to contend
with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter airframes being
acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the Rx and servos.
An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same flight in glow is
typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots will tell you that
making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive proposition with a
limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually vacuum-bagged
composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making weight will
also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive motors and
batteries. There are exceptio
 ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of them, but I'll be able
to point to just as many examples of guys that fly overweight at local
contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing they're
really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest batteries
and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're flying are the same
as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm working on is not
self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting there is both too
expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't be to allow
electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh less, but
without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that electric motors
are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well as the reduced
structural requirements. It will limit the mah of permissible packs to
control that end of the equation and there's already a voltage limit on the
books which is fine as it
 stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the contests I go to to see
where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal on this list
soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their opinions to their
respective Contest Board reps.

Verne Koester
AMA District 7
Contest Board

---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:
>  I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was off doing other
> things, but can anyone explain this:
>
>
> Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5)
> kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff.
> Electric models are weighed with batteries.
>
> Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??  Is
> a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
>
> I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes no
> logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and can weigh
> right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12 ounces of
> weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight
> 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
>
> Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared to a
> motor+ESC+batteries?
>
> Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
>
> Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
>
> YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
>
>  So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight advantage
> when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" electric is at
> a 20 ounce disadvantage.
>
> So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus ounces
> lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does that
> make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so educate me.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

 

 

  _____  

************************************************************************
*PLEASE NOTE* This email and any attachments may
be confidential. If received in error, please delete all
copies and advise the sender. The reproduction or
dissemination of this email or its attachments is
prohibited without the consent of the sender.

WARNING RE VIRUSES: Our computer systems sweep
outgoing email to guard against viruses, but no warranty
is given that this email or its attachments are virus free.
Before opening or using attachments, please check for
viruses. Our liability is limited to the re-supply of any
affected attachments.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views of the
organisation.
************************************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/243b1530/attachment.html>

From rcpilot at wowway.com  Wed Jun  3 15:23:45 2009
From: rcpilot at wowway.com (Ron Hansen)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:23:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 D5 Shootout
Message-ID: <93650982EA0247C7802A088AEF0FAB27@toshibauser>

Anyone interested in sharing a room with me this weekend?
 
I'm going to stay over Fri and Sat night.
 
Ron Hansen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090603/06eedbd0/attachment.html>

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Wed Jun  3 15:29:36 2009
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:29:36 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 D5 Shootout
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57EB6DE@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

But can you guarantee there will be "no ill effects" for someone doing so??  


--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld


----- Original Message -----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed Jun 03 19:23:45 2009
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 D5 Shootout

Anyone interested in sharing a room with me this weekend?

 

I?m going to stay over Fri and Sat night.

 

Ron Hansen


From jnhiller at earthlink.net  Wed Jun  3 16:03:43 2009
From: jnhiller at earthlink.net (J N Hiller)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:03:43 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <D2240C9D2E1F46E2A8113EF420208B53@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPIEGBEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>

OH not me. I would vote against a weight increase. I'm not a high tech guy
and fly pattern on the cheap. This is still mostly about flying and
considering my flying ability I don't feel I can buy enough points at any
price to justify it, besides I like to build. I fly a home made 1.20 size
72" wood airplane around 9 pounds with maybe an all up cost of about $500
(excellent pattern trainer in all classes).
I might be able to make weight with a 2 ci glow now. I just thought that if
the weight limit was removed we would see 12-14 pound airplanes with big gas
burners (IMAC crossover) and I would probably indulge, and yes a single 2m
wing will easily carry the weight of a 50 cc but what about a DA 100? Twins
run smooth.
The real cost is traveling in both time away from home and $$, even for us
non-competitive old guys, always has been, but I can't kick the habit.
Besides pattern fliers make good friends.
If I wasn't flying pattern I would be flying IMAC. Probably will anyway.
Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:24 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Jim,

Monoplanes are at 74" span now, and about 900 squares because that is where
the current schedules have pushed the designs to.  The wings don't need to
be any bigger for the 11 lb weight limit.  But at 74" and 900 squares, there
is plenty of room to grow the monoplane bigger if the weight limit is
increased.

The bottom line doesn't change - bigger bipe, bigger monoplane, bigger any
plane will increase costs.

If you think pattern needs more cost and complexity, whether it be biplanes
or monoplanes, submit a proposal.

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:03 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

A monoplane will have higher wing loading. How high is too high?
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:57 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

<96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
specs with whatever equipment you choose.

Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes up.
If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
your DA-50 Bipe.

Regards,

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

http://www.mini-iac.com/
DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)

Duane

----- Original Message -----
From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.

Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
build one for a long time.

Bring it on.

Jim Hiller
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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


From homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  3 17:36:28 2009
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com (krishlan fitzsimmons)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:36:28 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <581023.89844.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Where it isn't fair is in takeoff weight, or even landing weight. A glow plane can put a 40 ounce tank in if they want, they could fly at 13 lbs if they want to help ballast the plane for heavy wind conditions. They could land at 12 lbs.? Where does a 11 lb weight matter with that? Doesn't seem right to me. Does this mean I can add a fuel tank to my 10.5 lb Electric and ballast it where I want it???? It would help me tremendously at the nats in the wind!!! This argument is silly. There should be a takeoff weight rule. 
If you fly glow, and your plane is right at 11 lbs, and you can't make the takeoff rule weight, then I guess you would be in the same boat as the E guys are now.. The only people that seem to have a problem with change, mostly seem to be the glow guys. 
IMO, there is no advantage to either in flight. I world class flyer could beat us all with either. 

For those that think the size would increase with a weight change, then go to a takeoff weight rule. I doubt it would happen then. 



Chris   ?  ?  ?

--- On Wed, 6/3/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 5:02 PM

OH not me. I would vote against a weight increase. I'm not a high tech guy
and fly pattern on the cheap. This is still mostly about flying and
considering my flying ability I don't feel I can buy enough points at any
price to justify it, besides I like to build. I fly a home made 1.20 size
72" wood airplane around 9 pounds with maybe an all up cost of about $500
(excellent pattern trainer in all classes).
I might be able to make weight with a 2 ci glow now. I just thought that if
the weight limit was removed we would see 12-14 pound airplanes with big gas
burners (IMAC crossover) and I would probably indulge, and yes a single 2m
wing will easily carry the weight of a 50 cc but what about a DA 100? Twins
run smooth.
The real cost is traveling in both time away from home and $$, even for us
non-competitive old guys, always has been, but I can't kick the habit.
Besides pattern fliers make good friends.
If I wasn't flying pattern I would be flying IMAC. Probably will anyway.
Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:24 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Jim,

Monoplanes are at 74" span now, and about 900 squares because that is where
the current schedules have pushed the designs to.? The wings don't need to
be any bigger for the 11 lb weight limit.? But at 74" and 900 squares, there
is plenty of room to grow the monoplane bigger if the weight limit is
increased.

The bottom line doesn't change - bigger bipe, bigger monoplane, bigger any
plane will increase costs.

If you think pattern needs more cost and complexity, whether it be biplanes
or monoplanes, submit a proposal.

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:03 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

A monoplane will have higher wing loading. How high is too high?
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:57 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

<96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.? Your challenge is to meet those
specs with whatever equipment you choose.

Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes up.
If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
proposal.? And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
your DA-50 Bipe.

Regards,

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

http://www.mini-iac.com/
DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.? Have at it.? :-)

Duane

----- Original Message -----
From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.

Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
build one for a long time.

Bring it on.

Jim Hiller
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/f7a97688/attachment.html>

From homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  3 17:48:44 2009
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com (krishlan fitzsimmons)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:48:44 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <360245.83799.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Actually Dave, if we could fly large IMAC planes, our airframe cost would go down.  Top of the line 40% IMAC planes cost less than an Oxai. 

Chris   ?  ?  ?

--- On Wed, 6/3/09, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:

From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 1:24 PM

Jim,

Monoplanes are at 74" span now, and about 900 squares because that is where
the current schedules have pushed the designs to.? The wings don't need to
be any bigger for the 11 lb weight limit.? But at 74" and 900 squares, there
is plenty of room to grow the monoplane bigger if the weight limit is
increased.

The bottom line doesn't change - bigger bipe, bigger monoplane, bigger any
plane will increase costs.

If you think pattern needs more cost and complexity, whether it be biplanes
or monoplanes, submit a proposal.

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:03 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

A monoplane will have higher wing loading. How high is too high?
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:57 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

<96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.? Your challenge is to meet those
specs with whatever equipment you choose.

Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes up.
If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
proposal.? And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
your DA-50 Bipe.

Regards,

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

http://www.mini-iac.com/
DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.? Have at it.? :-)

Duane

----- Original Message -----
From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.

Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
build one for a long time.

Bring it on.

Jim Hiller
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/f3564194/attachment.html>

From jnhiller at earthlink.net  Wed Jun  3 17:59:56 2009
From: jnhiller at earthlink.net (J N Hiller)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:59:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <581023.89844.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPAEGEEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>

I would support a maximum takeoff weight rule but as mentioned earlier it
may be difficult to manage. Might need a scales in the ready box.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of krishlan
fitzsimmons
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:36 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Where it isn't fair is in takeoff weight, or even landing weight. A glow
plane can put a 40 ounce tank in if they want, they could fly at 13 lbs if
they want to help ballast the plane for heavy wind conditions. They could
land at 12 lbs.  Where does a 11 lb weight matter with that? Doesn't seem
right to me. Does this mean I can add a fuel tank to my 10.5 lb Electric and
ballast it where I want it???? It would help me tremendously at the nats in
the wind!!! This argument is silly. There should be a takeoff weight rule.
If you fly glow, and your plane is right at 11 lbs, and you can't make the
takeoff rule weight, then I guess you would be in the same boat as the E
guys are now.. The only people that seem to have a problem with change,
mostly seem to be the glow guys.
IMO, there is no advantage to either in flight. I world class flyer could
beat us all with either.

For those that think the size would increase with a weight change, then go
to a takeoff weight rule. I doubt it would happen then.



Chris





--- On Wed, 6/3/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 5:02 PM
OH not me. I would vote against a weight increase. I'm not a high tech guy
and fly pattern on the cheap. This is still mostly about flying and
considering my flying ability I don't feel I can buy enough points at any
price to justify it, besides I like to build. I fly a home made 1.20 size
72" wood airplane around 9 pounds with maybe an all up cost of about $500
(excellent pattern trainer in all classes).
I might be able to make weight with a 2 ci glow now. I just thought that if
the weight limit was removed we would see 12-14 pound airplanes with big gas
burners (IMAC crossover) and I would probably indulge, and yes a single 2m
wing will easily carry the weight of a 50 cc but what about a DA 100? Twins
run smooth.
The real cost is traveling in both time away from home and $$, even for us
non-competitive old guys, always has been, but I can't kick the habit.
Besides pattern fliers make good friends.
If I wasn't flying pattern I would be flying IMAC. Probably will anyway.
Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:24 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Jim,

Monoplanes are at 74" span now, and about 900 squares because that is where
the current schedules have pushed the designs to.  The wings don't need to
be any bigger for the 11 lb weight limit.  But at 74" and 900 squares, there
is plenty of room to grow the monoplane bigger if the weight limit is
increased.

The bottom line doesn't change - bigger bipe, bigger monoplane, bigger any
plane will increase costs.

If you think pattern needs more cost and complexity, whether it be biplanes
or monoplanes, submit a proposal.

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:03 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

A monoplane will have higher wing loading. How high is too high?
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:57 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

<96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
specs with whatever equipment you choose.

Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes up.
If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
your DA-50 Bipe.

Regards,

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

http://www.mini-iac.com/
DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)

Duane

----- Original Message -----
From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.

Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
build one for a long time.

Bring it on.

Jim Hiller
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/e568038e/attachment.html>

From homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  3 18:09:59 2009
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com (krishlan fitzsimmons)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:09:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <949361.64638.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Well, before each finals flight at the nats would be fine. I mean we do a sound test before them now. Wouldn't be to hard to weigh them.? Locals don't weigh anyway. 
Get used to building light, it'll never change. Glow folk don't want to see E succeed. I can't blame em. 

Chris   ?  ?  ?

--- On Wed, 6/3/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 6:58 PM




 
 
 
 
 






I would
support a maximum takeoff weight rule but as mentioned earlier it may be
difficult to manage. Might need a scales in the ready box. 

Jim 

? 

-----Original
Message-----

From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of krishlan fitzsimmons

Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009
6:36 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Weight

? 


 
  
  Where
  it isn't fair is in takeoff weight, or even landing weight. A glow plane can
  put a 40 ounce tank in if they want, they could fly at 13 lbs if they want to
  help ballast the plane for heavy wind conditions. They could land at 12 lbs.?
  Where does a 11 lb weight matter with that? Doesn't seem right to me. Does
  this mean I can add a fuel tank to my 10.5 lb Electric and ballast it where I
  want it???? It would help me tremendously at the nats in the wind!!! This
  argument is silly. There should be a takeoff weight rule. 

  If you fly glow, and your plane is right at 11 lbs, and you can't make the
  takeoff rule weight, then I guess you would be in the same boat as the E guys
  are now.. The only people that seem to have a problem with change, mostly
  seem to be the glow guys. 

  IMO, there is no advantage to either in flight. I world class flyer could
  beat us all with either. 

  

  For those that think the size would increase with a weight change, then go to
  a takeoff weight rule. I doubt it would happen then. 

  

  

   
  Chris  
  ? 
  ? 
  ? 
  

  

  --- On Wed, 6/3/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
  wrote: 
  
  

  From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

  To: "General pattern discussion"
  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

  Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 5:02 PM 
  OH not me. I would vote against a weight increase. I'm
  not a high tech guy

  and fly pattern on the cheap. This is still mostly about flying and

  considering my flying ability I don't feel I can buy enough points at any

  price to justify it, besides I like to build. I fly a home made 1.20 size

  72" wood airplane around 9 pounds with maybe an all up cost of about
  $500

  (excellent pattern trainer in all classes).

  I might be able to make weight with a 2 ci glow now. I just thought that if

  the weight limit was removed we would see 12-14 pound airplanes with big gas

  burners (IMAC crossover) and I would probably indulge, and yes a single 2m

  wing will easily carry the weight of a 50 cc but what about a DA 100? Twins

  run smooth.

  The real cost is traveling in both time away from home and $$, even for us

  non-competitive old guys, always has been, but I can't kick the habit.

  Besides pattern fliers make good friends.

  If I wasn't flying pattern I would be flying IMAC. Probably will anyway.

  Jim

  

  

  -----Original Message-----

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org

  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On
  Behalf Of Dave

  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:24 PM

  To: 'General pattern discussion'

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

  

  Jim,

  

  Monoplanes are at 74" span now, and about 900 squares because that is
  where

  the current schedules have pushed the designs to.? The wings don't need
  to

  be any bigger for the 11 lb weight limit.? But at 74" and 900
  squares, there

  is plenty of room to grow the monoplane bigger if the weight limit is

  increased.

  

  The bottom line doesn't change - bigger bipe, bigger monoplane, bigger any

  plane will increase costs.

  

  If you think pattern needs more cost and complexity, whether it be biplanes

  or monoplanes, submit a proposal.

  

  Regards,

  

  Dave

  

  

  

  -----Original Message-----

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org

  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
  On Behalf Of J N Hiller

  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:03 PM

  To: General pattern discussion

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

  

  A monoplane will have higher wing loading. How high is too high?

  Jim

  

  -----Original Message-----

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org

  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On
  Behalf Of Dave

  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:57 AM

  To: 'General pattern discussion'

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

  

  <96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.? Your challenge is to
  meet those

  specs with whatever equipment you choose.

  

  Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes up.

  If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the

  proposal.? And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete

  your DA-50 Bipe.

  

  Regards,

  

  Dave

  

  

  -----Original Message-----

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org

  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
  On Behalf Of J N Hiller

  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM

  To: General pattern discussion

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

  

  I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.

  Jim

  

  -----Original Message-----

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org

  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On
  Behalf Of Duane Beck

  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM

  To: General pattern discussion

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

  

  http://www.mini-iac.com/

  DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.? Have at it.? :-)

  

  Duane

  

  ----- Original Message -----

  From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>

  To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General
  pattern discussion"

  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

  Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern

  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

  

  

  Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the

  displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.

  

  Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to

  build one for a long time.

  

  Bring it on.

  

  Jim Hiller

  _______________________________________________

  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

  

  _______________________________________________

  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 
  
  
 


? 



 


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/fa7fad78/attachment.html>

From geobet4 at verizon.net  Wed Jun  3 18:15:18 2009
From: geobet4 at verizon.net (George W.Kennie)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:15:18 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount
References: <D52B29EEE2294A22A28AB06C45863AED@CYBERPOWER><4E9CE280BC3C453992E6819FF174392C@xppro2>
	<3939450F975246468D3AE08EC65742C0@CYBERPOWER>
	<9EC6CCE4EE6C4759BCE3358D984B02BB@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <790A45E4352741F284E8AE49C5A1F372@CYBERPOWER>

Thanks Dave !




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dave 
  To: 'General pattern discussion' 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:04 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount


  George,

   

  Motors designed to be mounted on one end only in airframes with structure strong enough to handle the substantial cantilevered rotating mass work just fine.  Several years ago, several planes (different designs and manufacturers) with several motor types had problems with "whirl flutter" and motors broke loose, departed the plane, or tore the nose off the plane.  Having run softmounted, hardmounted, firewall mounted, nosering mounted, and mounted on both ends, I've found it easiest to control resonances in the plane when the mount is at both ends, and even better when a softmount is used.  A number of guys in D1 are running the Hacker A60 hardmounted to the nosering with a hardmounted aft bearing support - which the motor is designed for (Hacker sells a mount, or you can buy a flange bearing and setup your own aft support mechanism).

   

  Regards,

   

  Dave

   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of George W.Kennie
  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:48 PM
  To: General pattern discussion
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount

   

   

  Hi John,

   

  Sorry to have to tell you that I received no replies to my inquiry.

   

  I have the feeling that most people are just not addressing this issue.

   

  It would make a great product for somebody like Jerry or Chris to produce.All that would be required is 

  an X brace with an oversize receptacle at center to receive plastic inserts (like props) sized to fit shaft

  bearings.

   

  Georgie

   

   

   

   

   

   

    ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: John Ferrell 

    To: General pattern discussion 

    Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:50 AM

    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount

     

    FWIW:

    I am interested in an answer to your question too! It sure looks to me like some kind of nose bearing would be prudent...

     

    John Ferrell  W8CCW
     
    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
    ...."The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."  
       MARGARET THATCHER 
    http://DixieNC.US

      ----- Original Message ----- 

      From: George W.Kennie 

      To: NSRCA Mailing List 

      Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:54 PM

      Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount

       

      Hey Guys,

       

      I have a new project in the works and it involves mounting a 2K watt motor. This will be my first larger motor install so I felt that some advice from the Pros

      would probably be appropriate.

       

      The Motor is an outrunner and I can mount it from the back side directly to the firewall OR I can use standoffs and mount it from the front side of the motor.

      I keep feeling that there needs to be some kind of a stabilizing bearing on the free end as there portends to be a significant amount of rotating mass if I just 

      bolt the thing to the firewall while a pound of motor whirls around with a large prop exerting inertial rotating energy beyond the front of the cowl. It seems like 

      If I use the stand-offs, there will be a more rigid area between the prop and the motor, but then I worry about the back end. Should I figure out some kind of a 

      bearing mount on the firewall?

       

      Somebody set me straight on the accepted procedure please. 

       

      Thanks for you help,

       

      Georgie 

       


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter.
      We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
      SPAMfighter has removed 25187 of my spam emails to date.
      The Professional version does not have this message.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      _______________________________________________
      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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/104e4e3f/attachment.html>

From plachance at cox.net  Wed Jun  3 18:23:56 2009
From: plachance at cox.net (Paul LaChance)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:23:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <790A45E4352741F284E8AE49C5A1F372@CYBERPOWER>
References: <D52B29EEE2294A22A28AB06C45863AED@CYBERPOWER><4E9CE280BC3C453992E6819FF174392C@xppro2><3939450F975246468D3AE08EC65742C0@CYBERPOWER><9EC6CCE4EE6C4759BCE3358D984B02BB@davedesktop>
	<790A45E4352741F284E8AE49C5A1F372@CYBERPOWER>
Message-ID: <E186487B873F40CA87219A505CA45C22@PaulPC>

Hi all,

I do not think we should look at it as a glow versus E discussion, but a way to make it fair for both.  I agree neither really has an advantage everything else being equal.  I can see the argument from both sides.  The weight issue will never be a truly EQUAL thing.  The glow gets to weigh without fuel , but the plane becomes lighter throughout the flight.  This can create a disadvantage or advantage.  The E has to make weight WITH batteries in place, but the weight stays the same the entire flight. This can also create a disadvantage or advantage.

Maybe the answer is keep the size and sound restrictions as they are and remove the weight limit.  There is only so much the planes can weight before glow or E will both start to lose massive performance.  

Just a thought but seems it is the only way things can become fair either direction.  

As someone else mentioned (I think Chris)  the planes should be weighed BEFORE the flights in the finals.  It kind of defeats the purpose of making weight if the planes are weighed AFTER the flight and they remove items to make weight.  The advantage was still there to assist with the wind if the plane was overweight during the flight.  

Like I said, these are just thoughts. 

Paul  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/f108b9f9/attachment.html>

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Wed Jun  3 18:26:00 2009
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:26:00 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57EB6E0@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

Its not about not wanting to see E succeed.  Its about the ramifications of ANY rule change.   

It fundementally changes the equipment. I agree with Dave L on that, and that change is VERY expensive.   
The small growth we're experiencing in pattern now ( and there does seem to be some signs of that) is partially due to the large availability of GOOD used aircraft lowering the barrier to entry.  A rule change would wipe that out.  If you don't think so, than look around at how many planes from before the engine limit change are still flying.   None. 

Prior to that change we had the same large number of good, if outdate aircraft. But when the rules changed, there was an immediate draught. Both of used planes, and new ARC/ARF designs.  No one wants to make a mainstream kit that will be immediately outdated.  The consistency of our rules have allowed people to invest the time and recoup that investment in designing and kitting airplanes. 

I agree with the idea of a takeoff weight guideline, but hesitate on any rule changen and especially hesitate for a new technology.   The next one will be someone wanted to run a gasser but only the very best builders will be able to make weight. 

Start all over again. 

When E is cheaper and lighter, it will dominate. When 2 strokes were stronger ... They dominated. When 4-strokes caught up, they dominated.  

All sports of this nature have people that try new stuff. But we don't change the rules to help them.   Dave Von linsowe tried to run electric 15 years ago but couldn't make both weight and power. Should we have changed the rules then?  Its only because E is gaining ground and more are able to make it work that its an issue. 

I like the Bipes, but the same problem exists ... Hard to make weight. So guess what, most don't fly them. Or even try them. 

It'll always be something. 


--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld


----- Original Message -----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed Jun 03 22:09:56 2009
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Well, before each finals flight at the nats would be fine. I mean we do a sound test before them now. Wouldn't be to hard to weigh them.  Locals don't weigh anyway. 
Get used to building light, it'll never change. Glow folk don't want to see E succeed. I can't blame em. 


Chris 
 
 
 


--- On Wed, 6/3/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:



	From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
	Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
	To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
	Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 6:58 PM
	
	

	I would support a maximum takeoff weight rule but as mentioned earlier it may be difficult to manage. Might need a scales in the ready box.

	Jim

	 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of krishlan fitzsimmons
	Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:36 PM
	To: General pattern discussion
	Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

	 

	Where it isn't fair is in takeoff weight, or even landing weight. A glow plane can put a 40 ounce tank in if they want, they could fly at 13 lbs if they want to help ballast the plane for heavy wind conditions. They could land at 12 lbs.  Where does a 11 lb weight matter with that? Doesn't seem right to me. Does this mean I can add a fuel tank to my 10.5 lb Electric and ballast it where I want it???? It would help me tremendously at the nats in the wind!!! This argument is silly. There should be a takeoff weight rule. 
	If you fly glow, and your plane is right at 11 lbs, and you can't make the takeoff rule weight, then I guess you would be in the same boat as the E guys are now.. The only people that seem to have a problem with change, mostly seem to be the glow guys. 
	IMO, there is no advantage to either in flight. I world class flyer could beat us all with either. 
	
	For those that think the size would increase with a weight change, then go to a takeoff weight rule. I doubt it would happen then. 
	
	
	

	Chris 

	 

	 

	 

	
	
	--- On Wed, 6/3/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

	
	From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
	Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
	To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
	Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 5:02 PM

	OH not me. I would vote against a weight increase. I'm not a high tech guy
	and fly pattern on the cheap. This is still mostly about flying and
	considering my flying ability I don't feel I can buy enough points at any
	price to justify it, besides I like to build. I fly a home made 1.20 size
	72" wood airplane around 9 pounds with maybe an all up cost of about $500
	(excellent pattern trainer in all classes).
	I might be able to make weight with a 2 ci glow now. I just thought that if
	the weight limit was removed we would see 12-14 pound airplanes with big gas
	burners (IMAC crossover) and I would probably indulge, and yes a single 2m
	wing will easily carry the weight of a 50 cc but what about a DA 100? Twins
	run smooth.
	The real cost is traveling in both time away from home and $$, even for us
	non-competitive old guys, always has been, but I can't kick the habit.
	Besides pattern fliers make good friends.
	If I wasn't flying pattern I would be flying IMAC. Probably will anyway.
	Jim
	
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
	[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
	Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:24 PM
	To: 'General pattern discussion'
	Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
	
	Jim,
	
	Monoplanes are at 74" span now, and about 900 squares because that is where
	the current schedules have pushed the designs to.  The wings don't need to
	be any bigger for the 11 lb weight limit.  But at 74" and 900 squares, there
	is plenty of room to grow the monoplane bigger if the weight limit is
	increased.
	
	The bottom line doesn't change - bigger bipe, bigger monoplane, bigger any
	plane will increase costs.
	
	If you think pattern needs more cost and complexity, whether it be biplanes
	or monoplanes, submit a proposal.
	
	Regards,
	
	Dave
	
	
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
	[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
	Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:03 PM
	To: General pattern discussion
	Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
	
	A monoplane will have higher wing loading. How high is too high?
	Jim
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
	[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
	Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:57 AM
	To: 'General pattern discussion'
	Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
	
	<96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
	specs with whatever equipment you choose.
	
	Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes up.
	If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
	proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
	your DA-50 Bipe.
	
	Regards,
	
	Dave
	
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
	[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
	Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
	To: General pattern discussion
	Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
	
	I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
	Jim
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
	[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
	Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
	To: General pattern discussion
	Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
	
	http://www.mini-iac.com/
	DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)
	
	Duane
	
	----- Original Message -----
	From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
	To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
	<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
	Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
	Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
	
	
	Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
	displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.
	
	Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
	build one for a long time.
	
	Bring it on.
	
	Jim Hiller
	_______________________________________________
	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
	
	_______________________________________________
	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

		

	 


	-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
	
	
	_______________________________________________
	NSRCA-discussion mailing list
	NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
	http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



From cweimer at tconl.com  Wed Jun  3 18:29:35 2009
From: cweimer at tconl.com (Claude Weimer)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:29:35 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Omaha Pattern
Message-ID: <1EDCCCFAA80A483AA89DFDF000CF94DD@Claude>

The Omaha Pattern Championships will be held on August 8 & 9. Bob Wheeler is
CD and I will be assisting.
 
Claude Weimer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/6359f708/attachment.html>

From verne at twmi.rr.com  Wed Jun  3 18:49:05 2009
From: verne at twmi.rr.com (Verne Koester)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:49:05 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <252080.54328.qm@web80501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <252080.54328.qm@web80501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <005a01c9e4bf$07873e00$1695ba00$@rr.com>

8.7 pounds with EVERYTHING in the plane except for the batteries that power
the motor. 

 

Verne

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Pavlick
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:08 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

 


So then electric planes will need to have the motor and batteries removed
when they're weighed?

 

John Pavlick

--- On Wed, 6/3/09, verne at twmi.rr.com <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:


From: verne at twmi.rr.com <verne at twmi.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 3:54 PM

Mike, 
I mis-spoke and hopefully my correction made it on the list. I meant
ELECTRIC Black Magic. I know you and Dean have pulled it off in Zen-like
fashion. I'm not aware of any others, though I'm sure you'll correct me
shortly. The point is that most guys won't be able to pull it off or will
have enough self-doubts to even try. That leaves them with Sparks,
Integrals, Prestiges, Abbras and a few more that may or not be obtainable in
a reasonable time frame. And most of those won't make weight with a
combination of less-expensive (spelled heavier) motors and battery packs.
Many that do would become instantly obsolete if any significant repair such
as torn-out landing gear enters the equation. What I'm going to propose is
to take the motor batteries (not Rx battery) out of the equation and require
a weight significantly lighter than a glow plane (my preliminary research
indicates 8.7 pounds which is 2-1/4 pounds lighter than a glow plane). This
isn't really my idea. I've just worked
  up what I believe to be a solution to comments I've been hearing on the
contest trail for a few years now. Everybody has the right to an opinion on
it and should make their feelings known to their respective AMA Contest
Board rep when the time comes.

Verne


---- Mike Hester <kerlock at comcast.net
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=kerlock at comcast.net> > wrote: 
> 
> 
> Verne you're pretty much talking about just about everybody flying
pattern. 
> Even a lot of the sponsored guys don't get nearly as much help as one
would 
> think (you've been around Andrew and others so this is pretty common 
> knowledge). Very very few get a lot of support. Most of us pay through the

> nose to compete. Honestly one of the things I wanted to do was make it a 
> little cheaper if you're willing to do the work on it, but even then it's 
> not "cheap". if there's a real answer I don't know what it is.
> 
> What I can answer is the Black Magic question, because you asked =) As far

> as I know, better than 90-95% of them made weight right off the table. The

> ones who didn't, you can usually find a common denominator somewhere that 
> had they done it different, they wouldn't have been overweight. At least
the 
> few I am aware of. But almost all of them that I am aware of that are
flying 
> made it the first time. Some are even lighter than I have yet achieved. I 
> know of a few exceptions but don't know of any that didn't make it 
> eventually after some tweaking. If you follow the directions to the letter

> and never get complacent, you'll make it. Usually with room to spare. In 
> almost every case the extra weight was picked up on the finish/paint, or
in 
> the selection and methods of sheeting. I don't know personally of anyone
who 
> didn't make it easily on the second attept.
> 
> So, it can be done. But I won't kid you, it's a lot of work. The reward
IMHO 
> is the durability. I am still amazed at how much these things can take 
> before they break! (I thought Archie's was toast for sure last year at 
> Cincy!)
> 
> LOL Zen building....ok, I won't argue that, me and Dean do have that 
> mindset. We actually enjoy the process. It's not work (unless it isn't 
> mine). We know we're the minority as far as that goes. Most people just
want 
> to fly, NOW. But I enjoy the shop stuff as much as the flying.
> 
> I really don't know of many planes that "can't" make weight under the 
> current rules. Some are just easier than others. But just for the record, 
> the Black Magics have a pretty good track record overall, thus far. But
they 
> aren't for everyone. There are plenty of composite planes that can easily 
> make weight. Although you sort of get what you get, and hope it's light 
> enough in almost all cases. The only way to totally avoid that is to do it

> all yourself. And although there are a suprising number of people who
will, 
> a lot can't, or won't.
> 
> FWIW the future is looking better than ever, across the board. Equipment
is 
> better and more reliable, newer airframes are SOLID and the quality is 
> getting better, the only thing not getting better is the price tag.
> 
> -Mike
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <verne at twmi.rr.com
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=verne at twmi.rr.com> >
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> >
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> 
> > Arch,
> > How many Black Magics are out there that made weight by someone who
built 
> > one the first time, or even the second? I know Mike and Dean can do it, 
> > that's what I meant by the "building skills of Zen". What I'm talking 
> > about and who I'm listening to are the totally unsponsored guys who
can't 
> > just pick up the phone and get something right now because of their 
> > reputation and also have to pay full price for everything. This isn't a 
> > shot at anyone who has any level of sponsorship. I fall into that
category 
> > myself. I'm just hearing a lot of frustration on the contest trail and 
> > have been for a couple of years.
> >
> > Verne
> >
> > ---- Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=astafford at swtexas.net> >
wrote:
> >> I agree with Jon and Dave.  Getting rid of the weight limit or even 
> >> changing
> >> it is a bad idea.  The price of batteries keeps dropping.  PATTERN IS 
> >> NEVER
> >> GOING TO BE CHEAP, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE WANT IT TO BE.  It is always 
> >> going
> >> to be expensive to go to contests, so saving 100-200 on a set of 
> >> batteries
> >> is offset by the other costs associated with it.  There are airframes
out
> >> there that you could use heavy packs and still be under weight.  Dave
> >> Lockhart is under 10lbs flying electric, so he could definitely go with
> >> significantly heavier batteries.  I know that there is a set of Black 
> >> Magics
> >> that are easily under using about the heaviest electric setup known now

> >> and
> >> it is still legal.  There are options out there without changing the 
> >> rules.
> >> It wasn't that many years ago people swore you couldn't build the large
2
> >> meter stuff under 11 lbs, now there are full built up balsa kits coming

> >> in
> >> at 9.5lbs.  It can be done even with the heavier electric stuff.
> >>
> >> Arch
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists
.nsrca.org> 
> >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists
.nsrca.org> ] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:19 PM
> >> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >> Amen.  The theory was, when they went to 2 meters, unlimited engines
> >> and 11 lbs that things would get cheaper because they could use larger,
> >> less finicky engines than the .61's at the time.  Yeah, right.  My YS
> >> is fuel injected, supercharged, CDI, and running on 30%.  The planes
> >> will change to fit ANY new rules,and cost will likely rise along with
> >> it.
> >>
> >> My attitude is that both fuel and electric airplanes are weighed
> >> without fuel.  My fuel weighs a lot, electric fuel doesn't weigh
> >> anything.   Electrics just have a heavy fuel tank.  They are at a
> >> definite advantage in many cases because they never weigh more than 11
> >> lbs in flight, while a fuel airplane often does.
> >>
> >> Dave is right, the cost curve is starting to favor electrics, assuming
> >> you have no current investment in either technology.  The Zippy packs
> >> will get better and better, and the cost of electric continues to come
> >> down.  Go to hobbycity.com and look around at their motors, speed
> >> controllers, batteries and chargers if you don't believe me.  The only
> >> advantage for me right now with YS's other than the fact I have
> >> invested in them, is that I get get two practice sequences per flight.
> >> Plus, they don't try to burn my house down.  ;)
> >>
> >> Jon Lowe
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=DaveL322 at comcast.net> >
> >> To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> >
> >> Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:57 pm
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> <96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
> >> specs with whatever equipment you choose.
> >>
> >> Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes
> >> up.
> >> If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
> >> proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will
obsolete
> >> your DA-50 Bipe.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists
.nsrca.org> 
> >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists
.nsrca.org> ] On Behalf Of J N
> >> Hiller
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
> >> To: General pattern discussion
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >> I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
> >> Jim
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists
.nsrca.org> 
> >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists
.nsrca.org> ]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
> >> To: General pattern discussion
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >> http://www.mini-iac.com/
> >> DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)
> >>
> >> Duane
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jnhiller at earthlink.net> >
> >> To: jpavlick at idseng.com
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jpavlick at idseng.com> ,
"General pattern discussion"
> >> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> >
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >>
> >>
> >> Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
> >> displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.
> >>
> >> Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted
to
> >> build one for a long time.
> >>
> >> Bring it on.
> >>
> >> Jim Hiller
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/4a311ba4/attachment.html>

From verne at twmi.rr.com  Wed Jun  3 19:11:52 2009
From: verne at twmi.rr.com (Verne Koester)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 03:11:52 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <E186487B873F40CA87219A505CA45C22@PaulPC>
References: <D52B29EEE2294A22A28AB06C45863AED@CYBERPOWER><4E9CE280BC3C453992E6819FF174392C@xppro2><3939450F975246468D3AE08EC65742C0@CYBERPOWER><9EC6CCE4EE6C4759BCE3358D984B02BB@davedesktop>	<790A45E4352741F284E8AE49C5A1F372@CYBERPOWER>
	<E186487B873F40CA87219A505CA45C22@PaulPC>
Message-ID: <006a01c9e4c2$374ad810$a5e08830$@rr.com>

Paul,

Weighing a plane right before flight at the Nats is impractical at best. The
slightest breeze will wreak havoc on the scales. I actually have to wait for
my furnace blower to kick off when I'm trying to weigh my wings in the shop
and that breeze is significantly less than anything we typically see at the
Nats.

 

Verne

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Paul LaChance
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:24 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

 

Hi all,

 

I do not think we should look at it as a glow versus E discussion, but a way
to make it fair for both.  I agree neither really has an advantage
everything else being equal.  I can see the argument from both sides.  The
weight issue will never be a truly EQUAL thing.  The glow gets to weigh
without fuel , but the plane becomes lighter throughout the flight.  This
can create a disadvantage or advantage.  The E has to make weight WITH
batteries in place, but the weight stays the same the entire flight. This
can also create a disadvantage or advantage.

 

Maybe the answer is keep the size and sound restrictions as they are and
remove the weight limit.  There is only so much the planes can weight before
glow or E will both start to lose massive performance.  

 

Just a thought but seems it is the only way things can become fair either
direction.  

 

As someone else mentioned (I think Chris)  the planes should be weighed
BEFORE the flights in the finals.  It kind of defeats the purpose of making
weight if the planes are weighed AFTER the flight and they remove items to
make weight.  The advantage was still there to assist with the wind if the
plane was overweight during the flight.  

 

Like I said, these are just thoughts. 

 

Paul  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/1aa8637c/attachment.html>

From vanputte at cox.net  Wed Jun  3 19:19:24 2009
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 03:19:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <006a01c9e4c2$374ad810$a5e08830$@rr.com>
References: <D52B29EEE2294A22A28AB06C45863AED@CYBERPOWER><4E9CE280BC3C453992E6819FF174392C@xppro2><3939450F975246468D3AE08EC65742C0@CYBERPOWER><9EC6CCE4EE6C4759BCE3358D984B02BB@davedesktop>	<790A45E4352741F284E8AE49C5A1F372@CYBERPOWER>
	<E186487B873F40CA87219A505CA45C22@PaulPC>
	<006a01c9e4c2$374ad810$a5e08830$@rr.com>
Message-ID: <052D9956-AD72-4670-A4B1-377201657316@cox.net>

As one of the guys who is often called on to weigh airplanes at the  
Nats, I agree that routine weighing of airplanes is impractical.  We  
have to build a plywood barricade around the weighing area at the  
Site 1 pavilion or do the weighing in an enclosed area like the  
garage by the AMA farmhouse or inside the big trailer out at Site 4.   
That's doable for the top five or six in the classes, but not for the  
entire group.

What's a furnace?  <VBG>

Ron

On Jun 3, 2009, at 10:11 PM, Verne Koester wrote:

> Paul,
>
> Weighing a plane right before flight at the Nats is impractical at  
> best. The slightest breeze will wreak havoc on the scales. I  
> actually have to wait for my furnace blower to kick off when I?m  
> trying to weigh my wings in the shop and that breeze is  
> significantly less than anything we typically see at the Nats.
>
>
>
> Verne
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Paul LaChance
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:24 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I do not think we should look at it as a glow versus E discussion,  
> but a way to make it fair for both.  I agree neither really has an  
> advantage everything else being equal.  I can see the argument from  
> both sides.  The weight issue will never be a truly EQUAL thing.   
> The glow gets to weigh without fuel , but the plane becomes lighter  
> throughout the flight.  This can create a disadvantage or  
> advantage.  The E has to make weight WITH batteries in place, but  
> the weight stays the same the entire flight. This can also create a  
> disadvantage or advantage.
>
>
>
> Maybe the answer is keep the size and sound restrictions as they  
> are and remove the weight limit.  There is only so much the planes  
> can weight before glow or E will both start to lose massive  
> performance.
>
>
>
> Just a thought but seems it is the only way things can become fair  
> either direction.
>
>
>
> As someone else mentioned (I think Chris)  the planes should be  
> weighed BEFORE the flights in the finals.  It kind of defeats the  
> purpose of making weight if the planes are weighed AFTER the flight  
> and they remove items to make weight.  The advantage was still  
> there to assist with the wind if the plane was overweight during  
> the flight.
>
>
>
> Like I said, these are just thoughts.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From jonlowe at aol.com  Wed Jun  3 19:27:33 2009
From: jonlowe at aol.com (Jon Lowe)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 03:27:33 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Great Planes spinner
In-Reply-To: <COL117-W2738EEC7EFA0B1693DA47BA4A0@phx.gbl>
References: <COL117-W2738EEC7EFA0B1693DA47BA4A0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <8CBB2DB79F75E76-FDC-26AD@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>

Does this even apply to you guys in FAI?  I read the FAI safety code, 
here, http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/documents/safety_rules, and 
rounded spinners or prop nuts are under the "recommended", not required 
section.  AMA requires 3mm radius of point, whatever that means.  
Looking at the 3.25 spinner on the Tower website, it probably meets the 
AMA rule, at least the intent.

For some reason, back in ancient AMA history, getting hit by a 
protruding prop shaft was viewed as a bad thing.  Why that is worse 
than a spinning prop, I don't know.  There were also sharp, needle nose 
spinners available, which were pretty dangerous.

Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Wickizer <mwickizer at msn.com>
To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:58 am
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Great Planes spinner













I've looked at these before and in fact have used them on electric 
setups and have seen others use them on glow setups.

?

My question / concern was that the nose was too pointed and didn't meet 
the minimum radius required.? It is very possible I don't really 
understand the rule or how to measure it.

?

Any thoughts?
=








_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
0D





From verne at twmi.rr.com  Wed Jun  3 20:02:19 2009
From: verne at twmi.rr.com (Verne Koester)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 04:02:19 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Great Planes spinner
In-Reply-To: <8CBB2DB79F75E76-FDC-26AD@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>
References: <COL117-W2738EEC7EFA0B1693DA47BA4A0@phx.gbl>
	<8CBB2DB79F75E76-FDC-26AD@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <000e01c9e4c9$437832c0$ca689840$@rr.com>

" For some reason, back in ancient AMA history, getting hit by a 
protruding prop shaft was viewed as a bad thing.  Why that is worse 
than a spinning prop, I don't know.  There were also sharp, needle nose 
spinners available, which were pretty dangerous."

Must have been back in the same rules cycle where they decided to weigh electric planes with the batteries....   ;>)

Verne

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:27 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Great Planes spinner

Does this even apply to you guys in FAI?  I read the FAI safety code, 
here, http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/documents/safety_rules, and 
rounded spinners or prop nuts are under the "recommended", not required 
section.  AMA requires 3mm radius of point, whatever that means.  
Looking at the 3.25 spinner on the Tower website, it probably meets the 
AMA rule, at least the intent.

For some reason, back in ancient AMA history, getting hit by a 
protruding prop shaft was viewed as a bad thing.  Why that is worse 
than a spinning prop, I don't know.  There were also sharp, needle nose 
spinners available, which were pretty dangerous.

Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Wickizer <mwickizer at msn.com>
To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:58 am
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Great Planes spinner













I've looked at these before and in fact have used them on electric 
setups and have seen others use them on glow setups.

 

My question / concern was that the nose was too pointed and didn't meet 
the minimum radius required.  It is very possible I don't really 
understand the rule or how to measure it.

 

Any thoughts?
=








_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
0D




_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



From vanputte at cox.net  Wed Jun  3 20:12:56 2009
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 04:12:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Great Planes spinner
In-Reply-To: <000e01c9e4c9$437832c0$ca689840$@rr.com>
References: <COL117-W2738EEC7EFA0B1693DA47BA4A0@phx.gbl>
	<8CBB2DB79F75E76-FDC-26AD@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>
	<000e01c9e4c9$437832c0$ca689840$@rr.com>
Message-ID: <F858C8D2-88BD-4C95-A126-2769A2F87C79@cox.net>

I don't remember that the decision to weigh electric-powered  
airplanes with batteries was the result of a rule change.  I think it  
was an interpretation of the weight rule by an AMA official.

Ron

On Jun 3, 2009, at 11:02 PM, Verne Koester wrote:

> " For some reason, back in ancient AMA history, getting hit by a
> protruding prop shaft was viewed as a bad thing.  Why that is worse
> than a spinning prop, I don't know.  There were also sharp, needle  
> nose
> spinners available, which were pretty dangerous."
>
> Must have been back in the same rules cycle where they decided to  
> weigh electric planes with the batteries....   ;>)
>
> Verne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:27 PM
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Great Planes spinner
>
> Does this even apply to you guys in FAI?  I read the FAI safety code,
> here, http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/documents/safety_rules, and
> rounded spinners or prop nuts are under the "recommended", not  
> required
> section.  AMA requires 3mm radius of point, whatever that means.
> Looking at the 3.25 spinner on the Tower website, it probably meets  
> the
> AMA rule, at least the intent.
>
> For some reason, back in ancient AMA history, getting hit by a
> protruding prop shaft was viewed as a bad thing.  Why that is worse
> than a spinning prop, I don't know.  There were also sharp, needle  
> nose
> spinners available, which were pretty dangerous.
>
> Jon Lowe
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Wickizer <mwickizer at msn.com>
> To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:58 am
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Great Planes spinner
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I've looked at these before and in fact have used them on electric
> setups and have seen others use them on glow setups.
>
>
>
> My question / concern was that the nose was too pointed and didn't  
> meet
> the minimum radius required.  It is very possible I don't really
> understand the rule or how to measure it.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts?
> =
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 0D
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From joddino at socal.rr.com  Wed Jun  3 20:13:04 2009
From: joddino at socal.rr.com (James Oddino)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 04:13:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <234B09C21B6A403B9A7FA7BB7520FB00@davedesktop>
References: <1063572082.215051244048736415.JavaMail.root@sz0056a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
	<HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPAEFLEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>
	<234B09C21B6A403B9A7FA7BB7520FB00@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <B81049AE-B6A5-496B-B310-CA5C8FC84B94@socal.rr.com>

Then a logical person would say let's lower all the numbers.  Weight  
is the enemy so if people want to add weight let them.  I say let it  
go to 5.5 Kilos and we can quit talking about it.

Jim O


On Jun 3, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Dave wrote:

> <96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet  
> those
> specs with whatever equipment you choose.
>
> Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern  
> goes up.
> If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit  
> the
> proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will  
> obsolete
> your DA-50 Bipe.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N  
> Hiller
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>
> I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane  
> Beck
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>
> http://www.mini-iac.com/
> DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)
>
> Duane
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>
>
> Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
> displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.
>
> Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have  
> wanted to
> build one for a long time.
>
> Bring it on.
>
> Jim Hiller
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Wed Jun  3 20:38:29 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 04:38:29 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160, header, pipe, and Hyde mount sold
Message-ID: <905552.55915.qm@web82107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

The YS 160, header, Hatori short pipe, and Hyde mount have all been spoken for. If for some reason the deals fall through I will relist them.
Thank youAnthony
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/74e5faeb/attachment.html>

From joddino at socal.rr.com  Wed Jun  3 20:39:17 2009
From: joddino at socal.rr.com (James Oddino)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 04:39:17 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <12B6EEC9594B42B69A354AFF0E4B7C5D@davedesktop>
References: <826094.75830.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<000b01c9e44f$d81ba710$335b804b@tim3fba4063879><456429.22143.qm@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<4A2683D6.7080604@cox.net><49591D47FD2348AFBADDAD09B88CDE56@davedesktop>
	<4A26915F.8040101@cox.net>
	<12B6EEC9594B42B69A354AFF0E4B7C5D@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <09A1D1AE-BE6C-4191-BE5C-8B40D4D7AC18@socal.rr.com>

Dave, have you got a bigger plane on the drawing board to take  
advantage of the full 5 Kg allowed or if you were about to design a  
new plane would it be any different (bigger) if the limit was 5 or 5.5?

Jim


On Jun 3, 2009, at 8:30 AM, Dave wrote:

> Bill,
>
> Starting from the position of a well designed plane (with proper wing
> loading), adding weight will not provide an advantage.  What the  
> weight
> limit rule does is limit the size the plane - larger planes will fly  
> better
> which does provide an advantage.
>
> The historical vs current perspective on this discussion point  
> (which is
> well covered in the archives) boils down to this -
> - in the mid 1990s, planes with 2M wingspans and fuse length were  
> common,
> and none are competitive today.
> - there is a difference between a skinny 2M plane of the past and a  
> large 2M
> plane of today...the larger plane flies better.
> - allow the weight of planes to increase, and you will see even  
> larger 2M
> planes (increased cost and complexity) that will obsolete the  
> current crop
> of planes.  This would not seem to be favored by anyone, and making  
> the
> event more expensive will further limit those that can afford the  
> event, and
> reduce numbers in the event.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of  
> Bill's Email
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:06 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>
> I guess I should make a couple of things clear. First, I am not really
> trying to argue one way or the other, it was just something that  
> struck
> as interesting. I left out structural weight and such for the sake of
> simplicity.
>
> I have no personal ax to grind, I fly an electric that is absurdly  
> light
> so I am not trying to do anything there.
>
> I guess the real question is, what is the objective of the weight  
> limit
> rule in the first place? Is there an advantage in being heavier??
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From flyintexan at att.net  Thu Jun  4 03:42:38 2009
From: flyintexan at att.net (Mark Hunt)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:42:38 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
References: <360245.83799.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CDA2839A097B46E8A82AE982ADDD59EB@MARK>

That may be true....until Naruke starts designing Imac planes.....

-mark
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: krishlan fitzsimmons 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 20:48
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


        Actually Dave, if we could fly large IMAC planes, our airframe cost would go down.  Top of the line 40% IMAC planes cost less than an Oxai. 


        Chris 





        --- On Wed, 6/3/09, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:


          From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
          Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
          To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
          Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 1:24 PM


          Jim,

          Monoplanes are at 74" span now, and about 900 squares because that is where
          the current schedules have pushed the designs to.  The wings don't need to
          be any bigger for the 11 lb weight limit.  But at 74" and 900 squares, there
          is plenty of room to grow the monoplane bigger if the weight limit is
          increased.

          The bottom line doesn't change - bigger bipe, bigger monoplane, bigger any
          plane will increase costs.

          If you think pattern needs more cost and complexity, whether it be biplanes
          or monoplanes, submit a proposal.

          Regards,

          Dave



          -----Original Message-----
          From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
          [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
          Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:03 PM
          To: General pattern discussion
          Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

          A monoplane will have higher wing loading. How high is too high?
          Jim

          -----Original Message-----
          From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
          [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
          Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:57 AM
          To: 'General pattern discussion'
          Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

          <96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
          specs with whatever equipment you choose.

          Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes up.
          If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
          proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
          your DA-50 Bipe.

          Regards,

          Dave


          -----Original Message-----
          From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
          [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
          Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
          To: General pattern discussion
          Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

          I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
          Jim

          -----Original Message-----
          From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
          [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
          Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
          To: General pattern discussion
          Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

          http://www.mini-iac.com/
          DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)

          Duane

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
          To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
          <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
          Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
          Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


          Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
          displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.

          Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
          build one for a long time.

          Bring it on.

          Jim Hiller
          _______________________________________________
          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

          _______________________________________________
          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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/ad4d2f3a/attachment.html>

From rcpilot at wowway.com  Thu Jun  4 04:10:37 2009
From: rcpilot at wowway.com (Ron Hansen)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:10:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <052D9956-AD72-4670-A4B1-377201657316@cox.net>
Message-ID: <7B9C530D078D4E4F9495B14594F8311B@toshibauser>

I agree with Paul.  Remove the weight limit and keep the 2 meter size
limit.  If someone wants to fly a 15 lb biplane powered with a DA-50
more power too them.  Sure our current planes may be obsolete but all
designs are obsolete in 2-3 years.

I'm an intermediate pilot and my biggest concern is the selection of
designs available.  Right now other than the Focus II or the Black Magic
all other designs are geared more toward electrics.  I'm concerned that
the newer designs are skimping on durability in order to reduce weight.
As an intermediate pilot I don't want to buy a 2- $3000 airplane that
isn't going to standup to the occasional rough landing.

I bet if you made the top 10 FAI pilots from last years NATs fly a Focus
and let the next 10 FAI pilots fly any design they want the results
would not change that much.  Success is in the fingers not so much in
the design.

Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Van
Putte
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:19 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

As one of the guys who is often called on to weigh airplanes at the  
Nats, I agree that routine weighing of airplanes is impractical.  We  
have to build a plywood barricade around the weighing area at the  
Site 1 pavilion or do the weighing in an enclosed area like the  
garage by the AMA farmhouse or inside the big trailer out at Site 4.   
That's doable for the top five or six in the classes, but not for the  
entire group.

What's a furnace?  <VBG>

Ron

On Jun 3, 2009, at 10:11 PM, Verne Koester wrote:

> Paul,
>
> Weighing a plane right before flight at the Nats is impractical at  
> best. The slightest breeze will wreak havoc on the scales. I  
> actually have to wait for my furnace blower to kick off when I'm  
> trying to weigh my wings in the shop and that breeze is  
> significantly less than anything we typically see at the Nats.
>
>
>
> Verne
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Paul LaChance
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:24 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I do not think we should look at it as a glow versus E discussion,  
> but a way to make it fair for both.  I agree neither really has an  
> advantage everything else being equal.  I can see the argument from  
> both sides.  The weight issue will never be a truly EQUAL thing.   
> The glow gets to weigh without fuel , but the plane becomes lighter  
> throughout the flight.  This can create a disadvantage or  
> advantage.  The E has to make weight WITH batteries in place, but  
> the weight stays the same the entire flight. This can also create a  
> disadvantage or advantage.
>
>
>
> Maybe the answer is keep the size and sound restrictions as they  
> are and remove the weight limit.  There is only so much the planes  
> can weight before glow or E will both start to lose massive  
> performance.
>
>
>
> Just a thought but seems it is the only way things can become fair  
> either direction.
>
>
>
> As someone else mentioned (I think Chris)  the planes should be  
> weighed BEFORE the flights in the finals.  It kind of defeats the  
> purpose of making weight if the planes are weighed AFTER the flight  
> and they remove items to make weight.  The advantage was still  
> there to assist with the wind if the plane was overweight during  
> the flight.
>
>
>
> Like I said, these are just thoughts.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4130 (20090604) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com




From patternrules at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 04:27:30 2009
From: patternrules at yahoo.com (Steven Maxwell)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:27:30 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4-5 Shootout plane for sale
Message-ID: <811840.78964.qm@web111304.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

?If anyone is interested a friend has a Excelleron for sale ready to fly. I beleive Ken Alexandra has the same plane under a different name from JR. Can bring it to shootout.Contact of list if interestedSteve Maxwell


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/a8241647/attachment.html>

From geobet4 at verizon.net  Thu Jun  4 04:29:58 2009
From: geobet4 at verizon.net (George W.Kennie)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:29:58 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] mount
Message-ID: <678750F53FD94805B319511F1769211C@CYBERPOWER>

Dave,

I don't want to be a pest here, but do you know who produces those Hacker Mounts with the rear bearing?

That's exactly what I'm looking for, but Hacker doesn't spec the hole layout for the motor or the mount so 
I can't tell if I can adapt it for my motor. 

I reason that the mount is produced by an independent supplier and if I could find out who that is I could 
come up with the specs I need.

Thanks for any help.

Georgie

-- 
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 25188 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/3902e7fc/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 04:45:16 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:45:16 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <909518.8446.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


"designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"
 Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're competitive and always looking for better and different. Truth be known I look forward to a new plane in the Spring that I planned and prepared for a year or so. It's part of what appeals me to pattern and I do this on a lower budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this. It's all about will and determination and innovation to get what I want with as little as I have to work with. Money and building talents lacking I still put down a competitive piece each year. No sponsors either. Now that's actually pretty funny sorry.....
 Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and that the pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the time. I'm saying that I think designs for the truly competitive have a rather short lifespan and that's not going to change anytime soon.
 Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that work well with IC. What about the Passport? Osmose? Integral? It's only been a year or so that the newer generation of planes have been introduced that are dedicated for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E. Addiction E. and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were meant for IC and we adapted them to fit E.
                                        Mike

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com> wrote:

> From: Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 7:10 AM
> I agree with Paul.? Remove the
> weight limit and keep the 2 meter size
> limit.? If someone wants to fly a 15 lb biplane
> powered with a DA-50
> more power too them.? Sure our current planes may be
> obsolete but all
> designs are obsolete in 2-3 years.
> 
> I'm an intermediate pilot and my biggest concern is the
> selection of
> designs available.? Right now other than the Focus II
> or the Black Magic
> all other designs are geared more toward electrics.?
> I'm concerned that
> the newer designs are skimping on durability in order to
> reduce weight.
> As an intermediate pilot I don't want to buy a 2- $3000
> airplane that
> isn't going to standup to the occasional rough landing.
> 
> I bet if you made the top 10 FAI pilots from last years
> NATs fly a Focus
> and let the next 10 FAI pilots fly any design they want the
> results
> would not change that much.? Success is in the fingers
> not so much in
> the design.
> 
> Ron
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of Ron Van
> Putte
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:19 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> As one of the guys who is often called on to weigh
> airplanes at the? 
> Nats, I agree that routine weighing of airplanes is
> impractical.? We? 
> have to build a plywood barricade around the weighing area
> at the? 
> Site 1 pavilion or do the weighing in an enclosed area like
> the? 
> garage by the AMA farmhouse or inside the big trailer out
> at Site 4.???
> That's doable for the top five or six in the classes, but
> not for the? 
> entire group.
> 
> What's a furnace?? <VBG>
> 
> Ron
> 
> On Jun 3, 2009, at 10:11 PM, Verne Koester wrote:
> 
> > Paul,
> >
> > Weighing a plane right before flight at the Nats is
> impractical at? 
> > best. The slightest breeze will wreak havoc on the
> scales. I? 
> > actually have to wait for my furnace blower to kick
> off when I'm? 
> > trying to weigh my wings in the shop and that breeze
> is? 
> > significantly less than anything we typically see at
> the Nats.
> >
> >
> >
> > Verne
> >
> >
> >
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca- 
> > discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of Paul LaChance
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:24 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> >
> > I do not think we should look at it as a glow versus E
> discussion,? 
> > but a way to make it fair for both.? I agree
> neither really has an? 
> > advantage everything else being equal.? I can see
> the argument from? 
> > both sides.? The weight issue will never be a
> truly EQUAL thing.???
> > The glow gets to weigh without fuel , but the plane
> becomes lighter? 
> > throughout the flight.? This can create a
> disadvantage or? 
> > advantage.? The E has to make weight WITH
> batteries in place, but? 
> > the weight stays the same the entire flight. This can
> also create a? 
> > disadvantage or advantage.
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe the answer is keep the size and sound
> restrictions as they? 
> > are and remove the weight limit.? There is only
> so much the planes? 
> > can weight before glow or E will both start to lose
> massive? 
> > performance.
> >
> >
> >
> > Just a thought but seems it is the only way things can
> become fair? 
> > either direction.
> >
> >
> >
> > As someone else mentioned (I think Chris)? the
> planes should be? 
> > weighed BEFORE the flights in the finals.? It
> kind of defeats the? 
> > purpose of making weight if the planes are weighed
> AFTER the flight? 
> > and they remove items to make weight.? The
> advantage was still? 
> > there to assist with the wind if the plane was
> overweight during? 
> > the flight.
> >
> >
> >
> > Like I said, these are just thoughts.
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version
> of virus
> signature database 4130 (20090604) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 


      

From patternrules at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 04:53:37 2009
From: patternrules at yahoo.com (Steven Maxwell)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:53:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4-5 Shootout Trex for sale
Message-ID: <959119.28118.qm@web111313.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

?I'll have my Trex at shootout Saturday only it's in perfect shape and Andrew has flown it a few times to make sure it was setup right.?Steve Maxwell


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/26727b7b/attachment.html>

From jpavlick at idseng.com  Thu Jun  4 05:18:48 2009
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:18:48 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <988340.1061.qm@web80501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Part of the reason why Pattern planes become "obsolete" is due to the fact that the airframe rules for ALL classes are the same. The higher classes schedules change and that requires design changes. This is not a bad thing. It's?part of any good competitive sport / hobby.?Since the airframe rules apply to all classes, you only have one definition of a "legal" airplane which could be flown in any class. That would be like allowing a Grand National Stock car to run in the Street Stock class. How many people would be willing to try to enter the sport on a low budget with an old Chevelle? My guess is - none! 
?
I don't know how we could change this without causing more problems but it's something to think about. Personally?I think a 90 size / 1.5 meter Sportsman class would do more to grow pattern than messing with the weight rules.
?
Going back the the weight issue,?I really don't think raising the weight limit will attract more people to Pattern.?I just don't see how. Who actually weighs airplanes at a local contest? If we were weighing planes at every contest I bet a lot of glow planes would be "illegal". Probably more than the number of electrics at any given contest. Why? Because most of the guys building electrics have learned to pay close attention to weight. That's because of the current rules. That's a good thing. 
?
Something else to think about: many of you guys are paying top dollar for high end airframes that are basically overweight to start with. Sure you can try to get things under control by using smaller airborne batteries, lighter servos, etc. but if?I were you I'd be a bit upset if?I paid for a?"competition" airplane that needed a lot of finessing to meet the weight requirements. 
?
Many of you guys like the Integral. This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Have you felt how heavy the wings are on some of those? For the money they charge, they should be able to build something lighter. You shouldn't have to?custom cut?a set of foam wings to replace the ones in your kit. That's just silly.
?
It does NOT require "zen" building techniques to build an airplane that makes weight. OK, that doesn't hurt but all you need to do is pay close attention to what everything weighs as you build. EVERY time?I see an airplane that's "overweight", I can pick out at least 3 things that are just plain absurd. I've only been doing this for a few years. Some of you guys have been flying Pattern longer than I've been alive. If?I can do it anyone can. My first 2-meter build (Black Magic V2.2 w/ OS 160) came out at 10lbs, 6.9 oz. I don't have the "zen" building technique down just yet so I'd have to say this should be possible for most people. I'm going to build an electric VF-3 this winter. I bet anyone that?it will come in under weight. And?I don't have a ton of money to throw at it. In fact I'll probably buy used stuff to save some money?so?I can buy?good batteries. :)
?
John Pavlick


--- On Thu, 6/4/09, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 8:45 AM



"designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"
Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're competitive and always looking for better and different. Truth be known I look forward to a new plane in the Spring that I planned and prepared for a year or so. It's part of what appeals me to pattern and I do this on a lower budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this. It's all about will and determination and innovation to get what I want with as little as I have to work with. Money and building talents lacking I still put down a competitive piece each year. No sponsors either. Now that's actually pretty funny sorry.....
Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and that the pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the time. I'm saying that I think designs for the truly competitive have a rather short lifespan and that's not going to change anytime soon.
Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that work well with IC. What about the Passport? Osmose? Integral? It's only been a year or so that the newer generation of planes have been introduced that are dedicated for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E. Addiction E. and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were meant for IC and we adapted them to fit E.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Mike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/52aae4b6/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Thu Jun  4 05:19:57 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:19:57 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] mount
In-Reply-To: <678750F53FD94805B319511F1769211C@CYBERPOWER>
References: <678750F53FD94805B319511F1769211C@CYBERPOWER>
Message-ID: <4A27C9FB.9000103@cox.net>

Try Jerry Budd

http://www.buddengineering.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=HCRMSB&Category_Code=P





George W.Kennie wrote:
> Dave,
>  
> I don't want to be a pest here, but do you know who produces those 
> Hacker Mounts with the rear bearing?
>  
> That's exactly what I'm looking for, but Hacker doesn't spec the hole 
> layout for the motor or the mount so
> I can't tell if I can adapt it for my motor.
>  
> I reason that the mount is produced by an independent supplier and if 
> I could find out who that is I could
> come up with the specs I need.
>  
> Thanks for any help.
>  
> Georgie

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/af4c96d8/attachment.html>

From cjm767driver at hotmail.com  Thu Jun  4 05:39:06 2009
From: cjm767driver at hotmail.com (Chris Moon)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:39:06 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] mount
In-Reply-To: <678750F53FD94805B319511F1769211C@CYBERPOWER>
References: <678750F53FD94805B319511F1769211C@CYBERPOWER>
Message-ID: <BLU137-DAV5DC7D8990525BF6F7889C834B0@phx.gbl>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/2e5bf634/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PMBM-110-MOUNT2.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 23157 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/2e5bf634/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PMBM-110-MOUNT1.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20798 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/2e5bf634/attachment-0001.jpg>

From jzeigenfus at comcast.net  Thu Jun  4 05:39:35 2009
From: jzeigenfus at comcast.net (jzeigenfus at comcast.net)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:39:35 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Two AXI F3A motors for sale
Message-ID: <498262693.584241244122775599.JavaMail.root@sz0093a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>

Hi everyone, I have two low time new AXI F3A motors for sale. Anyone interested please respond off line. They will also be on RCU. Thanks JEZ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/6f80c575/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 05:40:23 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:40:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <794174.59306.qm@web51003.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 All good points John but let me say this. It's nearly impossible to build a light composite wing. If you make them too light they risk blowing apart in the air. i have seen some recent examples of Extreme Composite planes doing such. Composite ARF does a great job with there stuff today and seem to have a good compromise between strength and weight. There's a lot of guys flying them who made E. weight like Jason, Chad and Andrew.
 Wist and Jaroslav Mach do the best job I've seen with composite wings making weight but they are a little hard to get. Also they are not as good a deal money wise as the Integral. My Integral has a foam wing and yes it seems silly but it did result in a pretty awesome plane and it's light. I offset the costs by selling the composite wings from the kit. Mike

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com> wrote:

> From: John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 8:18 AM
> Part of the reason why Pattern
> planes become "obsolete" is due to the fact that
> the airframe rules for ALL classes are the same. The higher
> classes schedules change and that requires design changes.
> This is not a bad thing. It's?part of any good
> competitive sport / hobby.?Since the airframe rules
> apply to all classes, you only have one definition of a
> "legal" airplane which could be flown in any
> class. That would be like allowing a Grand National Stock
> car to run in the Street Stock class. How many people would
> be willing to try to enter the sport on a low budget with an
> old Chevelle? My guess is - none! 
> ?
> I don't know how we could change this without
> causing more problems but it's something to think about.
> Personally?I think a 90 size / 1.5 meter Sportsman
> class would do more to grow pattern than messing with the
> weight rules.
> ?
> Going back the the weight issue,?I really
> don't think raising the weight limit will attract more
> people to Pattern.?I just don't see how. Who
> actually weighs airplanes at a local contest? If we were
> weighing planes at every contest I bet a lot of glow planes
> would be "illegal". Probably more than the number
> of electrics at any given contest. Why? Because most of the
> guys building electrics have learned to pay close attention
> to weight. That's because of the current rules.
> That's a good thing. 
> ?
> Something else to think about: many of you guys are
> paying top dollar for high end airframes that are basically
> overweight to start with. Sure you can try to get things
> under control by using smaller airborne batteries, lighter
> servos, etc. but if?I were you I'd be a bit upset
> if?I paid for a?"competition" airplane
> that needed a lot of finessing to meet the weight
> requirements. 
> ?
> Many of you guys like the Integral. This is a perfect
> example of what I'm talking about. Have you felt how
> heavy the wings are on some of those? For the money they
> charge, they should be able to build something lighter. You
> shouldn't have to?custom cut?a set of foam
> wings to replace the ones in your kit. That's just
> silly.
> ?
> It does NOT require "zen" building
> techniques to build an airplane that makes weight. OK, that
> doesn't hurt but all you need to do is pay close
> attention to what everything weighs as you build. EVERY
> time?I see an airplane that's
> "overweight", I can pick out at least 3 things
> that are just plain absurd. I've only been doing this
> for a few years. Some of you guys have been flying Pattern
> longer than I've been alive. If?I can do it anyone
> can. My first 2-meter build (Black Magic V2.2 w/ OS 160)
> came out at 10lbs, 6.9 oz. I don't have the
> "zen" building technique down just yet so I'd
> have to say this should be possible for most people. I'm
> going to build an electric VF-3 this winter. I bet anyone
> that?it will come in under weight. And?I don't
> have a ton of money to throw at it. In fact I'll
> probably buy used stuff to save some money?so?I
> can buy?good batteries. :)
> ?
> John Pavlick
> 
> 
> --- On Thu, 6/4/09, mike mueller
> <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> To: "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 8:45 AM
> 
> 
> 
> "designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"
> Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're
> competitive and always looking for better and different.
> Truth be known I look forward to a new plane in the Spring
> that I planned and prepared for a year or so. It's part
> of what appeals me to pattern and I do this on a lower
> budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this.
> It's all about will and determination and innovation to
> get what I want with as little as I have to work with. Money
> and building talents lacking I still put down a competitive
> piece each year. No sponsors either. Now that's actually
> pretty funny sorry.....
> Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and
> that the pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the
> time. I'm saying that I think designs for the truly
> competitive have a rather short lifespan and that's not
> going to change anytime soon.
> Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that
>  work well with IC. What about the Passport? Osmose?
> Integral? It's only been a year or so that the newer
> generation of planes have been introduced that are dedicated
> for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E. Addiction E.
> and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were meant for
> IC and we adapted them to fit E.
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ? ? ? ? Mike
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      

From mjfrederick at cox.net  Thu Jun  4 05:49:50 2009
From: mjfrederick at cox.net (Matthew Frederick)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:49:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <581023.89844.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <581023.89844.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <A7B1D852-ACA5-4FD4-B040-422DD9D9C116@cox.net>

A heavier plane doesn't necessarily fly
better in the wind. The design is a more
important factor in windy conditions than
anything else.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2009, at 8:36 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com 
 > wrote:

> Where it isn't fair is in takeoff weight, or even landing weight. A  
> glow plane can put a 40 ounce tank in if they want, they could fly  
> at 13 lbs if they want to help ballast the plane for heavy wind  
> conditions. They could land at 12 lbs.  Where does a 11 lb weight  
> matter with that? Doesn't seem right to me. Does this mean I can add  
> a fuel tank to my 10.5 lb Electric and ballast it where I want  
> it???? It would help me tremendously at the nats in the wind!!! This  
> argument is silly. There should be a takeoff weight rule.
> If you fly glow, and your plane is right at 11 lbs, and you can't  
> make the takeoff rule weight, then I guess you would be in the same  
> boat as the E guys are now.. The only people that seem to have a  
> problem with change, mostly seem to be the glow guys.
> IMO, there is no advantage to either in flight. I world class flyer  
> could beat us all with either.
>
> For those that think the size would increase with a weight change,  
> then go to a takeoff weight rule. I doubt it would happen then.
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 6/3/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 5:02 PM
>
> OH not me. I would vote against a weight increase. I'm not a high  
> tech guy
> and fly pattern on the cheap. This is still mostly about flying and
> considering my flying ability I don't feel I can buy enough points  
> at any
> price to justify it, besides I like to build. I fly a home made 1.20  
> size
> 72" wood airplane around 9 pounds with maybe an all up cost of about  
> $500
> (excellent pattern trainer in all classes).
> I might be able to make weight with a 2 ci glow now. I just thought  
> that if
> the weight limit was removed we would see 12-14 pound airplanes with  
> big gas
> burners (IMAC crossover) and I would probably indulge, and yes a  
> single 2m
> wing will easily carry the weight of a 50 cc but what about a DA  
> 100? Twins
> run smooth.
> The real cost is traveling in both time away from home and $$, even  
> for us
> non-competitive old guys, always has been, but I can't kick the habit.
> Besides pattern fliers make good friends.
> If I wasn't flying pattern I would be flying IMAC. Probably will  
> anyway.
> Jim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:24 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>
> Jim,
>
> Monoplanes are at 74" span now, and about 900 squares because that  
> is where
> the current schedules have pushed the designs to.  The wings don't  
> need to
> be any bigger for the 11 lb weight limit.  But at 74" and 900  
> squares, there
> is plenty of room to grow the monoplane bigger if the weight limit is
> increased.
>
> The bottom line doesn't change - bigger bipe, bigger monoplane,  
> bigger any
> plane will increase costs.
>
> If you think pattern needs more cost and complexity, whether it be  
> biplanes
> or monoplanes, submit a proposal.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N  
> Hiller
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:03 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>
> A monoplane will have higher wing loading. How high is too high?
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:57 AM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>
> <96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet  
> those
> specs with whatever equipment you choose.
>
> Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern  
> goes up.
> If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit  
> the
> proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will  
> obsolete
> your DA-50 Bipe.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N  
> Hiller
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>
> I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane  
> Beck
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>
> http://www.mini-iac.com/
> DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)
>
> Duane
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>
>
> Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
> displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.
>
> Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have  
> wanted to
> build one for a long time.
>
> Bring it on.
>
> Jim Hiller
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/56c1792b/attachment.html>

From homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 05:53:43 2009
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com (krishlan fitzsimmons)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:53:43 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <874221.58377.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

It penetrates the wind better. I wouldn't think of flying and of my sailplanes unballasted in the wind. They don't "fly" as good. 

Chris   ?  ?  ?

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net> wrote:

From: Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 6:49 AM

A heavier plane doesn't necessarily flybetter in the wind. The design is a moreimportant factor in windy conditions than?anything else.

Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 3, 2009, at 8:36 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:

Where it isn't fair is in takeoff weight, or even landing weight. A glow plane can put a 40 ounce tank in if they want, they could fly at 13 lbs if they want to help ballast the plane for heavy wind conditions. They could land at 12 lbs.? Where does a 11 lb weight matter with that? Doesn't seem right to me. Does this mean I can add a fuel tank to my 10.5 lb Electric and ballast it where I want it???? It would help me tremendously at the nats in the wind!!! This argument is silly. There should be a takeoff weight rule. 
If you fly glow, and your plane is right at 11 lbs, and you can't make the takeoff rule weight, then I guess you would be in the same boat as the E guys are now.. The only people that seem to have a problem with change, mostly seem to be the glow guys. 
IMO, there is no advantage to either in flight. I world class flyer could beat us
 all with either. 

For those that think the size would increase with a weight change, then go to a takeoff weight rule. I doubt it would happen then. 



Chris   ?  ?  ?

--- On Wed, 6/3/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 5:02 PM

OH not me. I would vote against a weight increase. I'm not a high tech guy
and fly pattern on the cheap. This is still mostly about flying and
considering my flying ability I don't feel I can buy
 enough points at any
price to justify it, besides I like to build. I fly a home made 1.20 size
72" wood airplane around 9 pounds with maybe an all up cost of about $500
(excellent pattern trainer in all classes).
I might be able to make weight with a 2 ci glow now. I just thought that if
the weight limit was removed we would see 12-14 pound airplanes with big gas
burners (IMAC crossover) and I would probably indulge, and yes a single 2m
wing will easily carry the weight of a 50 cc but what about a DA 100? Twins
run smooth.
The real cost is traveling in both time away from home and $$, even for us
non-competitive old guys, always has been, but I can't kick the habit.
Besides pattern fliers make good friends.
If I wasn't flying pattern I would be flying IMAC. Probably will anyway.
Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:24 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Jim,

Monoplanes are at 74" span now, and about 900 squares because that is where
the current schedules have pushed the designs to.? The wings don't need to
be any bigger for the 11 lb weight limit.? But at 74" and 900 squares, there
is plenty of room to grow the monoplane bigger if the weight limit is
increased.

The bottom line doesn't change - bigger bipe, bigger monoplane, bigger any
plane will increase costs.

If you think pattern needs more cost and complexity, whether it be
 biplanes
or monoplanes, submit a proposal.

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:03 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

A monoplane will have higher wing loading. How high is too high?
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:57 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

<96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.? Your challenge is to meet those
specs with whatever equipment you choose.

Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes up.
If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
proposal.? And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
your DA-50 Bipe.

Regards,

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

http://www.mini-iac.com/
DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.? Have at it.? :-)

Duane

----- Original Message -----
From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.

Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
build one for a
 long time.

Bring it on.

Jim Hiller
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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



      _______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/f828d54c/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Thu Jun  4 06:02:45 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:02:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <794174.59306.qm@web51003.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <794174.59306.qm@web51003.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4A27D403.8020801@cox.net>

mike mueller wrote:
>   Composite ARF does a great job with there stuff today and seem to have a good compromise between strength and weight. There's a lot of guys flying them who made E. weight like Jason, Chad and Andrew.

Andrew is now flying the Krill Spark. Reports 10.7 pounds ready for 
take-off.




From wemodels at cox.net  Thu Jun  4 06:11:15 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:11:15 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <874221.58377.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <874221.58377.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4A27D601.3010108@cox.net>

krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:
> It penetrates the wind better. I wouldn't think of flying and of my 
> sailplanes unballasted in the wind. They don't "fly" as good.
>
> */Chris /*
>  
>

Of course a powered plane is not relying on penetration the same way a 
glider is.  Upwind penetration in high wind conditions is critical to a 
glider and the only "power" it has is the pull of gravity. A heavier 
model is going to have more "power". But even then you still want to be 
as light as possible for the given conditions.

In power planes a heavier plane gives the feeling of greater stability 
in turbulent conditions. But the price that is paid is that when it is 
upset from level flight due to turbulence it takes more control throw to 
right it. Simple physics. Takes more to move it (more stable) means it 
takes more to restore it.

The trick is finding the best compromise weight when ballasting any 
plane for the wind.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/e622deff/attachment.html>

From mjfrederick at cox.net  Thu Jun  4 07:05:07 2009
From: mjfrederick at cox.net (Matthew Frederick)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:05:07 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <909518.8446.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <909518.8446.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <F3A4B2B4-AE9E-4EF9-A39F-9419CB440F1E@cox.net>

It's not so much that the designs are obsolete, people just feel  
embarrassed showing up with an old airplane. A friend of mine who  
designs airplanes has designed 3 airplanes in the last 3 years. The  
main reason for the new designs is changes in F3A schedules. His older  
designs going back to the mid to late 90's are still highly  
competitive. His new designs are not for AMA pattern, they're for f3a.  
If you choose to buy a design that is more than you need, that's your  
choice but don't look for a rules change to fix AMA pattern when  
there's nothing broke. Keeping up with the Joneses in f3a is not a  
valid reason for a rule change.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 4, 2009, at 7:45 AM, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> "designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"
> Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're competitive and  
> always looking for better and different. Truth be known I look  
> forward to a new plane in the Spring that I planned and prepared for  
> a year or so. It's part of what appeals me to pattern and I do this  
> on a lower budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this.  
> It's all about will and determination and innovation to get what I  
> want with as little as I have to work with. Money and building  
> talents lacking I still put down a competitive piece each year. No  
> sponsors either. Now that's actually pretty funny sorry.....
> Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and that the  
> pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the time. I'm saying  
> that I think designs for the truly competitive have a rather short  
> lifespan and that's not going to change anytime soon.
> Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that work well with  
> IC. What about the Passport? Osmose? Integral? It's only been a year  
> or so that the newer generation of planes have been introduced that  
> are dedicated for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E.  
> Addiction E. and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were meant  
> for IC and we adapted them to fit E.
>                                        Mike
>
> --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 7:10 AM
>> I agree with Paul.  Remove the
>> weight limit and keep the 2 meter size
>> limit.  If someone wants to fly a 15 lb biplane
>> powered with a DA-50
>> more power too them.  Sure our current planes may be
>> obsolete but all
>> designs are obsolete in 2-3 years.
>>
>> I'm an intermediate pilot and my biggest concern is the
>> selection of
>> designs available.  Right now other than the Focus II
>> or the Black Magic

From kerlock at comcast.net  Thu Jun  4 07:12:45 2009
From: kerlock at comcast.net (Mike Hester)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:12:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
References: <874221.58377.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <B5472FEDF38C42B9B4D9E896B328A52E@Sanity>

Careful, the old guard will call you a heretic! LOL

FWIW I agree, totally. I have the capability to build a 9 lb VF3 but I will tell you fast, I don't want it. I flew the prototype at many weights and configurations from 9.5 lbs to 10.7 and I will say without blinking I prefer it in the mid-moderately high 10s. I just can't find any ill effects, except a few certain areas in the F patterns where it digs slightly more. But add wind to the equation and it feels like a foamy under 10 lbs. 

Older designs and engines/power systems, yeah lighter was ALWAYS better. Nowadays I'm not nearly as convinced.

Of course this is personal preference. I know for a fact a few people whom I have a LOT of respect for will call this "wrong thinking" or maybe "ignorance". Nope, I'm not still searching for what I like, I found it. And it weighs about 10.5 lbs =) But I won't try and convince anyone else of it. It ALL comes down to personal preference. They aren't wrong either.

And of course that brings up a valid counter point for electrics.....ASSuming that a particular glow plane did fly better with a dry weight of closer to 11 lbs, take off weight would be in the 12+ range. With the electric version of the same plane limited to a take off weight of 11 lbs, the comparable weight would be close to a 9.25 lb glow plane. 

So the question becomes, is that good or bad?

-Mike

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: krishlan fitzsimmons 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:53 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


        It penetrates the wind better. I wouldn't think of flying and of my sailplanes unballasted in the wind. They don't "fly" as good. 


        Chris 





        --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net> wrote:


          From: Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net>
          Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
          To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
          Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 6:49 AM


          A heavier plane doesn't necessarily fly
          better in the wind. The design is a more
          important factor in windy conditions than 
          anything else.

          Sent from my iPhone

          On Jun 3, 2009, at 8:36 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:


                  Where it isn't fair is in takeoff weight, or even landing weight. A glow plane can put a 40 ounce tank in if they want, they could fly at 13 lbs if they want to help ballast the plane for heavy wind conditions. They could land at 12 lbs.  Where does a 11 lb weight matter with that? Doesn't seem right to me. Does this mean I can add a fuel tank to my 10.5 lb Electric and ballast it where I want it???? It would help me tremendously at the nats in the wind!!! This argument is silly. There should be a takeoff weight rule. 
                  If you fly glow, and your plane is right at 11 lbs, and you can't make the takeoff rule weight, then I guess you would be in the same boat as the E guys are now.. The only people that seem to have a problem with change, mostly seem to be the glow guys. 
                  IMO, there is no advantage to either in flight. I world class flyer could beat us all with either. 

                  For those that think the size would increase with a weight change, then go to a takeoff weight rule. I doubt it would happen then. 




                  Chris 





                  --- On Wed, 6/3/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:


                    From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
                    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
                    To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
                    Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 5:02 PM


                    OH not me. I would vote against a weight increase. I'm not a high tech guy
                    and fly pattern on the cheap. This is still mostly about flying and
                    considering my flying ability I don't feel I can buy enough points at any
                    price to justify it, besides I like to build. I fly a home made 1.20 size
                    72" wood airplane around 9 pounds with maybe an all up cost of about $500
                    (excellent pattern trainer in all classes).
                    I might be able to make weight with a 2 ci glow now. I just thought that if
                    the weight limit was removed we would see 12-14 pound airplanes with big gas
                    burners (IMAC crossover) and I would probably indulge, and yes a single 2m
                    wing will easily carry the weight of a 50 cc but what about a DA 100? Twins
                    run smooth.
                    The real cost is traveling in both time away from home and $$, even for us
                    non-competitive old guys, always has been, but I can't kick the habit.
                    Besides pattern fliers make good friends.
                    If I wasn't flying pattern I would be flying IMAC. Probably will anyway.
                    Jim


                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
                    [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
                    Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:24 PM
                    To: 'General pattern discussion'
                    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

                    Jim,

                    Monoplanes are at 74" span now, and about 900 squares because that is where
                    the current schedules have pushed the designs to.  The wings don't need to
                    be any bigger for the 11 lb weight limit.  But at 74" and 900 squares, there
                    is plenty of room to grow the monoplane bigger if the weight limit is
                    increased.

                    The bottom line doesn't change - bigger bipe, bigger monoplane, bigger any
                    plane will increase costs.

                    If you think pattern needs more cost and complexity, whether it be biplanes
                    or monoplanes, submit a proposal.

                    Regards,

                    Dave



                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
                    [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
                    Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:03 PM
                    To: General pattern discussion
                    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

                    A monoplane will have higher wing loading. How high is too high?
                    Jim

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
                    [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
                    Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:57 AM
                    To: 'General pattern discussion'
                    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

                    <96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
                    specs with whatever equipment you choose.

                    Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes up.
                    If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
                    proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
                    your DA-50 Bipe.

                    Regards,

                    Dave


                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
                    [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
                    Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
                    To: General pattern discussion
                    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

                    I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
                    Jim

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
                    [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
                    Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
                    To: General pattern discussion
                    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

                    http://www.mini-iac.com/
                    DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)

                    Duane

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
                    To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
                    <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
                    Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
                    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


                    Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
                    displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.

                    Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
                    build one for a long time.

                    Bring it on.

                    Jim Hiller
                    _______________________________________________
                    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

                    _______________________________________________
                    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
                 


            _______________________________________________
            NSRCA-discussion mailing list
            NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
            http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

          -----Inline Attachment Follows-----


          _______________________________________________
          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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/5ff05c23/attachment.html>

From jferrell13 at triad.rr.com  Thu Jun  4 07:21:34 2009
From: jferrell13 at triad.rr.com (John Ferrell)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:21:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount
References: <D52B29EEE2294A22A28AB06C45863AED@CYBERPOWER><4E9CE280BC3C453992E6819FF174392C@xppro2>
	<3939450F975246468D3AE08EC65742C0@CYBERPOWER>
Message-ID: <B8E2A255D1304535BBC6F2FA3E0A4FDA@xppro2>

I expect that it means it is not really a problem...

John Ferrell  W8CCW
 
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
...."The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."  
   MARGARET THATCHER 
http://DixieNC.US

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: George W.Kennie 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:47 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount



  Hi John,

  Sorry to have to tell you that I received no replies to my inquiry.

  I have the feeling that most people are just not addressing this issue.

  It would make a great product for somebody like Jerry or Chris to produce.All that would be required is 
  an X brace with an oversize receptacle at center to receive plastic inserts (like props) sized to fit shaft
  bearings.

  Georgie






    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: John Ferrell 
    To: General pattern discussion 
    Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:50 AM
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount


    FWIW:
    I am interested in an answer to your question too! It sure looks to me like some kind of nose bearing would be prudent...

    John Ferrell  W8CCW
     
    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
    ...."The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."  
       MARGARET THATCHER 
    http://DixieNC.US

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: George W.Kennie 
      To: NSRCA Mailing List 
      Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:54 PM
      Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Motor Mount


      Hey Guys,

      I have a new project in the works and it involves mounting a 2K watt motor. This will be my first larger motor install so I felt that some advice from the Pros
      would probably be appropriate.

      The Motor is an outrunner and I can mount it from the back side directly to the firewall OR I can use standoffs and mount it from the front side of the motor.
      I keep feeling that there needs to be some kind of a stabilizing bearing on the free end as there portends to be a significant amount of rotating mass if I just 
      bolt the thing to the firewall while a pound of motor whirls around with a large prop exerting inertial rotating energy beyond the front of the cowl. It seems like 
      If I use the stand-offs, there will be a more rigid area between the prop and the motor, but then I worry about the back end. Should I figure out some kind of a 
      bearing mount on the firewall?

      Somebody set me straight on the accepted procedure please. 

      Thanks for you help,

      Georgie 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter.
      We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
      SPAMfighter has removed 25187 of my spam emails to date.
      The Professional version does not have this message.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------


      _______________________________________________
      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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/53a91739/attachment.html>

From mjfrederick at cox.net  Thu Jun  4 07:24:26 2009
From: mjfrederick at cox.net (Matthew Frederick)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:24:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <874221.58377.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <874221.58377.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <F07D340D-5C61-4E2F-AF90-EDAA7568D5C2@cox.net>

My patriot is a half pound under weight
and at a recent contest where winds were
very high I had a distinct advantage due
to design and setup. The heavier planes
had no advantage whatsoever. In fact due
to the size of their fuselages they were at
a disadvantage. Comparing a pattern plane
to a sailplane is naive at best.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 4, 2009, at 8:53 AM, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com 
 > wrote:

> It penetrates the wind better. I wouldn't think of flying and of my  
> sailplanes unballasted in the wind. They don't "fly" as good.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net> wrote:
>
> From: Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 6:49 AM
>
> A heavier plane doesn't necessarily fly
> better in the wind. The design is a more
> important factor in windy conditions than
> anything else.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 3, 2009, at 8:36 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com 
> > wrote:
>
>> Where it isn't fair is in takeoff weight, or even landing weight. A  
>> glow plane can put a 40 ounce tank in if they want, they could fly  
>> at 13 lbs if they want to help ballast the plane for heavy wind  
>> conditions. They could land at 12 lbs.  Where does a 11 lb weight  
>> matter with that? Doesn't seem right to me. Does this mean I can  
>> add a fuel tank to my 10.5 lb Electric and ballast it where I want  
>> it???? It would help me tremendously at the nats in the wind!!!  
>> This argument is silly. There should be a takeoff weight rule.
>> If you fly glow, and your plane is right at 11 lbs, and you can't  
>> make the takeoff rule weight, then I guess you would be in the same  
>> boat as the E guys are now.. The only people that seem to have a  
>> problem with change, mostly seem to be the glow guys.
>> IMO, there is no advantage to either in flight. I world class flyer  
>> could beat us all with either.
>>
>> For those that think the size would increase with a weight change,  
>> then go to a takeoff weight rule. I doubt it would happen then.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On Wed, 6/3/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 5:02 PM
>>
>> OH not me. I would vote against a weight increase. I'm not a high  
>> tech guy
>> and fly pattern on the cheap. This is still mostly about flying and
>> considering my flying ability I don't feel I can buy enough points  
>> at any
>> price to justify it, besides I like to build. I fly a home made  
>> 1.20 size
>> 72" wood airplane around 9 pounds with maybe an all up cost of  
>> about $500
>> (excellent pattern trainer in all classes).
>> I might be able to make weight with a 2 ci glow now. I just thought  
>> that if
>> the weight limit was removed we would see 12-14 pound airplanes  
>> with big gas
>> burners (IMAC crossover) and I would probably indulge, and yes a  
>> single 2m
>> wing will easily carry the weight of a 50 cc but what about a DA  
>> 100? Twins
>> run smooth.
>> The real cost is traveling in both time away from home and $$, even  
>> for us
>> non-competitive old guys, always has been, but I can't kick the  
>> habit.
>> Besides pattern fliers make good friends.
>> If I wasn't flying pattern I would be flying IMAC. Probably will  
>> anyway.
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:24 PM
>> To: 'General pattern discussion'
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> Monoplanes are at 74" span now, and about 900 squares because that  
>> is where
>> the current schedules have pushed the designs to.  The wings don't  
>> need to
>> be any bigger for the 11 lb weight limit.  But at 74" and 900  
>> squares, there
>> is plenty of room to grow the monoplane bigger if the weight limit is
>> increased.
>>
>> The bottom line doesn't change - bigger bipe, bigger monoplane,  
>> bigger any
>> plane will increase costs.
>>
>> If you think pattern needs more cost and complexity, whether it be  
>> biplanes
>> or monoplanes, submit a proposal.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N  
>> Hiller
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:03 PM
>> To: General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>>
>> A monoplane will have higher wing loading. How high is too high?
>> Jim
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:57 AM
>> To: 'General pattern discussion'
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>>
>> <96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet  
>> those
>> specs with whatever equipment you choose.
>>
>> Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern  
>> goes up.
>> If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit  
>> the
>> proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will  
>> obsolete
>> your DA-50 Bipe.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N  
>> Hiller
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
>> To: General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>>
>> I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
>> Jim
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane  
>> Beck
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
>> To: General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>>
>> http://www.mini-iac.com/
>> DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)
>>
>> Duane
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
>> To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada  
>> Eastern
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>>
>>
>> Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
>> displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.
>>
>> Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have  
>> wanted to
>> build one for a long time.
>>
>> Bring it on.
>>
>> Jim Hiller
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/2e2e9f2c/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Thu Jun  4 07:25:43 2009
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:25:43 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <F3A4B2B4-AE9E-4EF9-A39F-9419CB440F1E@cox.net>
References: <909518.8446.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<F3A4B2B4-AE9E-4EF9-A39F-9419CB440F1E@cox.net>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W28A15153DE3F6AD8D18C35A04B0@phx.gbl>


As Ron pointed out--the decision to weigh "with batteries" was probably someone's very strict interpretation.  Do we have any idea who that is/was--and could it just be re-interpreted?  This is just flat not logical.
RS 
> From: mjfrederick at cox.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:04:52 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> It's not so much that the designs are obsolete, people just feel 
> embarrassed showing up with an old airplane. A friend of mine who 
> designs airplanes has designed 3 airplanes in the last 3 years. The 
> main reason for the new designs is changes in F3A schedules. His older 
> designs going back to the mid to late 90's are still highly 
> competitive. His new designs are not for AMA pattern, they're for f3a. 
> If you choose to buy a design that is more than you need, that's your 
> choice but don't look for a rules change to fix AMA pattern when 
> there's nothing broke. Keeping up with the Joneses in f3a is not a 
> valid reason for a rule change.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jun 4, 2009, at 7:45 AM, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > "designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"
> > Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're competitive and 
> > always looking for better and different. Truth be known I look 
> > forward to a new plane in the Spring that I planned and prepared for 
> > a year or so. It's part of what appeals me to pattern and I do this 
> > on a lower budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this. 
> > It's all about will and determination and innovation to get what I 
> > want with as little as I have to work with. Money and building 
> > talents lacking I still put down a competitive piece each year. No 
> > sponsors either. Now that's actually pretty funny sorry.....
> > Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and that the 
> > pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the time. I'm saying 
> > that I think designs for the truly competitive have a rather short 
> > lifespan and that's not going to change anytime soon.
> > Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that work well with 
> > IC. What about the Passport? Osmose? Integral? It's only been a year 
> > or so that the newer generation of planes have been introduced that 
> > are dedicated for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E. 
> > Addiction E. and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were meant 
> > for IC and we adapted them to fit E.
> > Mike
> >
> > --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 7:10 AM
> >> I agree with Paul. Remove the
> >> weight limit and keep the 2 meter size
> >> limit. If someone wants to fly a 15 lb biplane
> >> powered with a DA-50
> >> more power too them. Sure our current planes may be
> >> obsolete but all
> >> designs are obsolete in 2-3 years.
> >>
> >> I'm an intermediate pilot and my biggest concern is the
> >> selection of
> >> designs available. Right now other than the Focus II
> >> or the Black Magic
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_________________________________________________________________
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that?s right for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/e1206fe9/attachment.html>

From verne at twmi.rr.com  Thu Jun  4 08:00:55 2009
From: verne at twmi.rr.com (verne at twmi.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:00:55 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <BAY128-W28A15153DE3F6AD8D18C35A04B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20090604160053.IAJY0.45457.root@hrndva-web03-z01>

The only logic I can see in the decision would be that electric motors are inherently lighter than glow motors so the batteries were thrown in as a means to balance things out. I doubt that anyone at the time was aware that less robust airframes would also be an added benefit to electric vs glow. Having said all that, I believe the formula is deficient. To me, the most logical approach is to take the batteries out of the equation and require a "dry" weight for electrics that takes into account the fact that an electric motor is inherently lighter than a glow motor. The arguments that a fuel tank isn't required doesn't wash because the counter argument is that an electric requires a speed control that is much heavier than a throttle servo. All of those arguments are just that, arguments. A "dry" weight of 8.75 pounds fixes everything in my opinion.

Verne


---- Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> As Ron pointed out--the decision to weigh "with batteries" was probably someone's very strict interpretation.  Do we have any idea who that is/was--and could it just be re-interpreted?  This is just flat not logical.
> RS 
> > From: mjfrederick at cox.net
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:04:52 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > 
> > It's not so much that the designs are obsolete, people just feel 
> > embarrassed showing up with an old airplane. A friend of mine who 
> > designs airplanes has designed 3 airplanes in the last 3 years. The 
> > main reason for the new designs is changes in F3A schedules. His older 
> > designs going back to the mid to late 90's are still highly 
> > competitive. His new designs are not for AMA pattern, they're for f3a. 
> > If you choose to buy a design that is more than you need, that's your 
> > choice but don't look for a rules change to fix AMA pattern when 
> > there's nothing broke. Keeping up with the Joneses in f3a is not a 
> > valid reason for a rule change.
> > 
> > Sent from my iPhone
> > 
> > On Jun 4, 2009, at 7:45 AM, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > "designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"
> > > Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're competitive and 
> > > always looking for better and different. Truth be known I look 
> > > forward to a new plane in the Spring that I planned and prepared for 
> > > a year or so. It's part of what appeals me to pattern and I do this 
> > > on a lower budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this. 
> > > It's all about will and determination and innovation to get what I 
> > > want with as little as I have to work with. Money and building 
> > > talents lacking I still put down a competitive piece each year. No 
> > > sponsors either. Now that's actually pretty funny sorry.....
> > > Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and that the 
> > > pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the time. I'm saying 
> > > that I think designs for the truly competitive have a rather short 
> > > lifespan and that's not going to change anytime soon.
> > > Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that work well with 
> > > IC. What about the Passport? Osmose? Integral? It's only been a year 
> > > or so that the newer generation of planes have been introduced that 
> > > are dedicated for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E. 
> > > Addiction E. and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were meant 
> > > for IC and we adapted them to fit E.
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > >> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 7:10 AM
> > >> I agree with Paul. Remove the
> > >> weight limit and keep the 2 meter size
> > >> limit. If someone wants to fly a 15 lb biplane
> > >> powered with a DA-50
> > >> more power too them. Sure our current planes may be
> > >> obsolete but all
> > >> designs are obsolete in 2-3 years.
> > >>
> > >> I'm an intermediate pilot and my biggest concern is the
> > >> selection of
> > >> designs available. Right now other than the Focus II
> > >> or the Black Magic
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that?s right for you.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290

From jlachow at hotmail.com  Thu Jun  4 08:14:00 2009
From: jlachow at hotmail.com (Joe Lachowski)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:14:00 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <794174.59306.qm@web51003.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <794174.59306.qm@web51003.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <SNT104-W17D50FAEE74F06173A8A6DBB4B0@phx.gbl>


Speaking of Integral wings. I have 3 composite sets laying around if any one is interested.<g>
 
> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 06:40:21 -0700
> From: mups1953 at yahoo.com
> To: jpavlick at idseng.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> 
> All good points John but let me say this. It's nearly impossible to build a light composite wing. If you make them too light they risk blowing apart in the air. i have seen some recent examples of Extreme Composite planes doing such. Composite ARF does a great job with there stuff today and seem to have a good compromise between strength and weight. There's a lot of guys flying them who made E. weight like Jason, Chad and Andrew.
> Wist and Jaroslav Mach do the best job I've seen with composite wings making weight but they are a little hard to get. Also they are not as good a deal money wise as the Integral. My Integral has a foam wing and yes it seems silly but it did result in a pretty awesome plane and it's light. I offset the costs by selling the composite wings from the kit. Mike
> 
> --- On Thu, 6/4/09, John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 8:18 AM
> > Part of the reason why Pattern
> > planes become "obsolete" is due to the fact that
> > the airframe rules for ALL classes are the same. The higher
> > classes schedules change and that requires design changes.
> > This is not a bad thing. It's part of any good
> > competitive sport / hobby. Since the airframe rules
> > apply to all classes, you only have one definition of a
> > "legal" airplane which could be flown in any
> > class. That would be like allowing a Grand National Stock
> > car to run in the Street Stock class. How many people would
> > be willing to try to enter the sport on a low budget with an
> > old Chevelle? My guess is - none! 
> >  
> > I don't know how we could change this without
> > causing more problems but it's something to think about.
> > Personally I think a 90 size / 1.5 meter Sportsman
> > class would do more to grow pattern than messing with the
> > weight rules.
> >  
> > Going back the the weight issue, I really
> > don't think raising the weight limit will attract more
> > people to Pattern. I just don't see how. Who
> > actually weighs airplanes at a local contest? If we were
> > weighing planes at every contest I bet a lot of glow planes
> > would be "illegal". Probably more than the number
> > of electrics at any given contest. Why? Because most of the
> > guys building electrics have learned to pay close attention
> > to weight. That's because of the current rules.
> > That's a good thing. 
> >  
> > Something else to think about: many of you guys are
> > paying top dollar for high end airframes that are basically
> > overweight to start with. Sure you can try to get things
> > under control by using smaller airborne batteries, lighter
> > servos, etc. but if I were you I'd be a bit upset
> > if I paid for a "competition" airplane
> > that needed a lot of finessing to meet the weight
> > requirements. 
> >  
> > Many of you guys like the Integral. This is a perfect
> > example of what I'm talking about. Have you felt how
> > heavy the wings are on some of those? For the money they
> > charge, they should be able to build something lighter. You
> > shouldn't have to custom cut a set of foam
> > wings to replace the ones in your kit. That's just
> > silly.
> >  
> > It does NOT require "zen" building
> > techniques to build an airplane that makes weight. OK, that
> > doesn't hurt but all you need to do is pay close
> > attention to what everything weighs as you build. EVERY
> > time I see an airplane that's
> > "overweight", I can pick out at least 3 things
> > that are just plain absurd. I've only been doing this
> > for a few years. Some of you guys have been flying Pattern
> > longer than I've been alive. If I can do it anyone
> > can. My first 2-meter build (Black Magic V2.2 w/ OS 160)
> > came out at 10lbs, 6.9 oz. I don't have the
> > "zen" building technique down just yet so I'd
> > have to say this should be possible for most people. I'm
> > going to build an electric VF-3 this winter. I bet anyone
> > that it will come in under weight. And I don't
> > have a ton of money to throw at it. In fact I'll
> > probably buy used stuff to save some money so I
> > can buy good batteries. :)
> >  
> > John Pavlick
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Thu, 6/4/09, mike mueller
> > <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > To: "General pattern discussion"
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 8:45 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"
> > Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're
> > competitive and always looking for better and different.
> > Truth be known I look forward to a new plane in the Spring
> > that I planned and prepared for a year or so. It's part
> > of what appeals me to pattern and I do this on a lower
> > budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this.
> > It's all about will and determination and innovation to
> > get what I want with as little as I have to work with. Money
> > and building talents lacking I still put down a competitive
> > piece each year. No sponsors either. Now that's actually
> > pretty funny sorry.....
> > Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and
> > that the pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the
> > time. I'm saying that I think designs for the truly
> > competitive have a rather short lifespan and that's not
> > going to change anytime soon.
> > Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that
> > work well with IC. What about the Passport? Osmose?
> > Integral? It's only been a year or so that the newer
> > generation of planes have been introduced that are dedicated
> > for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E. Addiction E.
> > and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were meant for
> > IC and we adapted them to fit E.
> >                
> >                
> >         Mike
> > 
> > 
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. 
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/17d9a011/attachment.html>

From k6xyz at sbcglobal.net  Thu Jun  4 08:14:08 2009
From: k6xyz at sbcglobal.net (Dave Harmon)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:14:08 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <BAY128-W28A15153DE3F6AD8D18C35A04B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <1B17762373AD4ACA9E88FFBBA6B6D0A3@skunkputer>

I think it's perfectly logical considering that the E-plane can't take off
if the batteries aren't onboard.

If you install the batteries it still can't takeoff because they are not
charged.

Ok.then they get charged..

Oh.sorry..the fuel is weightless.

 

Fuel the 10lb G-plane and it weighs about 20 oz more..

Add the CDI spark box at 4oz, remove 8 oz (weight) of G-fuel...voila.11
pounds takeoff weight.

 

This is why it IS logical to weigh E-planes with batteries...charged or not.

Regards

Dave Harmon
NSRCA 586
K6XYZ[at]sbcglobal[dot]net
Sperry, Ok. 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Richard
Strickland
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:26 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

 

As Ron pointed out--the decision to weigh "with batteries" was probably
someone's very strict interpretation.  Do we have any idea who that
is/was--and could it just be re-interpreted?  This is just flat not logical.
RS 
> From: mjfrederick at cox.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:04:52 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> It's not so much that the designs are obsolete, people just feel 
> embarrassed showing up with an old airplane. A friend of mine who 
> designs airplanes has designed 3 airplanes in the last 3 years. The 
> main reason for the new designs is changes in F3A schedules. His older 
> designs going back to the mid to late 90's are still highly 
> competitive. His new designs are not for AMA pattern, they're for f3a. 
> If you choose to buy a design that is more than you need, that's your 
> choice but don't look for a rules change to fix AMA pattern when 
> there's nothing broke. Keeping up with the Joneses in f3a is not a 
> valid reason for a rule change.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jun 4, 2009, at 7:45 AM, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > "designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"
> > Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're competitive and 
> > always looking for better and different. Truth be known I look 
> > forward to a new plane in the Spring that I planned and prepared for 
> > a year or so. It's part of what appeals me to pattern and I do this 
> > on a lower budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this. 
> > It's all about will and determination and innovation to get what I 
> > want with as little as I have to work with. Money and building 
> > talents lacking I still put down a competitive piece each year. No 
> > sponsors either. Now that's actually pretty funny sorry.....
> > Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and that the 
> > pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the time. I'm saying 
> > that I think designs for the truly competitive have a rather short 
> > lifespan and that's not going to change anytime soon.
> > Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that work well with 
> > IC. What about the Passport? Osmose? Integral? It's only been a year 
> > or so that the newer generation of planes have been introduced that 
> > are dedicated for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E. 
> > Addiction E. and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were meant 
> > for IC and we adapted them to fit E.
> > Mike
> >
> > --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 7:10 AM
> >> I agree with Paul. Remove the
> >> weight limit and keep the 2 meter size
> >> limit. If someone wants to fly a 15 lb biplane
> >> powered with a DA-50
> >> more power too them. Sure our current planes may be
> >> obsolete but all
> >> designs are obsolete in 2-3 years.
> >>
> >> I'm an intermediate pilot and my biggest concern is the
> >> selection of
> >> designs available. Right now other than the Focus II
> >> or the Black Magic
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

  _____  

Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that's right for you.
<http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/f49c7d86/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Thu Jun  4 08:17:24 2009
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:17:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <B5472FEDF38C42B9B4D9E896B328A52E@Sanity>
References: <874221.58377.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<B5472FEDF38C42B9B4D9E896B328A52E@Sanity>
Message-ID: <83A57E8A1FB74940849D9B27FBF4F89A@davedesktop>

Mike,

 

Do I qualify as old guard???  I think it was 1992 when Rick Allison said I
was the old guy in the top of the Masters class at the NATs because I was
the only one who was legal to drink (just barely at that).

 

It is not about weight..it is about design and wing loading (and fuse
loading, with the huge fuses of current day designs).  I think the Vivat was
(and is) a great flyer in the wind.and it has about 1050 squ and 76" span
(and builds at 10 - 10.25 lbs glow).  Hebert designs are certainly not shy
on wing, and also fly well in the wind.

 

I've yet to see "too light", but I've seen plenty of planes with too little
wingloading (for a particular design, or one built very lightly compared to
the designer's intent).  It was also in 1992 that I clipped the wingspan on
my Dash Five to increase the wingloading - at that time the "thinking" by
some (me included) was that somewhere around 100-110 squares of wing per
pound was the "sweet spot".  As the planes have gotten bigger (more
aerodynamic efficiency), horsepower has increased (easier to maintain speed
on the tops of maneuvers), and the schedules have changed (shifting to more
complex rolling and snapping maneuvers), the "sweet spot" for wing loading
has effectively increased - probably in the area of 85-95 squares per lb.

 

I think the reason many people prefer a ballasted plane, is because they've
not tried flying the same plane with a smaller wing - I think what is
actually preferred is the higher wing loading.  Given the relative ease of
adding weight (compared to cutting or changing the wing), adding weight is
understandable for some in some instances.

 

Regards,

 

Dave

 

 

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hester
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:13 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

 

Careful, the old guard will call you a heretic! LOL

 

FWIW I agree, totally. I have the capability to build a 9 lb VF3 but I will
tell you fast, I don't want it. I flew the prototype at many weights and
configurations from 9.5 lbs to 10.7 and I will say without blinking I prefer
it in the mid-moderately high 10s. I just can't find any ill effects, except
a few certain areas in the F patterns where it digs slightly more. But add
wind to the equation and it feels like a foamy under 10 lbs. 

 

Older designs and engines/power systems, yeah lighter was ALWAYS better.
Nowadays I'm not nearly as convinced.

 

Of course this is personal preference. I know for a fact a few people whom I
have a LOT of respect for will call this "wrong thinking" or maybe
"ignorance". Nope, I'm not still searching for what I like, I found it. And
it weighs about 10.5 lbs =) But I won't try and convince anyone else of it.
It ALL comes down to personal preference. They aren't wrong either.

 

And of course that brings up a valid counter point for
electrics.....ASSuming that a particular glow plane did fly better with a
dry weight of closer to 11 lbs, take off weight would be in the 12+ range.
With the electric version of the same plane limited to a take off weight of
11 lbs, the comparable weight would be close to a 9.25 lb glow plane. 

 

So the question becomes, is that good or bad?

 

-Mike

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: krishlan <mailto:homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>  fitzsimmons 

To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:53 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

 


It penetrates the wind better. I wouldn't think of flying and of my
sailplanes unballasted in the wind. They don't "fly" as good. 

Chris 

 

 

 



--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net> wrote:


From: Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 6:49 AM

A heavier plane doesn't necessarily fly

better in the wind. The design is a more

important factor in windy conditions than 

anything else.

Sent from my iPhone


On Jun 3, 2009, at 8:36 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons
<homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:


Where it isn't fair is in takeoff weight, or even landing weight. A glow
plane can put a 40 ounce tank in if they want, they could fly at 13 lbs if
they want to help ballast the plane for heavy wind conditions. They could
land at 12 lbs.  Where does a 11 lb weight matter with that? Doesn't seem
right to me. Does this mean I can add a fuel tank to my 10.5 lb Electric and
ballast it where I want it???? It would help me tremendously at the nats in
the wind!!! This argument is silly. There should be a takeoff weight rule. 
If you fly glow, and your plane is right at 11 lbs, and you can't make the
takeoff rule weight, then I guess you would be in the same boat as the E
guys are now.. The only people that seem to have a problem with change,
mostly seem to be the glow guys. 
IMO, there is no advantage to either in flight. I world class flyer could
beat us all with either. 

For those that think the size would increase with a weight change, then go
to a takeoff weight rule. I doubt it would happen then. 




Chris 

 

 

 



--- On Wed, 6/3/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:


From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 5:02 PM

OH not me. I would vote against a weight increase. I'm not a high tech guy
and fly pattern on the cheap. This is still mostly about flying and
considering my flying ability I don't feel I can buy enough points at any
price to justify it, besides I like to build. I fly a home made 1.20 size
72" wood airplane around 9 pounds with maybe an all up cost of about $500
(excellent pattern trainer in all classes).
I might be able to make weight with a 2 ci glow now. I just thought that if
the weight limit was removed we would see 12-14 pound airplanes with big gas
burners (IMAC crossover) and I would probably indulge, and yes a single 2m
wing will easily carry the weight of a 50 cc but what about a DA 100? Twins
run smooth.
The real cost is traveling in both time away from home and $$, even for us
non-competitive old guys, always has been, but I can't kick the habit.
Besides pattern fliers make good friends.
If I wasn't flying pattern I would be flying IMAC. Probably will anyway.
Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:24 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Jim,

Monoplanes are at 74" span now, and about 900 squares because that is where
the current schedules have pushed the designs to.  The wings don't need to
be any bigger for the 11 lb weight limit.  But at 74" and 900 squares, there
is plenty of room to grow the monoplane bigger if the weight limit is
increased.

The bottom line doesn't change - bigger bipe, bigger monoplane, bigger any
plane will increase costs.

If you think pattern needs more cost and complexity, whether it be biplanes
or monoplanes, submit a proposal.

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:03 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

A monoplane will have higher wing loading. How high is too high?
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:57 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

<96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
specs with whatever equipment you choose.

Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes up.
If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
your DA-50 Bipe.

Regards,

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

 <http://www.mini-iac.com/> http://www.mini-iac.com/
DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)

Duane

----- Original Message -----
From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.

Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
build one for a long time.

Bring it on.

Jim Hiller
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
 <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/52c1ffe5/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Thu Jun  4 08:17:35 2009
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:17:35 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
In-Reply-To: <20090603175326.8D8S1.33727.root@hrndva-web26-z02>
References: <3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090603175326.8D8S1.33727.root@hrndva-web26-z02>
Message-ID: <AA26DE2C483F45E1A2BC9E5FA867DBC0@davedesktop>

Honestly, I understand (and agree) with the intention to allow the "cheap
electric", but it is no different than trying to tweak the rules for the
"cheap gas engine" and won't (my opinion, with substantial history to back
it) work- 
- why should the rules be tweaked to essentially allow someone the latest
greatest (electric) without paying for it (either with time, or $$$, or
experience)?  The latest greatest always cost more - that is the nature of
competition.
- I truly believe the time spent researching, designing, crafting,
submitting, and implementing such a proposal will largely be wasted because
the process is relatively slow and can not possibly keep up with the rate of
change in electrics as technology advances.
- Anyone who wants to try electric - go right ahead - and fly a current day
design at a slight weight disadvantage at local comps (most guys don't go to
the NATs anyway) - no one is going to ask or care about a couple ounces over
11 lbs.  And if they do decide to go to the NATs, they can suck it up and
buy 1 expensive pack for official flights and the scale.

With the understanding of the intent to allow cheap electrics, the
unintended consequences of any rule change needs to be carefully evaluated
prior to submitting a proposal.  In this case, the unintended consequence
will be the opportunity for the TOP LEVEL electric designs to grow
substantially in size and weight, which will drive the cost up for all
competitors (glow and electric) to compete with the new performance
standard.  The average plane is influenced by whatever the TOP LEVEL stuff
is - that is why both electric and glow TOP LEVEL stuff has always been
right on the limit of whatever the rules are at the time, and that is the
way it will always be - again, it is the nature of competition.

The top level electrics right now weigh well under 11 lbs......10 lbs is
quite possible with electric monoplanes, which is why some are able to sneak
biplanes in under 11 lbs - of course this is by shaving every ounce off the
airframe (reducing it's lifespan and making it relatively fragile) and
pushing the lipos harder (also reducing it's lifespan).  So when you look at
8.7 lbs considering the weight of the electrics that are marginally
overweight (with the Zippy packs and AXI), the unintended consequence is the
guys that have 7.5 lb airframes now have 1.2 lbs of additional weight to add
to make the plane bigger - and you know it will be used, and probably along
the lines of - 
- 6-8 oz for structure
- 3-4 oz for more motor (more power)
- 4-5 oz for more lipo (which would still be rated the same 5300 mah, but be
heavier to allow more voltage under load, thus delivering more watts through
the course of the flight - and it will be called a "High Power Prolite", or
"High Power AEON", whatever.)
- 1-2 oz more for bigger servos and more RX battery

And 2 years after the 8.7 lb rule is introduced, there will be a cheap copy
of the "High Power Prolite" will be available and it will weigh 5 oz more,
and the desire will be to raise the 8.7 lbs to 9.2 lbs.

Allow 5.5 kg (12 lb) or 6 kg (14.3 kg) airframes, and yes, you will have
DA50 powered stuff that is competitive with current day designs, but it will
not be competitive with the YS built for 6 kg airframes for the same reason
gas is not competitive with glow now.

Allow 5.5 kg weight limit, and you instantly solve the problem of all the
guys that are a couple oz over the current 5 kg weight limit.  And the new
designs will grow, and in 1-2 years, the new designs will be showing up a
couple oz over the 5.5 kg limit.

It may be true that for the TOP LEVELs of competition that any airframe is
obsolete in 3 years......BUT.......changing the rules to allow 15 lbs
airframes will obsolete (immediately) not only the airframes, but the
powerplants and servos.....and up the horsepower requirements substantially
which will increase the noise (only measured at the NATs) and require
substantially more cost to reduce the noise (to achieve 94/96 db at the
NATs).

All of the above is escalation no different than what we've seen in the past
-
- "we" started with .61 cubic inch (10 CC) limit and 5 kg......the only
practical limit was the displacement.
- "we" allowed 120 4C (big mistake, short sighted, or should have been
continually adjusted as competition 4Cs developed).  Airframes grew and cost
went up....some airplanes actually exceeded 2M (which was not yet a limit).
- "we" allowed unlimited engines to, in part, cover up the mistake of the
120 4C, and, in part, to allow cheap gas engines (another big mistake, again
short sighted).  The 2M rule went into place because that was essentially
the "largest" plane in existence at the time.  The airframes got bigger
again (fuse volume), and cost went up again, and the practical limit to
airframe size became the 5 kg weight limit.

Of course we also have the noise limit - that is really a separate issue -
but - it is worth noting that larger airplanes require more power, and more
power is more noise (or more expense to keep the noise from increasing).

"Wouldn't it be nice if"........is a dangerous lead in to rule changes with
unintended consequences.  The gas engine, the heavier lipo, the heavier
motor, the heavier airframe, etc.....will all forever be less competitive
because the limits will always be pushed by the airframe/powerplant that has
the best power to weight ratio, and that will always cost more, and always
be more sensitive to weight conscious building techniques.  No change in the
rules will ever allow parity for equipment that does not have the best power
to weight ratio.

Someone else made the point that they perceived the less the rules change,
the more available airframes and equipment are (2nd hand) - I couldn't agree
more.  Stop changing the rules to allow (intended or not) higher performance
airframes, and the "old" ones won't be obsolete so quickly.

Personally, after a lot of research and planning, I switched to electric in
2006....and the expense was big.....especially because I had perfectly good
glow stuff, and maintained glow and electric for about 1 year.  To date,
I've built 3 electric airframes (1 Abbra, 2 Prestige), and between them I
have run 12 different motors of different brands, weights, in/out runners,
and just about every mounting configuration you can think of.  The majority
of the motors have been < $300, and I've always used the Castle 85HV (which
I think has always been and still is the least expensive ESC available for
the job).  My planes have weighed anywhere between 9 lbs 13 oz and 10 lbs 14
depending on the configuration.  If I had the time, $$$, resources, etc, I'd
design and build my own stuff right up to the limit, whatever that limit
might be.  As I do have limits (as most of us do), I'll get as close to what
I think optimum performance is, and it may or may not be pushing the limits
(for whatever reasons). 

In the past 3 years, I've spent a huge amount of time on email, phone,
forums, in my shop, in others shops, etc....working with people on how to
assemble electric pattern stuff....and most are not using the most expensive
airframes or equipment, and all are under 11 lbs.  Bottom line is that you
can not take the largest, cheapest, and heaviest of each respective
component and have a sub 11 lb electric OR glow plane.  Nor do you need to
have the most expensive and lightest example of each component to be
competitive.  You do need to research, plan, and make educated decisions.
No offense to anyone with an 10 lb 18 oz plane....they do exist....and most
are being happily flown, and most can make weight for the NATs if the time
is spent in advanced.

Regards,

Dave






-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
verne at twmi.rr.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:53 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Derek,
We've discussed raising the weight before and it's always been voted down. I
believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart has steadfastly argued that raising
the weight limit will inevitably increase the size of our planes, obsoleting
anything that preceded it. I agree with him. 

What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for someone wanting to try
electric to be able to do so without having to buy the most expensive
equipment available. For example, at a contest last weekend, a friend and
fellow pattern pilot had a set of Zippy packs that weighed roughly 5.5
ounces more than my FlightPower packs. Pretty much the same difference when
compared to Andrew's TP packs. The Zippy's as we all know, were less than
half the cost. I know for sure that my friend would have made weight with my
FP's or Andrew's TP's, but he couldn't afford that after all the other
"electric" purchases. 

What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked out, is that electric
airplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be weighed without their "fuel",
just like glow. The Rx battery will have to be in the plane, just like glow.
Yes, I realize that there are UBEC's out there but I don't know of anyone
who trusts them with the kind of current we're running. In any event, my
preliminary research indicates that roughly 8.7 pounds should be just about
right, but I want to make sure before I submit the proposal.

Verne

  
---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com> wrote: 
> Verne,
> 
> When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the proposals which was
> passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the weight limit for
their
> helicopters effective 1/1/2010.  Here is the new wording:
> 
> a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (*with *fuel *or *batteries)
> must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
> 
> Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective 01/01/10.
> 
> I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A sub-committee members to see if
> there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to 5.5kg.  What does
> everyone think about this?
> 
> -Derek
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > Bill,
> > I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that very issue.
> > Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board anytime
soon. In
> > the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the glow to
electric
> > comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much
internal
> > reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational effects to
contend
> > with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter airframes being
> > acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the Rx and
servos.
> > An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same flight in
glow is
> > typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots will tell you
that
> > making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive proposition
with a
> > limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually
vacuum-bagged
> > composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making weight will
> > also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive motors and
> > batteries. There are exceptio
> >  ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of them, but I'll be
able
> > to point to just as many examples of guys that fly overweight at local
> > contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing
they're
> > really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest
batteries
> > and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're flying are the
same
> > as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm working on is
not
> > self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting there is both
too
> > expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't be to allow
> > electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh less, but
> > without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that electric
motors
> > are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well as the
reduced
> > structural requirements. It will limit the mah of permissible packs to
> > control that end of the equation and there's already a voltage limit on
the
> > books which is fine as it
> >  stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the contests I go to to see
> > where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal on this list
> > soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their opinions to
their
> > respective Contest Board reps.
> >
> > Verne Koester
> > AMA District 7
> > Contest Board
> >  ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:
> > >  I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was off doing
other
> > > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > >
> > >
> > > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5)
> > > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff.
> > > Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> > >
> > > Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??
Is
> > > a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
> > >
> > > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes no
> > > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and can
weigh
> > > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12 ounces
of
> > > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight
> > > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
> > >
> > > Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared to a
> > > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > >
> > > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > >
> > > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > >
> > > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > >
> > >  So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight advantage
> > > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" electric is
at
> > > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > >
> > > So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus ounces
> > > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does that
> > > make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so educate
me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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


From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Thu Jun  4 08:20:40 2009
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:20:40 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <20090604160053.IAJY0.45457.root@hrndva-web03-z01>
References: <BAY128-W28A15153DE3F6AD8D18C35A04B0@phx.gbl>
	<20090604160053.IAJY0.45457.root@hrndva-web03-z01>
Message-ID: <847D8D78EDAE405A89DCFD29500FFA03@davedesktop>

Maybe they actually figured the future would bring very powerful and
lightweight electric motors and batteries, and that even at 11 lbs with
batteries electrics would take over.....and thusly decided weigh electrics
with batteries in an attempt to not immediately obsolete glow.

Give electrics more advantage now, and the death of glow will be accelerated
(and guys will still build overweight electrics - limits are always pushed
in competitive events, and occasionally they are exceeded).

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
verne at twmi.rr.com
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:01 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

The only logic I can see in the decision would be that electric motors are
inherently lighter than glow motors so the batteries were thrown in as a
means to balance things out. I doubt that anyone at the time was aware that
less robust airframes would also be an added benefit to electric vs glow.
Having said all that, I believe the formula is deficient. To me, the most
logical approach is to take the batteries out of the equation and require a
"dry" weight for electrics that takes into account the fact that an electric
motor is inherently lighter than a glow motor. The arguments that a fuel
tank isn't required doesn't wash because the counter argument is that an
electric requires a speed control that is much heavier than a throttle
servo. All of those arguments are just that, arguments. A "dry" weight of
8.75 pounds fixes everything in my opinion.

Verne


---- Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> As Ron pointed out--the decision to weigh "with batteries" was probably
someone's very strict interpretation.  Do we have any idea who that
is/was--and could it just be re-interpreted?  This is just flat not logical.
> RS 
> > From: mjfrederick at cox.net
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:04:52 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > 
> > It's not so much that the designs are obsolete, people just feel 
> > embarrassed showing up with an old airplane. A friend of mine who 
> > designs airplanes has designed 3 airplanes in the last 3 years. The 
> > main reason for the new designs is changes in F3A schedules. His older 
> > designs going back to the mid to late 90's are still highly 
> > competitive. His new designs are not for AMA pattern, they're for f3a. 
> > If you choose to buy a design that is more than you need, that's your 
> > choice but don't look for a rules change to fix AMA pattern when 
> > there's nothing broke. Keeping up with the Joneses in f3a is not a 
> > valid reason for a rule change.
> > 
> > Sent from my iPhone
> > 
> > On Jun 4, 2009, at 7:45 AM, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > "designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"
> > > Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're competitive and 
> > > always looking for better and different. Truth be known I look 
> > > forward to a new plane in the Spring that I planned and prepared for 
> > > a year or so. It's part of what appeals me to pattern and I do this 
> > > on a lower budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this. 
> > > It's all about will and determination and innovation to get what I 
> > > want with as little as I have to work with. Money and building 
> > > talents lacking I still put down a competitive piece each year. No 
> > > sponsors either. Now that's actually pretty funny sorry.....
> > > Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and that the 
> > > pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the time. I'm saying 
> > > that I think designs for the truly competitive have a rather short 
> > > lifespan and that's not going to change anytime soon.
> > > Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that work well with 
> > > IC. What about the Passport? Osmose? Integral? It's only been a year 
> > > or so that the newer generation of planes have been introduced that 
> > > are dedicated for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E. 
> > > Addiction E. and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were meant 
> > > for IC and we adapted them to fit E.
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > >> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 7:10 AM
> > >> I agree with Paul. Remove the
> > >> weight limit and keep the 2 meter size
> > >> limit. If someone wants to fly a 15 lb biplane
> > >> powered with a DA-50
> > >> more power too them. Sure our current planes may be
> > >> obsolete but all
> > >> designs are obsolete in 2-3 years.
> > >>
> > >> I'm an intermediate pilot and my biggest concern is the
> > >> selection of
> > >> designs available. Right now other than the Focus II
> > >> or the Black Magic
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that's right for you.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From kerlock at comcast.net  Thu Jun  4 08:36:53 2009
From: kerlock at comcast.net (Mike Hester)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:36:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
References: <874221.58377.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com><B5472FEDF38C42B9B4D9E896B328A52E@Sanity>
	<83A57E8A1FB74940849D9B27FBF4F89A@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <CE70BA0082B14B928F3EAC9CBAA1D463@Sanity>

Old guard, lessee, do you think I'm a heretic? LOL

Wait don't answer that....

Nope I agree with you about the wing loading. but again the "problem" for a designer is trying to make a one-size-fits-all plane. It really doesn't exist, although a few come REALLY close. Most designers design primarily for FAI and then everyone else flies that plane because Joe superman flies it. No matter how it flies. Finding a combination of design elements that address it all is a daunting task.

here's another one to chew on: fuselage loading? With all the emphasis on KE flight and integrated rolls, how much is too much? have we found the line yet? 

Wing thickness and drag also play into it heavily. I have no doubt I have found the edge of the cliff with drag =)  oddly enough it doesn't come from the fuselage as much as the wing. So I have to agree with you there, the wing is a big part of the whole equation. 

Talk about a delicate balancing act! Well, that's what makes it fun for me.

I've seen "too light"...for me. I've also seen too heavy, but that side is well documented through the years. But one thing I'm playing with is different wing designs and planforms. they make a HUGE difference in the way a plane behaves. The actual airfoil shape itself is pretty irrelavent...but the thickness, taper, TE thickness, area and placement on the plane are a lot of fun to experiment with.

And the first thing I discovered doing that? If you get too far in any direction, it'll REALLY suit one guy's flying style, and guys at the other end of the spectrum will hate it. 

But the point is weight comes into play in KE as well. And what's good for KE is not always good for a X-wind. Again there's got to be a careful balance of everything. THAT is tricky.

-Mike

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dave 
  To: 'General pattern discussion' 
  Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:17 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


  Mike,

   

  Do I qualify as old guard???  I think it was 1992 when Rick Allison said I was the old guy in the top of the Masters class at the NATs because I was the only one who was legal to drink (just barely at that).

   

  It is not about weight..it is about design and wing loading (and fuse loading, with the huge fuses of current day designs).  I think the Vivat was (and is) a great flyer in the wind.and it has about 1050 squ and 76" span (and builds at 10 - 10.25 lbs glow).  Hebert designs are certainly not shy on wing, and also fly well in the wind.

   

  I've yet to see "too light", but I've seen plenty of planes with too little wingloading (for a particular design, or one built very lightly compared to the designer's intent).  It was also in 1992 that I clipped the wingspan on my Dash Five to increase the wingloading - at that time the "thinking" by some (me included) was that somewhere around 100-110 squares of wing per pound was the "sweet spot".  As the planes have gotten bigger (more aerodynamic efficiency), horsepower has increased (easier to maintain speed on the tops of maneuvers), and the schedules have changed (shifting to more complex rolling and snapping maneuvers), the "sweet spot" for wing loading has effectively increased - probably in the area of 85-95 squares per lb.

   

  I think the reason many people prefer a ballasted plane, is because they've not tried flying the same plane with a smaller wing - I think what is actually preferred is the higher wing loading.  Given the relative ease of adding weight (compared to cutting or changing the wing), adding weight is understandable for some in some instances.

   

  Regards,

   

  Dave

   

   

   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hester
  Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:13 AM
  To: General pattern discussion
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

   

  Careful, the old guard will call you a heretic! LOL

   

  FWIW I agree, totally. I have the capability to build a 9 lb VF3 but I will tell you fast, I don't want it. I flew the prototype at many weights and configurations from 9.5 lbs to 10.7 and I will say without blinking I prefer it in the mid-moderately high 10s. I just can't find any ill effects, except a few certain areas in the F patterns where it digs slightly more. But add wind to the equation and it feels like a foamy under 10 lbs. 

   

  Older designs and engines/power systems, yeah lighter was ALWAYS better. Nowadays I'm not nearly as convinced.

   

  Of course this is personal preference. I know for a fact a few people whom I have a LOT of respect for will call this "wrong thinking" or maybe "ignorance". Nope, I'm not still searching for what I like, I found it. And it weighs about 10.5 lbs =) But I won't try and convince anyone else of it. It ALL comes down to personal preference. They aren't wrong either.

   

  And of course that brings up a valid counter point for electrics.....ASSuming that a particular glow plane did fly better with a dry weight of closer to 11 lbs, take off weight would be in the 12+ range. With the electric version of the same plane limited to a take off weight of 11 lbs, the comparable weight would be close to a 9.25 lb glow plane. 

   

  So the question becomes, is that good or bad?

   

  -Mike

   

    ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: krishlan fitzsimmons 

    To: General pattern discussion 

    Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:53 AM

    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

     

          It penetrates the wind better. I wouldn't think of flying and of my sailplanes unballasted in the wind. They don't "fly" as good. 

          Chris 

           

           

           



          --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net> wrote:


          From: Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net>
          Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
          To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
          Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 6:49 AM

          A heavier plane doesn't necessarily fly

          better in the wind. The design is a more

          important factor in windy conditions than 

          anything else.

          Sent from my iPhone


          On Jun 3, 2009, at 8:36 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:

                  Where it isn't fair is in takeoff weight, or even landing weight. A glow plane can put a 40 ounce tank in if they want, they could fly at 13 lbs if they want to help ballast the plane for heavy wind conditions. They could land at 12 lbs.  Where does a 11 lb weight matter with that? Doesn't seem right to me. Does this mean I can add a fuel tank to my 10.5 lb Electric and ballast it where I want it???? It would help me tremendously at the nats in the wind!!! This argument is silly. There should be a takeoff weight rule. 
                  If you fly glow, and your plane is right at 11 lbs, and you can't make the takeoff rule weight, then I guess you would be in the same boat as the E guys are now.. The only people that seem to have a problem with change, mostly seem to be the glow guys. 
                  IMO, there is no advantage to either in flight. I world class flyer could beat us all with either. 

                  For those that think the size would increase with a weight change, then go to a takeoff weight rule. I doubt it would happen then. 




                  Chris 

                   

                   

                   



                  --- On Wed, 6/3/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:


                  From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
                  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
                  To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
                  Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 5:02 PM

                  OH not me. I would vote against a weight increase. I'm not a high tech guy
                  and fly pattern on the cheap. This is still mostly about flying and
                  considering my flying ability I don't feel I can buy enough points at any
                  price to justify it, besides I like to build. I fly a home made 1.20 size
                  72" wood airplane around 9 pounds with maybe an all up cost of about $500
                  (excellent pattern trainer in all classes).
                  I might be able to make weight with a 2 ci glow now. I just thought that if
                  the weight limit was removed we would see 12-14 pound airplanes with big gas
                  burners (IMAC crossover) and I would probably indulge, and yes a single 2m
                  wing will easily carry the weight of a 50 cc but what about a DA 100? Twins
                  run smooth.
                  The real cost is traveling in both time away from home and $$, even for us
                  non-competitive old guys, always has been, but I can't kick the habit.
                  Besides pattern fliers make good friends.
                  If I wasn't flying pattern I would be flying IMAC. Probably will anyway.
                  Jim


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
                  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
                  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:24 PM
                  To: 'General pattern discussion'
                  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

                  Jim,

                  Monoplanes are at 74" span now, and about 900 squares because that is where
                  the current schedules have pushed the designs to.  The wings don't need to
                  be any bigger for the 11 lb weight limit.  But at 74" and 900 squares, there
                  is plenty of room to grow the monoplane bigger if the weight limit is
                  increased.

                  The bottom line doesn't change - bigger bipe, bigger monoplane, bigger any
                  plane will increase costs.

                  If you think pattern needs more cost and complexity, whether it be biplanes
                  or monoplanes, submit a proposal.

                  Regards,

                  Dave



                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
                  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
                  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:03 PM
                  To: General pattern discussion
                  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

                  A monoplane will have higher wing loading. How high is too high?
                  Jim

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
                  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
                  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:57 AM
                  To: 'General pattern discussion'
                  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

                  <96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
                  specs with whatever equipment you choose.

                  Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes up.
                  If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
                  proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
                  your DA-50 Bipe.

                  Regards,

                  Dave


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
                  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
                  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
                  To: General pattern discussion
                  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

                  I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
                  Jim

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
                  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
                  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
                  To: General pattern discussion
                  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

                  http://www.mini-iac.com/
                  DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)

                  Duane

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
                  To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
                  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
                  Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
                  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


                  Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
                  displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.

                  Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
                  build one for a long time.

                  Bring it on.

                  Jim Hiller
                  _______________________________________________
                  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

                  _______________________________________________
                  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
                 

             

            _______________________________________________
            NSRCA-discussion mailing list
            NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
            http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


          -----Inline Attachment Follows-----

          _______________________________________________
          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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/db9c20d9/attachment.html>

From jnhiller at earthlink.net  Thu Jun  4 08:39:47 2009
From: jnhiller at earthlink.net (J N Hiller)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:39:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <F07D340D-5C61-4E2F-AF90-EDAA7568D5C2@cox.net>
Message-ID: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPGEGMEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>

You are right 'G-Power' is totally different. I've ballasted both scale and
pattern airplanes to try to offset flight deficiencies and enhance
performance in wind, unsuccessfully. Each airplane / design seams to have an
optimum weight usually near the easy minimum build weight. The problems I've
experienced were design deficiencies (need to fire that guy). I think the
real culprit is weight in the extremities such as wing tips and tail. Heavy
extremities require more energy to check wind induced disruption as well as
starting and stopping recovery commands, crisp and rapid response.
Centralized weight with or without ballast directly contributes to the
'feel' of the airplane in the air.
Design selection appropriate for the schedule to be flown, setup and flight
trimming are more important.
Jim Hiller


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Matthew
Frederick
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 8:24 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

My patriot is a half pound under weight
and at a recent contest where winds were
very high I had a distinct advantage due
to design and setup. The heavier planes
had no advantage whatsoever. In fact due
to the size of their fuselages they were at
a disadvantage. Comparing a pattern plane
to a sailplane is naive at best.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 4, 2009, at 8:53 AM, krishlan fitzsimmons <
homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com <mailto:homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> > wrote:
It penetrates the wind better. I wouldn't think of flying and of my
sailplanes unballasted in the wind. They don't "fly" as good.
Chris





--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Matthew Frederick < mjfrederick at cox.net
<mailto:mjfrederick at cox.net> > wrote:

From: Matthew Frederick < mjfrederick at cox.net <mailto:mjfrederick at cox.net> >
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 6:49 AM
A heavier plane doesn't necessarily fly
better in the wind. The design is a more
important factor in windy conditions than
anything else.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2009, at 8:36 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons <
homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com <mailto:homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> > wrote:
Where it isn't fair is in takeoff weight, or even landing weight. A glow
plane can put a 40 ounce tank in if they want, they could fly at 13 lbs if
they want to help ballast the plane for heavy wind conditions. They could
land at 12 lbs.  Where does a 11 lb weight matter with that? Doesn't seem
right to me. Does this mean I can add a fuel tank to my 10.5 lb Electric and
ballast it where I want it???? It would help me tremendously at the nats in
the wind!!! This argument is silly. There should be a takeoff weight rule.
If you fly glow, and your plane is right at 11 lbs, and you can't make the
takeoff rule weight, then I guess you would be in the same boat as the E
guys are now.. The only people that seem to have a problem with change,
mostly seem to be the glow guys.
IMO, there is no advantage to either in flight. I world class flyer could
beat us all with either.

For those that think the size would increase with a weight change, then go
to a takeoff weight rule. I doubt it would happen then.



Chris





--- On Wed, 6/3/09, J N Hiller < jnhiller at earthlink.net
<mailto:jnhiller at earthlink.net> > wrote:

From: J N Hiller < jnhiller at earthlink.net <mailto:jnhiller at earthlink.net> >
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 5:02 PM
OH not me. I would vote against a weight increase. I'm not a high tech guy
and fly pattern on the cheap. This is still mostly about flying and
considering my flying ability I don't feel I can buy enough points at any
price to justify it, besides I like to build. I fly a home made 1.20 size
72" wood airplane around 9 pounds with maybe an all up cost of about $500
(excellent pattern trainer in all classes).
I might be able to make weight with a 2 ci glow now. I just thought that if
the weight limit was removed we would see 12-14 pound airplanes with big gas
burners (IMAC crossover) and I would probably indulge, and yes a single 2m
wing will easily carry the weight of a 50 cc but what about a DA 100? Twins
run smooth.
The real cost is traveling in both time away from home and $$, even for us
non-competitive old guys, always has been, but I can't kick the habit.
Besides pattern fliers make good friends.
If I wasn't flying pattern I would be flying IMAC. Probably will anyway.
Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
[mailto: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> ]On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:24 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Jim,

Monoplanes are at 74" span now, and about 900 squares because that is where
the current schedules have pushed the designs to.  The wings don't need to
be any bigger for the 11 lb weight limit.  But at 74" and 900 squares, there
is plenty of room to grow the monoplane bigger if the weight limit is
increased.

The bottom line doesn't change - bigger bipe, bigger monoplane, bigger any
plane will increase costs.

If you think pattern needs more cost and complexity, whether it be biplanes
or monoplanes, submit a proposal.

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
[mailto: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> ] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:03 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

A monoplane will have higher wing loading. How high is too high?
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
[mailto: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> ]On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:57 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

<96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
specs with whatever equipment you choose.

Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes up.
If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
your DA-50 Bipe.

Regards,

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
[mailto: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> ] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
[mailto: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> ]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

<http://www.mini-iac.com/> <http://www.mini-iac.com/>
http://www.mini-iac.com/
DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)

Duane

----- Original Message -----
From: "J N Hiller" < jnhiller at earthlink.net <mailto:jnhiller at earthlink.net>
>
To: jpavlick at idseng.com <mailto:jpavlick at idseng.com> , "General pattern
discussion"
< nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.

Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
build one for a long time.

Bring it on.

Jim Hiller
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/4f458f59/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Thu Jun  4 08:41:14 2009
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:41:14 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <20090604160053.IAJY0.45457.root@hrndva-web03-z01>
References: <BAY128-W28A15153DE3F6AD8D18C35A04B0@phx.gbl>
	<20090604160053.IAJY0.45457.root@hrndva-web03-z01>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W17C280ED66D65FF057529FA04B0@phx.gbl>


I have this 'feeling' that at the time there was little thought given between flight pack batteries and POWER batteries--"...with batteries..." was in the book--and that was taken literally.  Anyone truly know?

RS
> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 12:00:53 -0400
> From: verne at twmi.rr.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> CC: pamrich47 at hotmail.com
> 
> The only logic I can see in the decision would be that electric motors are inherently lighter than glow motors so the batteries were thrown in as a means to balance things out. I doubt that anyone at the time was aware that less robust airframes would also be an added benefit to electric vs glow. Having said all that, I believe the formula is deficient. To me, the most logical approach is to take the batteries out of the equation and require a "dry" weight for electrics that takes into account the fact that an electric motor is inherently lighter than a glow motor. The arguments that a fuel tank isn't required doesn't wash because the counter argument is that an electric requires a speed control that is much heavier than a throttle servo. All of those arguments are just that, arguments. A "dry" weight of 8.75 pounds fixes everything in my opinion.
> 
> Verne
> 
> 
> ---- Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote: 
> > 
> > As Ron pointed out--the decision to weigh "with batteries" was probably someone's very strict interpretation. Do we have any idea who that is/was--and could it just be re-interpreted? This is just flat not logical.
> > RS 
> > > From: mjfrederick at cox.net
> > > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > > Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:04:52 -0500
> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > > 
> > > It's not so much that the designs are obsolete, people just feel 
> > > embarrassed showing up with an old airplane. A friend of mine who 
> > > designs airplanes has designed 3 airplanes in the last 3 years. The 
> > > main reason for the new designs is changes in F3A schedules. His older 
> > > designs going back to the mid to late 90's are still highly 
> > > competitive. His new designs are not for AMA pattern, they're for f3a. 
> > > If you choose to buy a design that is more than you need, that's your 
> > > choice but don't look for a rules change to fix AMA pattern when 
> > > there's nothing broke. Keeping up with the Joneses in f3a is not a 
> > > valid reason for a rule change.
> > > 
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > 
> > > On Jun 4, 2009, at 7:45 AM, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > "designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"
> > > > Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're competitive and 
> > > > always looking for better and different. Truth be known I look 
> > > > forward to a new plane in the Spring that I planned and prepared for 
> > > > a year or so. It's part of what appeals me to pattern and I do this 
> > > > on a lower budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this. 
> > > > It's all about will and determination and innovation to get what I 
> > > > want with as little as I have to work with. Money and building 
> > > > talents lacking I still put down a competitive piece each year. No 
> > > > sponsors either. Now that's actually pretty funny sorry.....
> > > > Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and that the 
> > > > pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the time. I'm saying 
> > > > that I think designs for the truly competitive have a rather short 
> > > > lifespan and that's not going to change anytime soon.
> > > > Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that work well with 
> > > > IC. What about the Passport? Osmose? Integral? It's only been a year 
> > > > or so that the newer generation of planes have been introduced that 
> > > > are dedicated for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E. 
> > > > Addiction E. and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were meant 
> > > > for IC and we adapted them to fit E.
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > > --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> From: Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com>
> > > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > > >> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > >> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 7:10 AM
> > > >> I agree with Paul. Remove the
> > > >> weight limit and keep the 2 meter size
> > > >> limit. If someone wants to fly a 15 lb biplane
> > > >> powered with a DA-50
> > > >> more power too them. Sure our current planes may be
> > > >> obsolete but all
> > > >> designs are obsolete in 2-3 years.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm an intermediate pilot and my biggest concern is the
> > > >> selection of
> > > >> designs available. Right now other than the Focus II
> > > >> or the Black Magic
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > 
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that?s right for you.
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. 
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/55f13928/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Thu Jun  4 08:42:26 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:42:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <847D8D78EDAE405A89DCFD29500FFA03@davedesktop>
References: <BAY128-W28A15153DE3F6AD8D18C35A04B0@phx.gbl>	<20090604160053.IAJY0.45457.root@hrndva-web03-z01>
	<847D8D78EDAE405A89DCFD29500FFA03@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <4A27F970.9060304@cox.net>

 What everyone is dancing around here is the fact that the 5 kg (+/- 11 
pound) weight limit is a completely arbitrary number that has no 
foundation in anything other than FAI used to have this limit for all RC 
models. In FAI being at or below 5 kg was what defined you as a radio 
controlled "model" airplane.

Here is the weight rule for F3B gliders:

5.3.1.3. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Gliders F3B
a) Maximum flying mass ........................................ 5 kg

F3J Gliders:

5.6.1.3. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Gliders
a) Maximum Flying Mass .................................. 5 kg

F3F Slope RAcing Gliders:

5.F.2. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Slope Gliders
Maximum flying mass ........................................ 5 kg

F3C helis are now 6 KG so even the FAI can change their minds.

Point being is that the 5 kg "limit" has no real life basis beyond what 
was in the FAI sporting code at the time the AMA rules were written. FAI 
was not looking at all the convoluted logic about cost, etc. At the time 
that was simply how they defined (and still do for many RC events) what 
a model airplane is.



From jnhiller at earthlink.net  Thu Jun  4 09:09:52 2009
From: jnhiller at earthlink.net (J N Hiller)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:09:52 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <4A27F970.9060304@cox.net>
Message-ID: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPAEGNEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>

Using the FAI weight limit allow one to fly the same airplane in both FAI
and AMA pattern.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bill's Email
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:42 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

 What everyone is dancing around here is the fact that the 5 kg (+/- 11
pound) weight limit is a completely arbitrary number that has no
foundation in anything other than FAI used to have this limit for all RC
models. In FAI being at or below 5 kg was what defined you as a radio
controlled "model" airplane.

Here is the weight rule for F3B gliders:

5.3.1.3. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Gliders F3B
a) Maximum flying mass ........................................ 5 kg

F3J Gliders:

5.6.1.3. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Gliders
a) Maximum Flying Mass .................................. 5 kg

F3F Slope RAcing Gliders:

5.F.2. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Slope Gliders
Maximum flying mass ........................................ 5 kg

F3C helis are now 6 KG so even the FAI can change their minds.

Point being is that the 5 kg "limit" has no real life basis beyond what
was in the FAI sporting code at the time the AMA rules were written. FAI
was not looking at all the convoluted logic about cost, etc. At the time
that was simply how they defined (and still do for many RC events) what
a model airplane is.


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From wemodels at cox.net  Thu Jun  4 09:34:35 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:34:35 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPAEGNEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>
References: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPAEGNEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <4A2805A9.3080600@cox.net>

J N Hiller wrote:
> Using the FAI weight limit allow one to fly the same airplane in both FAI
> and AMA pattern.
> Jim Hiller
>
>   

True enough, but once again this is a purely arbitrary number and how 
many people fly both FAI and AMA pattern? Don't you usually fly one or 
the other?? In soaring the only planes that must meet the FAI weight 
limits are planes flown in FAI events. Seems sort of logical.




From mjfrederick at cox.net  Thu Jun  4 09:34:57 2009
From: mjfrederick at cox.net (Matthew Frederick)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:34:57 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
In-Reply-To: <AA26DE2C483F45E1A2BC9E5FA867DBC0@davedesktop>
References: <3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090603175326.8D8S1.33727.root@hrndva-web26-z02>
	<AA26DE2C483F45E1A2BC9E5FA867DBC0@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <558C9AE2-375B-45D9-8737-185B0CA0A223@cox.net>

Excellent post. I couldn't have said it better.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 4, 2009, at 11:17 AM, "Dave" <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Honestly, I understand (and agree) with the intention to allow the  
> "cheap
> electric", but it is no different than trying to tweak the rules for  
> the
> "cheap gas engine" and won't (my opinion, with substantial history  
> to back
> it) work-
> - why should the rules be tweaked to essentially allow someone the  
> latest
> greatest (electric) without paying for it (either with time, or $$$,  
> or
> experience)?  The latest greatest always cost more - that is the  
> nature of
> competition.
> - I truly believe the time spent researching, designing, crafting,
> submitting, and implementing such a proposal will largely be wasted  
> because
> the process is relatively slow and can not possibly keep up with the  
> rate of
> change in electrics as technology advances.
> - Anyone who wants to try electric - go right ahead - and fly a  
> current day
> design at a slight weight disadvantage at local comps (most guys  
> don't go to
> the NATs anyway) - no one is going to ask or care about a couple  
> ounces over
> 11 lbs.  And if they do decide to go to the NATs, they can suck it  
> up and
> buy 1 expensive pack for official flights and the scale.
>
> With the understanding of the intent to allow cheap electrics, the
> unintended consequences of any rule change needs to be carefully  
> evaluated
> prior to submitting a proposal.  In this case, the unintended  
> consequence
> will be the opportunity for the TOP LEVEL electric designs to grow
> substantially in size and weight, which will drive the cost up for all
> competitors (glow and electric) to compete with the new performance
> standard.  The average plane is influenced by whatever the TOP LEVEL  
> stuff
> is - that is why both electric and glow TOP LEVEL stuff has always  
> been
> right on the limit of whatever the rules are at the time, and that  
> is the
> way it will always be - again, it is the nature of competition.
>
> The top level electrics right now weigh well under 11 lbs......10  
> lbs is
> quite possible with electric monoplanes, which is why some are able  
> to sneak
> biplanes in under 11 lbs - of course this is by shaving every ounce  
> off the
> airframe (reducing it's lifespan and making it relatively fragile) and
> pushing the lipos harder (also reducing it's lifespan).  So when you  
> look at
> 8.7 lbs considering the weight of the electrics that are marginally
> overweight (with the Zippy packs and AXI), the unintended  
> consequence is the
> guys that have 7.5 lb airframes now have 1.2 lbs of additional  
> weight to add
> to make the plane bigger - and you know it will be used, and  
> probably along
> the lines of -
> - 6-8 oz for structure
> - 3-4 oz for more motor (more power)
> - 4-5 oz for more lipo (which would still be rated the same 5300  
> mah, but be
> heavier to allow more voltage under load, thus delivering more watts  
> through
> the course of the flight - and it will be called a "High Power  
> Prolite", or
> "High Power AEON", whatever.)
> - 1-2 oz more for bigger servos and more RX battery
>
> And 2 years after the 8.7 lb rule is introduced, there will be a  
> cheap copy
> of the "High Power Prolite" will be available and it will weigh 5 oz  
> more,
> and the desire will be to raise the 8.7 lbs to 9.2 lbs.
>
> Allow 5.5 kg (12 lb) or 6 kg (14.3 kg) airframes, and yes, you will  
> have
> DA50 powered stuff that is competitive with current day designs, but  
> it will
> not be competitive with the YS built for 6 kg airframes for the same  
> reason
> gas is not competitive with glow now.
>
> Allow 5.5 kg weight limit, and you instantly solve the problem of  
> all the
> guys that are a couple oz over the current 5 kg weight limit.  And  
> the new
> designs will grow, and in 1-2 years, the new designs will be showing  
> up a
> couple oz over the 5.5 kg limit.
>
> It may be true that for the TOP LEVELs of competition that any  
> airframe is
> obsolete in 3 years......BUT.......changing the rules to allow 15 lbs
> airframes will obsolete (immediately) not only the airframes, but the
> powerplants and servos.....and up the horsepower requirements  
> substantially
> which will increase the noise (only measured at the NATs) and require
> substantially more cost to reduce the noise (to achieve 94/96 db at  
> the
> NATs).
>
> All of the above is escalation no different than what we've seen in  
> the past
> -
> - "we" started with .61 cubic inch (10 CC) limit and 5 kg......the  
> only
> practical limit was the displacement.
> - "we" allowed 120 4C (big mistake, short sighted, or should have been
> continually adjusted as competition 4Cs developed).  Airframes grew  
> and cost
> went up....some airplanes actually exceeded 2M (which was not yet a  
> limit).
> - "we" allowed unlimited engines to, in part, cover up the mistake  
> of the
> 120 4C, and, in part, to allow cheap gas engines (another big  
> mistake, again
> short sighted).  The 2M rule went into place because that was  
> essentially
> the "largest" plane in existence at the time.  The airframes got  
> bigger
> again (fuse volume), and cost went up again, and the practical limit  
> to
> airframe size became the 5 kg weight limit.
>
> Of course we also have the noise limit - that is really a separate  
> issue -
> but - it is worth noting that larger airplanes require more power,  
> and more
> power is more noise (or more expense to keep the noise from  
> increasing).
>
> "Wouldn't it be nice if"........is a dangerous lead in to rule  
> changes with
> unintended consequences.  The gas engine, the heavier lipo, the  
> heavier
> motor, the heavier airframe, etc.....will all forever be less  
> competitive
> because the limits will always be pushed by the airframe/powerplant  
> that has
> the best power to weight ratio, and that will always cost more, and  
> always
> be more sensitive to weight conscious building techniques.  No  
> change in the
> rules will ever allow parity for equipment that does not have the  
> best power
> to weight ratio.
>
> Someone else made the point that they perceived the less the rules  
> change,
> the more available airframes and equipment are (2nd hand) - I  
> couldn't agree
> more.  Stop changing the rules to allow (intended or not) higher  
> performance
> airframes, and the "old" ones won't be obsolete so quickly.
>
> Personally, after a lot of research and planning, I switched to  
> electric in
> 2006....and the expense was big.....especially because I had  
> perfectly good
> glow stuff, and maintained glow and electric for about 1 year.  To  
> date,
> I've built 3 electric airframes (1 Abbra, 2 Prestige), and between  
> them I
> have run 12 different motors of different brands, weights, in/out  
> runners,
> and just about every mounting configuration you can think of.  The  
> majority
> of the motors have been < $300, and I've always used the Castle 85HV  
> (which
> I think has always been and still is the least expensive ESC  
> available for
> the job).  My planes have weighed anywhere between 9 lbs 13 oz and  
> 10 lbs 14
> depending on the configuration.  If I had the time, $$$, resources,  
> etc, I'd
> design and build my own stuff right up to the limit, whatever that  
> limit
> might be.  As I do have limits (as most of us do), I'll get as close  
> to what
> I think optimum performance is, and it may or may not be pushing the  
> limits
> (for whatever reasons).
>
> In the past 3 years, I've spent a huge amount of time on email, phone,
> forums, in my shop, in others shops, etc....working with people on  
> how to
> assemble electric pattern stuff....and most are not using the most  
> expensive
> airframes or equipment, and all are under 11 lbs.  Bottom line is  
> that you
> can not take the largest, cheapest, and heaviest of each respective
> component and have a sub 11 lb electric OR glow plane.  Nor do you  
> need to
> have the most expensive and lightest example of each component to be
> competitive.  You do need to research, plan, and make educated  
> decisions.
> No offense to anyone with an 10 lb 18 oz plane....they do  
> exist....and most
> are being happily flown, and most can make weight for the NATs if  
> the time
> is spent in advanced.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> verne at twmi.rr.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:53 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
>
> Derek,
> We've discussed raising the weight before and it's always been voted  
> down. I
> believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart has steadfastly argued that  
> raising
> the weight limit will inevitably increase the size of our planes,  
> obsoleting
> anything that preceded it. I agree with him.
>
> What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for someone wanting  
> to try
> electric to be able to do so without having to buy the most expensive
> equipment available. For example, at a contest last weekend, a  
> friend and
> fellow pattern pilot had a set of Zippy packs that weighed roughly 5.5
> ounces more than my FlightPower packs. Pretty much the same  
> difference when
> compared to Andrew's TP packs. The Zippy's as we all know, were less  
> than
> half the cost. I know for sure that my friend would have made weight  
> with my
> FP's or Andrew's TP's, but he couldn't afford that after all the other
> "electric" purchases.
>
> What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked out, is that  
> electric
> airplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be weighed without their  
> "fuel",
> just like glow. The Rx battery will have to be in the plane, just  
> like glow.
> Yes, I realize that there are UBEC's out there but I don't know of  
> anyone
> who trusts them with the kind of current we're running. In any  
> event, my
> preliminary research indicates that roughly 8.7 pounds should be  
> just about
> right, but I want to make sure before I submit the proposal.
>
> Verne
>
>
> ---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Verne,
>>
>> When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the proposals which  
>> was
>> passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the weight limit  
>> for
> their
>> helicopters effective 1/1/2010.  Here is the new wording:
>>
>> a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (*with *fuel *or  
>> *batteries)
>> must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
>>
>> Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective 01/01/10.
>>
>> I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A sub-committee members to  
>> see if
>> there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to 5.5kg.  What  
>> does
>> everyone think about this?
>>
>> -Derek
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill,
>>> I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that very  
>>> issue.
>>> Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board anytime
> soon. In
>>> the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the glow to
> electric
>>> comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much
> internal
>>> reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational effects to
> contend
>>> with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter airframes being
>>> acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the Rx and
> servos.
>>> An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same flight in
> glow is
>>> typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots will tell  
>>> you
> that
>>> making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive  
>>> proposition
> with a
>>> limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually
> vacuum-bagged
>>> composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making  
>>> weight will
>>> also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive motors  
>>> and
>>> batteries. There are exceptio
>>> ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of them, but I'll be
> able
>>> to point to just as many examples of guys that fly overweight at  
>>> local
>>> contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing
> they're
>>> really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest
> batteries
>>> and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're flying are  
>>> the
> same
>>> as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm working on  
>>> is
> not
>>> self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting there is  
>>> both
> too
>>> expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't be to  
>>> allow
>>> electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh less,  
>>> but
>>> without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that  
>>> electric
> motors
>>> are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well as the
> reduced
>>> structural requirements. It will limit the mah of permissible  
>>> packs to
>>> control that end of the equation and there's already a voltage  
>>> limit on
> the
>>> books which is fine as it
>>> stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the contests I go to to  
>>> see
>>> where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal on  
>>> this list
>>> soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their opinions  
>>> to
> their
>>> respective Contest Board reps.
>>>
>>> Verne Koester
>>> AMA District 7
>>> Contest Board
>>> ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:
>>>> I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was off doing
> other
>>>> things, but can anyone explain this:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five (5)
>>>> kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff.
>>>> Electric models are weighed with batteries.
>>>>
>>>> Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces of  
>>>> fuel??
> Is
>>>> a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
>>>>
>>>> I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes no
>>>> logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and can
> weigh
>>>> right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12  
>>>> ounces
> of
>>>> weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight
>>>> 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
>>>>
>>>> Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared to a
>>>> motor+ESC+batteries?
>>>>
>>>> Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
>>>> Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
>>>> 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
>>>>
>>>> Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
>>>> AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
>>>>
>>>> YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
>>>> AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
>>>>
>>>> So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight advantage
>>>> when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" electric  
>>>> is
> at
>>>> a 20 ounce disadvantage.
>>>>
>>>> So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus  
>>>> ounces
>>>> lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does  
>>>> that
>>>> make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so  
>>>> educate
> me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

From homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 09:46:51 2009
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com (Chris Fitzsimmons)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:46:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <371616.80031.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Try that with a draggy widebody. Naive, LOL. I've had more than one pattern plane Matt. Including a Patriot.

Chris

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 4, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net> wrote:

My patriot is a half pound under weight
and at a recent contest where winds were
very high I had a distinct advantage due
to design and setup. The heavier planes 
had no advantage whatsoever. In fact due
to the size of their fuselages they were at 
a disadvantage. Comparing a pattern plane
to a sailplane is naive at best.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 4, 2009, at 8:53 AM, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:

It penetrates the wind better. I wouldn't think of flying and of my sailplanes unballasted in the wind. They don't "fly" as good. 

Chris
 
 
 


--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net> wrote:

From: Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 6:49 AM

A heavier plane doesn't necessarily fly
better in the wind. The design is a more
important factor in windy conditions than 
anything else.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2009, at 8:36 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:

Where it isn't fair is in takeoff weight, or even landing weight. A glow plane can put a 40 ounce tank in if they want, they could fly at 13 lbs if they want to help ballast the plane for heavy wind conditions. They could land at 12 lbs.  Where does a 11 lb weight matter with that? Doesn't seem right to me. Does this mean I can add a fuel tank to my 10.5 lb Electric and ballast it where I want it???? It would help me tremendously at the nats in the wind!!! This argument is silly. There should be a takeoff weight rule. 
If you fly glow, and your plane is right at 11 lbs, and you can't make the takeoff rule weight, then I guess you would be in the same boat as the E guys are now.. The only people that seem to have a problem with change, mostly seem to be the glow guys. 
IMO, there is no advantage to either in flight. I world class flyer could beat us all with either. 

For those that think the size would increase with a weight change, then go to a takeoff weight rule. I doubt it would happen then. 



Chris
 
 
 


--- On Wed, 6/3/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 5:02 PM

OH not me. I would vote against a weight increase. I'm not a high tech guy
and fly pattern on the cheap. This is still mostly about flying and
considering my flying ability I don't feel I can buy enough points at any
price to justify it, besides I like to build. I fly a home made 1.20 size
72" wood airplane around 9 pounds with maybe an all up cost of about $500
(excellent pattern trainer in all classes).
I might be able to make weight with a 2 ci glow now. I just thought that if
the weight limit was removed we would see 12-14 pound airplanes with big gas
burners (IMAC crossover) and I would probably indulge, and yes a single 2m
wing will easily carry the weight of a 50 cc but what about a DA 100? Twins
run smooth.
The real cost is traveling in both time away from home and $$, even for us
non-competitive old guys, always has been, but I can't kick the habit.
Besides pattern fliers make good friends.
If I wasn't flying pattern I would be flying IMAC. Probably will anyway.
Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:24 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Jim,

Monoplanes are at 74" span now, and about 900 squares because that is where
the current schedules have pushed the designs to.  The wings don't need to
be any bigger for the 11 lb weight limit.  But at 74" and 900 squares, there
is plenty of room to grow the monoplane bigger if the weight limit is
increased.

The bottom line doesn't change - bigger bipe, bigger monoplane, bigger any
plane will increase costs.

If you think pattern needs more cost and complexity, whether it be biplanes
or monoplanes, submit a proposal.

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:03 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

A monoplane will have higher wing loading. How high is too high?
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:57 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

<96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is legal.  Your challenge is to meet those
specs with whatever equipment you choose.

Raise any of those limits, and the cost and complexity of pattern goes up.
If you think what pattern needs is more cost and complexity, submit the
proposal.  And as Duane notes, the new breed of monoplanes will obsolete
your DA-50 Bipe.

Regards,

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Duane Beck
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

http://www.mini-iac.com/
DA-50's and larger biplanes very common.  Have at it.  :-)

Duane

----- Original Message -----
From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


Interesting discussion. I always felt the weight limit replaced the
displacement limit prevent the use of very large engines.

Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger biplanes. I have wanted to
build one for a long time.

Bring it on.

Jim Hiller
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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
span>
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussionml>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/e695855d/attachment.html>

From jpavlick at idseng.com  Thu Jun  4 09:51:58 2009
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:51:58 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <639163.92359.qm@web80507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

What everyone is dancing around is the fact that there are 2 definitions of "takeoff weight". One for glow / gas powered airplanes and one for electrics. Being an engineer and a somewhat logically minded person?I would say that the correct definition of "takeoff weight" would include batteries, fuel, protoplasm - ?whatever is necessary to allow the airplane to fly. I'm sure most people would agree. 
?
The "problem"?comes form the fact?that some people believe there is no way of verifying the amount of fuel that would be put into a glow / gas airplane when it's weighed (people might put half a tank of fuel in and then get the airplane weighed),?so they decided to weigh them without fuel. Solved the problem - but created another?one when electrics became popular. Let's see. How hard is it to make sure you have a full tank of fuel? Doesn't it run out of the overflow? Is it really that hard??I know it might take longer to verify that the tank is full but if that's what needs to be done then so be it. How do you?know that the batteries are installed in an electric? How can you be sure that every time that plane is flown in the contest, the batteries will weigh the same (someone could weigh in with smaller batteries)?
?
I REALLY wish more of you guys were involved in car racing. 99% of these ridiculous "problems" would be avoided. Here's how it works: Before the car goes on the track it's inspected. If it meets the rules (weight, size, safety equipment, etc.) it gets stickered.?NOW it can race. Cars are usually checked before they go out and when they come off the track. If you place in the top 3 the?engine usually gets torn apart. Cheaters get caught by the tech. inspectors. Everyone knows the rules and all the cars running in a given class must meet those rules. It's not rocket science. If a bunch of good ole' boys at a dirt track can do it - why can't we? LOL
?
Simple solution to this seemingly impossible to solve problem: come up with a weight limit that is reasonable for a 2-meter?Pattern plane that's READY TO FLY. That means an?electric with batteries and a glow airplane with a full tank of fuel. Of course you can fly with less fuel or smaller batteries if you want to be lighter but what we're looking for is a worst case / maximum weight scenario. To be fair, the planes should be weighed before thay take off and after they land. Do you need to do this at local contests? No,?I don't think so. How many planes are weighed at local contests now? Should you do this at the Nationals? Absolutely. Anythng else will only lead to more discussion, explanation?and discontent. 
?
John Pavlick

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:


From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 1:08 PM


Using the FAI weight limit allow one to fly the same airplane in both FAI
and AMA pattern.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bill's Email
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:42 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

What everyone is dancing around here is the fact that the 5 kg (+/- 11
pound) weight limit is a completely arbitrary number that has no
foundation in anything other than FAI used to have this limit for all RC
models. In FAI being at or below 5 kg was what defined you as a radio
controlled "model" airplane.

Here is the weight rule for F3B gliders:

5.3.1.3. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Gliders F3B
a) Maximum flying mass ........................................ 5 kg

F3J Gliders:

5.6.1.3. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Gliders
a) Maximum Flying Mass .................................. 5 kg

F3F Slope RAcing Gliders:

5.F.2. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Slope Gliders
Maximum flying mass ........................................ 5 kg

F3C helis are now 6 KG so even the FAI can change their minds.

Point being is that the 5 kg "limit" has no real life basis beyond what
was in the FAI sporting code at the time the AMA rules were written. FAI
was not looking at all the convoluted logic about cost, etc. At the time
that was simply how they defined (and still do for many RC events) what
a model airplane is.


_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/47225eae/attachment.html>

From billglaze at bellsouth.net  Thu Jun  4 09:55:49 2009
From: billglaze at bellsouth.net (Bill Glaze)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:55:49 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
References: <909518.8446.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com><F3A4B2B4-AE9E-4EF9-A39F-9419CB440F1E@cox.net>
	<BAY128-W28A15153DE3F6AD8D18C35A04B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4CFEBBE2D9FF473F99A4EEC25EA1C316@glazecstp32xp>

Gee--could I have my airplane weighed without batteries?  I mean the 1500 mil pack I use to power the radio and accessories?  Bill
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Strickland 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:25 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


  As Ron pointed out--the decision to weigh "with batteries" was probably someone's very strict interpretation.  Do we have any idea who that is/was--and could it just be re-interpreted?  This is just flat not logical.
  RS 
  > From: mjfrederick at cox.net
  > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  > Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:04:52 -0500
  > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
  > 
  > It's not so much that the designs are obsolete, people just feel 
  > embarrassed showing up with an old airplane. A friend of mine who 
  > designs airplanes has designed 3 airplanes in the last 3 years. The 
  > main reason for the new designs is changes in F3A schedules. His older 
  > designs going back to the mid to late 90's are still highly 
  > competitive. His new designs are not for AMA pattern, they're for f3a. 
  > If you choose to buy a design that is more than you need, that's your 
  > choice but don't look for a rules change to fix AMA pattern when 
  > there's nothing broke. Keeping up with the Joneses in f3a is not a 
  > valid reason for a rule change.
  > 
  > Sent from my iPhone
  > 
  > On Jun 4, 2009, at 7:45 AM, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
  > 
  > >
  > > "designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"
  > > Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're competitive and 
  > > always looking for better and different. Truth be known I look 
  > > forward to a new plane in the Spring that I planned and prepared for 
  > > a year or so. It's part of what appeals me to pattern and I do this 
  > > on a lower budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this. 
  > > It's all about will and determination and innovation to get what I 
  > > want with as little as I have to work with. Money and building 
  > > talents lacking I still put down a competitive piece each year. No 
  > > sponsors either. Now that's actually pretty funny sorry.....
  > > Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and that the 
  > > pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the time. I'm saying 
  > > that I think designs for the truly competitive have a rather short 
  > > lifespan and that's not going to change anytime soon.
  > > Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that work well with 
  > > IC. What about the Passport? Osmose? Integral? It's only been a year 
  > > or so that the newer generation of planes have been introduced that 
  > > are dedicated for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E. 
  > > Addiction E. and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were meant 
  > > for IC and we adapted them to fit E.
  > > Mike
  > >
  > > --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com> wrote:
  > >
  > >> From: Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com>
  > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
  > >> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  > >> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 7:10 AM
  > >> I agree with Paul. Remove the
  > >> weight limit and keep the 2 meter size
  > >> limit. If someone wants to fly a 15 lb biplane
  > >> powered with a DA-50
  > >> more power too them. Sure our current planes may be
  > >> obsolete but all
  > >> designs are obsolete in 2-3 years.
  > >>
  > >> I'm an intermediate pilot and my biggest concern is the
  > >> selection of
  > >> designs available. Right now other than the Focus II
  > >> or the Black Magic
  > _______________________________________________
  > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that?s right for you. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/c9d7a506/attachment.html>

From jonlowe at aol.com  Thu Jun  4 09:58:58 2009
From: jonlowe at aol.com (Jon Lowe)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:58:58 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <c66.53e02fcd.3759653c@aol.com>

Since inexpensive 2 strokes are at a disadvantage to expensive 4 strokes and electrics, we ought to have a minimum weight of 11.5 lbs for them, and allow 2 strokes to weigh under 11.  Or maybe make 4 strokes run on FAI fuel.  Makes as much sense as increasing the allowable weight for electrics.  I could run an OS 1.60 at a fraction of the cost of either a YS or electric.  :

Jon Lowe

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:20 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Maybe they actually figured the future would bring very powerful and
lightweight electric motors and batteries, and that even at 11 lbs with
batteries electrics would take over.....and thusly decided weigh electrics
with batteries in an attempt to not immediately obsolete glow.

Give electrics more advantage now, and the death of glow will be accelerated
(and guys will still build overweight electrics - limits are always pushed
in competitive events, and occasionally they are exceeded).

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
verne at twmi.rr.com
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:01 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

The only logic I can see in the decision would be that electric motors are
inherently lighter than glow motors so the batteries were thrown in as a
means to balance things out. I doubt that anyone at the time was aware that
less robust airframes would also be an added benefit to electric vs glow.
Having said all that, I believe the formula is deficient. To me, the most
logical approach is to take the batteries out of the equation and require a
"dry" weight for electrics that takes into account the fact that an electric
motor is inherently lighter than a glow motor. The arguments that a fuel
tank isn't required doesn't wash because the counter argument is that an
electric requires a speed control that is much heavier than a throttle
servo. All of those arguments are just that, arguments. A "dry" weight of
8.75 pounds fixes everything in my opinion.

Verne


---- Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> As Ron pointed out--the decision to weigh "with batteries" was probably
someone's very strict interpretation.  Do we have any idea who that
is/was--and could it just be re-interpreted?  This is just flat not logical.
> RS 
> > From: mjfrederick at cox.net
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:04:52 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > 
> > It's not so much that the designs are obsolete, people just feel 
> > embarrassed showing up with an old airplane. A friend of mine who 
> > designs airplanes has designed 3 airplanes in the last 3 years. The 
> > main reason for the new designs is changes in F3A schedules. His older 
> > designs going back to the mid to late 90's are still highly 
> > competitive. His new designs are not for AMA pattern, they're for f3a. 
> > If you choose to buy a design that is more than you need, that's your 
> > choice but don't look for a rules change to fix AMA pattern when 
> > there's nothing broke. Keeping up with the Joneses in f3a is not a 
> > valid reason for a rule change.
> > 
> > Sent from my iPhone
> > 
> > On Jun 4, 2009, at 7:45 AM, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > "designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"
> > > Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're competitive and 
> > > always looking for better and different. Truth be known I look 
> > > forward to a new plane in the Spring that I planned and prepared for 
> > > a year or so. It's part of what appeals me to pattern and I do this 
> > > on a lower budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this. 
> > > It's all about will and determination and innovation to get what I 
> > > want with as little as I have to work with. Money and building 
> > > talents lacking I still put down a competitive piece each year. No 
> > > sponsors either. Now that's actually pretty funny sorry.....
> > > Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and that the 
> > > pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the time. I'm saying 
> > > that I think designs for the truly competitive have a rather short 
> > > lifespan and that's not going to change anytime soon.
> > > Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that work well with 
> > > IC. What about the Passport? Osmose? Integral? It's only been a year 
> > > or so that the newer generation of planes have been introduced that 
> > > are dedicated for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E. 
> > > Addiction E. and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were meant 
> > > for IC and we adapted them to fit E.
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > >> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 7:10 AM
> > >> I agree with Paul. Remove the
> > >> weight limit and keep the 2 meter size
> > >> limit. If someone wants to fly a 15 lb biplane
> > >> powered with a DA-50
> > >> more power too them. Sure our current planes may be
> > >> obsolete but all
> > >> designs are obsolete in 2-3 years.
> > >>
> > >> I'm an intermediate pilot and my biggest concern is the
> > >> selection of
> > >> designs available. Right now other than the Focus II
> > >> or the Black Magic
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that's right for you.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
_______________________________________________
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

From jnhiller at earthlink.net  Thu Jun  4 09:59:19 2009
From: jnhiller at earthlink.net (J N Hiller)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:59:19 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <4A2805A9.3080600@cox.net>
Message-ID: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPMEGOEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>

Yes 5 Kg is a blue sky number inherited from Europe but likely as good as
any number if we were to attempt to justify an acceptable compromise
involving personal preference for cost, size etc. There will likely be no
overwhelming consciences for anything except to maintain the current weight
limit allowing gradual design evolution rather than instant obsolesce.
Going back probably 20 years FAI local participation in FAI was low and a
lot of local contests didn't offer it and top level fliers were being
encouraged to participate in the FAI qualification / selection program.
Today few fly both and design tweaking to optimize compatibility with new
schedules such as flight time and integrated rolling maneuvers appear to be
extending the separation between FAI and AMA and they have truly become
destination classes. As I stated in a K-Factor article over 20 years ago I
will likely never fly FAI and have no problem with AMA having different
rules.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bill's Email
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:35 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

J N Hiller wrote:
> Using the FAI weight limit allow one to fly the same airplane in both FAI
> and AMA pattern.
> Jim Hiller
>
>

True enough, but once again this is a purely arbitrary number and how
many people fly both FAI and AMA pattern? Don't you usually fly one or
the other?? In soaring the only planes that must meet the FAI weight
limits are planes flown in FAI events. Seems sort of logical.



_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From timsautopro at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 10:01:03 2009
From: timsautopro at yahoo.com (Tim Taylor)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:01:03 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <174070.69327.qm@web62301.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

FAI fliers which design most of the planes on the market will design for FAI rules. Therefore the "It's going to get out of hand" crowd are wrong. It's already out of hand anyway.

?
Let the Few who fly FAI follow the FAI rules. We don't have to on the AMA level. Problem solved.
?
I preached this last year. Either follow and enforce the rules or get rid of them. Not just "At the NATS" if you might get some Iron.
?
Tim
--- On Thu, 6/4/09, John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com> wrote:


From: John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 1:51 PM







What everyone is dancing around is the fact that there are 2 definitions of "takeoff weight". One for glow / gas powered airplanes and one for electrics. Being an engineer and a somewhat logically minded person?I would say that the correct definition of "takeoff weight" would include batteries, fuel, protoplasm - ?whatever is necessary to allow the airplane to fly. I'm sure most people would agree. 
?
The "problem"?comes form the fact?that some people believe there is no way of verifying the amount of fuel that would be put into a glow / gas airplane when it's weighed (people might put half a tank of fuel in and then get the airplane weighed),?so they decided to weigh them without fuel. Solved the problem - but created another?one when electrics became popular. Let's see. How hard is it to make sure you have a full tank of fuel? Doesn't it run out of the overflow? Is it really that hard??I know it might take longer to verify that the tank is full but if that's what needs to be done then so be it. How do you?know that the batteries are installed in an electric? How can you be sure that every time that plane is flown in the contest, the batteries will weigh the same (someone could weigh in with smaller batteries)?
?
I REALLY wish more of you guys were involved in car racing. 99% of these ridiculous "problems" would be avoided. Here's how it works: Before the car goes on the track it's inspected. If it meets the rules (weight, size, safety equipment, etc.) it gets stickered.?NOW it can race. Cars are usually checked before they go out and when they come off the track. If you place in the top 3 the?engine usually gets torn apart. Cheaters get caught by the tech. inspectors. Everyone knows the rules and all the cars running in a given class must meet those rules. It's not rocket science. If a bunch of good ole' boys at a dirt track can do it - why can't we? LOL
?
Simple solution to this seemingly impossible to solve problem: come up with a weight limit that is reasonable for a 2-meter?Pattern plane that's READY TO FLY. That means an?electric with batteries and a glow airplane with a full tank of fuel. Of course you can fly with less fuel or smaller batteries if you want to be lighter but what we're looking for is a worst case / maximum weight scenario. To be fair, the planes should be weighed before thay take off and after they land. Do you need to do this at local contests? No,?I don't think so. How many planes are weighed at local contests now? Should you do this at the Nationals? Absolutely. Anythng else will only lead to more discussion, explanation?and discontent. 
?
John Pavlick

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:


From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 1:08 PM


Using the FAI weight limit allow one to fly the same airplane in both FAI
and AMA pattern.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bill's Email
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:42 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

What everyone is dancing around here is the fact that the 5 kg (+/- 11
pound) weight limit is a completely arbitrary number that has no
foundation in anything other than FAI used to have this limit for all RC
models. In FAI being at or below 5 kg was what defined you as a radio
controlled "model" airplane.

Here is the weight rule for F3B gliders:

5.3.1.3. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Gliders F3B
a) Maximum flying mass ........................................ 5 kg

F3J Gliders:

5.6.1.3. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Gliders
a) Maximum Flying Mass .................................. 5 kg

F3F Slope RAcing Gliders:

5.F.2. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Slope Gliders
Maximum flying mass ........................................ 5 kg

F3C helis are now 6 KG so even the FAI can change their minds.

Point being is that the 5 kg "limit" has no real life basis beyond what
was in the FAI sporting code at the time the AMA rules were written. FAI
was not looking at all the convoluted logic about cost, etc. At the time
that was simply how they defined (and still do for many RC events) what
a model airplane is.


_______________________________________________
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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/d31b8ed8/attachment.html>

From jonlowe at aol.com  Thu Jun  4 10:07:40 2009
From: jonlowe at aol.com (Jon Lowe)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:07:40 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <be4.570287b8.37596759@aol.com>

The LAST thing we want to do is to establish different airplane criteria than FAI.  The only pattern airplanes manufactured in the US are the Black Magic, Pentathlon, and Symphony.  Why would the far east or Europe make anything for us that couldn't be sold elsewhere?  The market is just too small.

Jon Lowe

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:34 PM
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

J N Hiller wrote:
> Using the FAI weight limit allow one to fly the same airplane in both FAI
> and AMA pattern.
> Jim Hiller
>
>   

True enough, but once again this is a purely arbitrary number and how 
many people fly both FAI and AMA pattern? Don't you usually fly one or 
the other?? In soaring the only planes that must meet the FAI weight 
limits are planes flown in FAI events. Seems sort of logical.



_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

From wemodels at cox.net  Thu Jun  4 10:09:26 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:09:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <174070.69327.qm@web62301.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <174070.69327.qm@web62301.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4A280DD4.6010006@cox.net>

Tim Taylor wrote:
> FAI fliers which design most of the planes on the market will design 
> for FAI rules. Therefore the "It's going to get out of hand" crowd are 
> wrong. It's already out of hand anyway.
>  
> Let the Few who fly FAI follow the FAI rules. We don't have to on the 
> AMA level. Problem solved.
>  
>
> -
>


This is pretty much the way all other areas of RC work in the US. Most 
everyone uses the AMA rules. Those that want to fly FAI use the FAI 
rules. Seems logical.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/e37dc946/attachment.html>

From jpavlick at idseng.com  Thu Jun  4 10:15:19 2009
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:15:19 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <857667.70272.qm@web80506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

"I could run an OS 1.60 at a fraction of the cost of either a YS or electric." 
?
- I already do! LOL
?
John Pavlick

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com> wrote:


From: Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 1:58 PM


Since inexpensive 2 strokes are at a disadvantage to expensive 4 strokes and electrics, we ought to have a minimum weight of 11.5 lbs for them, and allow 2 strokes to weigh under 11.? Or maybe make 4 strokes run on FAI fuel.? Makes as much sense as increasing the allowable weight for electrics.? I could run an OS 1.60 at a fraction of the cost of either a YS or electric.? :

Jon Lowe

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:20 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Maybe they actually figured the future would bring very powerful and
lightweight electric motors and batteries, and that even at 11 lbs with
batteries electrics would take over.....and thusly decided weigh electrics
with batteries in an attempt to not immediately obsolete glow.

Give electrics more advantage now, and the death of glow will be accelerated
(and guys will still build overweight electrics - limits are always pushed
in competitive events, and occasionally they are exceeded).

Regards,

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
verne at twmi.rr.com
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:01 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

The only logic I can see in the decision would be that electric motors are
inherently lighter than glow motors so the batteries were thrown in as a
means to balance things out. I doubt that anyone at the time was aware that
less robust airframes would also be an added benefit to electric vs glow.
Having said all that, I believe the formula is deficient. To me, the most
logical approach is to take the batteries out of the equation and require a
"dry" weight for electrics that takes into account the fact that an electric
motor is inherently lighter than a glow motor. The arguments that a fuel
tank isn't required doesn't wash because the counter argument is that an
electric requires a speed control that is much heavier than a throttle
servo. All of those arguments are just that, arguments. A "dry" weight of
8.75 pounds fixes everything in my opinion.

Verne


---- Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> As Ron pointed out--the decision to weigh "with batteries" was probably
someone's very strict interpretation.? Do we have any idea who that
is/was--and could it just be re-interpreted?? This is just flat not logical.
> RS 
> > From: mjfrederick at cox.net
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:04:52 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > 
> > It's not so much that the designs are obsolete, people just feel 
> > embarrassed showing up with an old airplane. A friend of mine who 
> > designs airplanes has designed 3 airplanes in the last 3 years. The 
> > main reason for the new designs is changes in F3A schedules. His older 
> > designs going back to the mid to late 90's are still highly 
> > competitive. His new designs are not for AMA pattern, they're for f3a. 
> > If you choose to buy a design that is more than you need, that's your 
> > choice but don't look for a rules change to fix AMA pattern when 
> > there's nothing broke. Keeping up with the Joneses in f3a is not a 
> > valid reason for a rule change.
> > 
> > Sent from my iPhone
> > 
> > On Jun 4, 2009, at 7:45 AM, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > "designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"
> > > Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're competitive and 
> > > always looking for better and different. Truth be known I look 
> > > forward to a new plane in the Spring that I planned and prepared for 
> > > a year or so. It's part of what appeals me to pattern and I do this 
> > > on a lower budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this. 
> > > It's all about will and determination and innovation to get what I 
> > > want with as little as I have to work with. Money and building 
> > > talents lacking I still put down a competitive piece each year. No 
> > > sponsors either. Now that's actually pretty funny sorry.....
> > > Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and that the 
> > > pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the time. I'm saying 
> > > that I think designs for the truly competitive have a rather short 
> > > lifespan and that's not going to change anytime soon.
> > > Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that work well with 
> > > IC. What about the Passport? Osmose? Integral? It's only been a year 
> > > or so that the newer generation of planes have been introduced that 
> > > are dedicated for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E. 
> > > Addiction E. and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were meant 
> > > for IC and we adapted them to fit E.
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > >> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 7:10 AM
> > >> I agree with Paul. Remove the
> > >> weight limit and keep the 2 meter size
> > >> limit. If someone wants to fly a 15 lb biplane
> > >> powered with a DA-50
> > >> more power too them. Sure our current planes may be
> > >> obsolete but all
> > >> designs are obsolete in 2-3 years.
> > >>
> > >> I'm an intermediate pilot and my biggest concern is the
> > >> selection of
> > >> designs available. Right now other than the Focus II
> > >> or the Black Magic
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that's right for you.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/28f425c6/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Thu Jun  4 10:57:15 2009
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:57:15 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <639163.92359.qm@web80507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <639163.92359.qm@web80507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1C7E2E9CD821467293E5F83C8A125745@davedesktop>

"Simple solution to this seemingly impossible to solve problem: come up with
a weight limit that is reasonable for a 2-meter Pattern plane that's READY
TO FLY. That means an electric with batteries and a glow airplane with a
full tank of fuel."

 

Here's the deal - not matter how we got here, we do have a max takeoff
weight now for electrics which is 11 lbs, and electrics are competitive with
glow which clearly have an advantage as they do not have a maximum takeoff
weight.  What are the options to "level the playing field", and what results
will the "changes" bring:

 

Option A - leave the rules and current interpretations alone.  Result -
minor improvements in glow before it's imminent death, and considerably more
improvements in electrics (in terms of performance and reduced cost).  The
latest and greatest costs money/time/resources, and "I want new stuff now
for what the old stuff costs" just isn't reality.

 

Option B - to level the playing field, increase the takeoff weight limit to
whatever (11.5, 12, 12.5 lbs) for both glow and electric, and you have ZERO
performance increase with glow, and you have a HUGE opportunity to increase
the performance of electric (which WILL happen).  Result - the imminent
obsolescence of glow will occur faster, and performance and COST will
increase for electric which will be the only viable option for those that
want to compete without being at a disadvantage.  I think a bad scenario for
everyone (excepting maybe the battery manufacturers).  AND, in truth, I can
envision some minimal increases in glow depending on the exact setup and
weight limit, but it will be at increased cost, and it the increased
performance will be a fraction of the extra performance the electrics will
gain.

 

Option C - to level the playing field and prevent an escalation in costs (of
glow or electric), enforce an 11 lb takeoff weight for glow and electric.
Result - even faster obsolescence of glow, and no escalation in costs of
electrics (which will continue to improve in performance while decreasing in
costs).  The average glow plane / engine would need some serious work, but
there are plenty of options for those that care to look.  Numerous composite
or "roach" ships can be built at <10 lbs, without spending $3500 for a
custom Oxai (nothing wrong with that of course), and plenty of power options
exist to get through a sequence on less than 16 oz (by weight) of fuel.  My
last glow plane (hanging on the ceiling untouched since June 2006) was a
Vivat / Webra 160, and it was 10.5 lbs at takeoff, and that combo is still
competitive today through Masters or P09.

 

Option D - attempt to establish differing takeoff weights for every viable
power system, and perpetually adjust the takeoff weight limits as technology
changes.  Result - moving targets for manufacturers (bad), none of the
weights will ever be reduced (because that would obsolete some equipment in
use), the escalation of weights will slowly and inevitably creep up for all
powerplants, and the costs will go up for everyone..and the
administrative/technical/logistical/tech inspections for planes will be far
more complex.  By far the worst option.

 

Glow already has an advantage, and it is going to die anyway.  Excepting
Option D (by far the worst option), electric will be dominant, and the best
electrics with the best performance will always cost more (performance
always has a cost in open competition).  To me, the only decision is how
much do you want the electrics to cost when glow is obsolete?  I'd prefer to
keep rules as they are and, not allow the costs to go up (yet another time)
for either glow or electric.

 

Regards,


Dave

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Pavlick
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 1:52 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

 


What everyone is dancing around is the fact that there are 2 definitions of
"takeoff weight". One for glow / gas powered airplanes and one for
electrics. Being an engineer and a somewhat logically minded person I would
say that the correct definition of "takeoff weight" would include batteries,
fuel, protoplasm -  whatever is necessary to allow the airplane to fly. I'm
sure most people would agree. 

 

The "problem" comes form the fact that some people believe there is no way
of verifying the amount of fuel that would be put into a glow / gas airplane
when it's weighed (people might put half a tank of fuel in and then get the
airplane weighed), so they decided to weigh them without fuel. Solved the
problem - but created another one when electrics became popular. Let's see.
How hard is it to make sure you have a full tank of fuel? Doesn't it run out
of the overflow? Is it really that hard? I know it might take longer to
verify that the tank is full but if that's what needs to be done then so be
it. How do you know that the batteries are installed in an electric? How can
you be sure that every time that plane is flown in the contest, the
batteries will weigh the same (someone could weigh in with smaller
batteries)?

 

I REALLY wish more of you guys were involved in car racing. 99% of these
ridiculous "problems" would be avoided. Here's how it works: Before the car
goes on the track it's inspected. If it meets the rules (weight, size,
safety equipment, etc.) it gets stickered. NOW it can race. Cars are usually
checked before they go out and when they come off the track. If you place in
the top 3 the engine usually gets torn apart. Cheaters get caught by the
tech. inspectors. Everyone knows the rules and all the cars running in a
given class must meet those rules. It's not rocket science. If a bunch of
good ole' boys at a dirt track can do it - why can't we? LOL

 

Simple solution to this seemingly impossible to solve problem: come up with
a weight limit that is reasonable for a 2-meter Pattern plane that's READY
TO FLY. That means an electric with batteries and a glow airplane with a
full tank of fuel. Of course you can fly with less fuel or smaller batteries
if you want to be lighter but what we're looking for is a worst case /
maximum weight scenario. To be fair, the planes should be weighed before
thay take off and after they land. Do you need to do this at local contests?
No, I don't think so. How many planes are weighed at local contests now?
Should you do this at the Nationals? Absolutely. Anythng else will only lead
to more discussion, explanation and discontent. 

 

John Pavlick

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:


From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 1:08 PM

Using the FAI weight limit allow one to fly the same airplane in both FAI
and AMA pattern.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists
.nsrca.org> 
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists
.nsrca.org> ]On Behalf Of Bill's Email
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:42 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

What everyone is dancing around here is the fact that the 5 kg (+/- 11
pound) weight limit is a completely arbitrary number that has no
foundation in anything other than FAI used to have this limit for all RC
models. In FAI being at or below 5 kg was what defined you as a radio
controlled "model" airplane.

Here is the weight rule for F3B gliders:

5.3.1.3. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Gliders F3B
a) Maximum flying mass ........................................ 5 kg

F3J Gliders:

5.6.1.3. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Gliders
a) Maximum Flying Mass .................................. 5 kg

F3F Slope RAcing Gliders:

5.F.2. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Slope Gliders
Maximum flying mass ........................................ 5 kg

F3C helis are now 6 KG so even the FAI can change their minds.

Point being is that the 5 kg "limit" has no real life basis beyond what
was in the FAI sporting code at the time the AMA rules were written. FAI
was not looking at all the convoluted logic about cost, etc. At the time
that was simply how they defined (and still do for many RC events) what
a model airplane is.


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/98489b66/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 11:07:48 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:07:48 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
Message-ID: <623784.29006.qm@web51002.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 Dave there are cheaper higher C light weight Lipo's on the market now so no need for the expensive stuff if one so chooses.
 I make weight with both my planes but the choices I made in airframes and equipment made it close. The planes both feel light in the air. My newest one was harder and more expensive to make legal than what I would have liked but it flys very nicely.
 Say whatever you guys like and all the points are well taken but I still like Verne's proposal. That's called an opinion and we all have one as you know.
 I hope we never get to the point where Electric planes are the only thing we fly. I love to see a screaming YS plane flying and who knows if I wouldn't want to some day do another one just to do something different. It'll just be expensive. Plus if were all flying the same power plant who am I going to argue with?????? 
 Great debate and I'm taking in all the thoughts. You guys are pretty smart dudes!!!                    Mike

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:

> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 11:17 AM
> Honestly, I understand (and agree)
> with the intention to allow the "cheap
> electric", but it is no different than trying to tweak the
> rules for the
> "cheap gas engine" and won't (my opinion, with substantial
> history to back
> it) work- 
> - why should the rules be tweaked to essentially allow
> someone the latest
> greatest (electric) without paying for it (either with
> time, or $$$, or
> experience)?? The latest greatest always cost more -
> that is the nature of
> competition.
> - I truly believe the time spent researching, designing,
> crafting,
> submitting, and implementing such a proposal will largely
> be wasted because
> the process is relatively slow and can not possibly keep up
> with the rate of
> change in electrics as technology advances.
> - Anyone who wants to try electric - go right ahead - and
> fly a current day
> design at a slight weight disadvantage at local comps (most
> guys don't go to
> the NATs anyway) - no one is going to ask or care about a
> couple ounces over
> 11 lbs.? And if they do decide to go to the NATs, they
> can suck it up and
> buy 1 expensive pack for official flights and the scale.
> 
> With the understanding of the intent to allow cheap
> electrics, the
> unintended consequences of any rule change needs to be
> carefully evaluated
> prior to submitting a proposal.? In this case, the
> unintended consequence
> will be the opportunity for the TOP LEVEL electric designs
> to grow
> substantially in size and weight, which will drive the cost
> up for all
> competitors (glow and electric) to compete with the new
> performance
> standard.? The average plane is influenced by whatever
> the TOP LEVEL stuff
> is - that is why both electric and glow TOP LEVEL stuff has
> always been
> right on the limit of whatever the rules are at the time,
> and that is the
> way it will always be - again, it is the nature of
> competition.
> 
> The top level electrics right now weigh well under 11
> lbs......10 lbs is
> quite possible with electric monoplanes, which is why some
> are able to sneak
> biplanes in under 11 lbs - of course this is by shaving
> every ounce off the
> airframe (reducing it's lifespan and making it relatively
> fragile) and
> pushing the lipos harder (also reducing it's
> lifespan).? So when you look at
> 8.7 lbs considering the weight of the electrics that are
> marginally
> overweight (with the Zippy packs and AXI), the unintended
> consequence is the
> guys that have 7.5 lb airframes now have 1.2 lbs of
> additional weight to add
> to make the plane bigger - and you know it will be used,
> and probably along
> the lines of - 
> - 6-8 oz for structure
> - 3-4 oz for more motor (more power)
> - 4-5 oz for more lipo (which would still be rated the same
> 5300 mah, but be
> heavier to allow more voltage under load, thus delivering
> more watts through
> the course of the flight - and it will be called a "High
> Power Prolite", or
> "High Power AEON", whatever.)
> - 1-2 oz more for bigger servos and more RX battery
> 
> And 2 years after the 8.7 lb rule is introduced, there will
> be a cheap copy
> of the "High Power Prolite" will be available and it will
> weigh 5 oz more,
> and the desire will be to raise the 8.7 lbs to 9.2 lbs.
> 
> Allow 5.5 kg (12 lb) or 6 kg (14.3 kg) airframes, and yes,
> you will have
> DA50 powered stuff that is competitive with current day
> designs, but it will
> not be competitive with the YS built for 6 kg airframes for
> the same reason
> gas is not competitive with glow now.
> 
> Allow 5.5 kg weight limit, and you instantly solve the
> problem of all the
> guys that are a couple oz over the current 5 kg weight
> limit.? And the new
> designs will grow, and in 1-2 years, the new designs will
> be showing up a
> couple oz over the 5.5 kg limit.
> 
> It may be true that for the TOP LEVELs of competition that
> any airframe is
> obsolete in 3 years......BUT.......changing the rules to
> allow 15 lbs
> airframes will obsolete (immediately) not only the
> airframes, but the
> powerplants and servos.....and up the horsepower
> requirements substantially
> which will increase the noise (only measured at the NATs)
> and require
> substantially more cost to reduce the noise (to achieve
> 94/96 db at the
> NATs).
> 
> All of the above is escalation no different than what we've
> seen in the past
> -
> - "we" started with .61 cubic inch (10 CC) limit and 5
> kg......the only
> practical limit was the displacement.
> - "we" allowed 120 4C (big mistake, short sighted, or
> should have been
> continually adjusted as competition 4Cs developed).?
> Airframes grew and cost
> went up....some airplanes actually exceeded 2M (which was
> not yet a limit).
> - "we" allowed unlimited engines to, in part, cover up the
> mistake of the
> 120 4C, and, in part, to allow cheap gas engines (another
> big mistake, again
> short sighted).? The 2M rule went into place because
> that was essentially
> the "largest" plane in existence at the time.? The
> airframes got bigger
> again (fuse volume), and cost went up again, and the
> practical limit to
> airframe size became the 5 kg weight limit.
> 
> Of course we also have the noise limit - that is really a
> separate issue -
> but - it is worth noting that larger airplanes require more
> power, and more
> power is more noise (or more expense to keep the noise from
> increasing).
> 
> "Wouldn't it be nice if"........is a dangerous lead in to
> rule changes with
> unintended consequences.? The gas engine, the heavier
> lipo, the heavier
> motor, the heavier airframe, etc.....will all forever be
> less competitive
> because the limits will always be pushed by the
> airframe/powerplant that has
> the best power to weight ratio, and that will always cost
> more, and always
> be more sensitive to weight conscious building
> techniques.? No change in the
> rules will ever allow parity for equipment that does not
> have the best power
> to weight ratio.
> 
> Someone else made the point that they perceived the less
> the rules change,
> the more available airframes and equipment are (2nd hand) -
> I couldn't agree
> more.? Stop changing the rules to allow (intended or
> not) higher performance
> airframes, and the "old" ones won't be obsolete so
> quickly.
> 
> Personally, after a lot of research and planning, I
> switched to electric in
> 2006....and the expense was big.....especially because I
> had perfectly good
> glow stuff, and maintained glow and electric for about 1
> year.? To date,
> I've built 3 electric airframes (1 Abbra, 2 Prestige), and
> between them I
> have run 12 different motors of different brands, weights,
> in/out runners,
> and just about every mounting configuration you can think
> of.? The majority
> of the motors have been < $300, and I've always used the
> Castle 85HV (which
> I think has always been and still is the least expensive
> ESC available for
> the job).? My planes have weighed anywhere between 9
> lbs 13 oz and 10 lbs 14
> depending on the configuration.? If I had the time,
> $$$, resources, etc, I'd
> design and build my own stuff right up to the limit,
> whatever that limit
> might be.? As I do have limits (as most of us do),
> I'll get as close to what
> I think optimum performance is, and it may or may not be
> pushing the limits
> (for whatever reasons). 
> 
> In the past 3 years, I've spent a huge amount of time on
> email, phone,
> forums, in my shop, in others shops, etc....working with
> people on how to
> assemble electric pattern stuff....and most are not using
> the most expensive
> airframes or equipment, and all are under 11 lbs.?
> Bottom line is that you
> can not take the largest, cheapest, and heaviest of each
> respective
> component and have a sub 11 lb electric OR glow
> plane.? Nor do you need to
> have the most expensive and lightest example of each
> component to be
> competitive.? You do need to research, plan, and make
> educated decisions.
> No offense to anyone with an 10 lb 18 oz plane....they do
> exist....and most
> are being happily flown, and most can make weight for the
> NATs if the time
> is spent in advanced.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of
> verne at twmi.rr.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:53 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> Derek,
> We've discussed raising the weight before and it's always
> been voted down. I
> believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart has steadfastly
> argued that raising
> the weight limit will inevitably increase the size of our
> planes, obsoleting
> anything that preceded it. I agree with him. 
> 
> What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for someone
> wanting to try
> electric to be able to do so without having to buy the most
> expensive
> equipment available. For example, at a contest last
> weekend, a friend and
> fellow pattern pilot had a set of Zippy packs that weighed
> roughly 5.5
> ounces more than my FlightPower packs. Pretty much the same
> difference when
> compared to Andrew's TP packs. The Zippy's as we all know,
> were less than
> half the cost. I know for sure that my friend would have
> made weight with my
> FP's or Andrew's TP's, but he couldn't afford that after
> all the other
> "electric" purchases. 
> 
> What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked out, is
> that electric
> airplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be weighed
> without their "fuel",
> just like glow. The Rx battery will have to be in the
> plane, just like glow.
> Yes, I realize that there are UBEC's out there but I don't
> know of anyone
> who trusts them with the kind of current we're running. In
> any event, my
> preliminary research indicates that roughly 8.7 pounds
> should be just about
> right, but I want to make sure before I submit the
> proposal.
> 
> Verne
> 
> ? 
> ---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
> wrote: 
> > Verne,
> > 
> > When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the
> proposals which was
> > passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the
> weight limit for
> their
> > helicopters effective 1/1/2010.? Here is the new
> wording:
> > 
> > a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (*with
> *fuel *or *batteries)
> > must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
> > 
> > Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective
> 01/01/10.
> > 
> > I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A
> sub-committee members to see if
> > there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to
> 5.5kg.? What does
> > everyone think about this?
> > 
> > -Derek
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > > Bill,
> > > I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to
> address that very issue.
> > > Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the
> contest board anytime
> soon. In
> > > the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention
> in the glow to
> electric
> > > comparison and that's that an electric plane
> doesn't need as much
> internal
> > > reinforcement because there's virtually no
> vibrational effects to
> contend
> > > with that you do with glow. That equates to
> lighter airframes being
> > > acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to
> power the Rx and
> servos.
> > > An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah.
> The same flight in
> glow is
> > > typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric
> pilots will tell you
> that
> > > making weight in electric is generally a pretty
> expensive proposition
> with a
> > > limited number of 2 meter planes available that
> are usually
> vacuum-bagged
> > > composite affairs. In addition, your best chances
> for making weight will
> > > also necessitate the lightest and generally most
> expensive motors and
> > > batteries. There are exceptio
> > >? ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about
> most of them, but I'll be
> able
> > > to point to just as many examples of guys that
> fly overweight at local
> > > contests where they know they won't be weighed
> and the only thing
> they're
> > > really guilty of is not spending the extra money
> that the lightest
> batteries
> > > and motors cost. In every other way, the planes
> they're flying are the
> same
> > > as the ones they're competing against. The
> proposal I'm working on is
> not
> > > self-serving because my planes make weight, but
> getting there is both
> too
> > > expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My
> proposal won't be to allow
> > > electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that
> they weigh less, but
> > > without the "fuel". The proposal will take into
> account that electric
> motors
> > > are inherently lighter than their glow
> counterparts as well as the
> reduced
> > > structural requirements. It will limit the mah of
> permissible packs to
> > > control that end of the equation and there's
> already a voltage limit on
> the
> > > books which is fine as it
> > >? stands. I'm currently doing survey work at
> the contests I go to to see
> > > where everybody is at weight-wise and will post
> my proposal on this list
> > > soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to
> voice their opinions to
> their
> > > respective Contest Board reps.
> > >
> > > Verne Koester
> > > AMA District 7
> > > Contest Board
> > >? ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
> wrote:
> > > >? I am certain this has been beaten to
> death while I was off doing
> other
> > > > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may
> weigh more than five (5)
> > > > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding
> fuel, ready for takeoff.
> > > > Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> > > >
> > > > Why can't an electric "deduct" the
> equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??
> Is
> > > > a plane without fuel rally "ready for
> takeoff"??
> > > >
> > > > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI
> rule, but it makes no
> > > > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed
> without fuel and can
> weigh
> > > > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could
> add another 10 to 12 ounces
> of
> > > > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with
> batteries weight
> > > > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight
> by the rules.
> > > >
> > > > Put another way, what does a YS and full
> fuel weigh compared to a
> > > > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > > >
> > > > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > > > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > > > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > > >
> > > > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > > > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > > >
> > > > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > > > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > > >
> > > >? So I can see an argument that the
> electrics have a weight advantage
> > > > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But
> with "fuel" electric is
> at
> > > > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > > >
> > > > So if I build a plane for electric I need to
> build it 20 plus ounces
> > > > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro
> motor in it. How does that
> > > > make sense. I know I am missing something
> important here, so educate
> me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 


      

From jpavlick at idseng.com  Thu Jun  4 11:22:09 2009
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:22:09 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <752180.4173.qm@web80501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dave - you are 100% correct.?I like Option C the best but?Option A?is?is probably the best choice overall if you don't mind hearing the discussion about why it is the way it is. :)?Option?B could be dangerous and Option D could cause more problems / discussions than we have now. 
?
I believe it's in our best interest to just leave things the way they are now and move on. We all know the challenges of building a light electric vs. a glow airplane. It IS possible to be competitive with either one. If it weren't, EVERYONE would be flying either glow OR electric. Right now there's still a choice.
?
John Pavlick

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:


From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
Subject: RE:[NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 2:56 PM








?Simple solution to this seemingly impossible to solve problem: come up with a weight limit that is reasonable for a 2-meter?Pattern plane that's READY TO FLY. That means an?electric with batteries and a glow airplane with a full tank of fuel.?
?
Here?s the deal ? not matter how we got here, we do have a max takeoff weight now for electrics which is 11 lbs, and electrics are competitive with glow which clearly have an advantage as they do not have a maximum takeoff weight.? What are the options to ?level the playing field?, and what results will the ?changes? bring:
?
Option A ? leave the rules and current interpretations alone.? Result ? minor improvements in glow before it?s imminent death, and considerably more improvements in electrics (in terms of performance and reduced cost).? The latest and greatest costs money/time/resources, and ?I want new stuff now for what the old stuff costs? just isn?t reality.
?
Option B ? to level the playing field, increase the takeoff weight limit to whatever (11.5, 12, 12.5 lbs) for both glow and electric, and you have ZERO performance increase with glow, and you have a HUGE opportunity to increase the performance of electric (which WILL happen). ?Result ? the imminent obsolescence of glow will occur faster, and performance and COST will increase for electric which will be the only viable option for those that want to compete without being at a disadvantage. ?I think a bad scenario for everyone (excepting maybe the battery manufacturers).? AND, in truth, I can envision some minimal increases in glow depending on the exact setup and weight limit, but it will be at increased cost, and it the increased performance will be a fraction of the extra performance the electrics will gain.
?
Option C ? to level the playing field and prevent an escalation in costs (of glow or electric), enforce an 11 lb takeoff weight for glow and electric.? Result ? even faster obsolescence of glow, and no escalation in costs of electrics (which will continue to improve in performance while decreasing in costs). ?The average glow plane / engine would need some serious work, but there are plenty of options for those that care to look.? Numerous composite or ?roach? ships can be built at <10 lbs, without spending $3500 for a custom Oxai (nothing wrong with that of course), and plenty of power options exist to get through a sequence on less than 16 oz (by weight) of fuel.? My last glow plane (hanging on the ceiling untouched since June 2006) was a Vivat / Webra 160, and it was 10.5 lbs at takeoff, and that combo is still competitive today through Masters or P09.
?
Option D ? attempt to establish differing takeoff weights for every viable power system, and perpetually adjust the takeoff weight limits as technology changes. ?Result ? moving targets for manufacturers (bad), none of the weights will ever be reduced (because that would obsolete some equipment in use), the escalation of weights will slowly and inevitably creep up for all powerplants, and the costs will go up for everyone?.and the administrative/technical/logistical/tech inspections for planes will be far more complex. ?By far the worst option.
?
Glow already has an advantage, and it is going to die anyway. ?Excepting Option D (by far the worst option), electric will be dominant, and the best electrics with the best performance will always cost more (performance always has a cost in open competition). ?To me, the only decision is how much do you want the electrics to cost when glow is obsolete? ?I?d prefer to keep rules as they are and, not allow the costs to go up (yet another time) for either glow or electric.
?
Regards,

Dave
?




From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Pavlick
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 1:52 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
?





What everyone is dancing around is the fact that there are 2 definitions of "takeoff weight". One for glow / gas powered airplanes and one for electrics. Being an engineer and a somewhat logically minded person?I would say that the correct definition of "takeoff weight" would include batteries, fuel, protoplasm - ?whatever is necessary to allow the airplane to fly. I'm sure most people would agree. 

?

The "problem"?comes form the fact?that some people believe there is no way of verifying the amount of fuel that would be put into a glow / gas airplane when it's weighed (people might put half a tank of fuel in and then get the airplane weighed),?so they decided to weigh them without fuel. Solved the problem - but created another?one when electrics became popular. Let's see. How hard is it to make sure you have a full tank of fuel? Doesn't it run out of the overflow? Is it really that hard??I know it might take longer to verify that the tank is full but if that's what needs to be done then so be it. How do you?know that the batteries are installed in an electric? How can you be sure that every time that plane is flown in the contest, the batteries will weigh the same (someone could weigh in with smaller batteries)?

?

I REALLY wish more of you guys were involved in car racing. 99% of these ridiculous "problems" would be avoided. Here's how it works: Before the car goes on the track it's inspected. If it meets the rules (weight, size, safety equipment, etc.) it gets stickered.?NOW it can race. Cars are usually checked before they go out and when they come off the track. If you place in the top 3 the?engine usually gets torn apart. Cheaters get caught by the tech. inspectors. Everyone knows the rules and all the cars running in a given class must meet those rules. It's not rocket science. If a bunch of good ole' boys at a dirt track can do it - why can't we? LOL

?

Simple solution to this seemingly impossible to solve problem: come up with a weight limit that is reasonable for a 2-meter?Pattern plane that's READY TO FLY. That means an?electric with batteries and a glow airplane with a full tank of fuel. Of course you can fly with less fuel or smaller batteries if you want to be lighter but what we're looking for is a worst case / maximum weight scenario. To be fair, the planes should be weighed before thay take off and after they land. Do you need to do this at local contests? No,?I don't think so. How many planes are weighed at local contests now? Should you do this at the Nationals? Absolutely. Anythng else will only lead to more discussion, explanation?and discontent. 

?

John Pavlick

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:


From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: " General pattern discussion " <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 1:08 PM

Using the FAI weight limit allow one to fly the same airplane in both FAI
and AMA pattern.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bill's Email
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:42 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

What everyone is dancing around here is the fact that the 5 kg (+/- 11
pound) weight limit is a completely arbitrary number that has no
foundation in anything other than FAI used to have this limit for all RC
models. In FAI being at or below 5 kg was what defined you as a radio
controlled "model" airplane.

Here is the weight rule for F3B gliders:

5.3.1.3. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Gliders F3B
a) Maximum flying mass ........................................ 5 kg

F3J Gliders:

5.6.1.3. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Gliders
a) Maximum Flying Mass .................................. 5 kg

F3F Slope RAcing Gliders:

5.F.2. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Slope Gliders
Maximum flying mass ........................................ 5 kg

F3C helis are now 6 KG so even the FAI can change their minds.

Point being is that the 5 kg "limit" has no real life basis beyond what
was in the FAI sporting code at the time the AMA rules were written. FAI
was not looking at all the convoluted logic about cost, etc. At the time
that was simply how they defined (and still do for many RC events) what
a model airplane is.


_______________________________________________
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
?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/0db4d7f4/attachment.html>

From chadnortheast at shaw.ca  Thu Jun  4 12:38:51 2009
From: chadnortheast at shaw.ca (Chad Northeast)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:38:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
In-Reply-To: <AA26DE2C483F45E1A2BC9E5FA867DBC0@davedesktop>
References: <3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090603175326.8D8S1.33727.root@hrndva-web26-z02>
	<AA26DE2C483F45E1A2BC9E5FA867DBC0@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <cfc48f71f00a.4a27dbcc@shaw.ca>

Dave is spot on IMO.

Also I think one important fact may have not received enough attention.? That is that the current legal voltage limit on batteries in FAI is 42V.? Increasing the weight and therefore required power of an electric model requires that you play within that rule.? To generate the necessary static 300 W/lb that most current competitive F3A models demand today but at a new weight of say even 6 kg (13.2 lbs), using an optimistic value of 35V under load you are beyond 100A setups.? 

There would need to be a complete rethink of how we are flying electric since most setups sitting in airplanes would not tolerate that power level for long.? To allow electric to be competitive and work reasonably well at a higher weight will require an increase to the voltage.

No doubt additional weight would require glow motors to change as well, but they have the simple road of simply increasing displacement to deal with that.

Another point to the discussion is that I have personally only witnessed one person failing the weigh in with an electric model.? This tells me that many who have been serious about competing have made whatever effort is required to abide by the rules and that it is readily done.? If 80% were failing the test then it would beg the question that something is broken, but I think currently the rules work well enough to keep everyone competitive and not provide any large advantage or disadvantage based on power plant.? 

The person who failed the weight did not weigh his own model prior to the contest, and relied on published weight values and a calculator to determine that his model would be underweight.? The published weight of his batteries were horribly understated though.

Chad

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009 10:17 am
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:? Weight
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

> Honestly, I understand (and agree) with the intention to allow 
> the "cheap
> electric", but it is no different than trying to tweak the rules 
> for the
> "cheap gas engine" and won't (my opinion, with substantial 
> history to back
> it) work- 
> - why should the rules be tweaked to essentially allow someone 
> the latest
> greatest (electric) without paying for it (either with time, or 
> $$$, or
> experience)?? The latest greatest always cost more - that 
> is the nature of
> competition.
> - I truly believe the time spent researching, designing, crafting,
> submitting, and implementing such a proposal will largely be 
> wasted because
> the process is relatively slow and can not possibly keep up with 
> the rate of
> change in electrics as technology advances.
> - Anyone who wants to try electric - go right ahead - and fly a 
> current day
> design at a slight weight disadvantage at local comps (most guys 
> don't go to
> the NATs anyway) - no one is going to ask or care about a couple 
> ounces over
> 11 lbs.? And if they do decide to go to the NATs, they can 
> suck it up and
> buy 1 expensive pack for official flights and the scale.
> 
> With the understanding of the intent to allow cheap electrics, the
> unintended consequences of any rule change needs to be carefully 
> evaluatedprior to submitting a proposal.? In this case, the 
> unintended consequence
> will be the opportunity for the TOP LEVEL electric designs to grow
> substantially in size and weight, which will drive the cost up 
> for all
> competitors (glow and electric) to compete with the new performance
> standard.? The average plane is influenced by whatever the 
> TOP LEVEL stuff
> is - that is why both electric and glow TOP LEVEL stuff has 
> always been
> right on the limit of whatever the rules are at the time, and 
> that is the
> way it will always be - again, it is the nature of competition.
> 
> The top level electrics right now weigh well under 11 
> lbs......10 lbs is
> quite possible with electric monoplanes, which is why some are 
> able to sneak
> biplanes in under 11 lbs - of course this is by shaving every 
> ounce off the
> airframe (reducing it's lifespan and making it relatively 
> fragile) and
> pushing the lipos harder (also reducing it's lifespan).? So 
> when you look at
> 8.7 lbs considering the weight of the electrics that are marginally
> overweight (with the Zippy packs and AXI), the unintended 
> consequence is the
> guys that have 7.5 lb airframes now have 1.2 lbs of additional 
> weight to add
> to make the plane bigger - and you know it will be used, and 
> probably along
> the lines of - 
> - 6-8 oz for structure
> - 3-4 oz for more motor (more power)
> - 4-5 oz for more lipo (which would still be rated the same 5300 
> mah, but be
> heavier to allow more voltage under load, thus delivering more 
> watts through
> the course of the flight - and it will be called a "High Power 
> Prolite", or
> "High Power AEON", whatever.)
> - 1-2 oz more for bigger servos and more RX battery
> 
> And 2 years after the 8.7 lb rule is introduced, there will be a 
> cheap copy
> of the "High Power Prolite" will be available and it will weigh 
> 5 oz more,
> and the desire will be to raise the 8.7 lbs to 9.2 lbs.
> 
> Allow 5.5 kg (12 lb) or 6 kg (14.3 kg) airframes, and yes, you 
> will have
> DA50 powered stuff that is competitive with current day designs, 
> but it will
> not be competitive with the YS built for 6 kg airframes for the 
> same reason
> gas is not competitive with glow now.
> 
> Allow 5.5 kg weight limit, and you instantly solve the problem 
> of all the
> guys that are a couple oz over the current 5 kg weight 
> limit.? And the new
> designs will grow, and in 1-2 years, the new designs will be 
> showing up a
> couple oz over the 5.5 kg limit.
> 
> It may be true that for the TOP LEVELs of competition that any 
> airframe is
> obsolete in 3 years......BUT.......changing the rules to allow 
> 15 lbs
> airframes will obsolete (immediately) not only the airframes, 
> but the
> powerplants and servos.....and up the horsepower requirements 
> substantiallywhich will increase the noise (only measured at the 
> NATs) and require
> substantially more cost to reduce the noise (to achieve 94/96 db 
> at the
> NATs).
> 
> All of the above is escalation no different than what we've seen 
> in the past
> -
> - "we" started with .61 cubic inch (10 CC) limit and 5 
> kg......the only
> practical limit was the displacement.
> - "we" allowed 120 4C (big mistake, short sighted, or should 
> have been
> continually adjusted as competition 4Cs developed).? 
> Airframes grew and cost
> went up....some airplanes actually exceeded 2M (which was not 
> yet a limit).
> - "we" allowed unlimited engines to, in part, cover up the 
> mistake of the
> 120 4C, and, in part, to allow cheap gas engines (another big 
> mistake, again
> short sighted).? The 2M rule went into place because that 
> was essentially
> the "largest" plane in existence at the time.? The 
> airframes got bigger
> again (fuse volume), and cost went up again, and the practical 
> limit to
> airframe size became the 5 kg weight limit.
> 
> Of course we also have the noise limit - that is really a 
> separate issue -
> but - it is worth noting that larger airplanes require more 
> power, and more
> power is more noise (or more expense to keep the noise from 
> increasing).
> "Wouldn't it be nice if"........is a dangerous lead in to rule 
> changes with
> unintended consequences.? The gas engine, the heavier lipo, 
> the heavier
> motor, the heavier airframe, etc.....will all forever be less 
> competitivebecause the limits will always be pushed by the 
> airframe/powerplant that has
> the best power to weight ratio, and that will always cost more, 
> and always
> be more sensitive to weight conscious building techniques.? 
> No change in the
> rules will ever allow parity for equipment that does not have 
> the best power
> to weight ratio.
> 
> Someone else made the point that they perceived the less the 
> rules change,
> the more available airframes and equipment are (2nd hand) - I 
> couldn't agree
> more.? Stop changing the rules to allow (intended or not) 
> higher performance
> airframes, and the "old" ones won't be obsolete so quickly.
> 
> Personally, after a lot of research and planning, I switched to 
> electric in
> 2006....and the expense was big.....especially because I had 
> perfectly good
> glow stuff, and maintained glow and electric for about 1 
> year.? To date,
> I've built 3 electric airframes (1 Abbra, 2 Prestige), and 
> between them I
> have run 12 different motors of different brands, weights, 
> in/out runners,
> and just about every mounting configuration you can think 
> of.? The majority
> of the motors have been < $300, and I've always used the 
> Castle 85HV (which
> I think has always been and still is the least expensive ESC 
> available for
> the job).? My planes have weighed anywhere between 9 lbs 13 
> oz and 10 lbs 14
> depending on the configuration.? If I had the time, $$$, 
> resources, etc, I'd
> design and build my own stuff right up to the limit, whatever 
> that limit
> might be.? As I do have limits (as most of us do), I'll get 
> as close to what
> I think optimum performance is, and it may or may not be pushing 
> the limits
> (for whatever reasons). 
> 
> In the past 3 years, I've spent a huge amount of time on email, phone,
> forums, in my shop, in others shops, etc....working with people 
> on how to
> assemble electric pattern stuff....and most are not using the 
> most expensive
> airframes or equipment, and all are under 11 lbs.? Bottom 
> line is that you
> can not take the largest, cheapest, and heaviest of each respective
> component and have a sub 11 lb electric OR glow plane.? Nor 
> do you need to
> have the most expensive and lightest example of each component 
> to be
> competitive.? You do need to research, plan, and make 
> educated decisions.
> No offense to anyone with an 10 lb 18 oz plane....they do 
> exist....and most
> are being happily flown, and most can make weight for the NATs 
> if the time
> is spent in advanced.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> verne at twmi.rr.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:53 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> Derek,
> We've discussed raising the weight before and it's always been 
> voted down. I
> believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart has steadfastly argued 
> that raising
> the weight limit will inevitably increase the size of our 
> planes, obsoleting
> anything that preceded it. I agree with him. 
> 
> What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for someone 
> wanting to try
> electric to be able to do so without having to buy the most expensive
> equipment available. For example, at a contest last weekend, a 
> friend and
> fellow pattern pilot had a set of Zippy packs that weighed 
> roughly 5.5
> ounces more than my FlightPower packs. Pretty much the same 
> difference when
> compared to Andrew's TP packs. The Zippy's as we all know, were 
> less than
> half the cost. I know for sure that my friend would have made 
> weight with my
> FP's or Andrew's TP's, but he couldn't afford that after all the other
> "electric" purchases. 
> 
> What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked out, is that 
> electricairplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be weighed 
> without their "fuel",
> just like glow. The Rx battery will have to be in the plane, 
> just like glow.
> Yes, I realize that there are UBEC's out there but I don't know 
> of anyone
> who trusts them with the kind of current we're running. In any 
> event, my
> preliminary research indicates that roughly 8.7 pounds should be 
> just about
> right, but I want to make sure before I submit the proposal.
> 
> Verne
> 
> ? 
> ---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com> wrote: 
> > Verne,
> > 
> > When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the proposals 
> which was
> > passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the weight 
> limit for
> their
> > helicopters effective 1/1/2010.? Here is the new wording:
> > 
> > a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (*with *fuel *or 
> *batteries)> must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
> > 
> > Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective 01/01/10.
> > 
> > I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A sub-committee 
> members to see if
> > there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to 
> 5.5kg.? What does
> > everyone think about this?
> > 
> > -Derek
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Bill,
> > > I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that 
> very issue.
> > > Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board 
> anytimesoon. In
> > > the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the 
> glow to
> electric
> > > comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much
> internal
> > > reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational 
> effects to
> contend
> > > with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter 
> airframes being
> > > acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the 
> Rx and
> servos.
> > > An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same 
> flight in
> glow is
> > > typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots 
> will tell you
> that
> > > making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive 
> propositionwith a
> > > limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually
> vacuum-bagged
> > > composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making 
> weight will
> > > also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive 
> motors and
> > > batteries. There are exceptio
> > >? ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of 
> them, but I'll be
> able
> > > to point to just as many examples of guys that fly 
> overweight at local
> > > contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing
> they're
> > > really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest
> batteries
> > > and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're 
> flying are the
> same
> > > as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm 
> working on is
> not
> > > self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting 
> there is both
> too
> > > expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't 
> be to allow
> > > electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh 
> less, but
> > > without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that 
> electricmotors
> > > are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well 
> as the
> reduced
> > > structural requirements. It will limit the mah of 
> permissible packs to
> > > control that end of the equation and there's already a 
> voltage limit on
> the
> > > books which is fine as it
> > >? stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the 
> contests I go to to see
> > > where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal 
> on this list
> > > soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their 
> opinions to
> their
> > > respective Contest Board reps.
> > >
> > > Verne Koester
> > > AMA District 7
> > > Contest Board
> > >? ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:
> > > >? I am certain this has been beaten to death while I 
> was off doing
> other
> > > > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than 
> five (5)
> > > > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for 
> takeoff.> > > Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> > > >
> > > > Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces 
> of fuel??
> Is
> > > > a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
> > > >
> > > > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it 
> makes no
> > > > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel 
> and can
> weigh
> > > > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 
> to 12 ounces
> of
> > > > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight
> > > > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
> > > >
> > > > Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh 
> compared to a
> > > > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > > >
> > > > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > > > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > > > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > > >
> > > > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > > > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > > >
> > > > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > > > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > > >
> > > >? So I can see an argument that the electrics have a 
> weight advantage
> > > > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" 
> electric is
> at
> > > > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > > >
> > > > So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 
> plus ounces
> > > > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. 
> How does that
> > > > make sense. I know I am missing something important here, 
> so educate
> me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/2892f4ce/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Thu Jun  4 12:52:09 2009
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:52:09 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
In-Reply-To: <623784.29006.qm@web51002.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <623784.29006.qm@web51002.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <B284E7FC9EEC46C4A69813C4043D6DB2@davedesktop>

Mike,

"Dave there are cheaper higher C light weight Lipo's on the market now so no
need for the expensive stuff if one so chooses."

Whoooaaa!!!!  So if the cheap lightweight lipo is available now, why is it
that the current rules need to be tweaked??

If you like Verne's proposal, vote for it (if/when submitted).  And know
that doing so probably won't bring us to the point where electrics are the
only planes flying, just the point at which glow are seriously outclassed.

I'm not opposed to the spirit of Verne's idea, but the nature of competition
is to push the limits whatever they are, and pushing the limits costs
time/money/resources - always has and always will.  Raising the limits
simply raises the costs for all of us.

Regards,

Dave

 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of mike mueller
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:08 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight


 Dave there are cheaper higher C light weight Lipo's on the market now so no
need for the expensive stuff if one so chooses.
 I make weight with both my planes but the choices I made in airframes and
equipment made it close. The planes both feel light in the air. My newest
one was harder and more expensive to make legal than what I would have liked
but it flys very nicely.
 Say whatever you guys like and all the points are well taken but I still
like Verne's proposal. That's called an opinion and we all have one as you
know.
 I hope we never get to the point where Electric planes are the only thing
we fly. I love to see a screaming YS plane flying and who knows if I
wouldn't want to some day do another one just to do something different.
It'll just be expensive. Plus if were all flying the same power plant who am
I going to argue with?????? 
 Great debate and I'm taking in all the thoughts. You guys are pretty smart
dudes!!!                    Mike

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:

> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 11:17 AM
> Honestly, I understand (and agree)
> with the intention to allow the "cheap
> electric", but it is no different than trying to tweak the
> rules for the
> "cheap gas engine" and won't (my opinion, with substantial
> history to back
> it) work- 
> - why should the rules be tweaked to essentially allow
> someone the latest
> greatest (electric) without paying for it (either with
> time, or $$$, or
> experience)?? The latest greatest always cost more -
> that is the nature of
> competition.
> - I truly believe the time spent researching, designing,
> crafting,
> submitting, and implementing such a proposal will largely
> be wasted because
> the process is relatively slow and can not possibly keep up
> with the rate of
> change in electrics as technology advances.
> - Anyone who wants to try electric - go right ahead - and
> fly a current day
> design at a slight weight disadvantage at local comps (most
> guys don't go to
> the NATs anyway) - no one is going to ask or care about a
> couple ounces over
> 11 lbs.? And if they do decide to go to the NATs, they
> can suck it up and
> buy 1 expensive pack for official flights and the scale.
> 
> With the understanding of the intent to allow cheap
> electrics, the
> unintended consequences of any rule change needs to be
> carefully evaluated
> prior to submitting a proposal.? In this case, the
> unintended consequence
> will be the opportunity for the TOP LEVEL electric designs
> to grow
> substantially in size and weight, which will drive the cost
> up for all
> competitors (glow and electric) to compete with the new
> performance
> standard.? The average plane is influenced by whatever
> the TOP LEVEL stuff
> is - that is why both electric and glow TOP LEVEL stuff has
> always been
> right on the limit of whatever the rules are at the time,
> and that is the
> way it will always be - again, it is the nature of
> competition.
> 
> The top level electrics right now weigh well under 11
> lbs......10 lbs is
> quite possible with electric monoplanes, which is why some
> are able to sneak
> biplanes in under 11 lbs - of course this is by shaving
> every ounce off the
> airframe (reducing it's lifespan and making it relatively
> fragile) and
> pushing the lipos harder (also reducing it's
> lifespan).? So when you look at
> 8.7 lbs considering the weight of the electrics that are
> marginally
> overweight (with the Zippy packs and AXI), the unintended
> consequence is the
> guys that have 7.5 lb airframes now have 1.2 lbs of
> additional weight to add
> to make the plane bigger - and you know it will be used,
> and probably along
> the lines of - 
> - 6-8 oz for structure
> - 3-4 oz for more motor (more power)
> - 4-5 oz for more lipo (which would still be rated the same
> 5300 mah, but be
> heavier to allow more voltage under load, thus delivering
> more watts through
> the course of the flight - and it will be called a "High
> Power Prolite", or
> "High Power AEON", whatever.)
> - 1-2 oz more for bigger servos and more RX battery
> 
> And 2 years after the 8.7 lb rule is introduced, there will
> be a cheap copy
> of the "High Power Prolite" will be available and it will
> weigh 5 oz more,
> and the desire will be to raise the 8.7 lbs to 9.2 lbs.
> 
> Allow 5.5 kg (12 lb) or 6 kg (14.3 kg) airframes, and yes,
> you will have
> DA50 powered stuff that is competitive with current day
> designs, but it will
> not be competitive with the YS built for 6 kg airframes for
> the same reason
> gas is not competitive with glow now.
> 
> Allow 5.5 kg weight limit, and you instantly solve the
> problem of all the
> guys that are a couple oz over the current 5 kg weight
> limit.? And the new
> designs will grow, and in 1-2 years, the new designs will
> be showing up a
> couple oz over the 5.5 kg limit.
> 
> It may be true that for the TOP LEVELs of competition that
> any airframe is
> obsolete in 3 years......BUT.......changing the rules to
> allow 15 lbs
> airframes will obsolete (immediately) not only the
> airframes, but the
> powerplants and servos.....and up the horsepower
> requirements substantially
> which will increase the noise (only measured at the NATs)
> and require
> substantially more cost to reduce the noise (to achieve
> 94/96 db at the
> NATs).
> 
> All of the above is escalation no different than what we've
> seen in the past
> -
> - "we" started with .61 cubic inch (10 CC) limit and 5
> kg......the only
> practical limit was the displacement.
> - "we" allowed 120 4C (big mistake, short sighted, or
> should have been
> continually adjusted as competition 4Cs developed).?
> Airframes grew and cost
> went up....some airplanes actually exceeded 2M (which was
> not yet a limit).
> - "we" allowed unlimited engines to, in part, cover up the
> mistake of the
> 120 4C, and, in part, to allow cheap gas engines (another
> big mistake, again
> short sighted).? The 2M rule went into place because
> that was essentially
> the "largest" plane in existence at the time.? The
> airframes got bigger
> again (fuse volume), and cost went up again, and the
> practical limit to
> airframe size became the 5 kg weight limit.
> 
> Of course we also have the noise limit - that is really a
> separate issue -
> but - it is worth noting that larger airplanes require more
> power, and more
> power is more noise (or more expense to keep the noise from
> increasing).
> 
> "Wouldn't it be nice if"........is a dangerous lead in to
> rule changes with
> unintended consequences.? The gas engine, the heavier
> lipo, the heavier
> motor, the heavier airframe, etc.....will all forever be
> less competitive
> because the limits will always be pushed by the
> airframe/powerplant that has
> the best power to weight ratio, and that will always cost
> more, and always
> be more sensitive to weight conscious building
> techniques.? No change in the
> rules will ever allow parity for equipment that does not
> have the best power
> to weight ratio.
> 
> Someone else made the point that they perceived the less
> the rules change,
> the more available airframes and equipment are (2nd hand) -
> I couldn't agree
> more.? Stop changing the rules to allow (intended or
> not) higher performance
> airframes, and the "old" ones won't be obsolete so
> quickly.
> 
> Personally, after a lot of research and planning, I
> switched to electric in
> 2006....and the expense was big.....especially because I
> had perfectly good
> glow stuff, and maintained glow and electric for about 1
> year.? To date,
> I've built 3 electric airframes (1 Abbra, 2 Prestige), and
> between them I
> have run 12 different motors of different brands, weights,
> in/out runners,
> and just about every mounting configuration you can think
> of.? The majority
> of the motors have been < $300, and I've always used the
> Castle 85HV (which
> I think has always been and still is the least expensive
> ESC available for
> the job).? My planes have weighed anywhere between 9
> lbs 13 oz and 10 lbs 14
> depending on the configuration.? If I had the time,
> $$$, resources, etc, I'd
> design and build my own stuff right up to the limit,
> whatever that limit
> might be.? As I do have limits (as most of us do),
> I'll get as close to what
> I think optimum performance is, and it may or may not be
> pushing the limits
> (for whatever reasons). 
> 
> In the past 3 years, I've spent a huge amount of time on
> email, phone,
> forums, in my shop, in others shops, etc....working with
> people on how to
> assemble electric pattern stuff....and most are not using
> the most expensive
> airframes or equipment, and all are under 11 lbs.?
> Bottom line is that you
> can not take the largest, cheapest, and heaviest of each
> respective
> component and have a sub 11 lb electric OR glow
> plane.? Nor do you need to
> have the most expensive and lightest example of each
> component to be
> competitive.? You do need to research, plan, and make
> educated decisions.
> No offense to anyone with an 10 lb 18 oz plane....they do
> exist....and most
> are being happily flown, and most can make weight for the
> NATs if the time
> is spent in advanced.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of
> verne at twmi.rr.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:53 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> Derek,
> We've discussed raising the weight before and it's always
> been voted down. I
> believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart has steadfastly
> argued that raising
> the weight limit will inevitably increase the size of our
> planes, obsoleting
> anything that preceded it. I agree with him. 
> 
> What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for someone
> wanting to try
> electric to be able to do so without having to buy the most
> expensive
> equipment available. For example, at a contest last
> weekend, a friend and
> fellow pattern pilot had a set of Zippy packs that weighed
> roughly 5.5
> ounces more than my FlightPower packs. Pretty much the same
> difference when
> compared to Andrew's TP packs. The Zippy's as we all know,
> were less than
> half the cost. I know for sure that my friend would have
> made weight with my
> FP's or Andrew's TP's, but he couldn't afford that after
> all the other
> "electric" purchases. 
> 
> What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked out, is
> that electric
> airplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be weighed
> without their "fuel",
> just like glow. The Rx battery will have to be in the
> plane, just like glow.
> Yes, I realize that there are UBEC's out there but I don't
> know of anyone
> who trusts them with the kind of current we're running. In
> any event, my
> preliminary research indicates that roughly 8.7 pounds
> should be just about
> right, but I want to make sure before I submit the
> proposal.
> 
> Verne
> 
> ? 
> ---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
> wrote: 
> > Verne,
> > 
> > When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the
> proposals which was
> > passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the
> weight limit for
> their
> > helicopters effective 1/1/2010.? Here is the new
> wording:
> > 
> > a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (*with
> *fuel *or *batteries)
> > must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
> > 
> > Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective
> 01/01/10.
> > 
> > I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A
> sub-committee members to see if
> > there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to
> 5.5kg.? What does
> > everyone think about this?
> > 
> > -Derek
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > > Bill,
> > > I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to
> address that very issue.
> > > Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the
> contest board anytime
> soon. In
> > > the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention
> in the glow to
> electric
> > > comparison and that's that an electric plane
> doesn't need as much
> internal
> > > reinforcement because there's virtually no
> vibrational effects to
> contend
> > > with that you do with glow. That equates to
> lighter airframes being
> > > acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to
> power the Rx and
> servos.
> > > An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah.
> The same flight in
> glow is
> > > typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric
> pilots will tell you
> that
> > > making weight in electric is generally a pretty
> expensive proposition
> with a
> > > limited number of 2 meter planes available that
> are usually
> vacuum-bagged
> > > composite affairs. In addition, your best chances
> for making weight will
> > > also necessitate the lightest and generally most
> expensive motors and
> > > batteries. There are exceptio
> > >? ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about
> most of them, but I'll be
> able
> > > to point to just as many examples of guys that
> fly overweight at local
> > > contests where they know they won't be weighed
> and the only thing
> they're
> > > really guilty of is not spending the extra money
> that the lightest
> batteries
> > > and motors cost. In every other way, the planes
> they're flying are the
> same
> > > as the ones they're competing against. The
> proposal I'm working on is
> not
> > > self-serving because my planes make weight, but
> getting there is both
> too
> > > expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My
> proposal won't be to allow
> > > electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that
> they weigh less, but
> > > without the "fuel". The proposal will take into
> account that electric
> motors
> > > are inherently lighter than their glow
> counterparts as well as the
> reduced
> > > structural requirements. It will limit the mah of
> permissible packs to
> > > control that end of the equation and there's
> already a voltage limit on
> the
> > > books which is fine as it
> > >? stands. I'm currently doing survey work at
> the contests I go to to see
> > > where everybody is at weight-wise and will post
> my proposal on this list
> > > soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to
> voice their opinions to
> their
> > > respective Contest Board reps.
> > >
> > > Verne Koester
> > > AMA District 7
> > > Contest Board
> > >? ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
> wrote:
> > > >? I am certain this has been beaten to
> death while I was off doing
> other
> > > > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may
> weigh more than five (5)
> > > > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding
> fuel, ready for takeoff.
> > > > Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> > > >
> > > > Why can't an electric "deduct" the
> equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??
> Is
> > > > a plane without fuel rally "ready for
> takeoff"??
> > > >
> > > > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI
> rule, but it makes no
> > > > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed
> without fuel and can
> weigh
> > > > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could
> add another 10 to 12 ounces
> of
> > > > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with
> batteries weight
> > > > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight
> by the rules.
> > > >
> > > > Put another way, what does a YS and full
> fuel weigh compared to a
> > > > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > > >
> > > > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > > > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > > > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > > >
> > > > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > > > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > > >
> > > > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > > > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > > >
> > > >? So I can see an argument that the
> electrics have a weight advantage
> > > > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But
> with "fuel" electric is
> at
> > > > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > > >
> > > > So if I build a plane for electric I need to
> build it 20 plus ounces
> > > > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro
> motor in it. How does that
> > > > make sense. I know I am missing something
> important here, so educate
> me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From jeff at priusonline.com  Thu Jun  4 12:54:45 2009
From: jeff at priusonline.com (Jeff Hatton)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:54:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
In-Reply-To: <cfc48f71f00a.4a27dbcc@shaw.ca>
References: <3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>	<20090603175326.8D8S1.33727.root@hrndva-web26-z02>	<AA26DE2C483F45E1A2BC9E5FA867DBC0@davedesktop>
	<cfc48f71f00a.4a27dbcc@shaw.ca>
Message-ID: <4A28348F.9070603@priusonline.com>

what about a graduated weight system based on class?  at most contests 
this already exists in that any AMA legal plane can fly in sportsman, 
why not start enforcing the size restriction in intermediate without 
worrying if the plane can make weight (thus potentially saving money on 
a first 2 meter plane as you can don't have to buy all the specialized 
carbon everything to make weight) then introduce a weight limit slightly 
above 11 pounds in advanced can that can be easily met without to many 
expensive lightweight parts, then if you are serious enough to go to 
masters enforce the 11 pound weight limit... this will allow entry level 
competitors to use lower cost equipment and as they move up the normal 
thing is to upgrade equipment anyways...

Chad Northeast wrote:
> Dave is spot on IMO.
>
> Also I think one important fact may have not received enough 
> attention.  That is that the current legal voltage limit on batteries 
> in FAI is 42V.  Increasing the weight and therefore required power of 
> an electric model requires that you play within that rule.  To 
> generate the necessary static 300 W/lb that most current competitive 
> F3A models demand today but at a new weight of say even 6 kg (13.2 
> lbs), using an optimistic value of 35V under load you are beyond 100A 
> setups. 
>
> There would need to be a complete rethink of how we are flying 
> electric since most setups sitting in airplanes would not tolerate 
> that power level for long.  To allow electric to be competitive and 
> work reasonably well at a higher weight will require an increase to 
> the voltage.
>
> No doubt additional weight would require glow motors to change as 
> well, but they have the simple road of simply increasing displacement 
> to deal with that.
>
> Another point to the discussion is that I have personally only 
> witnessed one person failing the weigh in with an electric model.  
> This tells me that many who have been serious about competing have 
> made whatever effort is required to abide by the rules and that it is 
> readily done.  If 80% were failing the test then it would beg the 
> question that something is broken, but I think currently the rules 
> work well enough to keep everyone competitive and not provide any 
> large advantage or disadvantage based on power plant. 
>
> The person who failed the weight did not weigh his own model prior to 
> the contest, and relied on published weight values and a calculator to 
> determine that his model would be underweight.  The published weight 
> of his batteries were horribly understated though.
>
> Chad
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009 10:17 am
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
> To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> > Honestly, I understand (and agree) with the intention to allow
> > the "cheap
> > electric", but it is no different than trying to tweak the rules
> > for the
> > "cheap gas engine" and won't (my opinion, with substantial
> > history to back
> > it) work-
> > - why should the rules be tweaked to essentially allow someone
> > the latest
> > greatest (electric) without paying for it (either with time, or
> > $$$, or
> > experience)?  The latest greatest always cost more - that
> > is the nature of
> > competition.
> > - I truly believe the time spent researching, designing, crafting,
> > submitting, and implementing such a proposal will largely be
> > wasted because
> > the process is relatively slow and can not possibly keep up with
> > the rate of
> > change in electrics as technology advances.
> > - Anyone who wants to try electric - go right ahead - and fly a
> > current day
> > design at a slight weight disadvantage at local comps (most guys
> > don't go to
> > the NATs anyway) - no one is going to ask or care about a couple
> > ounces over
> > 11 lbs.  And if they do decide to go to the NATs, they can
> > suck it up and
> > buy 1 expensive pack for official flights and the scale.
> >
> > With the understanding of the intent to allow cheap electrics, the
> > unintended consequences of any rule change needs to be carefully
> > evaluatedprior to submitting a proposal.  In this case, the
> > unintended consequence
> > will be the opportunity for the TOP LEVEL electric designs to grow
> > substantially in size and weight, which will drive the cost up
> > for all
> > competitors (glow and electric) to compete with the new performance
> > standard.  The average plane is influenced by whatever the
> > TOP LEVEL stuff
> > is - that is why both electric and glow TOP LEVEL stuff has
> > always been
> > right on the limit of whatever the rules are at the time, and
> > that is the
> > way it will always be - again, it is the nature of competition.
> >
> > The top level electrics right now weigh well under 11
> > lbs......10 lbs is
> > quite possible with electric monoplanes, which is why some are
> > able to sneak
> > biplanes in under 11 lbs - of course this is by shaving every
> > ounce off the
> > airframe (reducing it's lifespan and making it relatively
> > fragile) and
> > pushing the lipos harder (also reducing it's lifespan).  So
> > when you look at
> > 8.7 lbs considering the weight of the electrics that are marginally
> > overweight (with the Zippy packs and AXI), the unintended
> > consequence is the
> > guys that have 7.5 lb airframes now have 1.2 lbs of additional
> > weight to add
> > to make the plane bigger - and you know it will be used, and
> > probably along
> > the lines of -
> > - 6-8 oz for structure
> > - 3-4 oz for more motor (more power)
> > - 4-5 oz for more lipo (which would still be rated the same 5300
> > mah, but be
> > heavier to allow more voltage under load, thus delivering more
> > watts through
> > the course of the flight - and it will be called a "High Power
> > Prolite", or
> > "High Power AEON", whatever.)
> > - 1-2 oz more for bigger servos and more RX battery
> >
> > And 2 years after the 8.7 lb rule is introduced, there will be a
> > cheap copy
> > of the "High Power Prolite" will be available and it will weigh
> > 5 oz more,
> > and the desire will be to raise the 8.7 lbs to 9.2 lbs.
> >
> > Allow 5.5 kg (12 lb) or 6 kg (14.3 kg) airframes, and yes, you
> > will have
> > DA50 powered stuff that is competitive with current day designs,
> > but it will
> > not be competitive with the YS built for 6 kg airframes for the
> > same reason
> > gas is not competitive with glow now.
> >
> > Allow 5.5 kg weight limit, and you instantly solve the problem
> > of all the
> > guys that are a couple oz over the current 5 kg weight
> > limit.  And the new
> > designs will grow, and in 1-2 years, the new designs will be
> > showing up a
> > couple oz over the 5.5 kg limit.
> >
> > It may be true that for the TOP LEVELs of competition that any
> > airframe is
> > obsolete in 3 years......BUT.......changing the rules to allow
> > 15 lbs
> > airframes will obsolete (immediately) not only the airframes,
> > but the
> > powerplants and servos.....and up the horsepower requirements
> > substantiallywhich will increase the noise (only measured at the
> > NATs) and require
> > substantially more cost to reduce the noise (to achieve 94/96 db
> > at the
> > NATs).
> >
> > All of the above is escalation no different than what we've seen
> > in the past
> > -
> > - "we" started with .61 cubic inch (10 CC) limit and 5
> > kg......the only
> > practical limit was the displacement.
> > - "we" allowed 120 4C (big mistake, short sighted, or should
> > have been
> > continually adjusted as competition 4Cs developed). 
> > Airframes grew and cost
> > went up....some airplanes actually exceeded 2M (which was not
> > yet a limit).
> > - "we" allowed unlimited engines to, in part, cover up the
> > mistake of the
> > 120 4C, and, in part, to allow cheap gas engines (another big
> > mistake, again
> > short sighted).  The 2M rule went into place because that
> > was essentially
> > the "largest" plane in existence at the time.  The
> > airframes got bigger
> > again (fuse volume), and cost went up again, and the practical
> > limit to
> > airframe size became the 5 kg weight limit.
> >
> > Of course we also have the noise limit - that is really a
> > separate issue -
> > but - it is worth noting that larger airplanes require more
> > power, and more
> > power is more noise (or more expense to keep the noise from
> > increasing).
> > "Wouldn't it be nice if"........is a dangerous lead in to rule
> > changes with
> > unintended consequences.  The gas engine, the heavier lipo,
> > the heavier
> > motor, the heavier airframe, etc.....will all forever be less
> > competitivebecause the limits will always be pushed by the
> > airframe/powerplant that has
> > the best power to weight ratio, and that will always cost more,
> > and always
> > be more sensitive to weight conscious building techniques. 
> > No change in the
> > rules will ever allow parity for equipment that does not have
> > the best power
> > to weight ratio.
> >
> > Someone else made the point that they perceived the less the
> > rules change,
> > the more available airframes and equipment are (2nd hand) - I
> > couldn't agree
> > more.  Stop changing the rules to allow (intended or not)
> > higher performance
> > airframes, and the "old" ones won't be obsolete so quickly.
> >
> > Personally, after a lot of research and planning, I switched to
> > electric in
> > 2006....and the expense was big.....especially because I had
> > perfectly good
> > glow stuff, and maintained glow and electric for about 1
> > year.  To date,
> > I've built 3 electric airframes (1 Abbra, 2 Prestige), and
> > between them I
> > have run 12 different motors of different brands, weights,
> > in/out runners,
> > and just about every mounting configuration you can think
> > of.  The majority
> > of the motors have been < $300, and I've always used the
> > Castle 85HV (which
> > I think has always been and still is the least expensive ESC
> > available for
> > the job).  My planes have weighed anywhere between 9 lbs 13
> > oz and 10 lbs 14
> > depending on the configuration.  If I had the time, $$$,
> > resources, etc, I'd
> > design and build my own stuff right up to the limit, whatever
> > that limit
> > might be.  As I do have limits (as most of us do), I'll get
> > as close to what
> > I think optimum performance is, and it may or may not be pushing
> > the limits
> > (for whatever reasons).
> >
> > In the past 3 years, I've spent a huge amount of time on email, phone,
> > forums, in my shop, in others shops, etc....working with people
> > on how to
> > assemble electric pattern stuff....and most are not using the
> > most expensive
> > airframes or equipment, and all are under 11 lbs.  Bottom
> > line is that you
> > can not take the largest, cheapest, and heaviest of each respective
> > component and have a sub 11 lb electric OR glow plane.  Nor
> > do you need to
> > have the most expensive and lightest example of each component
> > to be
> > competitive.  You do need to research, plan, and make
> > educated decisions.
> > No offense to anyone with an 10 lb 18 oz plane....they do
> > exist....and most
> > are being happily flown, and most can make weight for the NATs
> > if the time
> > is spent in advanced.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> > verne at twmi.rr.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:53 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >
> > Derek,
> > We've discussed raising the weight before and it's always been
> > voted down. I
> > believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart has steadfastly argued
> > that raising
> > the weight limit will inevitably increase the size of our
> > planes, obsoleting
> > anything that preceded it. I agree with him.
> >
> > What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for someone
> > wanting to try
> > electric to be able to do so without having to buy the most expensive
> > equipment available. For example, at a contest last weekend, a
> > friend and
> > fellow pattern pilot had a set of Zippy packs that weighed
> > roughly 5.5
> > ounces more than my FlightPower packs. Pretty much the same
> > difference when
> > compared to Andrew's TP packs. The Zippy's as we all know, were
> > less than
> > half the cost. I know for sure that my friend would have made
> > weight with my
> > FP's or Andrew's TP's, but he couldn't afford that after all the other
> > "electric" purchases.
> >
> > What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked out, is that
> > electricairplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be weighed
> > without their "fuel",
> > just like glow. The Rx battery will have to be in the plane,
> > just like glow.
> > Yes, I realize that there are UBEC's out there but I don't know
> > of anyone
> > who trusts them with the kind of current we're running. In any
> > event, my
> > preliminary research indicates that roughly 8.7 pounds should be
> > just about
> > right, but I want to make sure before I submit the proposal.
> >
> > Verne
> >
> >  
> > ---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Verne,
> > >
> > > When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the proposals
> > which was
> > > passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the weight
> > limit for
> > their
> > > helicopters effective 1/1/2010.  Here is the new wording:
> > >
> > > a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (*with *fuel *or
> > *batteries)> must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
> > >
> > > Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective 01/01/10.
> > >
> > > I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A sub-committee
> > members to see if
> > > there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to
> > 5.5kg.  What does
> > > everyone think about this?
> > >
> > > -Derek
> > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bill,
> > > > I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that
> > very issue.
> > > > Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board
> > anytimesoon. In
> > > > the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the
> > glow to
> > electric
> > > > comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much
> > internal
> > > > reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational
> > effects to
> > contend
> > > > with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter
> > airframes being
> > > > acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the
> > Rx and
> > servos.
> > > > An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same
> > flight in
> > glow is
> > > > typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots
> > will tell you
> > that
> > > > making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive
> > propositionwith a
> > > > limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually
> > vacuum-bagged
> > > > composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making
> > weight will
> > > > also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive
> > motors and
> > > > batteries. There are exceptio
> > > >  ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of
> > them, but I'll be
> > able
> > > > to point to just as many examples of guys that fly
> > overweight at local
> > > > contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing
> > they're
> > > > really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest
> > batteries
> > > > and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're
> > flying are the
> > same
> > > > as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm
> > working on is
> > not
> > > > self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting
> > there is both
> > too
> > > > expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't
> > be to allow
> > > > electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh
> > less, but
> > > > without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that
> > electricmotors
> > > > are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well
> > as the
> > reduced
> > > > structural requirements. It will limit the mah of
> > permissible packs to
> > > > control that end of the equation and there's already a
> > voltage limit on
> > the
> > > > books which is fine as it
> > > >  stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the
> > contests I go to to see
> > > > where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal
> > on this list
> > > > soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their
> > opinions to
> > their
> > > > respective Contest Board reps.
> > > >
> > > > Verne Koester
> > > > AMA District 7
> > > > Contest Board
> > > >  ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:
> > > > >  I am certain this has been beaten to death while I
> > was off doing
> > other
> > > > > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than
> > five (5)
> > > > > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for
> > takeoff.> > > Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces
> > of fuel??
> > Is
> > > > > a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
> > > > >
> > > > > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it
> > makes no
> > > > > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel
> > and can
> > weigh
> > > > > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10
> > to 12 ounces
> > of
> > > > > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight
> > > > > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
> > > > >
> > > > > Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh
> > compared to a
> > > > > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > > > > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > > > > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > > > >
> > > > > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > > > > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > > > >
> > > > > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > > > > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > > > >
> > > > >  So I can see an argument that the electrics have a
> > weight advantage
> > > > > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel"
> > electric is
> > at
> > > > > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > > > >
> > > > > So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20
> > plus ounces
> > > > > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it.
> > How does that
> > > > > make sense. I know I am missing something important here,
> > so educate
> > me.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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


From jpavlick at idseng.com  Thu Jun  4 12:56:28 2009
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:56:28 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
Message-ID: <988210.50431.qm@web80507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Chad,
Good point about the power requirements.?I was wondering when someone was going to bring that up. VBG We could argue that that's not fair to electrics since there is no power restriction on a glow / gas airplane.
?
I've seen that too - relying on published weights. Not a good idea especially if you're on the ragged edge. Good scales are not too expensive and they're readily available. The serious Pattern pilot should consider a scale a necessary piece of setup equipment. You'd be surprised how many people just?assemble the plane and hope for the best. Building light is one of the more enjoyable?challenges of Pattern flying - at least to me. :)
?
John Pavlick

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at shaw.ca> wrote:


From: Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 4:35 PM


Dave is spot on IMO.

Also I think one important fact may have not received enough attention.? That is that the current legal voltage limit on batteries in FAI is 42V.? Increasing the weight and therefore required power of an electric model requires that you play within that rule.? To generate the necessary static 300 W/lb that most current competitive F3A models demand today but at a new weight of say even 6 kg (13.2 lbs), using an optimistic value of 35V under load you are beyond 100A setups.? 

There would need to be a complete rethink of how we are flying electric since most setups sitting in airplanes would not tolerate that power level for long.? To allow electric to be competitive and work reasonably well at a higher weight will require an increase to the voltage.

No doubt additional weight would require glow motors to change as well, but they have the simple road of simply increasing displacement to deal with that.

Another point to the discussion is that I have personally only witnessed one person failing the weigh in with an electric model.? This tells me that many who have been serious about competing have made whatever effort is required to abide by the rules and that it is readily done.? If 80% were failing the test then it would beg the question that something is broken, but I think currently the rules work well enough to keep everyone competitive and not provide any large advantage or disadvantage based on power plant.? 

The person who failed the weight did not weigh his own model prior to the contest, and relied on published weight values and a calculator to determine that his model would be underweight.? The published weight of his batteries were horribly understated though.

Chad

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009 10:17 am
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:? Weight
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

> Honestly, I understand (and agree) with the intention to allow 
> the "cheap
> electric", but it is no different than trying to tweak the rules 
> for the
> "cheap gas engine" and won't (my opinion, with substantial 
> history to back
> it) work- 
> - why should the rules be tweaked to essentially allow someone 
> the latest
> greatest (electric) without paying for it (either with time, or 
> $$$, or
> experience)?? The latest greatest always cost more - that 
> is the nature of
> competition.
> - I truly believe the time spent researching, designing, crafting,
> submitting, and implementing such a proposal will largely be 
> wasted because
> the process is relatively slow and can not possibly keep up with 
> the rate of
> change in electrics as technology advances.
> - Anyone who wants to try electric - go right ahead - and fly a 
> current day
> design at a slight weight disadvantage at local comps (most guys 
> don't go to
> the NATs anyway) - no one is going to ask or care about a couple 
> ounces over
> 11 lbs.? And if they do decide to go to the NATs, they can 
> suck it up and
> buy 1 expensive pack for official flights and the scale.
> 
> With the understanding of the intent to allow cheap electrics, the
> unintended consequences of any rule change needs to be carefully 
> evaluatedprior to submitting a proposal.? In this case, the 
> unintended consequence
> will be the opportunity for the TOP LEVEL electric designs to grow
> substantially in size and weight, which will drive the cost up 
> for all
> competitors (glow and electric) to compete with the new performance
> standard.? The average plane is influenced by whatever the 
> TOP LEVEL stuff
> is - that is why both electric and glow TOP LEVEL stuff has 
> always been
> right on the limit of whatever the rules are at the time, and 
> that is the
> way it will always be - again, it is the nature of competition.
> 
> The top level electrics right now weigh well under 11 
> lbs......10 lbs is
> quite possible with electric monoplanes, which is why some are 
> able to sneak
> biplanes in under 11 lbs - of course this is by shaving every 
> ounce off the
> airframe (reducing it's lifespan and making it relatively 
> fragile) and
> pushing the lipos harder (also reducing it's lifespan).? So 
> when you look at
> 8.7 lbs considering the weight of the electrics that are marginally
> overweight (with the Zippy packs and AXI), the unintended 
> consequence is the
> guys that have 7.5 lb airframes now have 1.2 lbs of additional 
> weight to add
> to make the plane bigger - and you know it will be used, and 
> probably along
> the lines of - 
> - 6-8 oz for structure
> - 3-4 oz for more motor (more power)
> - 4-5 oz for more lipo (which would still be rated the same 5300 
> mah, but be
> heavier to allow more voltage under load, thus delivering more 
> watts through
> the course of the flight - and it will be called a "High Power 
> Prolite", or
> "High Power AEON", whatever.)
> - 1-2 oz more for bigger servos and more RX battery
> 
> And 2 years after the 8.7 lb rule is introduced, there will be a 
> cheap copy
> of the "High Power Prolite" will be available and it will weigh 
> 5 oz more,
> and the desire will be to raise the 8.7 lbs to 9.2 lbs.
> 
> Allow 5.5 kg (12 lb) or 6 kg (14.3 kg) airframes, and yes, you 
> will have
> DA50 powered stuff that is competitive with current day designs, 
> but it will
> not be competitive with the YS built for 6 kg airframes for the 
> same reason
> gas is not competitive with glow now.
> 
> Allow 5.5 kg weight limit, and you instantly solve the problem 
> of all the
> guys that are a couple oz over the current 5 kg weight 
> limit.? And the new
> designs will grow, and in 1-2 years, the new designs will be 
> showing up a
> couple oz over the 5.5 kg limit.
> 
> It may be true that for the TOP LEVELs of competition that any 
> airframe is
> obsolete in 3 years......BUT.......changing the rules to allow 
> 15 lbs
> airframes will obsolete (immediately) not only the airframes, 
> but the
> powerplants and servos.....and up the horsepower requirements 
> substantiallywhich will increase the noise (only measured at the 
> NATs) and require
> substantially more cost to reduce the noise (to achieve 94/96 db 
> at the
> NATs).
> 
> All of the above is escalation no different than what we've seen 
> in the past
> -
> - "we" started with .61 cubic inch (10 CC) limit and 5 
> kg......the only
> practical limit was the displacement.
> - "we" allowed 120 4C (big mistake, short sighted, or should 
> have been
> continually adjusted as competition 4Cs developed).? 
> Airframes grew and cost
> went up....some airplanes actually exceeded 2M (which was not 
> yet a limit).
> - "we" allowed unlimited engines to, in part, cover up the 
> mistake of the
> 120 4C, and, in part, to allow cheap gas engines (another big 
> mistake, again
> short sighted).? The 2M rule went into place because that 
> was essentially
> the "largest" plane in existence at the time.? The 
> airframes got bigger
> again (fuse volume), and cost went up again, and the practical 
> limit to
> airframe size became the 5 kg weight limit.
> 
> Of course we also have the noise limit - that is really a 
> separate issue -
> but - it is worth noting that larger airplanes require more 
> power, and more
> power is more noise (or more expense to keep the noise from 
> increasing).
> "Wouldn't it be nice if"........is a dangerous lead in to rule 
> changes with
> unintended consequences.? The gas engine, the heavier lipo, 
> the heavier
> motor, the heavier airframe, etc.....will all forever be less 
> competitivebecause the limits will always be pushed by the 
> airframe/powerplant that has
> the best power to weight ratio, and that will always cost more, 
> and always
> be more sensitive to weight conscious building techniques.? 
> No change in the
> rules will ever allow parity for equipment that does not have 
> the best power
> to weight ratio.
> 
> Someone else made the point that they perceived the less the 
> rules change,
> the more available airframes and equipment are (2nd hand) - I 
> couldn't agree
> more.? Stop changing the rules to allow (intended or not) 
> higher performance
> airframes, and the "old" ones won't be obsolete so quickly.
> 
> Personally, after a lot of research and planning, I switched to 
> electric in
> 2006....and the expense was big.....especially because I had 
> perfectly good
> glow stuff, and maintained glow and electric for about 1 
> year.? To date,
> I've built 3 electric airframes (1 Abbra, 2 Prestige), and 
> between them I
> have run 12 different motors of different brands, weights, 
> in/out runners,
> and just about every mounting configuration you can think 
> of.? The majority
> of the motors have been < $300, and I've always used the 
> Castle 85HV (which
> I think has always been and still is the least expensive ESC 
> available for
> the job).? My planes have weighed anywhere between 9 lbs 13 
> oz and 10 lbs 14
> depending on the configuration.? If I had the time, $$$, 
> resources, etc, I'd
> design and build my own stuff right up to the limit, whatever 
> that limit
> might be.? As I do have limits (as most of us do), I'll get 
> as close to what
> I think optimum performance is, and it may or may not be pushing 
> the limits
> (for whatever reasons). 
> 
> In the past 3 years, I've spent a huge amount of time on email, phone,
> forums, in my shop, in others shops, etc....working with people 
> on how to
> assemble electric pattern stuff....and most are not using the 
> most expensive
> airframes or equipment, and all are under 11 lbs.? Bottom 
> line is that you
> can not take the largest, cheapest, and heaviest of each respective
> component and have a sub 11 lb electric OR glow plane.? Nor 
> do you need to
> have the most expensive and lightest example of each component 
> to be
> competitive.? You do need to research, plan, and make 
> educated decisions.
> No offense to anyone with an 10 lb 18 oz plane....they do 
> exist....and most
> are being happily flown, and most can make weight for the NATs 
> if the time
> is spent in advanced.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> verne at twmi.rr.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:53 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> Derek,
> We've discussed raising the weight before and it's always been 
> voted down. I
> believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart has steadfastly argued 
> that raising
> the weight limit will inevitably increase the size of our 
> planes, obsoleting
> anything that preceded it. I agree with him. 
> 
> What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for someone 
> wanting to try
> electric to be able to do so without having to buy the most expensive
> equipment available. For example, at a contest last weekend, a 
> friend and
> fellow pattern pilot had a set of Zippy packs that weighed 
> roughly 5.5
> ounces more than my FlightPower packs. Pretty much the same 
> difference when
> compared to Andrew's TP packs. The Zippy's as we all know, were 
> less than
> half the cost. I know for sure that my friend would have made 
> weight with my
> FP's or Andrew's TP's, but he couldn't afford that after all the other
> "electric" purchases. 
> 
> What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked out, is that 
> electricairplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be weighed 
> without their "fuel",
> just like glow. The Rx battery will have to be in the plane, 
> just like glow.
> Yes, I realize that there are UBEC's out there but I don't know 
> of anyone
> who trusts them with the kind of current we're running. In any 
> event, my
> preliminary research indicates that roughly 8.7 pounds should be 
> just about
> right, but I want to make sure before I submit the proposal.
> 
> Verne
> 
> ? 
> ---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com> wrote: 
> > Verne,
> > 
> > When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the proposals 
> which was
> > passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the weight 
> limit for
> their
> > helicopters effective 1/1/2010.? Here is the new wording:
> > 
> > a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (*with *fuel *or 
> *batteries)> must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
> > 
> > Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective 01/01/10.
> > 
> > I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A sub-committee 
> members to see if
> > there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to 
> 5.5kg.? What does
> > everyone think about this?
> > 
> > -Derek
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Bill,
> > > I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that 
> very issue.
> > > Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board 
> anytimesoon. In
> > > the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the 
> glow to
> electric
> > > comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much
> internal
> > > reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational 
> effects to
> contend
> > > with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter 
> airframes being
> > > acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the 
> Rx and
> servos.
> > > An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same 
> flight in
> glow is
> > > typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots 
> will tell you
> that
> > > making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive 
> propositionwith a
> > > limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually
> vacuum-bagged
> > > composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making 
> weight will
> > > also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive 
> motors and
> > > batteries. There are exceptio
> > >? ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of 
> them, but I'll be
> able
> > > to point to just as many examples of guys that fly 
> overweight at local
> > > contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing
> they're
> > > really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest
> batteries
> > > and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're 
> flying are the
> same
> > > as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm 
> working on is
> not
> > > self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting 
> there is both
> too
> > > expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't 
> be to allow
> > > electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh 
> less, but
> > > without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that 
> electricmotors
> > > are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well 
> as the
> reduced
> > > structural requirements. It will limit the mah of 
> permissible packs to
> > > control that end of the equation and there's already a 
> voltage limit on
> the
> > > books which is fine as it
> > >? stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the 
> contests I go to to see
> > > where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal 
> on this list
> > > soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their 
> opinions to
> their
> > > respective Contest Board reps.
> > >
> > > Verne Koester
> > > AMA District 7
> > > Contest Board
> > >? ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:
> > > >? I am certain this has been beaten to death while I 
> was off doing
> other
> > > > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than 
> five (5)
> > > > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for 
> takeoff.> > > Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> > > >
> > > > Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces 
> of fuel??
> Is
> > > > a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
> > > >
> > > > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it 
> makes no
> > > > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel 
> and can
> weigh
> > > > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 
> to 12 ounces
> of
> > > > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight
> > > > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
> > > >
> > > > Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh 
> compared to a
> > > > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > > >
> > > > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > > > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > > > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > > >
> > > > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > > > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > > >
> > > > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > > > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > > >
> > > >? So I can see an argument that the electrics have a 
> weight advantage
> > > > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel" 
> electric is
> at
> > > > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > > >
> > > > So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 
> plus ounces
> > > > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. 
> How does that
> > > > make sense. I know I am missing something important here, 
> so educate
> me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/a1de1d6c/attachment.html>

From jpavlick at idseng.com  Thu Jun  4 12:59:57 2009
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:59:57 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
Message-ID: <321544.37320.qm@web80504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Bad idea Jeff. That makes WAY too much sense! LOL
?
John Pavlick

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Jeff Hatton <jeff at priusonline.com> wrote:


From: Jeff Hatton <jeff at priusonline.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 4:54 PM


what about a graduated weight system based on class?? at most contests this already exists in that any AMA legal plane can fly in sportsman, why not start enforcing the size restriction in intermediate without worrying if the plane can make weight (thus potentially saving money on a first 2 meter plane as you can don't have to buy all the specialized carbon everything to make weight) then introduce a weight limit slightly above 11 pounds in advanced can that can be easily met without to many expensive lightweight parts, then if you are serious enough to go to masters enforce the 11 pound weight limit... this will allow entry level competitors to use lower cost equipment and as they move up the normal thing is to upgrade equipment anyways...

Chad Northeast wrote:
> Dave is spot on IMO.
> 
> Also I think one important fact may have not received enough attention.? That is that the current legal voltage limit on batteries in FAI is 42V.? Increasing the weight and therefore required power of an electric model requires that you play within that rule.? To generate the necessary static 300 W/lb that most current competitive F3A models demand today but at a new weight of say even 6 kg (13.2 lbs), using an optimistic value of 35V under load you are beyond 100A setups. 
> There would need to be a complete rethink of how we are flying electric since most setups sitting in airplanes would not tolerate that power level for long.? To allow electric to be competitive and work reasonably well at a higher weight will require an increase to the voltage.
> 
> No doubt additional weight would require glow motors to change as well, but they have the simple road of simply increasing displacement to deal with that.
> 
> Another point to the discussion is that I have personally only witnessed one person failing the weigh in with an electric model.? This tells me that many who have been serious about competing have made whatever effort is required to abide by the rules and that it is readily done.? If 80% were failing the test then it would beg the question that something is broken, but I think currently the rules work well enough to keep everyone competitive and not provide any large advantage or disadvantage based on power plant. 
> The person who failed the weight did not weigh his own model prior to the contest, and relied on published weight values and a calculator to determine that his model would be underweight.? The published weight of his batteries were horribly understated though.
> 
> Chad
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009 10:17 am
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:? Weight
> To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> > Honestly, I understand (and agree) with the intention to allow
> > the "cheap
> > electric", but it is no different than trying to tweak the rules
> > for the
> > "cheap gas engine" and won't (my opinion, with substantial
> > history to back
> > it) work-
> > - why should the rules be tweaked to essentially allow someone
> > the latest
> > greatest (electric) without paying for it (either with time, or
> > $$$, or
> > experience)?? The latest greatest always cost more - that
> > is the nature of
> > competition.
> > - I truly believe the time spent researching, designing, crafting,
> > submitting, and implementing such a proposal will largely be
> > wasted because
> > the process is relatively slow and can not possibly keep up with
> > the rate of
> > change in electrics as technology advances.
> > - Anyone who wants to try electric - go right ahead - and fly a
> > current day
> > design at a slight weight disadvantage at local comps (most guys
> > don't go to
> > the NATs anyway) - no one is going to ask or care about a couple
> > ounces over
> > 11 lbs.? And if they do decide to go to the NATs, they can
> > suck it up and
> > buy 1 expensive pack for official flights and the scale.
> >
> > With the understanding of the intent to allow cheap electrics, the
> > unintended consequences of any rule change needs to be carefully
> > evaluatedprior to submitting a proposal.? In this case, the
> > unintended consequence
> > will be the opportunity for the TOP LEVEL electric designs to grow
> > substantially in size and weight, which will drive the cost up
> > for all
> > competitors (glow and electric) to compete with the new performance
> > standard.? The average plane is influenced by whatever the
> > TOP LEVEL stuff
> > is - that is why both electric and glow TOP LEVEL stuff has
> > always been
> > right on the limit of whatever the rules are at the time, and
> > that is the
> > way it will always be - again, it is the nature of competition.
> >
> > The top level electrics right now weigh well under 11
> > lbs......10 lbs is
> > quite possible with electric monoplanes, which is why some are
> > able to sneak
> > biplanes in under 11 lbs - of course this is by shaving every
> > ounce off the
> > airframe (reducing it's lifespan and making it relatively
> > fragile) and
> > pushing the lipos harder (also reducing it's lifespan).? So
> > when you look at
> > 8.7 lbs considering the weight of the electrics that are marginally
> > overweight (with the Zippy packs and AXI), the unintended
> > consequence is the
> > guys that have 7.5 lb airframes now have 1.2 lbs of additional
> > weight to add
> > to make the plane bigger - and you know it will be used, and
> > probably along
> > the lines of -
> > - 6-8 oz for structure
> > - 3-4 oz for more motor (more power)
> > - 4-5 oz for more lipo (which would still be rated the same 5300
> > mah, but be
> > heavier to allow more voltage under load, thus delivering more
> > watts through
> > the course of the flight - and it will be called a "High Power
> > Prolite", or
> > "High Power AEON", whatever.)
> > - 1-2 oz more for bigger servos and more RX battery
> >
> > And 2 years after the 8.7 lb rule is introduced, there will be a
> > cheap copy
> > of the "High Power Prolite" will be available and it will weigh
> > 5 oz more,
> > and the desire will be to raise the 8.7 lbs to 9.2 lbs.
> >
> > Allow 5.5 kg (12 lb) or 6 kg (14.3 kg) airframes, and yes, you
> > will have
> > DA50 powered stuff that is competitive with current day designs,
> > but it will
> > not be competitive with the YS built for 6 kg airframes for the
> > same reason
> > gas is not competitive with glow now.
> >
> > Allow 5.5 kg weight limit, and you instantly solve the problem
> > of all the
> > guys that are a couple oz over the current 5 kg weight
> > limit.? And the new
> > designs will grow, and in 1-2 years, the new designs will be
> > showing up a
> > couple oz over the 5.5 kg limit.
> >
> > It may be true that for the TOP LEVELs of competition that any
> > airframe is
> > obsolete in 3 years......BUT.......changing the rules to allow
> > 15 lbs
> > airframes will obsolete (immediately) not only the airframes,
> > but the
> > powerplants and servos.....and up the horsepower requirements
> > substantiallywhich will increase the noise (only measured at the
> > NATs) and require
> > substantially more cost to reduce the noise (to achieve 94/96 db
> > at the
> > NATs).
> >
> > All of the above is escalation no different than what we've seen
> > in the past
> > -
> > - "we" started with .61 cubic inch (10 CC) limit and 5
> > kg......the only
> > practical limit was the displacement.
> > - "we" allowed 120 4C (big mistake, short sighted, or should
> > have been
> > continually adjusted as competition 4Cs developed). > Airframes grew and cost
> > went up....some airplanes actually exceeded 2M (which was not
> > yet a limit).
> > - "we" allowed unlimited engines to, in part, cover up the
> > mistake of the
> > 120 4C, and, in part, to allow cheap gas engines (another big
> > mistake, again
> > short sighted).? The 2M rule went into place because that
> > was essentially
> > the "largest" plane in existence at the time.? The
> > airframes got bigger
> > again (fuse volume), and cost went up again, and the practical
> > limit to
> > airframe size became the 5 kg weight limit.
> >
> > Of course we also have the noise limit - that is really a
> > separate issue -
> > but - it is worth noting that larger airplanes require more
> > power, and more
> > power is more noise (or more expense to keep the noise from
> > increasing).
> > "Wouldn't it be nice if"........is a dangerous lead in to rule
> > changes with
> > unintended consequences.? The gas engine, the heavier lipo,
> > the heavier
> > motor, the heavier airframe, etc.....will all forever be less
> > competitivebecause the limits will always be pushed by the
> > airframe/powerplant that has
> > the best power to weight ratio, and that will always cost more,
> > and always
> > be more sensitive to weight conscious building techniques. > No change in the
> > rules will ever allow parity for equipment that does not have
> > the best power
> > to weight ratio.
> >
> > Someone else made the point that they perceived the less the
> > rules change,
> > the more available airframes and equipment are (2nd hand) - I
> > couldn't agree
> > more.? Stop changing the rules to allow (intended or not)
> > higher performance
> > airframes, and the "old" ones won't be obsolete so quickly.
> >
> > Personally, after a lot of research and planning, I switched to
> > electric in
> > 2006....and the expense was big.....especially because I had
> > perfectly good
> > glow stuff, and maintained glow and electric for about 1
> > year.? To date,
> > I've built 3 electric airframes (1 Abbra, 2 Prestige), and
> > between them I
> > have run 12 different motors of different brands, weights,
> > in/out runners,
> > and just about every mounting configuration you can think
> > of.? The majority
> > of the motors have been < $300, and I've always used the
> > Castle 85HV (which
> > I think has always been and still is the least expensive ESC
> > available for
> > the job).? My planes have weighed anywhere between 9 lbs 13
> > oz and 10 lbs 14
> > depending on the configuration.? If I had the time, $$$,
> > resources, etc, I'd
> > design and build my own stuff right up to the limit, whatever
> > that limit
> > might be.? As I do have limits (as most of us do), I'll get
> > as close to what
> > I think optimum performance is, and it may or may not be pushing
> > the limits
> > (for whatever reasons).
> >
> > In the past 3 years, I've spent a huge amount of time on email, phone,
> > forums, in my shop, in others shops, etc....working with people
> > on how to
> > assemble electric pattern stuff....and most are not using the
> > most expensive
> > airframes or equipment, and all are under 11 lbs.? Bottom
> > line is that you
> > can not take the largest, cheapest, and heaviest of each respective
> > component and have a sub 11 lb electric OR glow plane.? Nor
> > do you need to
> > have the most expensive and lightest example of each component
> > to be
> > competitive.? You do need to research, plan, and make
> > educated decisions.
> > No offense to anyone with an 10 lb 18 oz plane....they do
> > exist....and most
> > are being happily flown, and most can make weight for the NATs
> > if the time
> > is spent in advanced.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> > verne at twmi.rr.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:53 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >
> > Derek,
> > We've discussed raising the weight before and it's always been
> > voted down. I
> > believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart has steadfastly argued
> > that raising
> > the weight limit will inevitably increase the size of our
> > planes, obsoleting
> > anything that preceded it. I agree with him.
> >
> > What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for someone
> > wanting to try
> > electric to be able to do so without having to buy the most expensive
> > equipment available. For example, at a contest last weekend, a
> > friend and
> > fellow pattern pilot had a set of Zippy packs that weighed
> > roughly 5.5
> > ounces more than my FlightPower packs. Pretty much the same
> > difference when
> > compared to Andrew's TP packs. The Zippy's as we all know, were
> > less than
> > half the cost. I know for sure that my friend would have made
> > weight with my
> > FP's or Andrew's TP's, but he couldn't afford that after all the other
> > "electric" purchases.
> >
> > What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked out, is that
> > electricairplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be weighed
> > without their "fuel",
> > just like glow. The Rx battery will have to be in the plane,
> > just like glow.
> > Yes, I realize that there are UBEC's out there but I don't know
> > of anyone
> > who trusts them with the kind of current we're running. In any
> > event, my
> > preliminary research indicates that roughly 8.7 pounds should be
> > just about
> > right, but I want to make sure before I submit the proposal.
> >
> > Verne
> >
> >? > ---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Verne,
> > >
> > > When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the proposals
> > which was
> > > passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the weight
> > limit for
> > their
> > > helicopters effective 1/1/2010.? Here is the new wording:
> > >
> > > a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (*with *fuel *or
> > *batteries)> must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
> > >
> > > Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective 01/01/10.
> > >
> > > I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A sub-committee
> > members to see if
> > > there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to
> > 5.5kg.? What does
> > > everyone think about this?
> > >
> > > -Derek
> > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bill,
> > > > I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that
> > very issue.
> > > > Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board
> > anytimesoon. In
> > > > the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the
> > glow to
> > electric
> > > > comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much
> > internal
> > > > reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational
> > effects to
> > contend
> > > > with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter
> > airframes being
> > > > acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the
> > Rx and
> > servos.
> > > > An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same
> > flight in
> > glow is
> > > > typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots
> > will tell you
> > that
> > > > making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive
> > propositionwith a
> > > > limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually
> > vacuum-bagged
> > > > composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making
> > weight will
> > > > also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive
> > motors and
> > > > batteries. There are exceptio
> > > >? ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of
> > them, but I'll be
> > able
> > > > to point to just as many examples of guys that fly
> > overweight at local
> > > > contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing
> > they're
> > > > really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest
> > batteries
> > > > and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're
> > flying are the
> > same
> > > > as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm
> > working on is
> > not
> > > > self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting
> > there is both
> > too
> > > > expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't
> > be to allow
> > > > electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh
> > less, but
> > > > without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that
> > electricmotors
> > > > are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well
> > as the
> > reduced
> > > > structural requirements. It will limit the mah of
> > permissible packs to
> > > > control that end of the equation and there's already a
> > voltage limit on
> > the
> > > > books which is fine as it
> > > >? stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the
> > contests I go to to see
> > > > where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal
> > on this list
> > > > soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their
> > opinions to
> > their
> > > > respective Contest Board reps.
> > > >
> > > > Verne Koester
> > > > AMA District 7
> > > > Contest Board
> > > >? ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:
> > > > >? I am certain this has been beaten to death while I
> > was off doing
> > other
> > > > > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than
> > five (5)
> > > > > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for
> > takeoff.> > > Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces
> > of fuel??
> > Is
> > > > > a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
> > > > >
> > > > > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it
> > makes no
> > > > > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel
> > and can
> > weigh
> > > > > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10
> > to 12 ounces
> > of
> > > > > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight
> > > > > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
> > > > >
> > > > > Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh
> > compared to a
> > > > > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > > > > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > > > > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > > > >
> > > > > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > > > > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > > > >
> > > > > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > > > > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > > > >
> > > > >? So I can see an argument that the electrics have a
> > weight advantage
> > > > > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel"
> > electric is
> > at
> > > > > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > > > >
> > > > > So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20
> > plus ounces
> > > > > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it.
> > How does that
> > > > > make sense. I know I am missing something important here,
> > so educate
> > me.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/b15cee4f/attachment.html>

From humptybump at sbcglobal.net  Thu Jun  4 13:08:51 2009
From: humptybump at sbcglobal.net (Richard Lewis)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:08:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
In-Reply-To: <4A28348F.9070603@priusonline.com>
References: <3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090603175326.8D8S1.33727.root@hrndva-web26-z02>
	<AA26DE2C483F45E1A2BC9E5FA867DBC0@davedesktop>
	<cfc48f71f00a.4a27dbcc@shaw.ca> <4A28348F.9070603@priusonline.com>
Message-ID: <840508.22601.qm@web80506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hmmm....I would think just the opposite......but then I am left handed......If the stated goal is to make pattern cheaper and therefore more accessible to the masses, then an increase in anything (size, weight, voltage, etc.....) is not the answer....the answer is to decrease something instead.

Fly anything in Sportman, just to set the hook......6 lb weight limit in Intermediate.....9 lb weight limit in Advanced....11lb weight limit?in Masters.

The intermediate guy can fly a much cheaper setup and not have to be concerned showing up at a contest and competing with Mr. Moneybags and his fleet of Oxai and his gold plated power systems.? When he moves to advanced, he can still fly his intermediate rig, or move up to a larger, more powerful, more expensive setup, but still not have to compete with the top class airframe and power systems.? When he?jumps to masters, the he?can spend big bucks to play with the big boys......or, if he's a good pilot and there was no judging bias toward the "bigger flies better" mentality, he could fly his 6 lb airplane and whoop the snot out of Mr. Moneybags in any class.

Richard




________________________________
From: Jeff Hatton <jeff at priusonline.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2009 3:54:39 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight

what about a graduated weight system based on class?? at most contests this already exists in that any AMA legal plane can fly in sportsman, why not start enforcing the size restriction in intermediate without worrying if the plane can make weight (thus potentially saving money on a first 2 meter plane as you can don't have to buy all the specialized carbon everything to make weight) then introduce a weight limit slightly above 11 pounds in advanced can that can be easily met without to many expensive lightweight parts, then if you are serious enough to go to masters enforce the 11 pound weight limit... this will allow entry level competitors to use lower cost equipment and as they move up the normal thing is to upgrade equipment anyways...

Chad Northeast wrote:
> Dave is spot on IMO.
> 
> Also I think one important fact may have not received enough attention.? That is that the current legal voltage limit on batteries in FAI is 42V.? Increasing the weight and therefore required power of an electric model requires that you play within that rule.? To generate the necessary static 300 W/lb that most current competitive F3A models demand today but at a new weight of say even 6 kg (13.2 lbs), using an optimistic value of 35V under load you are beyond 100A setups. 
> There would need to be a complete rethink of how we are flying electric since most setups sitting in airplanes would not tolerate that power level for long.? To allow electric to be competitive and work reasonably well at a higher weight will require an increase to the voltage.
> 
> No doubt additional weight would require glow motors to change as well, but they have the simple road of simply increasing displacement to deal with that.
> 
> Another point to the discussion is that I have personally only witnessed one person failing the weigh in with an electric model.? This tells me that many who have been serious about competing have made whatever effort is required to abide by the rules and that it is readily done.? If 80% were failing the test then it would beg the question that something is broken, but I think currently the rules work well enough to keep everyone competitive and not provide any large advantage or disadvantage based on power plant. 
> The person who failed the weight did not weigh his own model prior to the contest, and relied on published weight values and a calculator to determine that his model would be underweight.? The published weight of his batteries were horribly understated though.
> 
> Chad
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009 10:17 am
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:? Weight
> To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> > Honestly, I understand (and agree) with the intention to allow
> > the "cheap
> > electric", but it is no different than trying to tweak the rules
> > for the
> > "cheap gas engine" and won't (my opinion, with substantial
> > history to back
> > it) work-
> > - why should the rules be tweaked to essentially allow someone
> > the latest
> > greatest (electric) without paying for it (either with time, or
> > $$$, or
> > experience)?? The latest greatest always cost more - that
> > is the nature of
> > competition.
> > - I truly believe the time spent researching, designing, crafting,
> > submitting, and implementing such a proposal will largely be
> > wasted because
> > the process is relatively slow and can not possibly keep up with
> > the rate of
> > change in electrics as technology advances.
> > - Anyone who wants to try electric - go right ahead - and fly a
> > current day
> > design at a slight weight disadvantage at local comps (most guys
> > don't go to
> > the NATs anyway) - no one is going to ask or care about a couple
> > ounces over
> > 11 lbs.? And if they do decide to go to the NATs, they can
> > suck it up and
> > buy 1 expensive pack for official flights and the scale.
> >
> > With the understanding of the intent to allow cheap electrics, the
> > unintended consequences of any rule change needs to be carefully
> > evaluatedprior to submitting a proposal.? In this case, the
> > unintended consequence
> > will be the opportunity for the TOP LEVEL electric designs to grow
> > substantially in size and weight, which will drive the cost up
> > for all
> > competitors (glow and electric) to compete with the new performance
> > standard.? The average plane is influenced by whatever the
> > TOP LEVEL stuff
> > is - that is why both electric and glow TOP LEVEL stuff has
> > always been
> > right on the limit of whatever the rules are at the time, and
> > that is the
> > way it will always be - again, it is the nature of competition.
> >
> > The top level electrics right now weigh well under 11
> > lbs......10 lbs is
> > quite possible with electric monoplanes, which is why some are
> > able to sneak
> > biplanes in under 11 lbs - of course this is by shaving every
> > ounce off the
> > airframe (reducing it's lifespan and making it relatively
> > fragile) and
> > pushing the lipos harder (also reducing it's lifespan).? So
> > when you look at
> > 8.7 lbs considering the weight of the electrics that are marginally
> > overweight (with the Zippy packs and AXI), the unintended
> > consequence is the
> > guys that have 7.5 lb airframes now have 1.2 lbs of additional
> > weight to add
> > to make the plane bigger - and you know it will be used, and
> > probably along
> > the lines of -
> > - 6-8 oz for structure
> > - 3-4 oz for more motor (more power)
> > - 4-5 oz for more lipo (which would still be rated the same 5300
> > mah, but be
> > heavier to allow more voltage under load, thus delivering more
> > watts through
> > the course of the flight - and it will be called a "High Power
> > Prolite", or
> > "High Power AEON", whatever.)
> > - 1-2 oz more for bigger servos and more RX battery
> >
> > And 2 years after the 8.7 lb rule is introduced, there will be a
> > cheap copy
> > of the "High Power Prolite" will be available and it will weigh
> > 5 oz more,
> > and the desire will be to raise the 8.7 lbs to 9.2 lbs.
> >
> > Allow 5.5 kg (12 lb) or 6 kg (14.3 kg) airframes, and yes, you
> > will have
> > DA50 powered stuff that is competitive with current day designs,
> > but it will
> > not be competitive with the YS built for 6 kg airframes for the
> > same reason
> > gas is not competitive with glow now.
> >
> > Allow 5.5 kg weight limit, and you instantly solve the problem
> > of all the
> > guys that are a couple oz over the current 5 kg weight
> > limit.? And the new
> > designs will grow, and in 1-2 years, the new designs will be
> > showing up a
> > couple oz over the 5.5 kg limit.
> >
> > It may be true that for the TOP LEVELs of competition that any
> > airframe is
> > obsolete in 3 years......BUT.......changing the rules to allow
> > 15 lbs
> > airframes will obsolete (immediately) not only the airframes,
> > but the
> > powerplants and servos.....and up the horsepower requirements
> > substantiallywhich will increase the noise (only measured at the
> > NATs) and require
> > substantially more cost to reduce the noise (to achieve 94/96 db
> > at the
> > NATs).
> >
> > All of the above is escalation no different than what we've seen
> > in the past
> > -
> > - "we" started with .61 cubic inch (10 CC) limit and 5
> > kg......the only
> > practical limit was the displacement.
> > - "we" allowed 120 4C (big mistake, short sighted, or should
> > have been
> > continually adjusted as competition 4Cs developed). > Airframes grew and cost
> > went up....some airplanes actually exceeded 2M (which was not
> > yet a limit).
> > - "we" allowed unlimited engines to, in part, cover up the
> > mistake of the
> > 120 4C, and, in part, to allow cheap gas engines (another big
> > mistake, again
> > short sighted).? The 2M rule went into place because that
> > was essentially
> > the "largest" plane in existence at the time.? The
> > airframes got bigger
> > again (fuse volume), and cost went up again, and the practical
> > limit to
> > airframe size became the 5 kg weight limit.
> >
> > Of course we also have the noise limit - that is really a
> > separate issue -
> > but - it is worth noting that larger airplanes require more
> > power, and more
> > power is more noise (or more expense to keep the noise from
> > increasing).
> > "Wouldn't it be nice if"........is a dangerous lead in to rule
> > changes with
> > unintended consequences.? The gas engine, the heavier lipo,
> > the heavier
> > motor, the heavier airframe, etc.....will all forever be less
> > competitivebecause the limits will always be pushed by the
> > airframe/powerplant that has
> > the best power to weight ratio, and that will always cost more,
> > and always
> > be more sensitive to weight conscious building techniques. > No change in the
> > rules will ever allow parity for equipment that does not have
> > the best power
> > to weight ratio.
> >
> > Someone else made the point that they perceived the less the
> > rules change,
> > the more available airframes and equipment are (2nd hand) - I
> > couldn't agree
> > more.? Stop changing the rules to allow (intended or not)
> > higher performance
> > airframes, and the "old" ones won't be obsolete so quickly.
> >
> > Personally, after a lot of research and planning, I switched to
> > electric in
> > 2006....and the expense was big.....especially because I had
> > perfectly good
> > glow stuff, and maintained glow and electric for about 1
> > year.? To date,
> > I've built 3 electric airframes (1 Abbra, 2 Prestige), and
> > between them I
> > have run 12 different motors of different brands, weights,
> > in/out runners,
> > and just about every mounting configuration you can think
> > of.? The majority
> > of the motors have been < $300, and I've always used the
> > Castle 85HV (which
> > I think has always been and still is the least expensive ESC
> > available for
> > the job).? My planes have weighed anywhere between 9 lbs 13
> > oz and 10 lbs 14
> > depending on the configuration.? If I had the time, $$$,
> > resources, etc, I'd
> > design and build my own stuff right up to the limit, whatever
> > that limit
> > might be.? As I do have limits (as most of us do), I'll get
> > as close to what
> > I think optimum performance is, and it may or may not be pushing
> > the limits
> > (for whatever reasons).
> >
> > In the past 3 years, I've spent a huge amount of time on email, phone,
> > forums, in my shop, in others shops, etc....working with people
> > on how to
> > assemble electric pattern stuff....and most are not using the
> > most expensive
> > airframes or equipment, and all are under 11 lbs.? Bottom
> > line is that you
> > can not take the largest, cheapest, and heaviest of each respective
> > component and have a sub 11 lb electric OR glow plane.? Nor
> > do you need to
> > have the most expensive and lightest example of each component
> > to be
> > competitive.? You do need to research, plan, and make
> > educated decisions.
> > No offense to anyone with an 10 lb 18 oz plane....they do
> > exist....and most
> > are being happily flown, and most can make weight for the NATs
> > if the time
> > is spent in advanced.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> > verne at twmi.rr.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:53 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >
> > Derek,
> > We've discussed raising the weight before and it's always been
> > voted down. I
> > believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart has steadfastly argued
> > that raising
> > the weight limit will inevitably increase the size of our
> > planes, obsoleting
> > anything that preceded it. I agree with him.
> >
> > What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for someone
> > wanting to try
> > electric to be able to do so without having to buy the most expensive
> > equipment available. For example, at a contest last weekend, a
> > friend and
> > fellow pattern pilot had a set of Zippy packs that weighed
> > roughly 5.5
> > ounces more than my FlightPower packs. Pretty much the same
> > difference when
> > compared to Andrew's TP packs. The Zippy's as we all know, were
> > less than
> > half the cost. I know for sure that my friend would have made
> > weight with my
> > FP's or Andrew's TP's, but he couldn't afford that after all the other
> > "electric" purchases.
> >
> > What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked out, is that
> > electricairplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be weighed
> > without their "fuel",
> > just like glow. The Rx battery will have to be in the plane,
> > just like glow.
> > Yes, I realize that there are UBEC's out there but I don't know
> > of anyone
> > who trusts them with the kind of current we're running. In any
> > event, my
> > preliminary research indicates that roughly 8.7 pounds should be
> > just about
> > right, but I want to make sure before I submit the proposal.
> >
> > Verne
> >
> >? > ---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Verne,
> > >
> > > When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the proposals
> > which was
> > > passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the weight
> > limit for
> > their
> > > helicopters effective 1/1/2010.? Here is the new wording:
> > >
> > > a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (*with *fuel *or
> > *batteries)> must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
> > >
> > > Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective 01/01/10.
> > >
> > > I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A sub-committee
> > members to see if
> > > there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to
> > 5.5kg.? What does
> > > everyone think about this?
> > >
> > > -Derek
> > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bill,
> > > > I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that
> > very issue.
> > > > Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board
> > anytimesoon. In
> > > > the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the
> > glow to
> > electric
> > > > comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much
> > internal
> > > > reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational
> > effects to
> > contend
> > > > with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter
> > airframes being
> > > > acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the
> > Rx and
> > servos.
> > > > An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same
> > flight in
> > glow is
> > > > typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots
> > will tell you
> > that
> > > > making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive
> > propositionwith a
> > > > limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually
> > vacuum-bagged
> > > > composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making
> > weight will
> > > > also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive
> > motors and
> > > > batteries. There are exceptio
> > > >? ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of
> > them, but I'll be
> > able
> > > > to point to just as many examples of guys that fly
> > overweight at local
> > > > contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing
> > they're
> > > > really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest
> > batteries
> > > > and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're
> > flying are the
> > same
> > > > as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm
> > working on is
> > not
> > > > self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting
> > there is both
> > too
> > > > expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't
> > be to allow
> > > > electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh
> > less, but
> > > > without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that
> > electricmotors
> > > > are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well
> > as the
> > reduced
> > > > structural requirements. It will limit the mah of
> > permissible packs to
> > > > control that end of the equation and there's already a
> > voltage limit on
> > the
> > > > books which is fine as it
> > > >? stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the
> > contests I go to to see
> > > > where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal
> > on this list
> > > > soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their
> > opinions to
> > their
> > > > respective Contest Board reps.
> > > >
> > > > Verne Koester
> > > > AMA District 7
> > > > Contest Board
> > > >? ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:
> > > > >? I am certain this has been beaten to death while I
> > was off doing
> > other
> > > > > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than
> > five (5)
> > > > > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for
> > takeoff.> > > Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces
> > of fuel??
> > Is
> > > > > a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
> > > > >
> > > > > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it
> > makes no
> > > > > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel
> > and can
> > weigh
> > > > > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10
> > to 12 ounces
> > of
> > > > > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight
> > > > > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
> > > > >
> > > > > Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh
> > compared to a
> > > > > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > > > > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > > > > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > > > >
> > > > > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > > > > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > > > >
> > > > > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > > > > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > > > >
> > > > >? So I can see an argument that the electrics have a
> > weight advantage
> > > > > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel"
> > electric is
> > at
> > > > > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > > > >
> > > > > So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20
> > plus ounces
> > > > > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it.
> > How does that
> > > > > make sense. I know I am missing something important here,
> > so educate
> > me.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/6e64595b/attachment.html>

From vanputte at cox.net  Thu Jun  4 13:09:11 2009
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:09:11 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
In-Reply-To: <cfc48f71f00a.4a27dbcc@shaw.ca>
References: <3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090603175326.8D8S1.33727.root@hrndva-web26-z02>
	<AA26DE2C483F45E1A2BC9E5FA867DBC0@davedesktop>
	<cfc48f71f00a.4a27dbcc@shaw.ca>
Message-ID: <8326F585-22B6-4817-954F-23C428E786CF@cox.net>

Whoa!  300 watts per pound?  I am currently flying a 10 lb  19.8 oz  
(yeah!) E-Genesis with a Dualsky 6360-12T motor, which puts out 2450  
watts.  The power/weight ratio is 218 watts per pound and, even  
though it doesn't seem lacking in power, it is on a weight reduction  
program.

Ron

On Jun 4, 2009, at 3:35 PM, Chad Northeast wrote:

> Dave is spot on IMO.
>
> Also I think one important fact may have not received enough  
> attention.  That is that the current legal voltage limit on  
> batteries in FAI is 42V.  Increasing the weight and therefore  
> required power of an electric model requires that you play within  
> that rule.  To generate the necessary static 300 W/lb that most  
> current competitive F3A models demand today but at a new weight of  
> say even 6 kg (13.2 lbs), using an optimistic value of 35V under  
> load you are beyond 100A setups.


From timsautopro at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 13:21:08 2009
From: timsautopro at yahoo.com (Tim Taylor)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:21:08 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
Message-ID: <476702.69671.qm@web62307.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Electric's in FAI only !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
?
TIC? :)

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com> wrote:


From: John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 4:59 PM







Bad idea Jeff. That makes WAY too much sense! LOL
?
John Pavlick

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Jeff Hatton <jeff at priusonline.com> wrote:


From: Jeff Hatton <jeff at priusonline.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 4:54 PM


what about a graduated weight system based on class?? at most contests this already exists in that any AMA legal plane can fly in sportsman, why not start enforcing the size restriction in intermediate without worrying if the plane can make weight (thus potentially saving money on a first 2 meter plane as you can don't have to buy all the specialized carbon everything to make weight) then introduce a weight limit slightly above 11 pounds in advanced can that can be easily met without to many expensive lightweight parts, then if you are serious enough to go to masters enforce the 11 pound weight limit... this will allow entry level competitors to use lower cost equipment and as they move up the normal thing is to upgrade equipment anyways...

Chad Northeast wrote:
> Dave is spot on IMO.
> 
> Also I think one important fact may have not received enough attention.? That is that the current legal voltage limit on batteries in FAI is 42V.? Increasing the weight and therefore required power of an electric model requires that you play within that rule.? To generate the necessary static 300 W/lb that most current competitive F3A models demand today but at a new weight of say even 6 kg (13.2 lbs), using an optimistic value of 35V under load you are beyond 100A setups. 
> There would need to be a complete rethink of how we are flying electric since most setups sitting in airplanes would not tolerate that power level for long.? To allow electric to be competitive and work reasonably well at a higher weight will require an increase to the voltage.
> 
> No doubt additional weight would require glow motors to change as well, but they have the simple road of simply increasing displacement to deal with that.
> 
> Another point to the discussion is that I have personally only witnessed one person failing the weigh in with an electric model.? This tells me that many who have been serious about competing have made whatever effort is required to abide by the rules and that it is readily done.? If 80% were failing the test then it would beg the question that something is broken, but I think currently the rules work well enough to keep everyone competitive and not provide any large advantage or disadvantage based on power plant. 
> The person who failed the weight did not weigh his own model prior to the contest, and relied on published weight values and a calculator to determine that his model would be underweight.? The published weight of his batteries were horribly understated though.
> 
> Chad
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009 10:17 am
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:? Weight
> To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> > Honestly, I understand (and agree) with the intention to allow
> > the "cheap
> > electric", but it is no different than trying to tweak the rules
> > for the
> > "cheap gas engine" and won't (my opinion, with substantial
> > history to back
> > it) work-
> > - why should the rules be tweaked to essentially allow someone
> > the latest
> > greatest (electric) without paying for it (either with time, or
> > $$$, or
> > experience)?? The latest greatest always cost more - that
> > is the nature of
> > competition.
> > - I truly believe the time spent researching, designing, crafting,
> > submitting, and implementing such a proposal will largely be
> > wasted because
> > the process is relatively slow and can not possibly keep up with
> > the rate of
> > change in electrics as technology advances.
> > - Anyone who wants to try electric - go right ahead - and fly a
> > current day
> > design at a slight weight disadvantage at local comps (most guys
> > don't go to
> > the NATs anyway) - no one is going to ask or care about a couple
> > ounces over
> > 11 lbs.? And if they do decide to go to the NATs, they can
> > suck it up and
> > buy 1 expensive pack for official flights and the scale.
> >
> > With the understanding of the intent to allow cheap electrics, the
> > unintended consequences of any rule change needs to be carefully
> > evaluatedprior to submitting a proposal.? In this case, the
> > unintended consequence
> > will be the opportunity for the TOP LEVEL electric designs to grow
> > substantially in size and weight, which will drive the cost up
> > for all
> > competitors (glow and electric) to compete with the new performance
> > standard.? The average plane is influenced by whatever the
> > TOP LEVEL stuff
> > is - that is why both electric and glow TOP LEVEL stuff has
> > always been
> > right on the limit of whatever the rules are at the time, and
> > that is the
> > way it will always be - again, it is the nature of competition.
> >
> > The top level electrics right now weigh well under 11
> > lbs......10 lbs is
> > quite possible with electric monoplanes, which is why some are
> > able to sneak
> > biplanes in under 11 lbs - of course this is by shaving every
> > ounce off the
> > airframe (reducing it's lifespan and making it relatively
> > fragile) and
> > pushing the lipos harder (also reducing it's lifespan).? So
> > when you look at
> > 8.7 lbs considering the weight of the electrics that are marginally
> > overweight (with the Zippy packs and AXI), the unintended
> > consequence is the
> > guys that have 7.5 lb airframes now have 1.2 lbs of additional
> > weight to add
> > to make the plane bigger - and you know it will be used, and
> > probably along
> > the lines of -
> > - 6-8 oz for structure
> > - 3-4 oz for more motor (more power)
> > - 4-5 oz for more lipo (which would still be rated the same 5300
> > mah, but be
> > heavier to allow more voltage under load, thus delivering more
> > watts through
> > the course of the flight - and it will be called a "High Power
> > Prolite", or
> > "High Power AEON", whatever.)
> > - 1-2 oz more for bigger servos and more RX battery
> >
> > And 2 years after the 8.7 lb rule is introduced, there will be a
> > cheap copy
> > of the "High Power Prolite" will be available and it will weigh
> > 5 oz more,
> > and the desire will be to raise the 8.7 lbs to 9.2 lbs.
> >
> > Allow 5.5 kg (12 lb) or 6 kg (14.3 kg) airframes, and yes, you
> > will have
> > DA50 powered stuff that is competitive with current day designs,
> > but it will
> > not be competitive with the YS built for 6 kg airframes for the
> > same reason
> > gas is not competitive with glow now.
> >
> > Allow 5.5 kg weight limit, and you instantly solve the problem
> > of all the
> > guys that are a couple oz over the current 5 kg weight
> > limit.? And the new
> > designs will grow, and in 1-2 years, the new designs will be
> > showing up a
> > couple oz over the 5.5 kg limit.
> >
> > It may be true that for the TOP LEVELs of competition that any
> > airframe is
> > obsolete in 3 years......BUT.......changing the rules to allow
> > 15 lbs
> > airframes will obsolete (immediately) not only the airframes,
> > but the
> > powerplants and servos.....and up the horsepower requirements
> > substantiallywhich will increase the noise (only measured at the
> > NATs) and require
> > substantially more cost to reduce the noise (to achieve 94/96 db
> > at the
> > NATs).
> >
> > All of the above is escalation no different than what we've seen
> > in the past
> > -
> > - "we" started with .61 cubic inch (10 CC) limit and 5
> > kg......the only
> > practical limit was the displacement.
> > - "we" allowed 120 4C (big mistake, short sighted, or should
> > have been
> > continually adjusted as competition 4Cs developed). > Airframes grew and cost
> > went up....some airplanes actually exceeded 2M (which was not
> > yet a limit).
> > - "we" allowed unlimited engines to, in part, cover up the
> > mistake of the
> > 120 4C, and, in part, to allow cheap gas engines (another big
> > mistake, again
> > short sighted).? The 2M rule went into place because that
> > was essentially
> > the "largest" plane in existence at the time.? The
> > airframes got bigger
> > again (fuse volume), and cost went up again, and the practical
> > limit to
> > airframe size became the 5 kg weight limit.
> >
> > Of course we also have the noise limit - that is really a
> > separate issue -
> > but - it is worth noting that larger airplanes require more
> > power, and more
> > power is more noise (or more expense to keep the noise from
> > increasing).
> > "Wouldn't it be nice if"........is a dangerous lead in to rule
> > changes with
> > unintended consequences.? The gas engine, the heavier lipo,
> > the heavier
> > motor, the heavier airframe, etc.....will all forever be less
> > competitivebecause the limits will always be pushed by the
> > airframe/powerplant that has
> > the best power to weight ratio, and that will always cost more,
> > and always
> > be more sensitive to weight conscious building techniques. > No change in the
> > rules will ever allow parity for equipment that does not have
> > the best power
> > to weight ratio.
> >
> > Someone else made the point that they perceived the less the
> > rules change,
> > the more available airframes and equipment are (2nd hand) - I
> > couldn't agree
> > more.? Stop changing the rules to allow (intended or not)
> > higher performance
> > airframes, and the "old" ones won't be obsolete so quickly.
> >
> > Personally, after a lot of research and planning, I switched to
> > electric in
> > 2006....and the expense was big.....especially because I had
> > perfectly good
> > glow stuff, and maintained glow and electric for about 1
> > year.? To date,
> > I've built 3 electric airframes (1 Abbra, 2 Prestige), and
> > between them I
> > have run 12 different motors of different brands, weights,
> > in/out runners,
> > and just about every mounting configuration you can think
> > of.? The majority
> > of the motors have been < $300, and I've always used the
> > Castle 85HV (which
> > I think has always been and still is the least expensive ESC
> > available for
> > the job).? My planes have weighed anywhere between 9 lbs 13
> > oz and 10 lbs 14
> > depending on the configuration.? If I had the time, $$$,
> > resources, etc, I'd
> > design and build my own stuff right up to the limit, whatever
> > that limit
> > might be.? As I do have limits (as most of us do), I'll get
> > as close to what
> > I think optimum performance is, and it may or may not be pushing
> > the limits
> > (for whatever reasons).
> >
> > In the past 3 years, I've spent a huge amount of time on email, phone,
> > forums, in my shop, in others shops, etc....working with people
> > on how to
> > assemble electric pattern stuff....and most are not using the
> > most expensive
> > airframes or equipment, and all are under 11 lbs.? Bottom
> > line is that you
> > can not take the largest, cheapest, and heaviest of each respective
> > component and have a sub 11 lb electric OR glow plane.? Nor
> > do you need to
> > have the most expensive and lightest example of each component
> > to be
> > competitive.? You do need to research, plan, and make
> > educated decisions.
> > No offense to anyone with an 10 lb 18 oz plane....they do
> > exist....and most
> > are being happily flown, and most can make weight for the NATs
> > if the time
> > is spent in advanced.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> > verne at twmi.rr.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:53 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> >
> > Derek,
> > We've discussed raising the weight before and it's always been
> > voted down. I
> > believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart has steadfastly argued
> > that raising
> > the weight limit will inevitably increase the size of our
> > planes, obsoleting
> > anything that preceded it. I agree with him.
> >
> > What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for someone
> > wanting to try
> > electric to be able to do so without having to buy the most expensive
> > equipment available. For example, at a contest last weekend, a
> > friend and
> > fellow pattern pilot had a set of Zippy packs that weighed
> > roughly 5.5
> > ounces more than my FlightPower packs. Pretty much the same
> > difference when
> > compared to Andrew's TP packs. The Zippy's as we all know, were
> > less than
> > half the cost. I know for sure that my friend would have made
> > weight with my
> > FP's or Andrew's TP's, but he couldn't afford that after all the other
> > "electric" purchases.
> >
> > What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked out, is that
> > electricairplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be weighed
> > without their "fuel",
> > just like glow. The Rx battery will have to be in the plane,
> > just like glow.
> > Yes, I realize that there are UBEC's out there but I don't know
> > of anyone
> > who trusts them with the kind of current we're running. In any
> > event, my
> > preliminary research indicates that roughly 8.7 pounds should be
> > just about
> > right, but I want to make sure before I submit the proposal.
> >
> > Verne
> >
> >? > ---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Verne,
> > >
> > > When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the proposals
> > which was
> > > passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the weight
> > limit for
> > their
> > > helicopters effective 1/1/2010.? Here is the new wording:
> > >
> > > a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (*with *fuel *or
> > *batteries)> must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
> > >
> > > Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective 01/01/10.
> > >
> > > I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A sub-committee
> > members to see if
> > > there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to
> > 5.5kg.? What does
> > > everyone think about this?
> > >
> > > -Derek
> > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bill,
> > > > I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that
> > very issue.
> > > > Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board
> > anytimesoon. In
> > > > the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the
> > glow to
> > electric
> > > > comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much
> > internal
> > > > reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational
> > effects to
> > contend
> > > > with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter
> > airframes being
> > > > acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the
> > Rx and
> > servos.
> > > > An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same
> > flight in
> > glow is
> > > > typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots
> > will tell you
> > that
> > > > making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive
> > propositionwith a
> > > > limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually
> > vacuum-bagged
> > > > composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making
> > weight will
> > > > also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive
> > motors and
> > > > batteries. There are exceptio
> > > >? ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of
> > them, but I'll be
> > able
> > > > to point to just as many examples of guys that fly
> > overweight at local
> > > > contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing
> > they're
> > > > really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest
> > batteries
> > > > and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're
> > flying are the
> > same
> > > > as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm
> > working on is
> > not
> > > > self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting
> > there is both
> > too
> > > > expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't
> > be to allow
> > > > electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh
> > less, but
> > > > without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that
> > electricmotors
> > > > are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well
> > as the
> > reduced
> > > > structural requirements. It will limit the mah of
> > permissible packs to
> > > > control that end of the equation and there's already a
> > voltage limit on
> > the
> > > > books which is fine as it
> > > >? stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the
> > contests I go to to see
> > > > where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal
> > on this list
> > > > soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their
> > opinions to
> > their
> > > > respective Contest Board reps.
> > > >
> > > > Verne Koester
> > > > AMA District 7
> > > > Contest Board
> > > >? ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:
> > > > >? I am certain this has been beaten to death while I
> > was off doing
> > other
> > > > > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than
> > five (5)
> > > > > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for
> > takeoff.> > > Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces
> > of fuel??
> > Is
> > > > > a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
> > > > >
> > > > > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it
> > makes no
> > > > > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel
> > and can
> > weigh
> > > > > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10
> > to 12 ounces
> > of
> > > > > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight
> > > > > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
> > > > >
> > > > > Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh
> > compared to a
> > > > > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > > > > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > > > > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > > > >
> > > > > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > > > > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > > > >
> > > > > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > > > > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > > > >
> > > > >? So I can see an argument that the electrics have a
> > weight advantage
> > > > > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel"
> > electric is
> > at
> > > > > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > > > >
> > > > > So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20
> > plus ounces
> > > > > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it.
> > How does that
> > > > > make sense. I know I am missing something important here,
> > so educate
> > me.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/9ab4f4af/attachment.html>

From chuenkan at comcast.net  Thu Jun  4 13:39:50 2009
From: chuenkan at comcast.net (Phil Spelt)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:39:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
In-Reply-To: <840508.22601.qm@web80506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090603175326.8D8S1.33727.root@hrndva-web26-z02>
	<AA26DE2C483F45E1A2BC9E5FA867DBC0@davedesktop>
	<cfc48f71f00a.4a27dbcc@shaw.ca> <4A28348F.9070603@priusonline.com>
	<840508.22601.qm@web80506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20090604213949.AAFBE115A8@bridi.netexpress.com>

How 'bout cost???? :-D :-D

At 05:08 PM 6/4/2009, you wrote:
>...the answer is to decrease something instead.
>
>Fly anything in Sportman, just to set the hook......6 lb weight 
>limit in Intermediate.....9 lb weight limit in Advanced....11lb 
>weight limit in Masters.

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Webmaster & Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member, SPA--177
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/8b7dbb4e/attachment.html>

From jeff at priusonline.com  Thu Jun  4 14:12:43 2009
From: jeff at priusonline.com (Jeff Hatton)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:12:43 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
In-Reply-To: <840508.22601.qm@web80506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>	<20090603175326.8D8S1.33727.root@hrndva-web26-z02>	<AA26DE2C483F45E1A2BC9E5FA867DBC0@davedesktop>	<cfc48f71f00a.4a27dbcc@shaw.ca>
	<4A28348F.9070603@priusonline.com>
	<840508.22601.qm@web80506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4A2846C5.4070801@priusonline.com>

The goal is to make things cheaper for a 2 meter setup,  if the goal was 
just to make it cheaper than just define a specific mass produced arf as 
the standard setup and require everyone to fly the same setup... once 
you know you want to get into pattern (usually when you point out of 
sportsman) you want the 2 meter setup, but setting up that first plane 
and making weight is both difficult and expensive... but as you gain 
experience it becomes less difficult to make weight and you can buy 
lightweight components incrementally to make weight as your class increases.

Richard Lewis wrote:
> Hmmm....I would think just the opposite......but then I am left 
> handed......If the stated goal is to make pattern cheaper and 
> therefore more accessible to the masses, then an increase in anything 
> (size, weight, voltage, etc.....) is not the answer....the answer is 
> to decrease something instead.
>  
> Fly anything in Sportman, just to set the hook......6 lb weight limit 
> in Intermediate.....9 lb weight limit in Advanced....11lb weight 
> limit in Masters.
>  
> The intermediate guy can fly a much cheaper setup and not have to be 
> concerned showing up at a contest and competing with Mr. Moneybags and 
> his fleet of Oxai and his gold plated power systems.  When he moves to 
> advanced, he can still fly his intermediate rig, or move up to a 
> larger, more powerful, more expensive setup, but still not have to 
> compete with the top class airframe and power systems.  When he jumps 
> to masters, the he can spend big bucks to play with the big 
> boys......or, if he's a good pilot and there was no judging bias 
> toward the "bigger flies better" mentality, he could fly his 6 lb 
> airplane and whoop the snot out of Mr. Moneybags in any class.
>  
> Richard
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Jeff Hatton <jeff at priusonline.com>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 4, 2009 3:54:39 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight
>
> what about a graduated weight system based on class?  at most contests 
> this already exists in that any AMA legal plane can fly in sportsman, 
> why not start enforcing the size restriction in intermediate without 
> worrying if the plane can make weight (thus potentially saving money 
> on a first 2 meter plane as you can don't have to buy all the 
> specialized carbon everything to make weight) then introduce a weight 
> limit slightly above 11 pounds in advanced can that can be easily met 
> without to many expensive lightweight parts, then if you are serious 
> enough to go to masters enforce the 11 pound weight limit... this will 
> allow entry level competitors to use lower cost equipment and as they 
> move up the normal thing is to upgrade equipment anyways...
>
> Chad Northeast wrote:
> > Dave is spot on IMO.
> >
> > Also I think one important fact may have not received enough 
> attention.  That is that the current legal voltage limit on batteries 
> in FAI is 42V.  Increasing the weight and therefore required power of 
> an electric model requires that you play within that rule.  To 
> generate the necessary static 300 W/lb that most current competitive 
> F3A models demand today but at a new weight of say even 6 kg (13.2 
> lbs), using an optimistic value of 35V under load you are beyond 100A 
> setups.
> > There would need to be a complete rethink of how we are flying 
> electric since most setups sitting in airplanes would not tolerate 
> that power level for long.  To allow electric to be competitive and 
> work reasonably well at a higher weight will require an increase to 
> the voltage.
> >
> > No doubt additional weight would require glow motors to change as 
> well, but they have the simple road of simply increasing displacement 
> to deal with that.
> >
> > Another point to the discussion is that I have personally only 
> witnessed one person failing the weigh in with an electric model.  
> This tells me that many who have been serious about competing have 
> made whatever effort is required to abide by the rules and that it is 
> readily done.  If 80% were failing the test then it would beg the 
> question that something is broken, but I think currently the rules 
> work well enough to keep everyone competitive and not provide any 
> large advantage or disadvantage based on power plant.
> > The person who failed the weight did not weigh his own model prior 
> to the contest, and relied on published weight values and a calculator 
> to determine that his model would be underweight.  The published 
> weight of his batteries were horribly understated though.
> >
> > Chad
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>>
> > Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009 10:17 am
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
> > To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> >
> > > Honestly, I understand (and agree) with the intention to allow
> > > the "cheap
> > > electric", but it is no different than trying to tweak the rules
> > > for the
> > > "cheap gas engine" and won't (my opinion, with substantial
> > > history to back
> > > it) work-
> > > - why should the rules be tweaked to essentially allow someone
> > > the latest
> > > greatest (electric) without paying for it (either with time, or
> > > $$$, or
> > > experience)?  The latest greatest always cost more - that
> > > is the nature of
> > > competition.
> > > - I truly believe the time spent researching, designing, crafting,
> > > submitting, and implementing such a proposal will largely be
> > > wasted because
> > > the process is relatively slow and can not possibly keep up with
> > > the rate of
> > > change in electrics as technology advances.
> > > - Anyone who wants to try electric - go right ahead - and fly a
> > > current day
> > > design at a slight weight disadvantage at local comps (most guys
> > > don't go to
> > > the NATs anyway) - no one is going to ask or care about a couple
> > > ounces over
> > > 11 lbs.  And if they do decide to go to the NATs, they can
> > > suck it up and
> > > buy 1 expensive pack for official flights and the scale.
> > >
> > > With the understanding of the intent to allow cheap electrics, the
> > > unintended consequences of any rule change needs to be carefully
> > > evaluatedprior to submitting a proposal.  In this case, the
> > > unintended consequence
> > > will be the opportunity for the TOP LEVEL electric designs to grow
> > > substantially in size and weight, which will drive the cost up
> > > for all
> > > competitors (glow and electric) to compete with the new performance
> > > standard.  The average plane is influenced by whatever the
> > > TOP LEVEL stuff
> > > is - that is why both electric and glow TOP LEVEL stuff has
> > > always been
> > > right on the limit of whatever the rules are at the time, and
> > > that is the
> > > way it will always be - again, it is the nature of competition.
> > >
> > > The top level electrics right now weigh well under 11
> > > lbs......10 lbs is
> > > quite possible with electric monoplanes, which is why some are
> > > able to sneak
> > > biplanes in under 11 lbs - of course this is by shaving every
> > > ounce off the
> > > airframe (reducing it's lifespan and making it relatively
> > > fragile) and
> > > pushing the lipos harder (also reducing it's lifespan).  So
> > > when you look at
> > > 8.7 lbs considering the weight of the electrics that are marginally
> > > overweight (with the Zippy packs and AXI), the unintended
> > > consequence is the
> > > guys that have 7.5 lb airframes now have 1.2 lbs of additional
> > > weight to add
> > > to make the plane bigger - and you know it will be used, and
> > > probably along
> > > the lines of -
> > > - 6-8 oz for structure
> > > - 3-4 oz for more motor (more power)
> > > - 4-5 oz for more lipo (which would still be rated the same 5300
> > > mah, but be
> > > heavier to allow more voltage under load, thus delivering more
> > > watts through
> > > the course of the flight - and it will be called a "High Power
> > > Prolite", or
> > > "High Power AEON", whatever.)
> > > - 1-2 oz more for bigger servos and more RX battery
> > >
> > > And 2 years after the 8.7 lb rule is introduced, there will be a
> > > cheap copy
> > > of the "High Power Prolite" will be available and it will weigh
> > > 5 oz more,
> > > and the desire will be to raise the 8.7 lbs to 9.2 lbs.
> > >
> > > Allow 5.5 kg (12 lb) or 6 kg (14.3 kg) airframes, and yes, you
> > > will have
> > > DA50 powered stuff that is competitive with current day designs,
> > > but it will
> > > not be competitive with the YS built for 6 kg airframes for the
> > > same reason
> > > gas is not competitive with glow now.
> > >
> > > Allow 5.5 kg weight limit, and you instantly solve the problem
> > > of all the
> > > guys that are a couple oz over the current 5 kg weight
> > > limit.  And the new
> > > designs will grow, and in 1-2 years, the new designs will be
> > > showing up a
> > > couple oz over the 5.5 kg limit.
> > >
> > > It may be true that for the TOP LEVELs of competition that any
> > > airframe is
> > > obsolete in 3 years......BUT.......changing the rules to allow
> > > 15 lbs
> > > airframes will obsolete (immediately) not only the airframes,
> > > but the
> > > powerplants and servos.....and up the horsepower requirements
> > > substantiallywhich will increase the noise (only measured at the
> > > NATs) and require
> > > substantially more cost to reduce the noise (to achieve 94/96 db
> > > at the
> > > NATs).
> > >
> > > All of the above is escalation no different than what we've seen
> > > in the past
> > > -
> > > - "we" started with .61 cubic inch (10 CC) limit and 5
> > > kg......the only
> > > practical limit was the displacement.
> > > - "we" allowed 120 4C (big mistake, short sighted, or should
> > > have been
> > > continually adjusted as competition 4Cs developed). > Airframes 
> grew and cost
> > > went up....some airplanes actually exceeded 2M (which was not
> > > yet a limit).
> > > - "we" allowed unlimited engines to, in part, cover up the
> > > mistake of the
> > > 120 4C, and, in part, to allow cheap gas engines (another big
> > > mistake, again
> > > short sighted).  The 2M rule went into place because that
> > > was essentially
> > > the "largest" plane in existence at the time.  The
> > > airframes got bigger
> > > again (fuse volume), and cost went up again, and the practical
> > > limit to
> > > airframe size became the 5 kg weight limit.
> > >
> > > Of course we also have the noise limit - that is really a
> > > separate issue -
> > > but - it is worth noting that larger airplanes require more
> > > power, and more
> > > power is more noise (or more expense to keep the noise from
> > > increasing).
> > > "Wouldn't it be nice if"........is a dangerous lead in to rule
> > > changes with
> > > unintended consequences.  The gas engine, the heavier lipo,
> > > the heavier
> > > motor, the heavier airframe, etc.....will all forever be less
> > > competitivebecause the limits will always be pushed by the
> > > airframe/powerplant that has
> > > the best power to weight ratio, and that will always cost more,
> > > and always
> > > be more sensitive to weight conscious building techniques. > No 
> change in the
> > > rules will ever allow parity for equipment that does not have
> > > the best power
> > > to weight ratio.
> > >
> > > Someone else made the point that they perceived the less the
> > > rules change,
> > > the more available airframes and equipment are (2nd hand) - I
> > > couldn't agree
> > > more.  Stop changing the rules to allow (intended or not)
> > > higher performance
> > > airframes, and the "old" ones won't be obsolete so quickly.
> > >
> > > Personally, after a lot of research and planning, I switched to
> > > electric in
> > > 2006....and the expense was big.....especially because I had
> > > perfectly good
> > > glow stuff, and maintained glow and electric for about 1
> > > year.  To date,
> > > I've built 3 electric airframes (1 Abbra, 2 Prestige), and
> > > between them I
> > > have run 12 different motors of different brands, weights,
> > > in/out runners,
> > > and just about every mounting configuration you can think
> > > of.  The majority
> > > of the motors have been < $300, and I've always used the
> > > Castle 85HV (which
> > > I think has always been and still is the least expensive ESC
> > > available for
> > > the job).  My planes have weighed anywhere between 9 lbs 13
> > > oz and 10 lbs 14
> > > depending on the configuration.  If I had the time, $$$,
> > > resources, etc, I'd
> > > design and build my own stuff right up to the limit, whatever
> > > that limit
> > > might be.  As I do have limits (as most of us do), I'll get
> > > as close to what
> > > I think optimum performance is, and it may or may not be pushing
> > > the limits
> > > (for whatever reasons).
> > >
> > > In the past 3 years, I've spent a huge amount of time on email, phone,
> > > forums, in my shop, in others shops, etc....working with people
> > > on how to
> > > assemble electric pattern stuff....and most are not using the
> > > most expensive
> > > airframes or equipment, and all are under 11 lbs.  Bottom
> > > line is that you
> > > can not take the largest, cheapest, and heaviest of each respective
> > > component and have a sub 11 lb electric OR glow plane.  Nor
> > > do you need to
> > > have the most expensive and lightest example of each component
> > > to be
> > > competitive.  You do need to research, plan, and make
> > > educated decisions.
> > > No offense to anyone with an 10 lb 18 oz plane....they do
> > > exist....and most
> > > are being happily flown, and most can make weight for the NATs
> > > if the time
> > > is spent in advanced.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf Of
> > > verne at twmi.rr.com <mailto:verne at twmi.rr.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:53 PM
> > > To: General pattern discussion
> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > >
> > > Derek,
> > > We've discussed raising the weight before and it's always been
> > > voted down. I
> > > believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart has steadfastly argued
> > > that raising
> > > the weight limit will inevitably increase the size of our
> > > planes, obsoleting
> > > anything that preceded it. I agree with him.
> > >
> > > What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for someone
> > > wanting to try
> > > electric to be able to do so without having to buy the most expensive
> > > equipment available. For example, at a contest last weekend, a
> > > friend and
> > > fellow pattern pilot had a set of Zippy packs that weighed
> > > roughly 5.5
> > > ounces more than my FlightPower packs. Pretty much the same
> > > difference when
> > > compared to Andrew's TP packs. The Zippy's as we all know, were
> > > less than
> > > half the cost. I know for sure that my friend would have made
> > > weight with my
> > > FP's or Andrew's TP's, but he couldn't afford that after all the other
> > > "electric" purchases.
> > >
> > > What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked out, is that
> > > electricairplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be weighed
> > > without their "fuel",
> > > just like glow. The Rx battery will have to be in the plane,
> > > just like glow.
> > > Yes, I realize that there are UBEC's out there but I don't know
> > > of anyone
> > > who trusts them with the kind of current we're running. In any
> > > event, my
> > > preliminary research indicates that roughly 8.7 pounds should be
> > > just about
> > > right, but I want to make sure before I submit the proposal.
> > >
> > > Verne
> > >
> > >  > ---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com 
> <mailto:derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > Verne,
> > > >
> > > > When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the proposals
> > > which was
> > > > passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the weight
> > > limit for
> > > their
> > > > helicopters effective 1/1/2010.  Here is the new wording:
> > > >
> > > > a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (*with *fuel *or
> > > *batteries)> must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
> > > >
> > > > Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective 01/01/10.
> > > >
> > > > I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A sub-committee
> > > members to see if
> > > > there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to
> > > 5.5kg.  What does
> > > > everyone think about this?
> > > >
> > > > -Derek
> > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com 
> <mailto:verne at twmi.rr.com>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Bill,
> > > > > I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that
> > > very issue.
> > > > > Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board
> > > anytimesoon. In
> > > > > the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the
> > > glow to
> > > electric
> > > > > comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much
> > > internal
> > > > > reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational
> > > effects to
> > > contend
> > > > > with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter
> > > airframes being
> > > > > acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the
> > > Rx and
> > > servos.
> > > > > An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same
> > > flight in
> > > glow is
> > > > > typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots
> > > will tell you
> > > that
> > > > > making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive
> > > propositionwith a
> > > > > limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually
> > > vacuum-bagged
> > > > > composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making
> > > weight will
> > > > > also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive
> > > motors and
> > > > > batteries. There are exceptio
> > > > >  ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of
> > > them, but I'll be
> > > able
> > > > > to point to just as many examples of guys that fly
> > > overweight at local
> > > > > contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing
> > > they're
> > > > > really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest
> > > batteries
> > > > > and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're
> > > flying are the
> > > same
> > > > > as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm
> > > working on is
> > > not
> > > > > self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting
> > > there is both
> > > too
> > > > > expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't
> > > be to allow
> > > > > electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh
> > > less, but
> > > > > without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account that
> > > electricmotors
> > > > > are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well
> > > as the
> > > reduced
> > > > > structural requirements. It will limit the mah of
> > > permissible packs to
> > > > > control that end of the equation and there's already a
> > > voltage limit on
> > > the
> > > > > books which is fine as it
> > > > >  stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the
> > > contests I go to to see
> > > > > where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal
> > > on this list
> > > > > soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their
> > > opinions to
> > > their
> > > > > respective Contest Board reps.
> > > > >
> > > > > Verne Koester
> > > > > AMA District 7
> > > > > Contest Board
> > > > >  ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net 
> <mailto:wemodels at cox.net>> wrote:
> > > > > >  I am certain this has been beaten to death while I
> > > was off doing
> > > other
> > > > > > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than
> > > five (5)
> > > > > > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for
> > > takeoff.> > > Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16 ounces
> > > of fuel??
> > > Is
> > > > > > a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it
> > > makes no
> > > > > > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel
> > > and can
> > > weigh
> > > > > > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10
> > > to 12 ounces
> > > of
> > > > > > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight
> > > > > > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh
> > > compared to a
> > > > > > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > > > > > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > > > > > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > > > > > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > > > > >
> > > > > > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > > > > > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  So I can see an argument that the electrics have a
> > > weight advantage
> > > > > > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel"
> > > electric is
> > > at
> > > > > > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20
> > > plus ounces
> > > > > > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it.
> > > How does that
> > > > > > make sense. I know I am missing something important here,
> > > so educate
> > > me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > > > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > > > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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


From chuenkan at comcast.net  Thu Jun  4 14:30:40 2009
From: chuenkan at comcast.net (Phil Spelt)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:30:40 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
In-Reply-To: <4A2846C5.4070801@priusonline.com>
References: <3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090603175326.8D8S1.33727.root@hrndva-web26-z02>
	<AA26DE2C483F45E1A2BC9E5FA867DBC0@davedesktop>
	<cfc48f71f00a.4a27dbcc@shaw.ca> <4A28348F.9070603@priusonline.com>
	<840508.22601.qm@web80506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<4A2846C5.4070801@priusonline.com>
Message-ID: <20090604223039.453D1115A8@bridi.netexpress.com>

Right, then we'd have Pattern looking just like the Indy Racing 
League and NASCAR -- everyone driving the same thing, and all 
innovation is thoroughly stifled.  I grew up on USAC racing in the 
Midwest -- they ran Offenhauser 4-cylinder engines for a long time, 
until Ford and some of the other engine builders learned how to 
compete, then we were back to good variety and honest 
competition.  Then ole Tony George took over when Tony Hullman died, 
and single handedly destroyed that.  Now NASCAR has done the same 
thing -- take a body/chassis, put a sticker on it, and call it a 
"Ford" or whatever.

At 06:12 PM 6/4/2009, you wrote:
>The goal is to make things cheaper for a 2 meter setup,  if the goal 
>was just to make it cheaper than just define a specific mass 
>produced arf as the standard setup and require everyone to fly the 
>same setup...

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Webmaster & Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member, SPA--177
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/d22352bc/attachment.html>

From khoard at gmail.com  Thu Jun  4 14:41:02 2009
From: khoard at gmail.com (Keith Hoard)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:41:02 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
In-Reply-To: <20090604223039.453D1115A8@bridi.netexpress.com>
References: <3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090603175326.8D8S1.33727.root@hrndva-web26-z02>
	<AA26DE2C483F45E1A2BC9E5FA867DBC0@davedesktop>
	<cfc48f71f00a.4a27dbcc@shaw.ca> <4A28348F.9070603@priusonline.com>
	<840508.22601.qm@web80506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<4A2846C5.4070801@priusonline.com>
	<20090604223039.453D1115A8@bridi.netexpress.com>
Message-ID: <17E746D3-E1D9-43B4-9D4C-047E65255308@gmail.com>

If the goal is to "level the playing field" (lighter has the  
advantage, right?) then why not establish a minimum weight.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 4, 2009, at 17:30, Phil Spelt <chuenkan at comcast.net> wrote:

> Right, then we'd have Pattern looking just like the Indy Racing  
> League and NASCAR -- everyone driving the same thing, and all  
> innovation is thoroughly stifled.  I grew up on USAC racing in the  
> Midwest -- they ran Offenhauser 4-cylinder engines for a long time,  
> until Ford and some of the other engine builders learned how to  
> compete, then we were back to good variety and honest competition.   
> Then ole Tony George took over when Tony Hullman died, and single  
> handedly destroyed that.  Now NASCAR has done the same thing -- take  
> a body/chassis, put a sticker on it, and call it a "Ford" or whatever.
>
> At 06:12 PM 6/4/2009, you wrote:
>> The goal is to make things cheaper for a 2 meter setup,  if the  
>> goal was just to make it cheaper than just define a specific mass  
>> produced arf as the standard setup and require everyone to fly the  
>> same setup...
> --> There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.
>
> Phil Spelt, Webmaster & Past President, Knox County Radio Control  
> Society, Inc.
>        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
> AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member, SPA--177
>       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
>       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090604/7172efa0/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 15:43:54 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:43:54 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
Message-ID: <306848.83304.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 OK Uncle!!!!!

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:

> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 3:51 PM
> Mike,
> 
> "Dave there are cheaper higher C light weight Lipo's on the
> market now so no
> need for the expensive stuff if one so chooses."
> 
> Whoooaaa!!!!? So if the cheap lightweight lipo is
> available now, why is it
> that the current rules need to be tweaked??
> 
> If you like Verne's proposal, vote for it (if/when
> submitted).? And know
> that doing so probably won't bring us to the point where
> electrics are the
> only planes flying, just the point at which glow are
> seriously outclassed.
> 
> I'm not opposed to the spirit of Verne's idea, but the
> nature of competition
> is to push the limits whatever they are, and pushing the
> limits costs
> time/money/resources - always has and always will.?
> Raising the limits
> simply raises the costs for all of us.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of mike mueller
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:08 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight
> 
> 
>  Dave there are cheaper higher C light weight Lipo's on the
> market now so no
> need for the expensive stuff if one so chooses.
>  I make weight with both my planes but the choices I made
> in airframes and
> equipment made it close. The planes both feel light in the
> air. My newest
> one was harder and more expensive to make legal than what I
> would have liked
> but it flys very nicely.
>  Say whatever you guys like and all the points are well
> taken but I still
> like Verne's proposal. That's called an opinion and we all
> have one as you
> know.
>  I hope we never get to the point where Electric planes are
> the only thing
> we fly. I love to see a screaming YS plane flying and who
> knows if I
> wouldn't want to some day do another one just to do
> something different.
> It'll just be expensive. Plus if were all flying the same
> power plant who am
> I going to argue with?????? 
>  Great debate and I'm taking in all the thoughts. You guys
> are pretty smart
> dudes!!!? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ? ? ? Mike
> 
> --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:? Weight
> > To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 11:17 AM
> > Honestly, I understand (and agree)
> > with the intention to allow the "cheap
> > electric", but it is no different than trying to tweak
> the
> > rules for the
> > "cheap gas engine" and won't (my opinion, with
> substantial
> > history to back
> > it) work- 
> > - why should the rules be tweaked to essentially
> allow
> > someone the latest
> > greatest (electric) without paying for it (either
> with
> > time, or $$$, or
> > experience)?? The latest greatest always cost more -
> > that is the nature of
> > competition.
> > - I truly believe the time spent researching,
> designing,
> > crafting,
> > submitting, and implementing such a proposal will
> largely
> > be wasted because
> > the process is relatively slow and can not possibly
> keep up
> > with the rate of
> > change in electrics as technology advances.
> > - Anyone who wants to try electric - go right ahead -
> and
> > fly a current day
> > design at a slight weight disadvantage at local comps
> (most
> > guys don't go to
> > the NATs anyway) - no one is going to ask or care
> about a
> > couple ounces over
> > 11 lbs.? And if they do decide to go to the NATs,
> they
> > can suck it up and
> > buy 1 expensive pack for official flights and the
> scale.
> > 
> > With the understanding of the intent to allow cheap
> > electrics, the
> > unintended consequences of any rule change needs to
> be
> > carefully evaluated
> > prior to submitting a proposal.? In this case, the
> > unintended consequence
> > will be the opportunity for the TOP LEVEL electric
> designs
> > to grow
> > substantially in size and weight, which will drive the
> cost
> > up for all
> > competitors (glow and electric) to compete with the
> new
> > performance
> > standard.? The average plane is influenced by
> whatever
> > the TOP LEVEL stuff
> > is - that is why both electric and glow TOP LEVEL
> stuff has
> > always been
> > right on the limit of whatever the rules are at the
> time,
> > and that is the
> > way it will always be - again, it is the nature of
> > competition.
> > 
> > The top level electrics right now weigh well under 11
> > lbs......10 lbs is
> > quite possible with electric monoplanes, which is why
> some
> > are able to sneak
> > biplanes in under 11 lbs - of course this is by
> shaving
> > every ounce off the
> > airframe (reducing it's lifespan and making it
> relatively
> > fragile) and
> > pushing the lipos harder (also reducing it's
> > lifespan).? So when you look at
> > 8.7 lbs considering the weight of the electrics that
> are
> > marginally
> > overweight (with the Zippy packs and AXI), the
> unintended
> > consequence is the
> > guys that have 7.5 lb airframes now have 1.2 lbs of
> > additional weight to add
> > to make the plane bigger - and you know it will be
> used,
> > and probably along
> > the lines of - 
> > - 6-8 oz for structure
> > - 3-4 oz for more motor (more power)
> > - 4-5 oz for more lipo (which would still be rated the
> same
> > 5300 mah, but be
> > heavier to allow more voltage under load, thus
> delivering
> > more watts through
> > the course of the flight - and it will be called a
> "High
> > Power Prolite", or
> > "High Power AEON", whatever.)
> > - 1-2 oz more for bigger servos and more RX battery
> > 
> > And 2 years after the 8.7 lb rule is introduced, there
> will
> > be a cheap copy
> > of the "High Power Prolite" will be available and it
> will
> > weigh 5 oz more,
> > and the desire will be to raise the 8.7 lbs to 9.2
> lbs.
> > 
> > Allow 5.5 kg (12 lb) or 6 kg (14.3 kg) airframes, and
> yes,
> > you will have
> > DA50 powered stuff that is competitive with current
> day
> > designs, but it will
> > not be competitive with the YS built for 6 kg
> airframes for
> > the same reason
> > gas is not competitive with glow now.
> > 
> > Allow 5.5 kg weight limit, and you instantly solve
> the
> > problem of all the
> > guys that are a couple oz over the current 5 kg
> weight
> > limit.? And the new
> > designs will grow, and in 1-2 years, the new designs
> will
> > be showing up a
> > couple oz over the 5.5 kg limit.
> > 
> > It may be true that for the TOP LEVELs of competition
> that
> > any airframe is
> > obsolete in 3 years......BUT.......changing the rules
> to
> > allow 15 lbs
> > airframes will obsolete (immediately) not only the
> > airframes, but the
> > powerplants and servos.....and up the horsepower
> > requirements substantially
> > which will increase the noise (only measured at the
> NATs)
> > and require
> > substantially more cost to reduce the noise (to
> achieve
> > 94/96 db at the
> > NATs).
> > 
> > All of the above is escalation no different than what
> we've
> > seen in the past
> > -
> > - "we" started with .61 cubic inch (10 CC) limit and
> 5
> > kg......the only
> > practical limit was the displacement.
> > - "we" allowed 120 4C (big mistake, short sighted, or
> > should have been
> > continually adjusted as competition 4Cs developed).?
> > Airframes grew and cost
> > went up....some airplanes actually exceeded 2M (which
> was
> > not yet a limit).
> > - "we" allowed unlimited engines to, in part, cover up
> the
> > mistake of the
> > 120 4C, and, in part, to allow cheap gas engines
> (another
> > big mistake, again
> > short sighted).? The 2M rule went into place because
> > that was essentially
> > the "largest" plane in existence at the time.? The
> > airframes got bigger
> > again (fuse volume), and cost went up again, and the
> > practical limit to
> > airframe size became the 5 kg weight limit.
> > 
> > Of course we also have the noise limit - that is
> really a
> > separate issue -
> > but - it is worth noting that larger airplanes require
> more
> > power, and more
> > power is more noise (or more expense to keep the noise
> from
> > increasing).
> > 
> > "Wouldn't it be nice if"........is a dangerous lead in
> to
> > rule changes with
> > unintended consequences.? The gas engine, the
> heavier
> > lipo, the heavier
> > motor, the heavier airframe, etc.....will all forever
> be
> > less competitive
> > because the limits will always be pushed by the
> > airframe/powerplant that has
> > the best power to weight ratio, and that will always
> cost
> > more, and always
> > be more sensitive to weight conscious building
> > techniques.? No change in the
> > rules will ever allow parity for equipment that does
> not
> > have the best power
> > to weight ratio.
> > 
> > Someone else made the point that they perceived the
> less
> > the rules change,
> > the more available airframes and equipment are (2nd
> hand) -
> > I couldn't agree
> > more.? Stop changing the rules to allow (intended or
> > not) higher performance
> > airframes, and the "old" ones won't be obsolete so
> > quickly.
> > 
> > Personally, after a lot of research and planning, I
> > switched to electric in
> > 2006....and the expense was big.....especially because
> I
> > had perfectly good
> > glow stuff, and maintained glow and electric for about
> 1
> > year.? To date,
> > I've built 3 electric airframes (1 Abbra, 2 Prestige),
> and
> > between them I
> > have run 12 different motors of different brands,
> weights,
> > in/out runners,
> > and just about every mounting configuration you can
> think
> > of.? The majority
> > of the motors have been < $300, and I've always
> used the
> > Castle 85HV (which
> > I think has always been and still is the least
> expensive
> > ESC available for
> > the job).? My planes have weighed anywhere between 9
> > lbs 13 oz and 10 lbs 14
> > depending on the configuration.? If I had the time,
> > $$$, resources, etc, I'd
> > design and build my own stuff right up to the limit,
> > whatever that limit
> > might be.? As I do have limits (as most of us do),
> > I'll get as close to what
> > I think optimum performance is, and it may or may not
> be
> > pushing the limits
> > (for whatever reasons). 
> > 
> > In the past 3 years, I've spent a huge amount of time
> on
> > email, phone,
> > forums, in my shop, in others shops, etc....working
> with
> > people on how to
> > assemble electric pattern stuff....and most are not
> using
> > the most expensive
> > airframes or equipment, and all are under 11 lbs.?
> > Bottom line is that you
> > can not take the largest, cheapest, and heaviest of
> each
> > respective
> > component and have a sub 11 lb electric OR glow
> > plane.? Nor do you need to
> > have the most expensive and lightest example of each
> > component to be
> > competitive.? You do need to research, plan, and
> make
> > educated decisions.
> > No offense to anyone with an 10 lb 18 oz plane....they
> do
> > exist....and most
> > are being happily flown, and most can make weight for
> the
> > NATs if the time
> > is spent in advanced.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Dave
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> > On Behalf Of
> > verne at twmi.rr.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:53 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > 
> > Derek,
> > We've discussed raising the weight before and it's
> always
> > been voted down. I
> > believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart has
> steadfastly
> > argued that raising
> > the weight limit will inevitably increase the size of
> our
> > planes, obsoleting
> > anything that preceded it. I agree with him. 
> > 
> > What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for
> someone
> > wanting to try
> > electric to be able to do so without having to buy the
> most
> > expensive
> > equipment available. For example, at a contest last
> > weekend, a friend and
> > fellow pattern pilot had a set of Zippy packs that
> weighed
> > roughly 5.5
> > ounces more than my FlightPower packs. Pretty much the
> same
> > difference when
> > compared to Andrew's TP packs. The Zippy's as we all
> know,
> > were less than
> > half the cost. I know for sure that my friend would
> have
> > made weight with my
> > FP's or Andrew's TP's, but he couldn't afford that
> after
> > all the other
> > "electric" purchases. 
> > 
> > What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked
> out, is
> > that electric
> > airplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be weighed
> > without their "fuel",
> > just like glow. The Rx battery will have to be in the
> > plane, just like glow.
> > Yes, I realize that there are UBEC's out there but I
> don't
> > know of anyone
> > who trusts them with the kind of current we're
> running. In
> > any event, my
> > preliminary research indicates that roughly 8.7
> pounds
> > should be just about
> > right, but I want to make sure before I submit the
> > proposal.
> > 
> > Verne
> > 
> > ? 
> > ---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
> > wrote: 
> > > Verne,
> > > 
> > > When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of
> the
> > proposals which was
> > > passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify
> the
> > weight limit for
> > their
> > > helicopters effective 1/1/2010.? Here is the
> new
> > wording:
> > > 
> > > a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft
> (*with
> > *fuel *or *batteries)
> > > must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
> > > 
> > > Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting.
> Effective
> > 01/01/10.
> > > 
> > > I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A
> > sub-committee members to see if
> > > there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit
> to
> > 5.5kg.? What does
> > > everyone think about this?
> > > 
> > > -Derek
> > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Bill,
> > > > I've been working up an AMA rules proposal
> to
> > address that very issue.
> > > > Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by
> the
> > contest board anytime
> > soon. In
> > > > the meantime, there's one area you didn't
> mention
> > in the glow to
> > electric
> > > > comparison and that's that an electric
> plane
> > doesn't need as much
> > internal
> > > > reinforcement because there's virtually no
> > vibrational effects to
> > contend
> > > > with that you do with glow. That equates to
> > lighter airframes being
> > > > acceptable as well as small, light, lipo
> packs to
> > power the Rx and
> > servos.
> > > > An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50
> mah.
> > The same flight in
> > glow is
> > > > typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most
> electric
> > pilots will tell you
> > that
> > > > making weight in electric is generally a
> pretty
> > expensive proposition
> > with a
> > > > limited number of 2 meter planes available
> that
> > are usually
> > vacuum-bagged
> > > > composite affairs. In addition, your best
> chances
> > for making weight will
> > > > also necessitate the lightest and generally
> most
> > expensive motors and
> > > > batteries. There are exceptio
> > > >? ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear
> about
> > most of them, but I'll be
> > able
> > > > to point to just as many examples of guys
> that
> > fly overweight at local
> > > > contests where they know they won't be
> weighed
> > and the only thing
> > they're
> > > > really guilty of is not spending the extra
> money
> > that the lightest
> > batteries
> > > > and motors cost. In every other way, the
> planes
> > they're flying are the
> > same
> > > > as the ones they're competing against. The
> > proposal I'm working on is
> > not
> > > > self-serving because my planes make weight,
> but
> > getting there is both
> > too
> > > > expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion.
> My
> > proposal won't be to allow
> > > > electric planes to weigh more, it'll require
> that
> > they weigh less, but
> > > > without the "fuel". The proposal will take
> into
> > account that electric
> > motors
> > > > are inherently lighter than their glow
> > counterparts as well as the
> > reduced
> > > > structural requirements. It will limit the
> mah of
> > permissible packs to
> > > > control that end of the equation and
> there's
> > already a voltage limit on
> > the
> > > > books which is fine as it
> > > >? stands. I'm currently doing survey work
> at
> > the contests I go to to see
> > > > where everybody is at weight-wise and will
> post
> > my proposal on this list
> > > > soon. After that, it's up to all concerned
> to
> > voice their opinions to
> > their
> > > > respective Contest Board reps.
> > > >
> > > > Verne Koester
> > > > AMA District 7
> > > > Contest Board
> > > >? ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
> > wrote:
> > > > >? I am certain this has been beaten to
> > death while I was off doing
> > other
> > > > > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model
> may
> > weigh more than five (5)
> > > > > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but
> excluding
> > fuel, ready for takeoff.
> > > > > Electric models are weighed with
> batteries.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why can't an electric "deduct" the
> > equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??
> > Is
> > > > > a plane without fuel rally "ready for
> > takeoff"??
> > > > >
> > > > > I know it is likely a direct copy of
> the FAI
> > rule, but it makes no
> > > > > logical sense. IC powered planes are
> weighed
> > without fuel and can
> > weigh
> > > > > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it
> could
> > add another 10 to 12 ounces
> > of
> > > > > weight. That's OK. But if an electric
> with
> > batteries weight
> > > > > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is
> overweight
> > by the rules.
> > > > >
> > > > > Put another way, what does a YS and
> full
> > fuel weigh compared to a
> > > > > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > > > > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > > > > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > > > >
> > > > > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > > > > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > > > >
> > > > > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > > > > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > > > >
> > > > >? So I can see an argument that the
> > electrics have a weight advantage
> > > > > when it comes to just the motor and
> ESC. But
> > with "fuel" electric is
> > at
> > > > > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > > > >
> > > > > So if I build a plane for electric I
> need to
> > build it 20 plus ounces
> > > > > lighter than if I was going to put a
> nitro
> > motor in it. How does that
> > > > > make sense. I know I am missing
> something
> > important here, so educate
> > me.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 


      

From chad at f3acanada.org  Thu Jun  4 16:35:26 2009
From: chad at f3acanada.org (Chad Northeast)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:35:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
In-Reply-To: <8326F585-22B6-4817-954F-23C428E786CF@cox.net>
References: <3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090603175326.8D8S1.33727.root@hrndva-web26-z02>
	<AA26DE2C483F45E1A2BC9E5FA867DBC0@davedesktop>
	<cfc48f71f00a.4a27dbcc@shaw.ca>
	<8326F585-22B6-4817-954F-23C428E786CF@cox.net>
Message-ID: <4A28684A.2080505@f3acanada.org>

Hi Ron

Yes there are setups that are up at that power level, granted not 
everyone is.  I have ran setups that were that powerful, but I would 
make and educated guess that most are around 250-275 today.  This is 
statically, in flight is another matter altogether.  I went up a little 
on estimation because as model size and weight increases the W/lb rule 
increases as well, its not a linear rule.  Many speak to 150 W/lb for 3D 
performance, thats fine on a foamy, but anemic on a 2 meter model, and 
downright sad for anything significantly bigger.  I think the 40% guys 
are up to 400+ W/lb.  So if you are 250 W/lb on a 10.75 lb airplane you 
will feel less performance out of 275 W/lb on a 14 lb airplane.

My main point was that to increase the weight limit by any significant 
amount without changing the voltage rules would effectively negate what 
we have today, at least at the top level stuff as Dave was mentioning.

Chad

Ron Van Putte wrote:
> Whoa!  300 watts per pound?  I am currently flying a 10 lb  19.8 oz 
> (yeah!) E-Genesis with a Dualsky 6360-12T motor, which puts out 2450 
> watts.  The power/weight ratio is 218 watts per pound and, even though 
> it doesn't seem lacking in power, it is on a weight reduction program.
>
> Ron
>
> On Jun 4, 2009, at 3:35 PM, Chad Northeast wrote:
>
>> Dave is spot on IMO.
>>
>> Also I think one important fact may have not received enough 
>> attention.  That is that the current legal voltage limit on batteries 
>> in FAI is 42V.  Increasing the weight and therefore required power of 
>> an electric model requires that you play within that rule.  To 
>> generate the necessary static 300 W/lb that most current competitive 
>> F3A models demand today but at a new weight of say even 6 kg (13.2 
>> lbs), using an optimistic value of 35V under load you are beyond 100A 
>> setups.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>

-- 
Chad

www.chadnortheast.ca


From edskorepa at q.com  Thu Jun  4 17:47:36 2009
From: edskorepa at q.com (ed skorepa)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:47:36 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
References: <BAY128-W28A15153DE3F6AD8D18C35A04B0@phx.gbl>	<20090604160053.IAJY0.45457.root@hrndva-web03-z01><847D8D78EDAE405A89DCFD29500FFA03@davedesktop>
	<4A27F970.9060304@cox.net>
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP47137A0A0F2E208CE44024B4480@phx.gbl>

F4C - Radio Control Scale

6.3.1. Maximum weight of the complete model aircraft without fuel...... 15 
kg
Model Aircraft using electric motors as a power source shall be weighed 
WITHOUT batteries used for those motors.

Interesting, isn't it?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill's Email" <wemodels at cox.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight


> What everyone is dancing around here is the fact that the 5 kg (+/- 11 
> pound) weight limit is a completely arbitrary number that has no 
> foundation in anything other than FAI used to have this limit for all RC 
> models. In FAI being at or below 5 kg was what defined you as a radio 
> controlled "model" airplane.
>
> Here is the weight rule for F3B gliders:
>
> 5.3.1.3. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Gliders F3B
> a) Maximum flying mass ........................................ 5 kg
>
> F3J Gliders:
>
> 5.6.1.3. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Gliders
> a) Maximum Flying Mass .................................. 5 kg
>
> F3F Slope RAcing Gliders:
>
> 5.F.2. Characteristics of Radio Controlled Slope Gliders
> Maximum flying mass ........................................ 5 kg
>
> F3C helis are now 6 KG so even the FAI can change their minds.
>
> Point being is that the 5 kg "limit" has no real life basis beyond what 
> was in the FAI sporting code at the time the AMA rules were written. FAI 
> was not looking at all the convoluted logic about cost, etc. At the time 
> that was simply how they defined (and still do for many RC events) what a 
> model airplane is.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 


From verne at twmi.rr.com  Thu Jun  4 19:52:50 2009
From: verne at twmi.rr.com (Verne Koester)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 03:52:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
In-Reply-To: <306848.83304.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <306848.83304.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000001c9e591$1b8d3f30$52a7bd90$@rr.com>

This discussion reminds me of the old law school example that teaches the
unreliability of hearsay or second-hand information. You start by whispering
something into the ear of the first person in the first row and then have
him repeat the message to the person sitting next to him. You continue on in
this fashion until it works its way to the last person in the last row and
have that person repeat the message. The difference between my original
message and the final version is astounding. I give the award here to Dave
for twisting my message the most. Somehow or other my proposal has turned
from decreasing the allowable weight of an electric plane without batteries
into increasing the weight of all pattern planes, strapping gas engines on
for good measure, rendering all current designs obsolete while totally
ignoring the fact that easily 99% of the designs come from the FAI ranks
which aren't impacted in any way by this proposal, and completely ignoring
the fact that currently available 5300 mah batteries haven't gotten lighter,
they've gotten heavier. Most of us started with TP 5300 5S4P batteries
including Dave. They aren't made anymore and everything available in that
power/mah range from any manufacturer is anywhere from 2 to 10 ounces
heavier going from most expensive to cheapest. But you knew that, right?

Verne

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of mike mueller
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:44 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight


 OK Uncle!!!!!

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:

> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 3:51 PM
> Mike,
> 
> "Dave there are cheaper higher C light weight Lipo's on the
> market now so no
> need for the expensive stuff if one so chooses."
> 
> Whoooaaa!!!!? So if the cheap lightweight lipo is
> available now, why is it
> that the current rules need to be tweaked??
> 
> If you like Verne's proposal, vote for it (if/when
> submitted).? And know
> that doing so probably won't bring us to the point where
> electrics are the
> only planes flying, just the point at which glow are
> seriously outclassed.
> 
> I'm not opposed to the spirit of Verne's idea, but the
> nature of competition
> is to push the limits whatever they are, and pushing the
> limits costs
> time/money/resources - always has and always will.?
> Raising the limits
> simply raises the costs for all of us.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of mike mueller
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:08 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight
> 
> 
>  Dave there are cheaper higher C light weight Lipo's on the
> market now so no
> need for the expensive stuff if one so chooses.
>  I make weight with both my planes but the choices I made
> in airframes and
> equipment made it close. The planes both feel light in the
> air. My newest
> one was harder and more expensive to make legal than what I
> would have liked
> but it flys very nicely.
>  Say whatever you guys like and all the points are well
> taken but I still
> like Verne's proposal. That's called an opinion and we all
> have one as you
> know.
>  I hope we never get to the point where Electric planes are
> the only thing
> we fly. I love to see a screaming YS plane flying and who
> knows if I
> wouldn't want to some day do another one just to do
> something different.
> It'll just be expensive. Plus if were all flying the same
> power plant who am
> I going to argue with?????? 
>  Great debate and I'm taking in all the thoughts. You guys
> are pretty smart
> dudes!!!? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ? ? ? Mike
> 
> --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:? Weight
> > To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 11:17 AM
> > Honestly, I understand (and agree)
> > with the intention to allow the "cheap
> > electric", but it is no different than trying to tweak
> the
> > rules for the
> > "cheap gas engine" and won't (my opinion, with
> substantial
> > history to back
> > it) work- 
> > - why should the rules be tweaked to essentially
> allow
> > someone the latest
> > greatest (electric) without paying for it (either
> with
> > time, or $$$, or
> > experience)?? The latest greatest always cost more -
> > that is the nature of
> > competition.
> > - I truly believe the time spent researching,
> designing,
> > crafting,
> > submitting, and implementing such a proposal will
> largely
> > be wasted because
> > the process is relatively slow and can not possibly
> keep up
> > with the rate of
> > change in electrics as technology advances.
> > - Anyone who wants to try electric - go right ahead -
> and
> > fly a current day
> > design at a slight weight disadvantage at local comps
> (most
> > guys don't go to
> > the NATs anyway) - no one is going to ask or care
> about a
> > couple ounces over
> > 11 lbs.? And if they do decide to go to the NATs,
> they
> > can suck it up and
> > buy 1 expensive pack for official flights and the
> scale.
> > 
> > With the understanding of the intent to allow cheap
> > electrics, the
> > unintended consequences of any rule change needs to
> be
> > carefully evaluated
> > prior to submitting a proposal.? In this case, the
> > unintended consequence
> > will be the opportunity for the TOP LEVEL electric
> designs
> > to grow
> > substantially in size and weight, which will drive the
> cost
> > up for all
> > competitors (glow and electric) to compete with the
> new
> > performance
> > standard.? The average plane is influenced by
> whatever
> > the TOP LEVEL stuff
> > is - that is why both electric and glow TOP LEVEL
> stuff has
> > always been
> > right on the limit of whatever the rules are at the
> time,
> > and that is the
> > way it will always be - again, it is the nature of
> > competition.
> > 
> > The top level electrics right now weigh well under 11
> > lbs......10 lbs is
> > quite possible with electric monoplanes, which is why
> some
> > are able to sneak
> > biplanes in under 11 lbs - of course this is by
> shaving
> > every ounce off the
> > airframe (reducing it's lifespan and making it
> relatively
> > fragile) and
> > pushing the lipos harder (also reducing it's
> > lifespan).? So when you look at
> > 8.7 lbs considering the weight of the electrics that
> are
> > marginally
> > overweight (with the Zippy packs and AXI), the
> unintended
> > consequence is the
> > guys that have 7.5 lb airframes now have 1.2 lbs of
> > additional weight to add
> > to make the plane bigger - and you know it will be
> used,
> > and probably along
> > the lines of - 
> > - 6-8 oz for structure
> > - 3-4 oz for more motor (more power)
> > - 4-5 oz for more lipo (which would still be rated the
> same
> > 5300 mah, but be
> > heavier to allow more voltage under load, thus
> delivering
> > more watts through
> > the course of the flight - and it will be called a
> "High
> > Power Prolite", or
> > "High Power AEON", whatever.)
> > - 1-2 oz more for bigger servos and more RX battery
> > 
> > And 2 years after the 8.7 lb rule is introduced, there
> will
> > be a cheap copy
> > of the "High Power Prolite" will be available and it
> will
> > weigh 5 oz more,
> > and the desire will be to raise the 8.7 lbs to 9.2
> lbs.
> > 
> > Allow 5.5 kg (12 lb) or 6 kg (14.3 kg) airframes, and
> yes,
> > you will have
> > DA50 powered stuff that is competitive with current
> day
> > designs, but it will
> > not be competitive with the YS built for 6 kg
> airframes for
> > the same reason
> > gas is not competitive with glow now.
> > 
> > Allow 5.5 kg weight limit, and you instantly solve
> the
> > problem of all the
> > guys that are a couple oz over the current 5 kg
> weight
> > limit.? And the new
> > designs will grow, and in 1-2 years, the new designs
> will
> > be showing up a
> > couple oz over the 5.5 kg limit.
> > 
> > It may be true that for the TOP LEVELs of competition
> that
> > any airframe is
> > obsolete in 3 years......BUT.......changing the rules
> to
> > allow 15 lbs
> > airframes will obsolete (immediately) not only the
> > airframes, but the
> > powerplants and servos.....and up the horsepower
> > requirements substantially
> > which will increase the noise (only measured at the
> NATs)
> > and require
> > substantially more cost to reduce the noise (to
> achieve
> > 94/96 db at the
> > NATs).
> > 
> > All of the above is escalation no different than what
> we've
> > seen in the past
> > -
> > - "we" started with .61 cubic inch (10 CC) limit and
> 5
> > kg......the only
> > practical limit was the displacement.
> > - "we" allowed 120 4C (big mistake, short sighted, or
> > should have been
> > continually adjusted as competition 4Cs developed).?
> > Airframes grew and cost
> > went up....some airplanes actually exceeded 2M (which
> was
> > not yet a limit).
> > - "we" allowed unlimited engines to, in part, cover up
> the
> > mistake of the
> > 120 4C, and, in part, to allow cheap gas engines
> (another
> > big mistake, again
> > short sighted).? The 2M rule went into place because
> > that was essentially
> > the "largest" plane in existence at the time.? The
> > airframes got bigger
> > again (fuse volume), and cost went up again, and the
> > practical limit to
> > airframe size became the 5 kg weight limit.
> > 
> > Of course we also have the noise limit - that is
> really a
> > separate issue -
> > but - it is worth noting that larger airplanes require
> more
> > power, and more
> > power is more noise (or more expense to keep the noise
> from
> > increasing).
> > 
> > "Wouldn't it be nice if"........is a dangerous lead in
> to
> > rule changes with
> > unintended consequences.? The gas engine, the
> heavier
> > lipo, the heavier
> > motor, the heavier airframe, etc.....will all forever
> be
> > less competitive
> > because the limits will always be pushed by the
> > airframe/powerplant that has
> > the best power to weight ratio, and that will always
> cost
> > more, and always
> > be more sensitive to weight conscious building
> > techniques.? No change in the
> > rules will ever allow parity for equipment that does
> not
> > have the best power
> > to weight ratio.
> > 
> > Someone else made the point that they perceived the
> less
> > the rules change,
> > the more available airframes and equipment are (2nd
> hand) -
> > I couldn't agree
> > more.? Stop changing the rules to allow (intended or
> > not) higher performance
> > airframes, and the "old" ones won't be obsolete so
> > quickly.
> > 
> > Personally, after a lot of research and planning, I
> > switched to electric in
> > 2006....and the expense was big.....especially because
> I
> > had perfectly good
> > glow stuff, and maintained glow and electric for about
> 1
> > year.? To date,
> > I've built 3 electric airframes (1 Abbra, 2 Prestige),
> and
> > between them I
> > have run 12 different motors of different brands,
> weights,
> > in/out runners,
> > and just about every mounting configuration you can
> think
> > of.? The majority
> > of the motors have been < $300, and I've always
> used the
> > Castle 85HV (which
> > I think has always been and still is the least
> expensive
> > ESC available for
> > the job).? My planes have weighed anywhere between 9
> > lbs 13 oz and 10 lbs 14
> > depending on the configuration.? If I had the time,
> > $$$, resources, etc, I'd
> > design and build my own stuff right up to the limit,
> > whatever that limit
> > might be.? As I do have limits (as most of us do),
> > I'll get as close to what
> > I think optimum performance is, and it may or may not
> be
> > pushing the limits
> > (for whatever reasons). 
> > 
> > In the past 3 years, I've spent a huge amount of time
> on
> > email, phone,
> > forums, in my shop, in others shops, etc....working
> with
> > people on how to
> > assemble electric pattern stuff....and most are not
> using
> > the most expensive
> > airframes or equipment, and all are under 11 lbs.?
> > Bottom line is that you
> > can not take the largest, cheapest, and heaviest of
> each
> > respective
> > component and have a sub 11 lb electric OR glow
> > plane.? Nor do you need to
> > have the most expensive and lightest example of each
> > component to be
> > competitive.? You do need to research, plan, and
> make
> > educated decisions.
> > No offense to anyone with an 10 lb 18 oz plane....they
> do
> > exist....and most
> > are being happily flown, and most can make weight for
> the
> > NATs if the time
> > is spent in advanced.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Dave
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> > On Behalf Of
> > verne at twmi.rr.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:53 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > 
> > Derek,
> > We've discussed raising the weight before and it's
> always
> > been voted down. I
> > believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart has
> steadfastly
> > argued that raising
> > the weight limit will inevitably increase the size of
> our
> > planes, obsoleting
> > anything that preceded it. I agree with him. 
> > 
> > What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for
> someone
> > wanting to try
> > electric to be able to do so without having to buy the
> most
> > expensive
> > equipment available. For example, at a contest last
> > weekend, a friend and
> > fellow pattern pilot had a set of Zippy packs that
> weighed
> > roughly 5.5
> > ounces more than my FlightPower packs. Pretty much the
> same
> > difference when
> > compared to Andrew's TP packs. The Zippy's as we all
> know,
> > were less than
> > half the cost. I know for sure that my friend would
> have
> > made weight with my
> > FP's or Andrew's TP's, but he couldn't afford that
> after
> > all the other
> > "electric" purchases. 
> > 
> > What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked
> out, is
> > that electric
> > airplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be weighed
> > without their "fuel",
> > just like glow. The Rx battery will have to be in the
> > plane, just like glow.
> > Yes, I realize that there are UBEC's out there but I
> don't
> > know of anyone
> > who trusts them with the kind of current we're
> running. In
> > any event, my
> > preliminary research indicates that roughly 8.7
> pounds
> > should be just about
> > right, but I want to make sure before I submit the
> > proposal.
> > 
> > Verne
> > 
> > ? 
> > ---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
> > wrote: 
> > > Verne,
> > > 
> > > When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of
> the
> > proposals which was
> > > passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify
> the
> > weight limit for
> > their
> > > helicopters effective 1/1/2010.? Here is the
> new
> > wording:
> > > 
> > > a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft
> (*with
> > *fuel *or *batteries)
> > > must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
> > > 
> > > Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting.
> Effective
> > 01/01/10.
> > > 
> > > I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A
> > sub-committee members to see if
> > > there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit
> to
> > 5.5kg.? What does
> > > everyone think about this?
> > > 
> > > -Derek
> > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Bill,
> > > > I've been working up an AMA rules proposal
> to
> > address that very issue.
> > > > Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by
> the
> > contest board anytime
> > soon. In
> > > > the meantime, there's one area you didn't
> mention
> > in the glow to
> > electric
> > > > comparison and that's that an electric
> plane
> > doesn't need as much
> > internal
> > > > reinforcement because there's virtually no
> > vibrational effects to
> > contend
> > > > with that you do with glow. That equates to
> > lighter airframes being
> > > > acceptable as well as small, light, lipo
> packs to
> > power the Rx and
> > servos.
> > > > An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50
> mah.
> > The same flight in
> > glow is
> > > > typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most
> electric
> > pilots will tell you
> > that
> > > > making weight in electric is generally a
> pretty
> > expensive proposition
> > with a
> > > > limited number of 2 meter planes available
> that
> > are usually
> > vacuum-bagged
> > > > composite affairs. In addition, your best
> chances
> > for making weight will
> > > > also necessitate the lightest and generally
> most
> > expensive motors and
> > > > batteries. There are exceptio
> > > >? ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear
> about
> > most of them, but I'll be
> > able
> > > > to point to just as many examples of guys
> that
> > fly overweight at local
> > > > contests where they know they won't be
> weighed
> > and the only thing
> > they're
> > > > really guilty of is not spending the extra
> money
> > that the lightest
> > batteries
> > > > and motors cost. In every other way, the
> planes
> > they're flying are the
> > same
> > > > as the ones they're competing against. The
> > proposal I'm working on is
> > not
> > > > self-serving because my planes make weight,
> but
> > getting there is both
> > too
> > > > expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion.
> My
> > proposal won't be to allow
> > > > electric planes to weigh more, it'll require
> that
> > they weigh less, but
> > > > without the "fuel". The proposal will take
> into
> > account that electric
> > motors
> > > > are inherently lighter than their glow
> > counterparts as well as the
> > reduced
> > > > structural requirements. It will limit the
> mah of
> > permissible packs to
> > > > control that end of the equation and
> there's
> > already a voltage limit on
> > the
> > > > books which is fine as it
> > > >? stands. I'm currently doing survey work
> at
> > the contests I go to to see
> > > > where everybody is at weight-wise and will
> post
> > my proposal on this list
> > > > soon. After that, it's up to all concerned
> to
> > voice their opinions to
> > their
> > > > respective Contest Board reps.
> > > >
> > > > Verne Koester
> > > > AMA District 7
> > > > Contest Board
> > > >? ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
> > wrote:
> > > > >? I am certain this has been beaten to
> > death while I was off doing
> > other
> > > > > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model
> may
> > weigh more than five (5)
> > > > > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but
> excluding
> > fuel, ready for takeoff.
> > > > > Electric models are weighed with
> batteries.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why can't an electric "deduct" the
> > equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??
> > Is
> > > > > a plane without fuel rally "ready for
> > takeoff"??
> > > > >
> > > > > I know it is likely a direct copy of
> the FAI
> > rule, but it makes no
> > > > > logical sense. IC powered planes are
> weighed
> > without fuel and can
> > weigh
> > > > > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it
> could
> > add another 10 to 12 ounces
> > of
> > > > > weight. That's OK. But if an electric
> with
> > batteries weight
> > > > > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is
> overweight
> > by the rules.
> > > > >
> > > > > Put another way, what does a YS and
> full
> > fuel weigh compared to a
> > > > > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > > > > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > > > > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > > > >
> > > > > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > > > > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > > > >
> > > > > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > > > > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > > > >
> > > > >? So I can see an argument that the
> > electrics have a weight advantage
> > > > > when it comes to just the motor and
> ESC. But
> > with "fuel" electric is
> > at
> > > > > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > > > >
> > > > > So if I build a plane for electric I
> need to
> > build it 20 plus ounces
> > > > > lighter than if I was going to put a
> nitro
> > motor in it. How does that
> > > > > make sense. I know I am missing
> something
> > important here, so educate
> > me.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 


      
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



From seefo at san.rr.com  Fri Jun  5 03:52:14 2009
From: seefo at san.rr.com (Doug Cronkhite)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:52:14 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <1063572082.215051244048736415.JavaMail.root@sz0056a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1063572082.215051244048736415.JavaMail.root@sz0056a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <4A2906B7.7070101@san.rr.com>


Any change in rules for current technology is quickly going to become a 
case of chasing your tail. This argument is really no different 
conceptually than the one to allow bigger 4-cycle engines years ago. 
Just leave things alone.

Electric airplanes are really one power system evolution away from being 
completely dominant performance-wise. With as much money going into 
battery technology development as there is today (green power and all 
that), we're just not that far away from seeing that evolution. Consider 
that 5 years ago, electrics were pretty much in their infancy in this 
arena. Just look at how much batteries have evolved since then. I'd give 
glow another 3 - 4 years before it's obsolete.



From schale at optonline.net  Fri Jun  5 04:10:50 2009
From: schale at optonline.net (Stuart Chale)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:10:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
In-Reply-To: <SNT104-W17D50FAEE74F06173A8A6DBB4B0@phx.gbl>
References: <794174.59306.qm@web51003.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<SNT104-W17D50FAEE74F06173A8A6DBB4B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4A290B3B.6070109@optonline.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090605/1ae56603/attachment.html>

From jpavlick at idseng.com  Fri Jun  5 04:59:05 2009
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:59:05 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
Message-ID: <682105.83175.qm@web80502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Did you expect anythng less from this group? LOL
?
John Pavlick

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Verne Koester <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:


From: Verne Koester <verne at twmi.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 11:52 PM


This discussion reminds me of the old law school example that teaches the
unreliability of hearsay or second-hand information. You start by whispering
something into the ear of the first person in the first row and then have
him repeat the message to the person sitting next to him. You continue on in
this fashion until it works its way to the last person in the last row and
have that person repeat the message. The difference between my original
message and the final version is astounding. I give the award here to Dave
for twisting my message the most. Somehow or other my proposal has turned
from decreasing the allowable weight of an electric plane without batteries
into increasing the weight of all pattern planes, strapping gas engines on
for good measure, rendering all current designs obsolete while totally
ignoring the fact that easily 99% of the designs come from the FAI ranks
which aren't impacted in any way by this proposal, and completely ignoring
the fact that currently available 5300 mah batteries haven't gotten lighter,
they've gotten heavier. Most of us started with TP 5300 5S4P batteries
including Dave. They aren't made anymore and everything available in that
power/mah range from any manufacturer is anywhere from 2 to 10 ounces
heavier going from most expensive to cheapest. But you knew that, right?

Verne

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of mike mueller
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:44 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight


OK Uncle!!!!!

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:

> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:? Weight
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 3:51 PM
> Mike,
> 
> "Dave there are cheaper higher C light weight Lipo's on the
> market now so no
> need for the expensive stuff if one so chooses."
> 
> Whoooaaa!!!!? So if the cheap lightweight lipo is
> available now, why is it
> that the current rules need to be tweaked??
> 
> If you like Verne's proposal, vote for it (if/when
> submitted).? And know
> that doing so probably won't bring us to the point where
> electrics are the
> only planes flying, just the point at which glow are
> seriously outclassed.
> 
> I'm not opposed to the spirit of Verne's idea, but the
> nature of competition
> is to push the limits whatever they are, and pushing the
> limits costs
> time/money/resources - always has and always will.?
> Raising the limits
> simply raises the costs for all of us.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 
>? 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of mike mueller
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:08 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight
> 
> 
>? Dave there are cheaper higher C light weight Lipo's on the
> market now so no
> need for the expensive stuff if one so chooses.
>? I make weight with both my planes but the choices I made
> in airframes and
> equipment made it close. The planes both feel light in the
> air. My newest
> one was harder and more expensive to make legal than what I
> would have liked
> but it flys very nicely.
>? Say whatever you guys like and all the points are well
> taken but I still
> like Verne's proposal. That's called an opinion and we all
> have one as you
> know.
>? I hope we never get to the point where Electric planes are
> the only thing
> we fly. I love to see a screaming YS plane flying and who
> knows if I
> wouldn't want to some day do another one just to do
> something different.
> It'll just be expensive. Plus if were all flying the same
> power plant who am
> I going to argue with?????? 
>? Great debate and I'm taking in all the thoughts. You guys
> are pretty smart
> dudes!!!? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ? ? ? Mike
> 
> --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:? Weight
> > To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 11:17 AM
> > Honestly, I understand (and agree)
> > with the intention to allow the "cheap
> > electric", but it is no different than trying to tweak
> the
> > rules for the
> > "cheap gas engine" and won't (my opinion, with
> substantial
> > history to back
> > it) work- 
> > - why should the rules be tweaked to essentially
> allow
> > someone the latest
> > greatest (electric) without paying for it (either
> with
> > time, or $$$, or
> > experience)?? The latest greatest always cost more -
> > that is the nature of
> > competition.
> > - I truly believe the time spent researching,
> designing,
> > crafting,
> > submitting, and implementing such a proposal will
> largely
> > be wasted because
> > the process is relatively slow and can not possibly
> keep up
> > with the rate of
> > change in electrics as technology advances.
> > - Anyone who wants to try electric - go right ahead -
> and
> > fly a current day
> > design at a slight weight disadvantage at local comps
> (most
> > guys don't go to
> > the NATs anyway) - no one is going to ask or care
> about a
> > couple ounces over
> > 11 lbs.? And if they do decide to go to the NATs,
> they
> > can suck it up and
> > buy 1 expensive pack for official flights and the
> scale.
> > 
> > With the understanding of the intent to allow cheap
> > electrics, the
> > unintended consequences of any rule change needs to
> be
> > carefully evaluated
> > prior to submitting a proposal.? In this case, the
> > unintended consequence
> > will be the opportunity for the TOP LEVEL electric
> designs
> > to grow
> > substantially in size and weight, which will drive the
> cost
> > up for all
> > competitors (glow and electric) to compete with the
> new
> > performance
> > standard.? The average plane is influenced by
> whatever
> > the TOP LEVEL stuff
> > is - that is why both electric and glow TOP LEVEL
> stuff has
> > always been
> > right on the limit of whatever the rules are at the
> time,
> > and that is the
> > way it will always be - again, it is the nature of
> > competition.
> > 
> > The top level electrics right now weigh well under 11
> > lbs......10 lbs is
> > quite possible with electric monoplanes, which is why
> some
> > are able to sneak
> > biplanes in under 11 lbs - of course this is by
> shaving
> > every ounce off the
> > airframe (reducing it's lifespan and making it
> relatively
> > fragile) and
> > pushing the lipos harder (also reducing it's
> > lifespan).? So when you look at
> > 8.7 lbs considering the weight of the electrics that
> are
> > marginally
> > overweight (with the Zippy packs and AXI), the
> unintended
> > consequence is the
> > guys that have 7.5 lb airframes now have 1.2 lbs of
> > additional weight to add
> > to make the plane bigger - and you know it will be
> used,
> > and probably along
> > the lines of - 
> > - 6-8 oz for structure
> > - 3-4 oz for more motor (more power)
> > - 4-5 oz for more lipo (which would still be rated the
> same
> > 5300 mah, but be
> > heavier to allow more voltage under load, thus
> delivering
> > more watts through
> > the course of the flight - and it will be called a
> "High
> > Power Prolite", or
> > "High Power AEON", whatever.)
> > - 1-2 oz more for bigger servos and more RX battery
> > 
> > And 2 years after the 8.7 lb rule is introduced, there
> will
> > be a cheap copy
> > of the "High Power Prolite" will be available and it
> will
> > weigh 5 oz more,
> > and the desire will be to raise the 8.7 lbs to 9.2
> lbs.
> > 
> > Allow 5.5 kg (12 lb) or 6 kg (14.3 kg) airframes, and
> yes,
> > you will have
> > DA50 powered stuff that is competitive with current
> day
> > designs, but it will
> > not be competitive with the YS built for 6 kg
> airframes for
> > the same reason
> > gas is not competitive with glow now.
> > 
> > Allow 5.5 kg weight limit, and you instantly solve
> the
> > problem of all the
> > guys that are a couple oz over the current 5 kg
> weight
> > limit.? And the new
> > designs will grow, and in 1-2 years, the new designs
> will
> > be showing up a
> > couple oz over the 5.5 kg limit.
> > 
> > It may be true that for the TOP LEVELs of competition
> that
> > any airframe is
> > obsolete in 3 years......BUT.......changing the rules
> to
> > allow 15 lbs
> > airframes will obsolete (immediately) not only the
> > airframes, but the
> > powerplants and servos.....and up the horsepower
> > requirements substantially
> > which will increase the noise (only measured at the
> NATs)
> > and require
> > substantially more cost to reduce the noise (to
> achieve
> > 94/96 db at the
> > NATs).
> > 
> > All of the above is escalation no different than what
> we've
> > seen in the past
> > -
> > - "we" started with .61 cubic inch (10 CC) limit and
> 5
> > kg......the only
> > practical limit was the displacement.
> > - "we" allowed 120 4C (big mistake, short sighted, or
> > should have been
> > continually adjusted as competition 4Cs developed).?
> > Airframes grew and cost
> > went up....some airplanes actually exceeded 2M (which
> was
> > not yet a limit).
> > - "we" allowed unlimited engines to, in part, cover up
> the
> > mistake of the
> > 120 4C, and, in part, to allow cheap gas engines
> (another
> > big mistake, again
> > short sighted).? The 2M rule went into place because
> > that was essentially
> > the "largest" plane in existence at the time.? The
> > airframes got bigger
> > again (fuse volume), and cost went up again, and the
> > practical limit to
> > airframe size became the 5 kg weight limit.
> > 
> > Of course we also have the noise limit - that is
> really a
> > separate issue -
> > but - it is worth noting that larger airplanes require
> more
> > power, and more
> > power is more noise (or more expense to keep the noise
> from
> > increasing).
> > 
> > "Wouldn't it be nice if"........is a dangerous lead in
> to
> > rule changes with
> > unintended consequences.? The gas engine, the
> heavier
> > lipo, the heavier
> > motor, the heavier airframe, etc.....will all forever
> be
> > less competitive
> > because the limits will always be pushed by the
> > airframe/powerplant that has
> > the best power to weight ratio, and that will always
> cost
> > more, and always
> > be more sensitive to weight conscious building
> > techniques.? No change in the
> > rules will ever allow parity for equipment that does
> not
> > have the best power
> > to weight ratio.
> > 
> > Someone else made the point that they perceived the
> less
> > the rules change,
> > the more available airframes and equipment are (2nd
> hand) -
> > I couldn't agree
> > more.? Stop changing the rules to allow (intended or
> > not) higher performance
> > airframes, and the "old" ones won't be obsolete so
> > quickly.
> > 
> > Personally, after a lot of research and planning, I
> > switched to electric in
> > 2006....and the expense was big.....especially because
> I
> > had perfectly good
> > glow stuff, and maintained glow and electric for about
> 1
> > year.? To date,
> > I've built 3 electric airframes (1 Abbra, 2 Prestige),
> and
> > between them I
> > have run 12 different motors of different brands,
> weights,
> > in/out runners,
> > and just about every mounting configuration you can
> think
> > of.? The majority
> > of the motors have been < $300, and I've always
> used the
> > Castle 85HV (which
> > I think has always been and still is the least
> expensive
> > ESC available for
> > the job).? My planes have weighed anywhere between 9
> > lbs 13 oz and 10 lbs 14
> > depending on the configuration.? If I had the time,
> > $$$, resources, etc, I'd
> > design and build my own stuff right up to the limit,
> > whatever that limit
> > might be.? As I do have limits (as most of us do),
> > I'll get as close to what
> > I think optimum performance is, and it may or may not
> be
> > pushing the limits
> > (for whatever reasons). 
> > 
> > In the past 3 years, I've spent a huge amount of time
> on
> > email, phone,
> > forums, in my shop, in others shops, etc....working
> with
> > people on how to
> > assemble electric pattern stuff....and most are not
> using
> > the most expensive
> > airframes or equipment, and all are under 11 lbs.?
> > Bottom line is that you
> > can not take the largest, cheapest, and heaviest of
> each
> > respective
> > component and have a sub 11 lb electric OR glow
> > plane.? Nor do you need to
> > have the most expensive and lightest example of each
> > component to be
> > competitive.? You do need to research, plan, and
> make
> > educated decisions.
> > No offense to anyone with an 10 lb 18 oz plane....they
> do
> > exist....and most
> > are being happily flown, and most can make weight for
> the
> > NATs if the time
> > is spent in advanced.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Dave
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> > On Behalf Of
> > verne at twmi.rr.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:53 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > 
> > Derek,
> > We've discussed raising the weight before and it's
> always
> > been voted down. I
> > believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart has
> steadfastly
> > argued that raising
> > the weight limit will inevitably increase the size of
> our
> > planes, obsoleting
> > anything that preceded it. I agree with him. 
> > 
> > What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for
> someone
> > wanting to try
> > electric to be able to do so without having to buy the
> most
> > expensive
> > equipment available. For example, at a contest last
> > weekend, a friend and
> > fellow pattern pilot had a set of Zippy packs that
> weighed
> > roughly 5.5
> > ounces more than my FlightPower packs. Pretty much the
> same
> > difference when
> > compared to Andrew's TP packs. The Zippy's as we all
> know,
> > were less than
> > half the cost. I know for sure that my friend would
> have
> > made weight with my
> > FP's or Andrew's TP's, but he couldn't afford that
> after
> > all the other
> > "electric" purchases. 
> > 
> > What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked
> out, is
> > that electric
> > airplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be weighed
> > without their "fuel",
> > just like glow. The Rx battery will have to be in the
> > plane, just like glow.
> > Yes, I realize that there are UBEC's out there but I
> don't
> > know of anyone
> > who trusts them with the kind of current we're
> running. In
> > any event, my
> > preliminary research indicates that roughly 8.7
> pounds
> > should be just about
> > right, but I want to make sure before I submit the
> > proposal.
> > 
> > Verne
> > 
> > ? 
> > ---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
> > wrote: 
> > > Verne,
> > > 
> > > When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of
> the
> > proposals which was
> > > passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify
> the
> > weight limit for
> > their
> > > helicopters effective 1/1/2010.? Here is the
> new
> > wording:
> > > 
> > > a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft
> (*with
> > *fuel *or *batteries)
> > > must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
> > > 
> > > Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting.
> Effective
> > 01/01/10.
> > > 
> > > I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A
> > sub-committee members to see if
> > > there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit
> to
> > 5.5kg.? What does
> > > everyone think about this?
> > > 
> > > -Derek
> > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Bill,
> > > > I've been working up an AMA rules proposal
> to
> > address that very issue.
> > > > Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by
> the
> > contest board anytime
> > soon. In
> > > > the meantime, there's one area you didn't
> mention
> > in the glow to
> > electric
> > > > comparison and that's that an electric
> plane
> > doesn't need as much
> > internal
> > > > reinforcement because there's virtually no
> > vibrational effects to
> > contend
> > > > with that you do with glow. That equates to
> > lighter airframes being
> > > > acceptable as well as small, light, lipo
> packs to
> > power the Rx and
> > servos.
> > > > An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50
> mah.
> > The same flight in
> > glow is
> > > > typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most
> electric
> > pilots will tell you
> > that
> > > > making weight in electric is generally a
> pretty
> > expensive proposition
> > with a
> > > > limited number of 2 meter planes available
> that
> > are usually
> > vacuum-bagged
> > > > composite affairs. In addition, your best
> chances
> > for making weight will
> > > > also necessitate the lightest and generally
> most
> > expensive motors and
> > > > batteries. There are exceptio
> > > >? ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear
> about
> > most of them, but I'll be
> > able
> > > > to point to just as many examples of guys
> that
> > fly overweight at local
> > > > contests where they know they won't be
> weighed
> > and the only thing
> > they're
> > > > really guilty of is not spending the extra
> money
> > that the lightest
> > batteries
> > > > and motors cost. In every other way, the
> planes
> > they're flying are the
> > same
> > > > as the ones they're competing against. The
> > proposal I'm working on is
> > not
> > > > self-serving because my planes make weight,
> but
> > getting there is both
> > too
> > > > expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion.
> My
> > proposal won't be to allow
> > > > electric planes to weigh more, it'll require
> that
> > they weigh less, but
> > > > without the "fuel". The proposal will take
> into
> > account that electric
> > motors
> > > > are inherently lighter than their glow
> > counterparts as well as the
> > reduced
> > > > structural requirements. It will limit the
> mah of
> > permissible packs to
> > > > control that end of the equation and
> there's
> > already a voltage limit on
> > the
> > > > books which is fine as it
> > > >? stands. I'm currently doing survey work
> at
> > the contests I go to to see
> > > > where everybody is at weight-wise and will
> post
> > my proposal on this list
> > > > soon. After that, it's up to all concerned
> to
> > voice their opinions to
> > their
> > > > respective Contest Board reps.
> > > >
> > > > Verne Koester
> > > > AMA District 7
> > > > Contest Board
> > > >? ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
> > wrote:
> > > > >? I am certain this has been beaten to
> > death while I was off doing
> > other
> > > > > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model
> may
> > weigh more than five (5)
> > > > > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but
> excluding
> > fuel, ready for takeoff.
> > > > > Electric models are weighed with
> batteries.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why can't an electric "deduct" the
> > equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??
> > Is
> > > > > a plane without fuel rally "ready for
> > takeoff"??
> > > > >
> > > > > I know it is likely a direct copy of
> the FAI
> > rule, but it makes no
> > > > > logical sense. IC powered planes are
> weighed
> > without fuel and can
> > weigh
> > > > > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it
> could
> > add another 10 to 12 ounces
> > of
> > > > > weight. That's OK. But if an electric
> with
> > batteries weight
> > > > > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is
> overweight
> > by the rules.
> > > > >
> > > > > Put another way, what does a YS and
> full
> > fuel weigh compared to a
> > > > > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > > > > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > > > > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > > > >
> > > > > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > > > > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > > > >
> > > > > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > > > > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > > > >
> > > > >? So I can see an argument that the
> > electrics have a weight advantage
> > > > > when it comes to just the motor and
> ESC. But
> > with "fuel" electric is
> > at
> > > > > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > > > >
> > > > > So if I build a plane for electric I
> need to
> > build it 20 plus ounces
> > > > > lighter than if I was going to put a
> nitro
> > motor in it. How does that
> > > > > make sense. I know I am missing
> something
> > important here, so educate
> > me.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 


? ? ? 
_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090605/c9232743/attachment.html>

From jpavlick at idseng.com  Fri Jun  5 05:01:25 2009
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:01:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Message-ID: <920007.98084.qm@web80501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Great idea Stu but you'd never make weight with 3 integral wings! (Sorry I couldn't resist).
?
John Pavlick

--- On Fri, 6/5/09, Stuart Chale <schale at optonline.net> wrote:


From: Stuart Chale <schale at optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Friday, June 5, 2009, 8:10 AM


Who mentioned a triplane :)

Joe Lachowski wrote: 


#yiv1486160090 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv1486160090 {
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

Speaking of Integral wings. I have 3 composite sets laying around?if any one is interested.<g>
?
> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 06:40:21 -0700
> From: mups1953 at yahoo.com
> To: jpavlick at idseng.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> 
> All good points John but let me say this. It's nearly impossible to build a light composite wing. If you make them too light they risk blowing apart in the air. i have seen some recent examples of Extreme Composite planes doing such. Composite ARF does a great job with there stuff today and seem to have a good compromise between strength and weight. There's a lot of guys flying them who made E. weight like Jason, Chad and Andrew.
> Wist and Jaroslav Mach do the best job I've seen with composite wings making weight but they are a little hard to get. Also they are not as good a deal money wise as the Integral. My Integral has a foam wing and yes it seems silly but it did result in a pretty awesome plane and it's light. I offset the costs by selling the composite wings from the kit. Mike
> 
> --- On Thu, 6/4/09, John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 8:18 AM
> > Part of the reason why Pattern
> > planes become "obsolete" is due to the fact that
> > the airframe rules for ALL classes are the same. The higher
> > classes schedules change and that requires design changes.
> > This is not a bad thing. It's?part of any good
> > competitive sport / hobby.?Since the airframe rules
> > apply to all classes, you only have one definition of a
> > "legal" airplane which could be flown in any
> > class. That would be like allowing a Grand National Stock
> > car to run in the Street Stock class. How many people would
> > be willing to try to enter the sport on a low budget with an
> > old Chevelle? My guess is - none! 
> > ?
> > I don't know how we could change this without
> > causing more problems but it's something to think about.
> > Personally?I think a 90 size / 1.5 meter Sportsman
> > class would do more to grow pattern than messing with the
> > weight rules.
> > ?
> > Going back the the weight issue,?I really
> > don't think raising the weight limit will attract more
> > people to Pattern.?I just don't see how. Who
> > actually weighs airplanes at a local contest? If we were
> > weighing planes at every contest I bet a lot of glow planes
> > would be "illegal". Probably more than the number
> > of electrics at any given contest. Why? Because most of the
> > guys building electrics have learned to pay close attention
> > to weight. That's because of the current rules.
> > That's a good thing. 
> > ?
> > Something else to think about: many of you guys are
> > paying top dollar for high end airframes that are basically
> > overweight to start with. Sure you can try to get things
> > under control by using smaller airborne batteries, lighter
> > servos, etc. but if?I were you I'd be a bit upset
> > if?I paid for a?"competition" airplane
> > that needed a lot of finessing to meet the weight
> > requirements. 
> > ?
> > Many of you guys like the Integral. This is a perfect
> > example of what I'm talking about. Have you felt how
> > heavy the wings are on some of those? For the money they
> > charge, they should be able to build something lighter. You
> > shouldn't have to?custom cut?a set of foam
> > wings to replace the ones in your kit. That's just
> > silly.
> > ?
> > It does NOT require "zen" building
> > techniques to build an airplane that makes weight. OK, that
> > doesn't hurt but all you need to do is pay close
> > attention to what everything weighs as you build. EVERY
> > time?I see an airplane that's
> > "overweight", I can pick out at least 3 things
> > that are just plain absurd. I've only been doing this
> > for a few years. Some of you guys have been flying Pattern
> > longer than I've been alive. If?I can do it anyone
> > can. My first 2-meter build (Black Magic V2.2 w/ OS 160)
> > came out at 10lbs, 6.9 oz. I don't have the
> > "zen" building technique down just yet so I'd
> > have to say this should be possible for most people. I'm
> > going to build an electric VF-3 this winter. I bet anyone
> > that?it will come in under weight. And?I don't
> > have a ton of money to throw at it. In fact I'll
> > probably buy used stuff to save some money?so?I
> > can buy?good batteries. :)
> > ?
> > John Pavlick
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Thu, 6/4/09, mike mueller
> > <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> > To: "General pattern discussion"
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 8:45 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "designs are obsolete in 2-3 years"
> > Amen to that Ron. Pattern is like F1 racing we're
> > competitive and always looking for better and different.
> > Truth be known I look forward to a new plane in the Spring
> > that I planned and prepared for a year or so. It's part
> > of what appeals me to pattern and I do this on a lower
> > budget than many would deam possible. Trust me on this.
> > It's all about will and determination and innovation to
> > get what I want with as little as I have to work with. Money
> > and building talents lacking I still put down a competitive
> > piece each year. No sponsors either. Now that's actually
> > pretty funny sorry.....
> > Not saying a 5 year old design can't be competitive and
> > that the pilot doesn't determine the outcome most of the
> > time. I'm saying that I think designs for the truly
> > competitive have a rather short lifespan and that's not
> > going to change anytime soon.
> > Also Ron there are a lot of planes on the market that
> > work well with IC. What about the Passport? Osmose?
> > Integral? It's only been a year or so that the newer
> > generation of planes have been introduced that are dedicated
> > for E. use like the E Motion, Spark, Beryl E. Addiction E.
> > and the Sickle. Before that all the designs were meant for
> > IC and we adapted them to fit E.
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> > ? ? ? ? Mike
> > 
> > 
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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



Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. Check it out. 
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
  
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090605/a113e06b/attachment.html>

From billglaze at bellsouth.net  Fri Jun  5 05:33:47 2009
From: billglaze at bellsouth.net (Bill Glaze)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:33:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
References: <3454543c0906030952g1c790516yf32c1c92cc527699@mail.gmail.com><20090603175326.8D8S1.33727.root@hrndva-web26-z02><AA26DE2C483F45E1A2BC9E5FA867DBC0@davedesktop><cfc48f71f00a.4a27dbcc@shaw.ca>
	<4A28348F.9070603@priusonline.com><840508.22601.qm@web80506.mail.mud.yahoo.com><4A2846C5.4070801@priusonline.com>
	<20090604223039.453D1115A8@bridi.netexpress.com>
Message-ID: <3786B188C3E348A9A4917DE5968180E9@glazecstp32xp>

Don't forget about the Drake outboard................... 
Bill Glaze
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Phil Spelt 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 6:30 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight


  Right, then we'd have Pattern looking just like the Indy Racing League and NASCAR -- everyone driving the same thing, and all innovation is thoroughly stifled.  I grew up on USAC racing in the Midwest -- they ran Offenhauser 4-cylinder engines for a long time, until Ford and some of the other engine builders learned how to compete, then we were back to good variety and honest competition.  Then ole Tony George took over when Tony Hullman died, and single handedly destroyed that.  Now NASCAR has done the same thing -- take a body/chassis, put a sticker on it, and call it a "Ford" or whatever.

  At 06:12 PM 6/4/2009, you wrote:

    The goal is to make things cheaper for a 2 meter setup,  if the goal was just to make it cheaper than just define a specific mass produced arf as the standard setup and require everyone to fly the same setup... 
  --> There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

  Phil Spelt, Webmaster & Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
         URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
  AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member, SPA--177
        My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
        (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090605/67e73608/attachment.html>

From geobet4 at verizon.net  Fri Jun  5 06:48:06 2009
From: geobet4 at verizon.net (George W.Kennie)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:48:06 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] mount
References: <678750F53FD94805B319511F1769211C@CYBERPOWER>
	<BLU137-DAV5DC7D8990525BF6F7889C834B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <0619A60461904A42A34C5C05F448336B@CYBERPOWER>

Thanks Chris,

That's what I was hoping someone could provide !

Having worked with nothing but under 500 watt motors I realize I've really fallen behind the 
curve knowledgewize regarding larger installations.

This is great and really appreciated.

Georgie




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Chris Moon 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:39 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] mount


  George:

  The mount that several of us have used for the Hacker outrunner is available from Esprit Models in Florida. $25 but it weighs 7oz for the A60 size.  Not sure about the other sizes.
  http://www.espritmodel.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=612

  Outrunners mounted to a sturdy firewall have had no problems without having support at both ends. There is an interesting mount available in Japan that does as you are looking too for but mounts to a set of wood beams. I will try and attach some pics.





  Chris


  George W.Kennie wrote: 
    Dave,

    I don't want to be a pest here, but do you know who produces those Hacker Mounts with the rear bearing?

    That's exactly what I'm looking for, but Hacker doesn't spec the hole layout for the motor or the mount so 
    I can't tell if I can adapt it for my motor. 

    I reason that the mount is produced by an independent supplier and if I could find out who that is I could 
    come up with the specs I need.

    Thanks for any help.

    Georgie


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter.
    We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
    SPAMfighter has removed 25188 of my spam emails to date.
    The Professional version does not have this message.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.53/2154 - Release Date: 06/04/09 05:53:00

  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090605/7f677301/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 23157 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090605/7f677301/attachment.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20798 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090605/7f677301/attachment-0001.jpe>

From cjm767driver at hotmail.com  Fri Jun  5 07:54:27 2009
From: cjm767driver at hotmail.com (Chris Moon)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:54:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Battery Data needed
Message-ID: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>

To all electric guys (and gals) - since we are all flying again, can I 
please get you to send me some updated battery data on your packs?  
Cycles, performance etc.  I am especially in need of longevity data from 
the cheaper Zippy/Rhino/FlightMax type packs so we can see if the really 
cheap packs are working out.  Anything on the TP ProLites would be 
especially appreciated also.  I plan to do a large data update this week 
coming up.  You can email it to me or upload via the electric-f3a  web 
site:
http://www.electric-f3a.com/Forms/battery_data_form.htm

Or email through the web site at
setupdata at flectric-f3a.com

Thanks for sharing this info.  I appreciate your willingness to help 
each other.

Chris



From wemodels at cox.net  Fri Jun  5 08:34:17 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:34:17 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Battery source
In-Reply-To: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4A294907.3010506@cox.net>

Speaking of batteries, not sure if people know about RC Lipos.com   
http://www.rclipos.com

They have a PolyRC 5S 5,350 mAh 16C pack for $157. Weighs 622 grams. 
These are great cells 100% Enerland cells.

These are the exact same packs as the brand named "PolyQuest", just a 
different label. I've used the PolyRC cells for a few years now and have 
found them to be superb cells with great performance. Plus Pat at RC 
Lipos is a great guy to deal with. And he has FREE world wide shipping.

http://www.rclipos.com/PolyquestLP.htm

And I think I may have gotten the last TP 5S2P 5300 packs in existence 
from him yesterday. TP is likely going to stop making this pack because 
they do not like the parallel arrangement. The good news is they are 
going to keep making the 2600 mAh V2 cells used in  this pack so you can 
still make up DIY packs. The parallel arrangement has a clear advantage 
over a 1P set up that it may be worthwhile dealing with the 4 packs.  
The bonus would be that each pack will have its own balance tap that way.


Anyhow, keep RC Lipos in mind. Excellent company to deal with.

From chadnortheast at shaw.ca  Fri Jun  5 13:22:32 2009
From: chadnortheast at shaw.ca (Chad Northeast)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:22:32 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion]  wiring holders
In-Reply-To: <4A294907.3010506@cox.net>
References: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>
	<4A294907.3010506@cox.net>
Message-ID: <d02fde51aa83.4a29381f@shaw.ca>

Can someone point me to a source for wiring holder things like these?

http://www.jtecrc.com/clamploks.htm

I have been looking for a while but Jtec is out of stock and I can't seem to locate them elsewhere.

Thanks,
Chad








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090605/614cf0f3/attachment.html>

From pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net  Fri Jun  5 13:28:06 2009
From: pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net (Ihncheol Park)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:28:06 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] TP 53005SPL2
In-Reply-To: <4A294907.3010506@cox.net>
References: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>
	<4A294907.3010506@cox.net>
Message-ID: <11879.40105.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Can anyone confirm that the Thunder Power 53005SPL2? is actually 5S2P made of 10-cells of 2600mAh.

http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=THP53005SPL2

Thanks,

Ihncheol
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090605/11c6d0a2/attachment.html>

From dunnaway at hbcomm.net  Fri Jun  5 13:29:31 2009
From: dunnaway at hbcomm.net (Joe Dunnaway)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:29:31 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wiring holders
In-Reply-To: <d02fde51aa83.4a29381f@shaw.ca>
References: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>	<4A294907.3010506@cox.net>
	<d02fde51aa83.4a29381f@shaw.ca>
Message-ID: <4A298E12.9080203@hbcomm.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090605/b21289f9/attachment.html>

From homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  5 13:30:11 2009
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com (Chris Fitzsimmons)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:30:11 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wiring holders
Message-ID: <969584.31334.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Chief aircraft sells the one's I use. 
They are the Slimline brand. 

Chris

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 5, 2009, at 2:22 PM, Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at shaw.ca> wrote:

Can someone point me to a source for wiring holder things like these?

http://www.jtecrc.com/clamploks.htm

I have been looking for a while but Jtec is out of stock and I can't seem to locate them elsewhere.

Thanks,
Chad







_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



      

From homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  5 13:32:28 2009
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com (Chris Fitzsimmons)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:32:28 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wiring holders
Message-ID: <996335.33608.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Oops, read a partial email on my phone. Chief also sells them Chad.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 5, 2009, at 2:22 PM, Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at shaw.ca> wrote:

Can someone point me to a source for wiring holder things like these?

http://www.jtecrc.com/clamploks.htm

I have been looking for a while but Jtec is out of stock and I can't seem to locate them elsewhere.

Thanks,
Chad







_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



      

From pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net  Fri Jun  5 13:33:03 2009
From: pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net (Ihncheol Park)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:33:03 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wiring holders
In-Reply-To: <d02fde51aa83.4a29381f@shaw.ca>
References: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>
	<4A294907.3010506@cox.net> <d02fde51aa83.4a29381f@shaw.ca>
Message-ID: <447162.22682.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Chad,

Are those made of plastic?
I got bunch of WireKeeps that are made of foam
http://www.thunderboltrc.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=119&products_id=556

Ihncheol

?



________________________________
From: Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at shaw.ca>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2009 4:22:07 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wiring holders

Can someone point me to a source for wiring holder things like these?

http://www.jtecrc.com/clamploks.htm

I have been looking for a while but Jtec is out of stock and I can't seem to locate them elsewhere.

Thanks,
Chad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090605/b4c4a213/attachment.html>

From chadnortheast at shaw.ca  Fri Jun  5 13:33:26 2009
From: chadnortheast at shaw.ca (Chad Northeast)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:33:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] TP 53005SPL2
In-Reply-To: <11879.40105.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>
	<4A294907.3010506@cox.net> <11879.40105.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ceb1a751e3a7.4a293aae@shaw.ca>

Yes they are.
Chad

----- Original Message -----
From: Ihncheol Park <pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net>
Date: Friday, June 5, 2009 3:28 pm
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] TP 53005SPL2
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

> Can anyone confirm that the Thunder Power 53005SPL2? is actually 
> 5S2P made of 10-cells of 2600mAh.
> 
> http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=THP53005SPL2
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ihncheol
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090605/af0e94c2/attachment.html>

From chadnortheast at shaw.ca  Fri Jun  5 13:46:09 2009
From: chadnortheast at shaw.ca (Chad Northeast)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:46:09 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wiring holders
In-Reply-To: <447162.22682.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>
	<4A294907.3010506@cox.net> <d02fde51aa83.4a29381f@shaw.ca>
	<447162.22682.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c8cfdf25fd4b.4a293da9@shaw.ca>

Thanks guys, exactly what I needed!

Chad

----- Original Message -----
From: Ihncheol Park <pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net>
Date: Friday, June 5, 2009 3:34 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]? wiring holders
To: chad at f3acanada.org, General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

> Chad,
> 
> Are those made of plastic?
> I got bunch of WireKeeps that are made of foam
> http://www.thunderboltrc.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=119&products_id=556
> 
> Ihncheol
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at shaw.ca>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2009 4:22:07 PM
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wiring holders
> 
> Can someone point me to a source for wiring holder things like these?
> 
> http://www.jtecrc.com/clamploks.htm
> 
> I have been looking for a while but Jtec is out of stock and I 
> can't seem to locate them elsewhere.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090605/a96efbcc/attachment.html>

From duane.e.beck at comcast.net  Fri Jun  5 13:49:39 2009
From: duane.e.beck at comcast.net (Duane Beck)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:49:39 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wiring holders
In-Reply-To: <311145724.1365971244238511432.JavaMail.root@sz0056a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <1314036414.1366511244238578462.JavaMail.root@sz0056a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>

R/C Foamy has wire tamers.
http://www.rcfoamy.com/

Duane

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chad Northeast" <chadnortheast at shaw.ca> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2009 5:22:07 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] ?wiring holders 

Can someone point me to a source for wiring holder things like these? 

http://www.jtecrc.com/clamploks.htm 

I have been looking for a while but Jtec is out of stock and I can't seem to locate them elsewhere. 

Thanks, 
Chad 

From wemodels at cox.net  Fri Jun  5 14:34:13 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:34:13 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] TP 53005SPL2
In-Reply-To: <11879.40105.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>	<4A294907.3010506@cox.net>
	<11879.40105.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4A299D63.4060701@cox.net>

Ihncheol Park wrote:
> Can anyone confirm that the Thunder Power 53005SPL2  is actually 5S2P 
> made of 10-cells of 2600mAh.
>  
> http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=THP53005SPL2
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Ihncheol
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is in fact a 5S2P arrangement. Two 5S 2600 mAh packs in parallel plus 
two other packs in parallel and those two in series with each other.  A 
total of 4 5S packs in there. THis is why this pack performs so well 
under load. Each of the two parallel packs in each set only sees half 
the load and consequently it has less voltage drop under load.

TP does not like making this arrangement and I understand that they may 
stop very soon.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090605/f8df6049/attachment.html>

From rcmaster199 at aol.com  Fri Jun  5 15:19:53 2009
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com (rcmaster199 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:19:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Power to Weight
In-Reply-To: <8326F585-22B6-4817-954F-23C428E786CF@cox.net>
References: <8326F585-22B6-4817-954F-23C428E786CF@cox.net>
Message-ID: <8CBB44B2EB7C1FB-ED0-4DF3@WEBMAIL-MC11.sysops.aol.com>

Well, let's think about it for a moment. In typical wet power set-ups 
the engines are putting out around 4 horses.

At 750 watts per horse, well...you do the math. The fact that many wet 
power set-ups weigh in at around 10 lbs, 300 w/lb is about right for 
wet set-ups. It should be right for e-power also

MattK
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 5:09 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight

Whoa!  300 watts per pound?  I am currently flying a 10 lb  19.8 oz
(yeah!) E-Genesis with a Dualsky 6360-12T motor, which puts out 2450
watts.  The power/weight ratio is 218 watts per pound and, even
though it doesn't seem lacking in power, it is on a weight reduction
program.

Ron

On Jun 4, 2009, at 3:35 PM, Chad Northeast wrote:

> Dave is spot on IMO.
>
> Also I think one important fact may have not received enough
> attention.  That is that the current legal voltage limit on
> batteries in FAI is 42V.  Increasing the weight and therefore
> required power of an electric model requires that you play within
> that rule.  To generate the necessary static 300 W/lb that most
> current competitive F3A models demand today but at a new weight of
> say even 6 kg (13.2 lbs), using an optimistic value of 35V under
> load you are beyond 100A setups.

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



From chad at f3acanada.org  Fri Jun  5 15:38:38 2009
From: chad at f3acanada.org (Chad Northeast)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:38:38 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] TP 53005SPL2
In-Reply-To: <4A299D63.4060701@cox.net>
References: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>
	<4A294907.3010506@cox.net>
	<11879.40105.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<4A299D63.4060701@cox.net>
Message-ID: <4A29AC75.9050508@f3acanada.org>

Bill
That is not correct, there are only 10 cells in those packs, made of 
2600 PL2 cells.  Essentially two 5s 2600 packs in parallel.

I have a hard time believing that TP will stop making this pack, they 
have made far more complicated packs in the past.  These packs are made 
to order which makes them usually not a stock item.  I will confirm this 
with TP though.  They have been around for nearly a year now (I am still 
flying the first two of 4 sets produced), so I don't see why they would 
stop now.

Chad

Bill's Email wrote:
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It is in fact a 5S2P arrangement. Two 5S 2600 mAh packs in parallel 
> plus two other packs in parallel and those two in series with each 
> other.  A total of 4 5S packs in there. THis is why this pack performs 
> so well under load. Each of the two parallel packs in each set only 
> sees half the load and consequently it has less voltage drop under load.
>
> TP does not like making this arrangement and I understand that they 
> may stop very soon.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-- 
Chad

www.chadnortheast.ca


From cahochhalter at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  5 15:44:26 2009
From: cahochhalter at yahoo.com (Chuck Hochhalter)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:44:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wiring holders
In-Reply-To: <d02fde51aa83.4a29381f@shaw.ca>
References: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl><4A294907.3010506@cox.net>
	<d02fde51aa83.4a29381f@shaw.ca>
Message-ID: <6FB9BA9002CE4126AA5DC2576B845259@ChuckLaptop>

chad, go to www.knoxhobbies.com  lighter than jtec.


Chuck Hochhalter


From: Chad Northeast 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:22 PM
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wiring holders


Can someone point me to a source for wiring holder things like these?

http://www.jtecrc.com/clamploks.htm

I have been looking for a while but Jtec is out of stock and I can't seem to locate them elsewhere.

Thanks,
Chad










--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090605/a48bde6d/attachment.html>

From chad at f3acanada.org  Fri Jun  5 15:58:30 2009
From: chad at f3acanada.org (Chad Northeast)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:58:30 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] TP 53005SPL2
In-Reply-To: <4A29ADDC.5090305@cox.net>
References: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>
	<4A294907.3010506@cox.net>
	<11879.40105.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<4A299D63.4060701@cox.net> <4A29AC75.9050508@f3acanada.org>
	<4A29ADDC.5090305@cox.net>
Message-ID: <4A29B124.1040803@f3acanada.org>

As a 10s pack yes,

I don't understand why you would want another balance tap for a parallel 
cell?  The voltage of that set of parallel cells cannot be made 
different, those two cells are always identical in voltage, and 
therefore always balanced.  To the charger the pack is 1P. 

The 2600 cells will always be scarce since its probably one of the most 
popular sizes in lipo's today for 3s parkflyers and 450 class helis.  
This was the same when the first gen 5300 prolites were constructed of 
1320's.  The demand from sportflyers for that size of packs stripped 
supply away from making the 5300 packs back then.

Chad

Bill's Email wrote:
> Yep, I was talking about a full 10S in the plane. Two 5S2P packs in 
> series, did not make that very clear did I?? 10 cells per pack, 20 
> cells total on board.
>
> I spoke with a pretty large reseller of TP products and he is the one 
> who told me that TP is not warm and fuzzy on this pack. He said they 
> have warranty concerns. Frankly I wish there was a separate balance 
> tap for each of the 5S packs in each one. As it is you are balancing 
> cells in parallel, not the best method.
>
> The 2600 cells that they make these up from are very scarce right now 
> and on backorder for TP. I've been waiting about a month for the two 
> packs I just got.
>
>
>
>
> Chad Northeast wrote:
>> Bill
>> That is not correct, there are only 10 cells in those packs, made of 
>> 2600 PL2 cells.  Essentially two 5s 2600 packs in parallel.
>>
>> I have a hard time believing that TP will stop making this pack, they 
>> have made far more complicated packs in the past.  These packs are 
>> made to order which makes them usually not a stock item.  I will 
>> confirm this with TP though.  They have been around for nearly a year 
>> now (I am still flying the first two of 4 sets produced), so I don't 
>> see why they would stop now.
>>
>> Chad
>>
>> Bill's Email wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>
>>> It is in fact a 5S2P arrangement. Two 5S 2600 mAh packs in parallel 
>>> plus two other packs in parallel and those two in series with each 
>>> other.  A total of 4 5S packs in there. THis is why this pack 
>>> performs so well under load. Each of the two parallel packs in each 
>>> set only sees half the load and consequently it has less voltage 
>>> drop under load.
>>>
>>> TP does not like making this arrangement and I understand that they 
>>> may stop very soon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>
>

-- 
Chad

www.chadnortheast.ca


From wemodels at cox.net  Fri Jun  5 16:10:21 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 00:10:21 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] TP 53005SPL2
In-Reply-To: <4A29AC75.9050508@f3acanada.org>
References: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>	<4A294907.3010506@cox.net>	<11879.40105.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>	<4A299D63.4060701@cox.net>
	<4A29AC75.9050508@f3acanada.org>
Message-ID: <4A29ADDC.5090305@cox.net>

Yep, I was talking about a full 10S in the plane. Two 5S2P packs in 
series, did not make that very clear did I?? 10 cells per pack, 20 cells 
total on board.

I spoke with a pretty large reseller of TP products and he is the one 
who told me that TP is not warm and fuzzy on this pack. He said they 
have warranty concerns. Frankly I wish there was a separate balance tap 
for each of the 5S packs in each one. As it is you are balancing cells 
in parallel, not the best method.

The 2600 cells that they make these up from are very scarce right now 
and on backorder for TP. I've been waiting about a month for the two 
packs I just got.




Chad Northeast wrote:
> Bill
> That is not correct, there are only 10 cells in those packs, made of 
> 2600 PL2 cells.  Essentially two 5s 2600 packs in parallel.
>
> I have a hard time believing that TP will stop making this pack, they 
> have made far more complicated packs in the past.  These packs are 
> made to order which makes them usually not a stock item.  I will 
> confirm this with TP though.  They have been around for nearly a year 
> now (I am still flying the first two of 4 sets produced), so I don't 
> see why they would stop now.
>
> Chad
>
> Bill's Email wrote:
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>
>> It is in fact a 5S2P arrangement. Two 5S 2600 mAh packs in parallel 
>> plus two other packs in parallel and those two in series with each 
>> other.  A total of 4 5S packs in there. THis is why this pack 
>> performs so well under load. Each of the two parallel packs in each 
>> set only sees half the load and consequently it has less voltage drop 
>> under load.
>>
>> TP does not like making this arrangement and I understand that they 
>> may stop very soon.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>


From homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  5 16:13:27 2009
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com (krishlan fitzsimmons)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 00:13:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses
Message-ID: <279948.87681.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

What have you found to be the best sunglasses for flying. Especially cloudy type weather such as the nats. 

Thanks!

Chris   ?  ?  ?


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090606/206b8fd0/attachment.html>

From derekkoopowitz at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 16:22:43 2009
From: derekkoopowitz at gmail.com (Derek Koopowitz)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 00:22:43 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses
In-Reply-To: <279948.87681.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <279948.87681.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3454543c0906051722y2e331031p62b487f977c57df4@mail.gmail.com>

I use the Zurich yellow sunglasses on cloudy days - the plane really sticks
out.



On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:13 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons <
homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>   What have you found to be the best sunglasses for flying. Especially
> cloudy type weather such as the nats.
>
> Thanks!
>
> *Chris *
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090606/ea76c892/attachment.html>

From jpavlick at idseng.com  Fri Jun  5 16:29:06 2009
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 00:29:06 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses
References: <279948.87681.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<3454543c0906051722y2e331031p62b487f977c57df4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00bb01c9e63d$cc1f0bb0$9501a8c0@GW7422>

Yes those work really well when it's cloudy. If there's any chance of the sun coming out though you may not want to use them, especiially if your eyes are sensitive. I have a few pairs of Zurichs and I try them until I find the best one for the conditions. I normally use the yellow for overcast and the medium or light rose tint for everything else. The rose colored lenses work almost like the yellow ones do - the colors are much more pronounced. They block more of the light though. I can actually fly through the sun with the medium rose lenses and I don't lose sight of the plane.

John Pavlick
http://www.idseng.com
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Derek Koopowitz 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 8:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses


  I use the Zurich yellow sunglasses on cloudy days - the plane really sticks out.


   
  On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:13 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:

          What have you found to be the best sunglasses for flying. Especially cloudy type weather such as the nats. 

          Thanks!


          Chris 


         


    _______________________________________________
    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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090606/8349d1e5/attachment.html>

From joddino at socal.rr.com  Fri Jun  5 16:30:59 2009
From: joddino at socal.rr.com (James Oddino)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 00:30:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] TP 53005SPL2
In-Reply-To: <4A29ADDC.5090305@cox.net>
References: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>	<4A294907.3010506@cox.net>	<11879.40105.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>	<4A299D63.4060701@cox.net>
	<4A29AC75.9050508@f3acanada.org> <4A29ADDC.5090305@cox.net>
Message-ID: <FD7FB51C-C814-4014-8DEC-5F99B5CF7B7D@socal.rr.com>

Bill, I believe each 5s2p pack is wired such that it looks like a  
5s1p.  It is made up of five sets of two cells wired in parallel so  
each of these 2s "cells" is now a 5200 mah "cell'.  Therefore, the  
existing balance plugs are all you need.  Hope this is clear.

Jim


On Jun 5, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Bill's Email wrote:

> Yep, I was talking about a full 10S in the plane. Two 5S2P packs in  
> series, did not make that very clear did I?? 10 cells per pack, 20  
> cells total on board.
>
> I spoke with a pretty large reseller of TP products and he is the  
> one who told me that TP is not warm and fuzzy on this pack. He said  
> they have warranty concerns. Frankly I wish there was a separate  
> balance tap for each of the 5S packs in each one. As it is you are  
> balancing cells in parallel, not the best method.
>
> The 2600 cells that they make these up from are very scarce right  
> now and on backorder for TP. I've been waiting about a month for the  
> two packs I just got.
>
>
>
>
> Chad Northeast wrote:
>> Bill
>> That is not correct, there are only 10 cells in those packs, made  
>> of 2600 PL2 cells.  Essentially two 5s 2600 packs in parallel.
>>
>> I have a hard time believing that TP will stop making this pack,  
>> they have made far more complicated packs in the past.  These packs  
>> are made to order which makes them usually not a stock item.  I  
>> will confirm this with TP though.  They have been around for nearly  
>> a year now (I am still flying the first two of 4 sets produced), so  
>> I don't see why they would stop now.
>>
>> Chad
>>
>> Bill's Email wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> It is in fact a 5S2P arrangement. Two 5S 2600 mAh packs in  
>>> parallel plus two other packs in parallel and those two in series  
>>> with each other.  A total of 4 5S packs in there. THis is why this  
>>> pack performs so well under load. Each of the two parallel packs  
>>> in each set only sees half the load and consequently it has less  
>>> voltage drop under load.
>>>
>>> TP does not like making this arrangement and I understand that  
>>> they may stop very soon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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


From pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net  Fri Jun  5 18:42:50 2009
From: pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net (Ihncheol Park)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:42:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] TP 53005SPL2
In-Reply-To: <4A29ADDC.5090305@cox.net>
References: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>	<4A294907.3010506@cox.net>	<11879.40105.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>	<4A299D63.4060701@cox.net>	<4A29AC75.9050508@f3acanada.org>
	<4A29ADDC.5090305@cox.net>
Message-ID: <001201c9e650$7ad102a0$707307e0$@net>

I actually talked to TP today.
They will keep the 53005SPL2. Not going to discontinue anytime soon.

Ihncheol

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill's Email
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 6:44 PM
To: chad at f3acanada.org; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] TP 53005SPL2

Yep, I was talking about a full 10S in the plane. Two 5S2P packs in 
series, did not make that very clear did I?? 10 cells per pack, 20 cells 
total on board.

I spoke with a pretty large reseller of TP products and he is the one 
who told me that TP is not warm and fuzzy on this pack. He said they 
have warranty concerns. Frankly I wish there was a separate balance tap 
for each of the 5S packs in each one. As it is you are balancing cells 
in parallel, not the best method.

The 2600 cells that they make these up from are very scarce right now 
and on backorder for TP. I've been waiting about a month for the two 
packs I just got.




Chad Northeast wrote:
> Bill
> That is not correct, there are only 10 cells in those packs, made of 
> 2600 PL2 cells.  Essentially two 5s 2600 packs in parallel.
>
> I have a hard time believing that TP will stop making this pack, they 
> have made far more complicated packs in the past.  These packs are 
> made to order which makes them usually not a stock item.  I will 
> confirm this with TP though.  They have been around for nearly a year 
> now (I am still flying the first two of 4 sets produced), so I don't 
> see why they would stop now.
>
> Chad
>
> Bill's Email wrote:
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>
>> It is in fact a 5S2P arrangement. Two 5S 2600 mAh packs in parallel 
>> plus two other packs in parallel and those two in series with each 
>> other.  A total of 4 5S packs in there. THis is why this pack 
>> performs so well under load. Each of the two parallel packs in each 
>> set only sees half the load and consequently it has less voltage drop 
>> under load.
>>
>> TP does not like making this arrangement and I understand that they 
>> may stop very soon.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


From pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net  Fri Jun  5 18:47:58 2009
From: pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net (Ihncheol Park)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:47:58 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] TP 53005SPL2
In-Reply-To: <4A29ADDC.5090305@cox.net>
References: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>	<4A294907.3010506@cox.net>	<11879.40105.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>	<4A299D63.4060701@cox.net>	<4A29AC75.9050508@f3acanada.org>
	<4A29ADDC.5090305@cox.net>
Message-ID: <001301c9e651$31a9a270$94fce750$@net>

By the way, my distributor had them for over a month and about to go out of
stock.
Where did you put them on backorder?  I know at least 5 different wholesale
companies selling TP beside the TP itself.  TP does have them in stock.

Ihncheol

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill's Email
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 6:44 PM
To: chad at f3acanada.org; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] TP 53005SPL2

Yep, I was talking about a full 10S in the plane. Two 5S2P packs in 
series, did not make that very clear did I?? 10 cells per pack, 20 cells 
total on board.

I spoke with a pretty large reseller of TP products and he is the one 
who told me that TP is not warm and fuzzy on this pack. He said they 
have warranty concerns. Frankly I wish there was a separate balance tap 
for each of the 5S packs in each one. As it is you are balancing cells 
in parallel, not the best method.

The 2600 cells that they make these up from are very scarce right now 
and on backorder for TP. I've been waiting about a month for the two 
packs I just got.




Chad Northeast wrote:
> Bill
> That is not correct, there are only 10 cells in those packs, made of 
> 2600 PL2 cells.  Essentially two 5s 2600 packs in parallel.
>
> I have a hard time believing that TP will stop making this pack, they 
> have made far more complicated packs in the past.  These packs are 
> made to order which makes them usually not a stock item.  I will 
> confirm this with TP though.  They have been around for nearly a year 
> now (I am still flying the first two of 4 sets produced), so I don't 
> see why they would stop now.
>
> Chad
>
> Bill's Email wrote:
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>
>> It is in fact a 5S2P arrangement. Two 5S 2600 mAh packs in parallel 
>> plus two other packs in parallel and those two in series with each 
>> other.  A total of 4 5S packs in there. THis is why this pack 
>> performs so well under load. Each of the two parallel packs in each 
>> set only sees half the load and consequently it has less voltage drop 
>> under load.
>>
>> TP does not like making this arrangement and I understand that they 
>> may stop very soon.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


From wemodels at cox.net  Fri Jun  5 18:56:48 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:56:48 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] TP 53005SPL2
In-Reply-To: <001201c9e650$7ad102a0$707307e0$@net>
References: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>	<4A294907.3010506@cox.net>	<11879.40105.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>	<4A299D63.4060701@cox.net>	<4A29AC75.9050508@f3acanada.org>	<4A29ADDC.5090305@cox.net>
	<001201c9e650$7ad102a0$707307e0$@net>
Message-ID: <4A29DAEE.2070605@cox.net>

Ihncheol Park wrote:
> I actually talked to TP today.
> They will keep the 53005SPL2. Not going to discontinue anytime soon.
>
> Ihncheol
>   


OK, I was told something a bit different but hopefully my information is 
not perfectly correct. I like these packs.



From wemodels at cox.net  Fri Jun  5 19:19:30 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 03:19:30 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] TP 53005SPL2
In-Reply-To: <FD7FB51C-C814-4014-8DEC-5F99B5CF7B7D@socal.rr.com>
References: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>	<4A294907.3010506@cox.net>	<11879.40105.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>	<4A299D63.4060701@cox.net>	<4A29AC75.9050508@f3acanada.org>
	<4A29ADDC.5090305@cox.net>
	<FD7FB51C-C814-4014-8DEC-5F99B5CF7B7D@socal.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4A29DA9A.2060800@cox.net>

James Oddino wrote:
> Bill, I believe each 5s2p pack is wired such that it looks like a 
> 5s1p.  It is made up of five sets of two cells wired in parallel so 
> each of these 2s "cells" is now a 5200 mah "cell'.  Therefore, the 
> existing balance plugs are all you need.  Hope this is clear.
>
> Jim
 Yes I understand that Jim. I'll defer to you fellows. I was basing my 
desire for balance taps on the electric boat stuff I've done. 10S2P 
boats pulling 200 amps with spikes higher and when I put the two packs 
that were in parallel on the chargers and charge in synch mode I always 
saw small differences in cell voltage between the packs. Maybe the boat 
stuff is different. Sorry if I misspoke.



From wemodels at cox.net  Fri Jun  5 20:20:24 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 04:20:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] TP 53005SPL2
In-Reply-To: <4A29DA9A.2060800@cox.net>
References: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>	<4A294907.3010506@cox.net>	<11879.40105.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>	<4A299D63.4060701@cox.net>	<4A29AC75.9050508@f3acanada.org>	<4A29ADDC.5090305@cox.net>	<FD7FB51C-C814-4014-8DEC-5F99B5CF7B7D@socal.rr.com>
	<4A29DA9A.2060800@cox.net>
Message-ID: <4A29EE86.4080802@cox.net>

 And I now see a difference that makes a difference.

The TP packs are five sets of 2x2600 mAh cells wired in parallel and 
then those 5 sets  connected in series  to get 5S voltage.

I am used to running two 5-cell packs (5 3.7 volts cells in series in 
the pack) connected in series and then another set of two 5S packs in 
series both connected in parallel to the esc.

The TP way is the best way to keep thing balanced properly.

Seems like the same thing, but there is a real world difference in 
operation. At least in what I have observed.







From shannah1806 at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 21:16:55 2009
From: shannah1806 at gmail.com (steve hannah)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 05:16:55 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses
In-Reply-To: <00bb01c9e63d$cc1f0bb0$9501a8c0@GW7422>
References: <279948.87681.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<3454543c0906051722y2e331031p62b487f977c57df4@mail.gmail.com>
	<00bb01c9e63d$cc1f0bb0$9501a8c0@GW7422>
Message-ID: <c3f99b710906052216h32a1bfa8uaae8b44f05cb608f@mail.gmail.com>

It really comes down to personal preference.  I like the gray polarized
lenses best, even in cloudy conditions.  For me, when I put on those yellow
or pink glasses they wash everything out.  If find that they highlight the
background glare, at least to my eyes.  It cranks up the light intensity and
I can't see as well.  Sounds odd, but that's the way it is to me.  My
polarized lenses cut the glare of the cloudy light.  If it is too cloudy for
them then I wear my standard clear glasses or for you young or lucky guys
then you don't need to wear anything.  Glare is the enemy in cloudy
conditions. I don't like the yellow or pink lenses in that regard.

By the way, I find that those Oxai pale blue planes stand out much better in
the cloudy conditions than the traditional white planes.  I think Naruke was
on to something there.  The Japanese guys fly in clouds a lot and that color
is great in the clouds... at least for me.

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:29 PM, John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com> wrote:

>  Yes those work really well when it's cloudy. If there's any chance of the
> sun coming out though you may not want to use them, especiially if your eyes
> are sensitive. I have a few pairs of Zurichs and I try them until I find the
> best one for the conditions. I normally use the yellow for overcast and the
> medium or light rose tint for everything else. The rose colored lenses work
> almost like the yellow ones do - the colors are much more pronounced. They
> block more of the light though. I can actually fly through the sun with the
> medium rose lenses and I don't lose sight of the plane.
>
> John Pavlick
> http://www.idseng.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 05, 2009 8:22 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses
>
> I use the Zurich yellow sunglasses on cloudy days - the plane really sticks
> out.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:13 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons <
> homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>   What have you found to be the best sunglasses for flying. Especially
>> cloudy type weather such as the nats.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> *Chris *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090606/8bdb225e/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Fri Jun  5 21:23:53 2009
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 05:23:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses
In-Reply-To: <c3f99b710906052216h32a1bfa8uaae8b44f05cb608f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <279948.87681.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<3454543c0906051722y2e331031p62b487f977c57df4@mail.gmail.com>
	<00bb01c9e63d$cc1f0bb0$9501a8c0@GW7422> 
	<c3f99b710906052216h32a1bfa8uaae8b44f05cb608f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W14452E1F53DCE60BE0A718A0490@phx.gbl>


Oxai photographs some of them wet--must be cloudy a lot...

RS
 


By the way, I find that those Oxai pale blue planes stand out much better in the cloudy conditions than the traditional white planes.  I think Naruke was on to something there.  The Japanese guys fly in clouds a lot and that color is great in the clouds... at least for me.


 
_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. 
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090606/41fbbad4/attachment.html>

From pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net  Fri Jun  5 22:24:09 2009
From: pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net (Ihncheol Park)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 06:24:09 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] TP 53005SPL2
In-Reply-To: <FD7FB51C-C814-4014-8DEC-5F99B5CF7B7D@socal.rr.com>
References: <BLU137-DAV8D9B2B40E5A777AEF643383480@phx.gbl>	<4A294907.3010506@cox.net>	<11879.40105.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>	<4A299D63.4060701@cox.net>	<4A29AC75.9050508@f3acanada.org>
	<4A29ADDC.5090305@cox.net>
	<FD7FB51C-C814-4014-8DEC-5F99B5CF7B7D@socal.rr.com>
Message-ID: <001201c9e66f$650e3cc0$2f2ab640$@net>

Jim,

I believe you are using the CellPro 10.  
Is it possible to find exact Internal Resistance for each individual cells
or just 2p as 1 ??
Will it matter much?  Do you think its possible for just one cell (out of
10) to go bad?
How do you like the pack so far?

Ihncheol

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 7:31 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] TP 53005SPL2

Bill, I believe each 5s2p pack is wired such that it looks like a  
5s1p.  It is made up of five sets of two cells wired in parallel so  
each of these 2s "cells" is now a 5200 mah "cell'.  Therefore, the  
existing balance plugs are all you need.  Hope this is clear.

Jim


On Jun 5, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Bill's Email wrote:

> Yep, I was talking about a full 10S in the plane. Two 5S2P packs in  
> series, did not make that very clear did I?? 10 cells per pack, 20  
> cells total on board.
>
> I spoke with a pretty large reseller of TP products and he is the  
> one who told me that TP is not warm and fuzzy on this pack. He said  
> they have warranty concerns. Frankly I wish there was a separate  
> balance tap for each of the 5S packs in each one. As it is you are  
> balancing cells in parallel, not the best method.
>
> The 2600 cells that they make these up from are very scarce right  
> now and on backorder for TP. I've been waiting about a month for the  
> two packs I just got.
>
>
>
>
> Chad Northeast wrote:
>> Bill
>> That is not correct, there are only 10 cells in those packs, made  
>> of 2600 PL2 cells.  Essentially two 5s 2600 packs in parallel.
>>
>> I have a hard time believing that TP will stop making this pack,  
>> they have made far more complicated packs in the past.  These packs  
>> are made to order which makes them usually not a stock item.  I  
>> will confirm this with TP though.  They have been around for nearly  
>> a year now (I am still flying the first two of 4 sets produced), so  
>> I don't see why they would stop now.
>>
>> Chad
>>
>> Bill's Email wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> It is in fact a 5S2P arrangement. Two 5S 2600 mAh packs in  
>>> parallel plus two other packs in parallel and those two in series  
>>> with each other.  A total of 4 5S packs in there. THis is why this  
>>> pack performs so well under load. Each of the two parallel packs  
>>> in each set only sees half the load and consequently it has less  
>>> voltage drop under load.
>>>
>>> TP does not like making this arrangement and I understand that  
>>> they may stop very soon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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


From ejhaury at comcast.net  Sat Jun  6 02:22:53 2009
From: ejhaury at comcast.net (Earl Haury)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:22:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses
In-Reply-To: <279948.87681.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <279948.87681.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <30DEC479C37042E28CC835C6F6246534@EarlPC>

Chris

I find that the ModelGlasses sunglasses work well (Advertised in MA). They come with a variety of clip in lenses (polarized & not) that allows one to find the best shade for the current conditions. There's a version for folks needing corrective lenses also.

Earl
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: krishlan fitzsimmons 
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
  Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 7:13 PM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses


        What have you found to be the best sunglasses for flying. Especially cloudy type weather such as the nats. 

        Thanks!


        Chris 


       




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090606/b6158cd2/attachment.html>

From humptybump at sbcglobal.net  Sat Jun  6 04:02:54 2009
From: humptybump at sbcglobal.net (Richard Lewis)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 12:02:54 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses
In-Reply-To: <30DEC479C37042E28CC835C6F6246534@EarlPC>
References: <279948.87681.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<30DEC479C37042E28CC835C6F6246534@EarlPC>
Message-ID: <766218.78119.qm@web80506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I just purchased a set of these and flew with them last weekend.? Very nice.

4 lenses.....I flew with the super darks in the AM looking into 10am sun facing east....switched to the medium dark after noon.? Switched to the amber late in the afternoon......

The yellow, I have not used yet, but I'm sure I'll find a use for them.....:)

In the polarized, only two of the lenses are polarized, I did not buy the polarized....I've flown with polarized fishing glasses before and really don't see any benefit to them in the flying application.

Richard




________________________________
From: Earl Haury <ejhaury at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2009 5:22:41 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses


Chris
?
I find that the ModelGlasses sunglasses work well (Advertised in MA). They come with a variety of clip in lenses (polarized & not) that allows one to find the best shade for the current conditions. There's a version for folks needing corrective lenses also.
?
Earl
----- Original Message ----- 
From: krishlan fitzsimmons 
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 7:13 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses

What have you found to be the best sunglasses for flying. Especially cloudy type weather such as the nats. 

Thanks!


Chris 


 

________________________________
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090606/f524e24b/attachment.html>

From humptybump at sbcglobal.net  Sat Jun  6 04:05:37 2009
From: humptybump at sbcglobal.net (Richard Lewis)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 12:05:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses
In-Reply-To: <766218.78119.qm@web80506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <279948.87681.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<30DEC479C37042E28CC835C6F6246534@EarlPC>
	<766218.78119.qm@web80506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <865665.1623.qm@web80505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

BTW....I had a pair of Zurichs, Also very nice, but on mine the lenses "crazed" due to exposure to something, not sure if it was fuel, sunscreen, or what..The ModelGlasses are much lighter and more stylish.....Richard




________________________________
From: Richard Lewis <humptybump at sbcglobal.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2009 7:02:48 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses


I just purchased a set of these and flew with them last weekend.? Very nice.

4 lenses.....I flew with the super darks in the AM looking into 10am sun facing east....switched to the medium dark after noon.? Switched to the amber late in the afternoon......

The yellow, I have not used yet, but I'm sure I'll find a use for them.....:)

In the polarized, only two of the lenses are polarized, I did not buy the polarized....I've flown with polarized fishing glasses before and really don't see any benefit to them in the flying application.

Richard




________________________________
From: Earl Haury <ejhaury at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2009 5:22:41 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses


Chris
?
I find that the ModelGlasses sunglasses work well (Advertised in MA). They come with a variety of clip in lenses (polarized & not) that allows one to find the best shade for the current conditions. There's a version for folks needing corrective lenses also.
?
Earl
----- Original Message ----- 
From: krishlan fitzsimmons 
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 7:13 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses

What have you found to be the best sunglasses for flying. Especially cloudy type weather such as the nats. 

Thanks!


Chris 


 

________________________________
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090606/e059e23f/attachment.html>

From homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  6 05:27:34 2009
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com (krishlan fitzsimmons)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 13:27:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses
Message-ID: <800808.12020.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I was wondering if these were any good. I have seen them several times in the MA. As I am planning my nats trip it got me to thinking about losing sight of my plane twice in the cloudy sky's in the finals last year and that I need some help in the sunglasses department.. 

Thanks 

Chris   ?  ?  ?

--- On Sat, 6/6/09, Earl Haury <ejhaury at comcast.net> wrote:

From: Earl Haury <ejhaury at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Saturday, June 6, 2009, 3:22 AM



 
 

Chris
?
I find that the ModelGlasses sunglasses work well 
(Advertised in MA). They come with a variety of clip in lenses (polarized & 
not) that allows one to find the best shade for the current conditions. There's 
a version for folks needing corrective lenses also.
?
Earl

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  krishlan fitzsimmons 
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
  
  Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 7:13 PM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 
  Sunglasses
  

  
    
    
      What have you found to be the best sunglasses for flying. 
        Especially cloudy type weather such as the nats. 

Thanks!


        Chris 
        
        ?
        ?
        ?

  
  

  _______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion 
  mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090606/7b349092/attachment.html>

From perkinsrx at centurytel.net  Sat Jun  6 07:28:16 2009
From: perkinsrx at centurytel.net (W. Eddie Batchelor)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:28:16 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses
In-Reply-To: <865665.1623.qm@web80505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200906061528.n56FSA0X021220@mail958c35.nsolutionszone.com>

>.I've flown with polarized fishing glasses before and really don't see any
benefit to them in the flying application.

Besides polarized makes it tough to read your Tx display  :-)

Eddie

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Richard Lewis
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 7:06 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses

 

BTW....I had a pair of Zurichs, Also very nice, but on mine the lenses
"crazed" due to exposure to something, not sure if it was fuel, sunscreen,
or what..The ModelGlasses are much lighter and more stylish.....Richard

 

  _____  

From: Richard Lewis <humptybump at sbcglobal.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2009 7:02:48 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses

I just purchased a set of these and flew with them last weekend.  Very nice.

 

4 lenses.....I flew with the super darks in the AM looking into 10am sun
facing east....switched to the medium dark after noon.  Switched to the
amber late in the afternoon......

 

The yellow, I have not used yet, but I'm sure I'll find a use for
them.....:)

 

In the polarized, only two of the lenses are polarized, I did not buy the
polarized....I've flown with polarized fishing glasses before and really
don't see any benefit to them in the flying application.

 

Richard

 

  _____  

From: Earl Haury <ejhaury at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2009 5:22:41 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses

Chris

 

I find that the ModelGlasses sunglasses work well (Advertised in MA). They
come with a variety of clip in lenses (polarized & not) that allows one to
find the best shade for the current conditions. There's a version for folks
needing corrective lenses also.

 

Earl

----- Original Message ----- 

From: krishlan fitzsimmons <mailto:homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>  

To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 

Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 7:13 PM

Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses

 


What have you found to be the best sunglasses for flying. Especially cloudy
type weather such as the nats. 

Thanks!

Chris 

 

 

 

 


  _____  


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090606/f97e6943/attachment.html>

From jonlowe at aol.com  Sat Jun  6 13:42:01 2009
From: jonlowe at aol.com (Jon Lowe)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:42:01 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses
In-Reply-To: <800808.12020.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <800808.12020.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8CBB506B5CBEF81-9A0-2A75@webmail-mh36.sysops.aol.com>

I've used the precription version for a couple of years now and really 
like them.  I ordered the polarized set, and added the rose colored 
lenses from the non-prescription set.  The lenses are easy to change, 
and you can flip them up if you go inside for a few minutes.


Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 8:27 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses













I was wondering if these were any good. I have seen them several times 
in the MA. As I am planning my nats trip it got me to thinking about 
losing sight of my plane twice in the cloudy sky's in the finals last 
year and that I need some help in the sunglasses department..

Thanks


Chris

?

?

?


--- On Sat, 6/6/09, Earl Haury <ejhaury at comcast.net> wrote:


From: Earl Haury <ejhaury at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Sunglasses
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Saturday, June 6, 2009, 3:22 AM








Chris


?


I find that the ModelGlasses sunglasses work well
(Advertised in MA). They come with a variety of clip in lenses 
(polarized &
not) that allows one to find the best shade for the current conditions. 
There's
a version=2
0for folks needing corrective lenses also.


?


Earl




----- Original Message -----


From:
  krishlan fitzsimmons


To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org



Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 7:13 PM


Subject: [NSRCA-discussion]
  Sunglasses












What have you found to be the best sunglasses for flying.
        Especially cloudy type weather such as the nats.

Thanks!



Chris



?


?


?















_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion
  mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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






From edvwhite at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  6 13:45:57 2009
From: edvwhite at yahoo.com (Ed White)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:45:57 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] HV-85 PWM Outrunner Mode
In-Reply-To: <200906061528.n56FSA0X021220@mail958c35.nsolutionszone.com>
References: <200906061528.n56FSA0X021220@mail958c35.nsolutionszone.com>
Message-ID: <467088.60801.qm@web83508.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

I've been using the new version 2.12 firmware for few weeks.  Last night I discovered that under PWM there is a new setting called "Outrunner Mode".  I tried it today and really liked it.  The throttle response felt smoother.  The ESC was not warm after the flights and I think it cut my amps a little. 

Anybody else have any experience with this?

Running a Dualsky 12T and have both Zippy packs and TrueRC(one 10C and one 15C).  At first I thought the TrueRC had a little more top end power.  Now I can't tell a difference.  Perhap the Zippys seem to need more break-in.  I've got 11 or 12 flights each on two packs and they just seem to be getting better.  Internal resistance readings are running well below 5 mohms on all twenty cells, many cells below 4 mohms on any charge.  IR seems to vary depending on how much charge is put in them.  Have had a charge were all 10 cells were below 3 mohms.

Was going to post some data on Chris' website after I got a few more flights on them.

Ed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090606/f7b38c8d/attachment.html>

From edvwhite at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  6 14:00:54 2009
From: edvwhite at yahoo.com (Ed White)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 22:00:54 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Another HV-85 question
In-Reply-To: <467088.60801.qm@web83508.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <200906061528.n56FSA0X021220@mail958c35.nsolutionszone.com>
	<467088.60801.qm@web83508.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <885107.86660.qm@web83501.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

BTW, I'm new to electric pattern so sorry if this has been discussed and I missed it.

I've had one, and only one, flight out of at least 40 where I landed and the HV-85 was beeping an over current alarm (3 beeps).  Only happened once and my data logger said it was a normal flight, max of 64 amps (but my data logger is filtered and averaged so it would miss a spike).  Same batteries, same prop, same everything.  The maH used and put back in on the next charge were completely normal.  I had the current limiting set to insensitive.  I emailed Castle and got this response:


Turn your current limiting to
disabled, as you should in F3A planes. 
Joe Ford

Product Specialist

Castle Creations

Are other people disabling their current limits?  I've only had the one flight where the HV-85 said there was an over current and I couldn't hear or tell anything in the flight that was any different from any other flight.  I did disable the over current but am having second thoughts.  I couldn't tell that it ever had any effect, even on that one flight.  If it doesn't have any effect, it sounds like a little extra protection.  I'm tempted to go back to insensitive.

Ed




________________________________
From: Ed White <edvwhite at yahoo.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2009 4:45:55 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] HV-85 PWM Outrunner Mode


I've been using the new version 2.12 firmware for few weeks.  Last night I discovered that under PWM there is a new setting called "Outrunner Mode".  I tried it today and really liked it.  The throttle response felt smoother.  The ESC was not warm after the flights and I think it cut my amps a little. 

Anybody else have any experience with this?

Running a Dualsky 12T and have both Zippy packs and TrueRC(one 10C and one 15C).  At first I thought the TrueRC had a little more top end power.  Now I can't tell a difference.  Perhap the Zippys seem to need more break-in.  I've got 11 or 12 flights each on two packs and they just seem to be getting better.  Internal resistance readings are running well below 5 mohms on all twenty cells, many cells below 4 mohms on any charge.  IR seems to vary depending on how much charge is put in them.  Have had a charge were all 10 cells were below 3 mohms.

Was going to post some data on Chris' website after I got a few more flights on them.

Ed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090606/510433f9/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Sat Jun  6 14:18:02 2009
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 22:18:02 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Another HV-85 question
In-Reply-To: <885107.86660.qm@web83501.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <200906061528.n56FSA0X021220@mail958c35.nsolutionszone.com><467088.60801.qm@web83508.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<885107.86660.qm@web83501.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <108E77AF990742C3A24028284DA7C1F5@davedesktop>

Ed,

 

Snaps and abrupt throttle movements can cause very brief current spikes
easily missed by loggers (but are usually noticed if logging rate is 10x per
second or higher).  I set my CC ESC to insensitive for the current limiting,
and I've not experienced the over current beep. Odds are with high power
systems that if something goes wrong, it will happen very quickly and cause
damage before the ESC can react.

 

The PWM setting "OR" will initially use 8khz switching and then auto adjust
based on feedback to the ESC from the motor.  I've just started playing with
the OR setting, and on some setups, it may improve idle, run the motor more
smoothly (less resonance), and increase efficiency.  On other setups, it may
not make any noticeable difference.

 

Regards,

 

Dave Lockhart, Team Castle

 

 

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed White
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 6:01 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Another HV-85 question

 

BTW, I'm new to electric pattern so sorry if this has been discussed and I
missed it.

I've had one, and only one, flight out of at least 40 where I landed and the
HV-85 was beeping an over current alarm (3 beeps).  Only happened once and
my data logger said it was a normal flight, max of 64 amps (but my data
logger is filtered and averaged so it would miss a spike).  Same batteries,
same prop, same everything.  The maH used and put back in on the next charge
were completely normal.  I had the current limiting set to insensitive.  I
emailed Castle and got this response:

Turn your current limiting to disabled, as you should in F3A planes. 

Joe Ford





Product Specialist





Castle Creations










Are other people disabling their current limits?  I've only had the one
flight where the HV-85 said there was an over current and I couldn't hear or
tell anything in the flight that was any different from any other flight.  I
did disable the over current but am having second thoughts.  I couldn't tell
that it ever had any effect, even on that one flight.  If it doesn't have
any effect, it sounds like a little extra protection.  I'm tempted to go
back to insensitive.

Ed

 

  _____  

From: Ed White <edvwhite at yahoo.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2009 4:45:55 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] HV-85 PWM Outrunner Mode

I've been using the new version 2.12 firmware for few weeks.  Last night I
discovered that under PWM there is a new setting called "Outrunner Mode".  I
tried it today and really liked it.  The throttle response felt smoother.
The ESC was not warm after the flights and I think it cut my amps a little. 

Anybody else have any experience with this?

Running a Dualsky 12T and have both Zippy packs and TrueRC(one 10C and one
15C).  At first I thought the TrueRC had a little more top end power.  Now I
can't tell a difference.  Perhap the Zippys seem to need more break-in.
I've got 11 or 12 flights each on two packs and they just seem to be getting
better.  Internal resistance readings are running well below 5 mohms on all
twenty cells, many cells below 4 mohms on any charge.  IR seems to vary
depending on how much charge is put in them.  Have had a charge were all 10
cells were below 3 mohms.

Was going to post some data on Chris' website after I got a few more flights
on them.

Ed

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090606/d243464b/attachment.html>

From brian_w_young at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  6 15:51:16 2009
From: brian_w_young at yahoo.com (brian young)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:51:16 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Leviosa - Anyone Have One?
Message-ID: <848015.16468.qm@web35202.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Just taking a quick check, I would be interested in buying one if someone has a kit setting around they aren't using, or would let me buy and replace. 

Brian



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090606/6e4e111a/attachment.html>

From rdpee at juno.com  Sat Jun  6 18:50:54 2009
From: rdpee at juno.com (Ralph D Perillo)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 02:50:54 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] For Sale
Message-ID: <20090606.224951.3844.0.rdpee@juno.com>

For Sale
 
1-   Futaba 9ZAP system mode II (serviced end of 2007, copy of invoice on
request) Transmitter like new not used since.
       Includes:  Aluminum Futaba case, Transmitter w/ 64k Campac, two
new 1750 ma Nimh TX packs, FP-TK-FSS72
       72MHz synthesized Module, 1 FP-R309DPS 72 synthesized receiver
used (works perfect, 1 New in the box FP-R319DPS 72 MHz    
       Receiver,  EXTRAS - Charger-Neckstrap-DSC Cord   CAN BE UPGRADED
TO 2.4 !!!!!! Great Buy $275 (Free shipping for NSRCA)
 
1-   New Hyde OS160 Type A Soft Mt.    $90.00
1-   Used Hyde YS 140 Type A Mt. excellent shape. $60.00
1-   Used YS 140 Type AR Mt. (use with a nose ring) $40.00
1-   New Karl Mueller OS 160 Fx Wrap Around Header Inverted 1 3/8 drop
$30.00
1-   New AAP Aluminum 120-160 Pipe  3/4"  $50.00
1-   Like New ( one tank run not flown ) 3M 170 Engine w/ 3M Header, Hyde
Type A Mount, 3M (Aeroslave) Carbon Tuned 
      Pipe.($900.00 Value)      $450.00
1-   New Cline P.C.F.S. Proportional Control Fuel System for 2 or 4 Cycle
Engines.  $25.00
2-   New YS  61   RX Exhaust Headers (one straight rise, one offset rise
to clear a nose gear)  $20.00
2-   Used  60-90 Pipes (  1 Hatori Aluminum , 1 Carbon/Aluminum Pipe) 
Both $20.00
 
 
Contact me off list  rdpee at juno.com
Ralph D Perillo
Buffalo,NY
____________________________________________________________
Free information - Learn about Email Marketing. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTEFeN07gF08v62i0fXywQlnpDtSvL36nyz4tGEhRV3O2sij5kYyMw/

From rob at koolsoft.com  Sun Jun  7 19:32:57 2009
From: rob at koolsoft.com (Robert L. Beaubien)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 03:32:57 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Oakdale, CA Contest Pre-Registration
Message-ID: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB2019398D9@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>

Pre-Registration is up for the Oakdale Open to be held June 27th & 28th.
Dick Belden is the CD ( richardbelden at volcano.net ).

 

Contest Flyer:  http://www.patternflying.net/NewsDetailPage.aspx?ID=48

 

Pre-Registration Form:
http://www.patternflying.net/TempRegistrationPage.aspx

 

Hope to see you there!

 

- Robert Beaubien

- NSRCA, District 7 Webmaster

-

"No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, however a large
number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced."

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090608/741d77e6/attachment.html>

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Mon Jun  8 04:42:02 2009
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:42:02 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
In-Reply-To: <8CBB44B2EB7C1FB-ED0-4DF3@WEBMAIL-MC11.sysops.aol.com>
References: <8326F585-22B6-4817-954F-23C428E786CF@cox.net>
	<8CBB44B2EB7C1FB-ED0-4DF3@WEBMAIL-MC11.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E84A4@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

GO D4!!!

Big thanks to Ray Morton, Bobby Satalino and a variety of others that put on a great contest at the AMA site in Muncie this weekend.  We had awesome weather (did you hear that D5??  No more excuses for staying home!) and everything ran smoothly.  I'm sure someone will post scores soon.

D4 took home the trophy though due primarily to a strong turnout.  Those that did come from D5 put on a strong show though.  Kudos to Mike Mueller and Bobby S. for 1st and 2nd in Masters.   And we have proof that old dogs CAN learn new tricks as Mike Klein (anyone remember that name from the 80's and 90's???) re-emerged from his golf swing and took 1st in FAI.  Thankfully he's from D4 :):):)

Again, thanks to all that worked hard to make this a success and a BIG thanks to Ray Morton who spent hours manually tabulating scores when the software bit the dust.

I look forward to seeing you all up in Chicago in a few weeks.

-Mark

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  8 04:48:49 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:48:49 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
Message-ID: <334092.33315.qm@web51005.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 Great job D4.
 Here's some pics. 
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8819923/tm.htm
 Mike

--- On Mon, 6/8/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 7:41 AM
> GO D4!!!
> 
> Big thanks to Ray Morton, Bobby Satalino and a variety of
> others that put on a great contest at the AMA site in Muncie
> this weekend.? We had awesome weather (did you hear
> that D5??? No more excuses for staying home!) and
> everything ran smoothly.? I'm sure someone will post
> scores soon.
> 
> D4 took home the trophy though due primarily to a strong
> turnout.? Those that did come from D5 put on a strong
> show though.? Kudos to Mike Mueller and Bobby S. for
> 1st and 2nd in Masters.???And we have proof
> that old dogs CAN learn new tricks as Mike Klein (anyone
> remember that name from the 80's and 90's???) re-emerged
> from his golf swing and took 1st in FAI.? Thankfully
> he's from D4 :):):)
> 
> Again, thanks to all that worked hard to make this a
> success and a BIG thanks to Ray Morton who spent hours
> manually tabulating scores when the software bit the dust.
> 
> I look forward to seeing you all up in Chicago in a few
> weeks.
> 
> -Mark
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 


      

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  8 06:20:08 2009
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:20:08 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
In-Reply-To: <334092.33315.qm@web51005.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <334092.33315.qm@web51005.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <997968.41923.qm@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


The look on Bobby's face when Anthony "thanked" him is priceless.

More kudos to Ray, Bobby and additional support staff who jumped in to help.

Thanks to Mike Klein for "loaning" me the wire and crimp sleeve to fix my snapped rudder cable. Of all the stuff in my flight box I did not have any rudder cable repair parts. I do now.

Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com



----- Original Message ----
From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2009 8:48:44 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!


Great job D4.
Here's some pics. 
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8819923/tm.htm
Mike

--- On Mon, 6/8/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 7:41 AM
> GO D4!!!
> 
> Big thanks to Ray Morton, Bobby Satalino and a variety of
> others that put on a great contest at the AMA site in Muncie
> this weekend.  We had awesome weather (did you hear
> that D5??  No more excuses for staying home!) and
> everything ran smoothly.  I'm sure someone will post
> scores soon.
> 
> D4 took home the trophy though due primarily to a strong
> turnout.  Those that did come from D5 put on a strong
> show though.  Kudos to Mike Mueller and Bobby S. for
> 1st and 2nd in Masters.   And we have proof
> that old dogs CAN learn new tricks as Mike Klein (anyone
> remember that name from the 80's and 90's???) re-emerged
> from his golf swing and took 1st in FAI.  Thankfully
> he's from D4 :):):)
> 
> Again, thanks to all that worked hard to make this a
> success and a BIG thanks to Ray Morton who spent hours
> manually tabulating scores when the software bit the dust.
> 
> I look forward to seeing you all up in Chicago in a few
> weeks.
> 
> -Mark
> _______________________________________________
> 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



      

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  8 06:36:27 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:36:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
Message-ID: <478851.25886.qm@web51012.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 Anthony is too cool. I like his Sammy Davis impression. "And I mean that"!
 M2

--- On Mon, 6/8/09, Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 9:20 AM
> 
> The look on Bobby's face when Anthony "thanked" him is
> priceless.
> 
> More kudos to Ray, Bobby and additional support staff who
> jumped in to help.
> 
> Thanks to Mike Klein for "loaning" me the wire and crimp
> sleeve to fix my snapped rudder cable. Of all the stuff in
> my flight box I did not have any rudder cable repair parts.
> I do now.
> 
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2009 8:48:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> 
> 
> Great job D4.
> Here's some pics. 
> http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8819923/tm.htm
> Mike
> 
> --- On Mon, 6/8/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 7:41 AM
> > GO D4!!!
> > 
> > Big thanks to Ray Morton, Bobby Satalino and a variety
> of
> > others that put on a great contest at the AMA site in
> Muncie
> > this weekend.? We had awesome weather (did you
> hear
> > that D5??? No more excuses for staying home!)
> and
> > everything ran smoothly.? I'm sure someone will
> post
> > scores soon.
> > 
> > D4 took home the trophy though due primarily to a
> strong
> > turnout.? Those that did come from D5 put on a
> strong
> > show though.? Kudos to Mike Mueller and Bobby S.
> for
> > 1st and 2nd in Masters.???And we have
> proof
> > that old dogs CAN learn new tricks as Mike Klein
> (anyone
> > remember that name from the 80's and 90's???)
> re-emerged
> > from his golf swing and took 1st in FAI.?
> Thankfully
> > he's from D4 :):):)
> > 
> > Again, thanks to all that worked hard to make this a
> > success and a BIG thanks to Ray Morton who spent
> hours
> > manually tabulating scores when the software bit the
> dust.
> > 
> > I look forward to seeing you all up in Chicago in a
> few
> > weeks.
> > 
> > -Mark
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 


      

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  8 06:37:34 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:37:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Leviosa - Anyone Have One?
Message-ID: <168889.73686.qm@web51006.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 I don't like the sound of that Brian.

--- On Sat, 6/6/09, brian young <brian_w_young at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: brian young <brian_w_young at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Leviosa - Anyone Have One?
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Saturday, June 6, 2009, 6:51 PM
> Just
> taking a quick check, I would be interested in buying one if
> someone has a kit setting around they aren't using, or
> would let me buy and replace. 
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
>       
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      

From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Mon Jun  8 06:40:56 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:40:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
Message-ID: <148198.71271.qm@web82108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

A big thank you to everyone that helped organize and run the event. It takes a lot of work to put on an contest we really appreciate it.
?
My wife and I had a great time and we are looking forward to seeing the Chicago gang in Hoffman Estates! Just got to get out and practice so I don't embarrass myself further.
?
I'll have my glass eye and Spongebob wardrobe in towe and will be ready to swing with all you crazy cats.
?
Anthony

--- On Mon, 6/8/09, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 10:36 AM



Anthony is too cool. I like his Sammy Davis impression. "And I mean that"!
M2

--- On Mon, 6/8/09, Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 9:20 AM
> 
> The look on Bobby's face when Anthony "thanked" him is
> priceless.
> 
> More kudos to Ray, Bobby and additional support staff who
> jumped in to help.
> 
> Thanks to Mike Klein for "loaning" me the wire and crimp
> sleeve to fix my snapped rudder cable. Of all the stuff in
> my flight box I did not have any rudder cable repair parts.
> I do now.
> 
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2009 8:48:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> 
> 
> Great job D4.
> Here's some pics. 
> http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8819923/tm.htm
> Mike
> 
> --- On Mon, 6/8/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 7:41 AM
> > GO D4!!!
> > 
> > Big thanks to Ray Morton, Bobby Satalino and a variety
> of
> > others that put on a great contest at the AMA site in
> Muncie
> > this weekend.? We had awesome weather (did you
> hear
> > that D5??? No more excuses for staying home!)
> and
> > everything ran smoothly.? I'm sure someone will
> post
> > scores soon.
> > 
> > D4 took home the trophy though due primarily to a
> strong
> > turnout.? Those that did come from D5 put on a
> strong
> > show though.? Kudos to Mike Mueller and Bobby S.
> for
> > 1st and 2nd in Masters.???And we have
> proof
> > that old dogs CAN learn new tricks as Mike Klein
> (anyone
> > remember that name from the 80's and 90's???)
> re-emerged
> > from his golf swing and took 1st in FAI.?
> Thankfully
> > he's from D4 :):):)
> > 
> > Again, thanks to all that worked hard to make this a
> > success and a BIG thanks to Ray Morton who spent
> hours
> > manually tabulating scores when the software bit the
> dust.
> > 
> > I look forward to seeing you all up in Chicago in a
> few
> > weeks.
> > 
> > -Mark
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 


? ? ? 
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090608/d641638a/attachment.html>

From Autoford6 at aol.com  Mon Jun  8 10:40:31 2009
From: Autoford6 at aol.com (Autoford6 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:40:31 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] dist 1 contest
Message-ID: <bec.3e6a920d.375eb560@aol.com>

just wanted to say thank you to Jim Quinn for a great contest the weather  
was perfect and the food sat night was fantastic thanks to Jim wife Mary   
all went perfect and all just had a great time 
                                                      Walter Erickson 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090608/7ef8e4fc/attachment.html>

From smaragdz at bellsouth.net  Mon Jun  8 12:22:05 2009
From: smaragdz at bellsouth.net (Ryan Smith)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:22:05 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Webra headers
Message-ID: <060820092022.17531.4A2D72EB0008AC250000447B22228869349B0A02D2089B9A019C04040A0DBF960B090E9D0E039C@att.net>

Hey guys,

I am looking on behalf of a friend that is not on the discussion list if anyone has any headers for a Webra laying around? My friend broke the last one he had, and so far going to suppliers (Macs and Mueller) have not yielded any results.

If anyone has a header or headers, please get back with me and I will pass this information along to him.

Kind regards,

Ryan Smith
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090608/409962cf/attachment.html>

From completemarine02 at sprintpcs.com  Mon Jun  8 12:31:34 2009
From: completemarine02 at sprintpcs.com (Rusty Fried)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:31:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Webra headers
In-Reply-To: <060820092022.17531.4A2D72EB0008AC250000447B22228869349B0A02D2089B9A019C04040A0DBF960B090E9D0E039C@att.net>
References: <060820092022.17531.4A2D72EB0008AC250000447B22228869349B0A02D2089B9A019C04040A0DBF960B090E9D0E039C@att.net>
Message-ID: <001101c9e878$176ae210$4640a630$@com>

What do you want exactly? Is the header for a side or rear exhaust. What type of webra. I might have said item.

Rusty

Completemarine02 at sprintpcs.com

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Smith
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 1:22 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Webra headers

 

Hey guys,

 

I am looking on behalf of a friend that is not on the discussion list if anyone has any headers for a Webra laying around? My friend broke the last one he had, and so far going to suppliers (Macs and Mueller) have not yielded any results.

 

If anyone has a header or headers, please get back with me and I will pass this information along to him.

 

Kind regards,

 

Ryan Smith

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090608/ad862dc7/attachment.html>

From smaragdz at bellsouth.net  Mon Jun  8 12:36:08 2009
From: smaragdz at bellsouth.net (Ryan Smith)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:36:08 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Webra headers
In-Reply-To: <001101c9e878$176ae210$4640a630$@com>
References: <060820092022.17531.4A2D72EB0008AC250000447B22228869349B0A02D2089B9A019C04040A0DBF960B090E9D0E039C@att.net>
	<001101c9e878$176ae210$4640a630$@com>
Message-ID: <060820092036.22311.4A2D763500056CFA0000572722228869349B0A02D2089B9A019C04040A0DBF960B090E9D0E039C@att.net>

Hi Rusty,

My apologies for not mentioning what type of motor, it's a rear exhaust for the 1.45/1.60 that my friend is in need of.

Thanks!

Ryan
-------------- Original message from Rusty Fried <completemarine02 at sprintpcs.com>: -------------- 


What do you want exactly? Is the header for a side or rear exhaust. What type of webra. I might have said item.
Rusty
Completemarine02 at sprintpcs.com
 
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Smith
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 1:22 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Webra headers
 
Hey guys,
 
I am looking on behalf of a friend that is not on the discussion list if anyone has any headers for a Webra laying around? My friend broke the last one he had, and so far going to suppliers (Macs and Mueller) have not yielded any results.
 
If anyone has a header or headers, please get back with me and I will pass this information along to him.
 
Kind regards,
 
Ryan Smith
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090608/e486501b/attachment.html>

From completemarine02 at sprintpcs.com  Mon Jun  8 12:53:00 2009
From: completemarine02 at sprintpcs.com (Rusty Fried)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:53:00 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Webra headers
In-Reply-To: <060820092036.22311.4A2D763500056CFA0000572722228869349B0A02D2089B9A019C04040A0DBF960B090E9D0E039C@att.net>
References: <060820092022.17531.4A2D72EB0008AC250000447B22228869349B0A02D2089B9A019C04040A0DBF960B090E9D0E039C@att.net>
	<001101c9e878$176ae210$4640a630$@com>
	<060820092036.22311.4A2D763500056CFA0000572722228869349B0A02D2089B9A019C04040A0DBF960B090E9D0E039C@att.net>
Message-ID: <000c01c9e87b$15547dd0$3ffd7970$@com>

I only have  headers for 60?s. Very old stuff.

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Smith
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 1:36 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Webra headers

 

Hi Rusty,

 

My apologies for not mentioning what type of motor, it's a rear exhaust for the 1.45/1.60 that my friend is in need of.

 

Thanks!

 

Ryan

-------------- Original message from Rusty Fried <completemarine02 at sprintpcs.com>: -------------- 

What do you want exactly? Is the header for a side or rear exhaust. What type of webra. I might have said item.

Rusty

Completemarine02 at sprintpcs.com

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Smith
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 1:22 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Webra headers

 

Hey guys,

 

I am looking on behalf of a friend that is not on the discussion list if anyone has any headers for a Webra laying around? My friend broke the last one he had, and so far going to suppliers (Macs and Mueller) have not yielded any results.

 

If anyone has a header or headers, please get back with me and I will pass this information along to him.

 

Kind regards,

 

Ryan Smith

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090608/497e7ea5/attachment.html>

From rcpilot at wowway.com  Mon Jun  8 13:50:49 2009
From: rcpilot at wowway.com (Ron Hansen)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:50:49 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
In-Reply-To: <148198.71271.qm@web82108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FBE30736EB404E45B66393B7567C21D0@toshibauser>

Glad to say I'm sufferin' no ill effects from handing out with the D5
guys this weekend.
 
Thanks for helping me celebrate my wedding anniversary this weekend:-)
 
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Abdullah
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 10:41 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
 

A big thank you to everyone that helped organize and run the event. It
takes a lot of work to put on an contest we really appreciate it.
 
My wife and I had a great time and we are looking forward to seeing the
Chicago gang in Hoffman Estates! Just got to get out and practice so I
don't embarrass myself further.
 
I'll have my glass eye and Spongebob wardrobe in towe and will be ready
to swing with all you crazy cats.
 
Anthony

--- On Mon, 6/8/09, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 10:36 AM

Anthony is too cool. I like his Sammy Davis impression. "And I mean
that"!
M2

--- On Mon, 6/8/09, Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com
<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=getterflash at yahoo.com> >
wrote:

> From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com
<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=getterflash at yahoo.com> >
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsr
ca.org> >
> Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 9:20 AM
> 
> The look on Bobby's face when Anthony "thanked" him is
> priceless.
> 
> More kudos to Ray, Bobby and additional support staff who
> jumped in to help.
> 
> Thanks to Mike Klein for "loaning" me the wire and crimp
> sleeve to fix my snapped rudder cable. Of all the stuff in
> my flight box I did not have any rudder cable repair parts.
> I do now.
> 
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=getterflash at yahoo.com> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com
<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mups1953 at yahoo.com> >
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsr
ca.org> >
> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2009 8:48:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> 
> 
> Great job D4.
> Here's some pics. 
> http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8819923/tm.htm
> Mike
> 
> --- On Mon, 6/8/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> >
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> >
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsr
ca.org> >
> > Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 7:41 AM
> > GO D4!!!
> > 
> > Big thanks to Ray Morton, Bobby Satalino and a variety
> of
> > others that put on a great contest at the AMA site in
> Muncie
> > this weekend.  We had awesome weather (did you
> hear
> > that D5??  No more excuses for staying home!)
> and
> > everything ran smoothly.  I'm sure someone will
> post
> > scores soon.
> > 
> > D4 took home the trophy though due primarily to a
> strong
> > turnout.  Those that did come from D5 put on a
> strong
> > show though.  Kudos to Mike Mueller and Bobby S.
> for
> > 1st and 2nd in Masters.   And we have
> proof
> > that old dogs CAN learn new tricks as Mike Klein
> (anyone
> > remember that name from the 80's and 90's???)
> re-emerged
> > from his golf swing and took 1st in FAI. 
> Thankfully
> > he's from D4 :):):)
> > 
> > Again, thanks to all that worked hard to make this a
> > success and a BIG thanks to Ray Morton who spent
> hours
> > manually tabulating scores when the software bit the
> dust.
> > 
> > I look forward to seeing you all up in Chicago in a
> few
> > weeks.
> > 
> > -Mark
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsr
ca.org> 
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > 
> 
> 
>       
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsr
ca.org> 
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> 
> 
>       
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsr
ca.org> 
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 


      
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsr
ca.org> 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090608/c82da3d4/attachment.html>

From wilsorc at gmail.com  Mon Jun  8 14:31:30 2009
From: wilsorc at gmail.com (Bob Wilson)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:31:30 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
In-Reply-To: <FBE30736EB404E45B66393B7567C21D0@toshibauser>
References: <148198.71271.qm@web82108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<FBE30736EB404E45B66393B7567C21D0@toshibauser>
Message-ID: <888fdd980906081531u1cb41695g881d6586f52774c4@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks guys, the Peoria contingent had a great time!

Bob Wilson

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com> wrote:

>  Glad to say I?m sufferin? no ill effects from handing out with the D5
> guys this weekend.
>
>
>
> Thanks for helping me celebrate my wedding anniversary this weekendJ
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Anthony Abdullah
> *Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2009 10:41 AM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
>
>
>
> A big thank you to everyone that helped organize and run the event. It
> takes a lot of work to put on an contest we really appreciate it.
>
>
>
> My wife and I had a great time and we are looking forward to seeing the
> Chicago gang in Hoffman Estates! Just got to get out and practice so I don't
> embarrass myself further.
>
>
>
> I'll have my glass eye and Spongebob wardrobe in towe and will be ready to
> swing with all you crazy cats.
>
>
>
> Anthony
>
> --- On *Mon, 6/8/09, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 10:36 AM
>
>
> Anthony is too cool. I like his Sammy Davis impression. "And I mean that"!
> M2
>
> --- On Mon, 6/8/09, Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=getterflash at yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=getterflash at yahoo.com>
> >
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >
> > Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 9:20 AM
> >
> > The look on Bobby's face when Anthony "thanked" him is
> > priceless.
> >
> > More kudos to Ray, Bobby and additional support staff who
> > jumped in to help.
> >
> > Thanks to Mike Klein for "loaning" me the wire and crimp
> > sleeve to fix my snapped rudder cable. Of all the stuff in
> > my flight box I did not have any rudder cable repair parts.
> > I do now.
> >
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=getterflash at yahoo.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> >
> > To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >
> > Sent: Monday, June 8, 2009 8:48:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> >
> >
> > Great job D4.
> > Here's some pics.
> > http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8819923/tm.htm
> > Mike
> >
> > --- On Mon, 6/8/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> >
> > > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> > > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >
> > > Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 7:41 AM
> > > GO D4!!!
> > >
> > > Big thanks to Ray Morton, Bobby Satalino and a variety
> > of
> > > others that put on a great contest at the AMA site in
> > Muncie
> > > this weekend.  We had awesome weather (did you
> > hear
> > > that D5??  No more excuses for staying home!)
> > and
> > > everything ran smoothly.  I'm sure someone will
> > post
> > > scores soon.
> > >
> > > D4 took home the trophy though due primarily to a
> > strong
> > > turnout.  Those that did come from D5 put on a
> > strong
> > > show though.  Kudos to Mike Mueller and Bobby S.
> > for
> > > 1st and 2nd in Masters.   And we have
> > proof
> > > that old dogs CAN learn new tricks as Mike Klein
> > (anyone
> > > remember that name from the 80's and 90's???)
> > re-emerged
> > > from his golf swing and took 1st in FAI.
> > Thankfully
> > > he's from D4 :):):)
> > >
> > > Again, thanks to all that worked hard to make this a
> > > success and a BIG thanks to Ray Morton who spent
> > hours
> > > manually tabulating scores when the software bit the
> > dust.
> > >
> > > I look forward to seeing you all up in Chicago in a
> > few
> > > weeks.
> > >
> > > -Mark
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090608/fc53178a/attachment.html>

From rdpee at juno.com  Mon Jun  8 16:23:44 2009
From: rdpee at juno.com (Ralph D Perillo)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:23:44 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] For Sale
Message-ID: <20090608.202226.2820.1.rdpee@juno.com>

For Sale
 
      The Futaba 9ZAP system  is sold!!!!!!!!

1-   Like New ( one tank run not flown )  excellent condition 3M 170
Engine w/ 3M Header, Hyde Type A Mount, 3M (Aeroslave) Carbon    
      Tuned Pipe.($900.00 Value)      $450.00
1-   New Hyde OS160 Type A Soft Mt.    $90.00
1-   Used Hyde YS 140 Type A Mt. excellent shape. $60.00
1-   Used YS 140 Type AR Mt. (use with a nose ring) $40.00
1-   New Karl Mueller OS 160 Fx Wrap Around Header Inverted 1 3/8 drop
$30.00
1-   New AAP Aluminum 120-160 Pipe  3/4"  $50.00
1-   New Cline P.C.F.S. Proportional Control Fuel System for 2 or 4 Cycle
Engines.  $25.00
2-   New YS  61   RX Exhaust Headers (one straight rise, one offset rise
to clear a nose gear)  $20.00
2-   Used  60-90 Pipes (  1 Hatori Aluminum , 1 Carbon/Aluminum Pipe) 
Both $20.00
 
      Will accept Paypal, Check, or Money orders.
Contact me off list
Ralph D Perillo  (rdpee at juno.com)
Buffalo,NY
____________________________________________________________
Don't stay in a roach motel.  Click here to find great deals on hotels.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTKDEzcdRkW7BBVOyEABzJSgwsuWUhN2VB0OI9PkXJcOpEgg1WRWKE/

From wgalligan at att.net  Mon Jun  8 17:20:04 2009
From: wgalligan at att.net (Wayne Galligan)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:20:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Webra headers
In-Reply-To: <060820092022.17531.4A2D72EB0008AC250000447B22228869349B0A02D2089B9A019C04040A0DBF960B090E9D0E039C@att.net>
References: <060820092022.17531.4A2D72EB0008AC250000447B22228869349B0A02D2089B9A019C04040A0DBF960B090E9D0E039C@att.net>
Message-ID: <6427B4C9B8B645DF9BBB55C379D2A52C@WaynePC>

Karl Mueller


Wayne Galligan



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ryan Smith 
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
  Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 3:22 PM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Webra headers


  Hey guys,

  I am looking on behalf of a friend that is not on the discussion list if anyone has any headers for a Webra laying around? My friend broke the last one he had, and so far going to suppliers (Macs and Mueller) have not yielded any results.

  If anyone has a header or headers, please get back with me and I will pass this information along to him.

  Kind regards,

  Ryan Smith


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090609/a4603077/attachment.html>

From jzeigenfus at comcast.net  Mon Jun  8 19:52:18 2009
From: jzeigenfus at comcast.net (jzeigenfus at comcast.net)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:52:18 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] AXI's sold
Message-ID: <1215010102.2367371244519536682.JavaMail.root@sz0093a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>

Both Axi F3A's are sold. Thanks guys. I also have an FM JR 9303 and a 2.4 module for sale. this was a back up I don't need anymore. Any one interested please respond privately, thanks JEZ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090609/496d34a0/attachment.html>

From ciaikonski at gmail.com  Tue Jun  9 06:23:47 2009
From: ciaikonski at gmail.com (Francesco Mordasini)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:23:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion]  Last Call
Message-ID: <D62B5024-17D9-457F-8EB8-B1405D705C90@gmail.com>

Piedmont Temptation needs a new home before the current owner moves to  
Europe in the summer.

Piedmont Temptation fully equipped:

-YS 140 DZ with NMP header, and Hatori pipe. Serviced by YS Parts and  
Service and not used since (receipt available upon request)
-Hyde mount
-Tettra bubbless tank 23oz with spare bladder
-PBG CF wing tube and stab tube
-new Bolly landing gear and wheel pants
-MK ball bearing linkages all around
-JR DS 8611a rudder servo (pull-pull)
-JR DS 8417 elevator servo
-JR DS 9411SA aileron servos (nylon gear)
-True Turn spinner


The plane is one of Glen Watson's former planes and is professionally  
built. It is in excellent condition.
The buyer gets in addition the following great package of accessories:

-Hatori header
-set of YS gaskets NIB
-set of YS o-rings NIB
-os-F glow plugs NIB
-MK fuel fittings NIB
-additional True Turn spinner
-two APC four blade props
-two  two blade APC props
-Radio South glow driver (the orange one)
-B&P starter with 14.4V 2200mAh battery
-B&P starter (replacement, no battery)
-replacement cones for B&P starter

Detailed pictures of the plane and the above items are available upon  
request.
I am located in the Dallas/Fort Worth area and am available to meet a  
potential buyer half way for a maximum of 180-200 miles.
Please email me inquiries and offers.

Thank you!


--Francesco Mordasini

ciaikonski at gmail.com

AMA		775590
NSRCA		3645

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090609/1e4f1372/attachment.html>

From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun  9 06:54:19 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:54:19 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] AXI's sold
Message-ID: <686110.36199.qm@web82107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I have a 9303 synthesized, how much for the 2.4 module?

--- On Mon, 6/8/09, jzeigenfus at comcast.net <jzeigenfus at comcast.net> wrote:


From: jzeigenfus at comcast.net <jzeigenfus at comcast.net>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] AXI's sold
To: "List, NSRCA" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 11:52 PM



#yiv1071109216 p {margin:0;}

Both Axi F3A's are sold. Thanks guys. I also have an FM JR 9303 and a 2.4 module for sale. this was a back up I don't need anymore. Any one interested please respond privately, thanks JEZ

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090609/07e60a83/attachment.html>

From mklein25 at roadrunner.com  Tue Jun  9 08:44:37 2009
From: mklein25 at roadrunner.com (mklein25 at roadrunner.com)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:44:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
In-Reply-To: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E84A4@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
Message-ID: <20090609164435.GYD2A.26812.root@hrndva-web28-z01>

I echo the comments of my friend Mark Atwood in thanking Ray and Bobby for running a great contest.  This was my first event in 11 years, and I have to say, I thoroughly enjoyed myself.  It was great to renew old friendships and to meet a whole crop of new competitors.  Everyone from both District 4 and District 5 was wonderful.  Mike Mueller, I really enjoyed getting to finally meet you and swap stories.  Your pure enjoyment of flying pattern and keeping it all in the correct perspective was inspiring.

A lot of great flying and I am sure that both Districts will be well represented at the Nats.  I look forward to seeing everyone in Chicago in a few weeks.  You know I'll be there....as Mickey Losardo has passed word along that my gonads will be fried (or something like that) if I don't show up!

Anthony Abdullah - I look forward to seeing you in not only Sponge Bob scrub pants, but the whole ensemble!  How you found a Sponge Bob store on a Saturday night in Muncie I will never know.  In fact, I am not so sure I believe that whole story....I have a sneaky suspicion that you already had the scrubs.....come clean :-) 

-Mike

---- "Atwood wrote: 
> GO D4!!!
> 
> Big thanks to Ray Morton, Bobby Satalino and a variety of others that put on a great contest at the AMA site in Muncie this weekend.  We had awesome weather (did you hear that D5??  No more excuses for staying home!) and everything ran smoothly.  I'm sure someone will post scores soon.
> 
> D4 took home the trophy though due primarily to a strong turnout.  Those that did come from D5 put on a strong show though.  Kudos to Mike Mueller and Bobby S. for 1st and 2nd in Masters.   And we have proof that old dogs CAN learn new tricks as Mike Klein (anyone remember that name from the 80's and 90's???) re-emerged from his golf swing and took 1st in FAI.  Thankfully he's from D4 :):):)
> 
> Again, thanks to all that worked hard to make this a success and a BIG thanks to Ray Morton who spent hours manually tabulating scores when the software bit the dust.
> 
> I look forward to seeing you all up in Chicago in a few weeks.
> 
> -Mark
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From mklein25 at roadrunner.com  Tue Jun  9 08:46:38 2009
From: mklein25 at roadrunner.com (mklein25 at roadrunner.com)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:46:38 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Brand New YS DZ170 for sale
Message-ID: <20090609164637.15FRW.26864.root@hrndva-web28-z01>

If anyone knows of someone looking for a YS 170 (new in box), I have one that I would like to sell for $600 plus shipping.  After I bought the motor I made the decision to go electric.  Contact me via email at Mklein25 at roadrunner.com or on my cell phone at 216-536-9469.

From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun  9 10:00:20 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:00:20 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
Message-ID: <278927.65327.qm@web82104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Just wait to see what I have up my "sleeve" for next contest. If I can get ahold of my tailor I might show up in a Sponge Bob scrub tuxedo 
?
The contest was very well done and quite enjoyable. that is the first time I have been to an event and knew exactly who the judges would be (by round)?and what the flight order was for the entire event. 
?
There is a lot of talk about why participation is down in pattern, too expensive, elitist attitude, weight limit, noise limit, etc have all been thrown out as reasons not to participate, but if you ask me, and no one has, I would say it's our inability to communicate what happens at a pattern contest to those who have never taken the time to attend one. Between the friendships, the hospitality, and the quality flying, there was no place I would rather have been last weekend!!! From what I've heard, some even preferred the contest to being with their wife on their anniversary.?

--- On Tue, 6/9/09, mklein25 at roadrunner.com <mklein25 at roadrunner.com> wrote:


From: mklein25 at roadrunner.com <mklein25 at roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Cc: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 12:44 PM


I echo the comments of my friend Mark Atwood in thanking Ray and Bobby for running a great contest.? This was my first event in 11 years, and I have to say, I thoroughly enjoyed myself.? It was great to renew old friendships and to meet a whole crop of new competitors.? Everyone from both District 4 and District 5 was wonderful.? Mike Mueller, I really enjoyed getting to finally meet you and swap stories.? Your pure enjoyment of flying pattern and keeping it all in the correct perspective was inspiring.

A lot of great flying and I am sure that both Districts will be well represented at the Nats.? I look forward to seeing everyone in Chicago in a few weeks.? You know I'll be there....as Mickey Losardo has passed word along that my gonads will be fried (or something like that) if I don't show up!

Anthony Abdullah - I look forward to seeing you in not only Sponge Bob scrub pants, but the whole ensemble!? How you found a Sponge Bob store on a Saturday night in Muncie I will never know.? In fact, I am not so sure I believe that whole story....I have a sneaky suspicion that you already had the scrubs.....come clean :-) 

-Mike

---- "Atwood wrote: 
> GO D4!!!
> 
> Big thanks to Ray Morton, Bobby Satalino and a variety of others that put on a great contest at the AMA site in Muncie this weekend.? We had awesome weather (did you hear that D5??? No more excuses for staying home!) and everything ran smoothly.? I'm sure someone will post scores soon.
> 
> D4 took home the trophy though due primarily to a strong turnout.? Those that did come from D5 put on a strong show though.? Kudos to Mike Mueller and Bobby S. for 1st and 2nd in Masters.???And we have proof that old dogs CAN learn new tricks as Mike Klein (anyone remember that name from the 80's and 90's???) re-emerged from his golf swing and took 1st in FAI.? Thankfully he's from D4 :):):)
> 
> Again, thanks to all that worked hard to make this a success and a BIG thanks to Ray Morton who spent hours manually tabulating scores when the software bit the dust.
> 
> I look forward to seeing you all up in Chicago in a few weeks.
> 
> -Mark
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090609/a1d707c9/attachment.html>

From d_bodary at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  9 10:18:24 2009
From: d_bodary at yahoo.com (Dennis Bodary)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:18:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
Message-ID: <754203.74599.qm@web51709.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Wish i could have been there but alas the lawnmower was calling. And it did not go good either kept popping out of gear and not a good qualifying lap at all. Still waiting to see where i qualified but it is not good. 
?
I do plan on going to Hoffman Estates. Bobby Satalino throws quite a shindig at his house on Saturday. 

--- On Tue, 6/9/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 2:00 PM







Just wait to see what I have up my "sleeve" for next contest. If I can get ahold of my tailor I might show up in a Sponge Bob scrub tuxedo 
?
The contest was very well done and quite enjoyable. that is the first time I have been to an event and knew exactly who the judges would be (by round)?and what the flight order was for the entire event. 
?
There is a lot of talk about why participation is down in pattern, too expensive, elitist attitude, weight limit, noise limit, etc have all been thrown out as reasons not to participate, but if you ask me, and no one has, I would say it's our inability to communicate what happens at a pattern contest to those who have never taken the time to attend one. Between the friendships, the hospitality, and the quality flying, there was no place I would rather have been last weekend!!! From what I've heard, some even preferred the contest to being with their wife on their anniversary.?

--- On Tue, 6/9/09, mklein25 at roadrunner.com <mklein25 at roadrunner.com> wrote:


From: mklein25 at roadrunner.com <mklein25 at roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Cc: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 12:44 PM


I echo the comments of my friend Mark Atwood in thanking Ray and Bobby for running a great contest.? This was my first event in 11 years, and I have to say, I thoroughly enjoyed myself.? It was great to renew old friendships and to meet a whole crop of new competitors.? Everyone from both District 4 and District 5 was wonderful.? Mike Mueller, I really enjoyed getting to finally meet you and swap stories.? Your pure enjoyment of flying pattern and keeping it all in the correct perspective was inspiring.

A lot of great flying and I am sure that both Districts will be well represented at the Nats.? I look forward to seeing everyone in Chicago in a few weeks.? You know I'll be there....as Mickey Losardo has passed word along that my gonads will be fried (or something like that) if I don't show up!

Anthony Abdullah - I look forward to seeing you in not only Sponge Bob scrub pants, but the whole ensemble!? How you found a Sponge Bob store on a Saturday night in Muncie I will never know.? In fact, I am not so sure I believe that whole story....I have a sneaky suspicion that you already had the scrubs.....come clean :-) 

-Mike

---- "Atwood wrote: 
> GO D4!!!
> 
> Big thanks to Ray Morton, Bobby Satalino and a variety of others that put on a great contest at the AMA site in Muncie this weekend.? We had awesome weather (did you hear that D5??? No more excuses for staying home!) and everything ran smoothly.? I'm sure someone will post scores soon.
> 
> D4 took home the trophy though due primarily to a strong turnout.? Those that did come from D5 put on a strong show though.? Kudos to Mike Mueller and Bobby S. for 1st and 2nd in Masters.???And we have proof that old dogs CAN learn new tricks as Mike Klein (anyone remember that name from the 80's and 90's???) re-emerged from his golf swing and took 1st in FAI.? Thankfully he's from D4 :):):)
> 
> Again, thanks to all that worked hard to make this a success and a BIG thanks to Ray Morton who spent hours manually tabulating scores when the software bit the dust.
> 
> I look forward to seeing you all up in Chicago in a few weeks.
> 
> -Mark
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090609/1a78ccbe/attachment.html>

From flyintexan at att.net  Tue Jun  9 10:58:47 2009
From: flyintexan at att.net (Mark Hunt)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:58:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] f09 scoresheets
Message-ID: <39434.15410.qm@web80706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Any help would be appreciated concerning the following:

F09 scoresheet available as a pdf on the nsrca website shows manuever #4 as a pull-push-pull humpty....should be push-pull-pull.? Manuever #16 listed as a reverse pull-pull-push humpty.....I think it should be a pull-push-pull.? Is it possible to clarify and edit this quickly, as I would like to print and copy scoresheets for a contest this weekend.


Regards,
Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090609/d7ffe403/attachment.html>

From ejhaury at comcast.net  Tue Jun  9 12:17:11 2009
From: ejhaury at comcast.net (Earl Haury)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:17:11 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] f09 scoresheets
In-Reply-To: <39434.15410.qm@web80706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <39434.15410.qm@web80706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <B99DA71E88024DC8B1CCC676B7008FE2@EarlPC>

Mark

This one appears correct.

Earl
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Hunt 
  To: pattern discussion 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 1:58 PM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] f09 scoresheets


  Any help would be appreciated concerning the following:

  F09 scoresheet available as a pdf on the nsrca website shows manuever #4 as a pull-push-pull humpty....should be push-pull-pull.  Manuever #16 listed as a reverse pull-pull-push humpty.....I think it should be a pull-push-pull.  Is it possible to clarify and edit this quickly, as I would like to print and copy scoresheets for a contest this weekend.


  Regards,
  Mark



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090609/4c172fc0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Score Sheet F09.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 25088 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090609/4c172fc0/attachment.xls>

From derekkoopowitz at gmail.com  Tue Jun  9 12:40:37 2009
From: derekkoopowitz at gmail.com (Derek Koopowitz)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:40:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] f09 scoresheets
In-Reply-To: <39434.15410.qm@web80706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <39434.15410.qm@web80706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3454543c0906091340y2937444eq3d4ee9bd15fdb767@mail.gmail.com>

Mark,

I'll fix these when I get home this evening... thanks for bringing that to
my attention.

-Derek

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Mark Hunt <flyintexan at att.net> wrote:

>  Any help would be appreciated concerning the following:
>
> F09 scoresheet available as a pdf on the nsrca website shows manuever #4 as
> a pull-push-pull humpty....should be push-pull-pull.  Manuever #16 listed as
> a reverse pull-pull-push humpty.....I think it should be a pull-push-pull.
> Is it possible to clarify and edit this quickly, as I would like to print
> and copy scoresheets for a contest this weekend.
>
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090609/60a40b7e/attachment.html>

From rdpee at juno.com  Tue Jun  9 12:57:10 2009
From: rdpee at juno.com (Ralph D Perillo)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:57:10 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Still for sale
Message-ID: <20090609.165558.2344.1.rdpee@juno.com>

For Sale

      The Futaba 9ZAP system  is Sold!!!!!!!!
      The Used YS 140 Type AR Mt. is Sold!!!!!!!!!

      Still For Sale -  Reasonable offers will be considered.

1-   Like New ( one tank run not flown )  excellent condition 3M 170
Engine w/ 3M Header, Hyde Type A Mount, 3M (Aeroslave) Carbon    
      Tuned Pipe.($900.00 Value)      $450.00
1-   New Hyde OS160 Type A Soft Mt.    $90.00
1-   Used Hyde YS 140 Type A Mt. excellent shape. $60.00
1-   Used YS 140 Type AR Mt. (use with a nose ring) $40.00
1-   New Karl Mueller OS 160 Fx Wrap Around Header Inverted 1 3/8 drop
$30.00
1-   New AAP Aluminum 120-160 Pipe  3/4"  $50.00
1-   New Cline P.C.F.S. Proportional Control Fuel System for 2 or 4 Cycle
Engines.  $25.00
2-   New YS  61   RX Exhaust Headers (one straight rise, one offset rise
to clear a nose gear)  $20.00
2-   Used  60-90 Pipes (  1 Hatori Aluminum , 1 Carbon/Aluminum Pipe) 
Both $20.00
 
        Postage is not included!!!

      Will accept Paypal, Check, or Money orders.
Contact me off list
Ralph D Perillo  (rdpee at juno.com)
Buffalo,NY
____________________________________________________________
Make the right decisions about your inheritance.  Click here for more information.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTFQPLKPz6wFuapYWMvFWM7TBOcGSGgVtHauNo3wurs3Gjy0tJZvZO/

From derekkoopowitz at gmail.com  Tue Jun  9 14:18:46 2009
From: derekkoopowitz at gmail.com (Derek Koopowitz)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:18:46 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] f09 scoresheets
In-Reply-To: <39434.15410.qm@web80706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <39434.15410.qm@web80706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3454543c0906091518g6c7a8f94w6f8eb38491f7f194@mail.gmail.com>

Mark,

I've modified the scoresheet on the website... it is now correct.

Thanks,

-Derek

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Mark Hunt <flyintexan at att.net> wrote:

>  Any help would be appreciated concerning the following:
>
> F09 scoresheet available as a pdf on the nsrca website shows manuever #4 as
> a pull-push-pull humpty....should be push-pull-pull.  Manuever #16 listed as
> a reverse pull-pull-push humpty.....I think it should be a pull-push-pull.
> Is it possible to clarify and edit this quickly, as I would like to print
> and copy scoresheets for a contest this weekend.
>
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090609/eebae486/attachment.html>

From flyintexan at att.net  Tue Jun  9 14:45:28 2009
From: flyintexan at att.net (Mark Hunt)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:45:28 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] f09 scoresheets
References: <39434.15410.qm@web80706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<3454543c0906091518g6c7a8f94w6f8eb38491f7f194@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D8E33F8A4EFF4DA185BC285F5EE741DE@MARK>

Thank you to Earl and Derek.  Much appreciated!

-mark
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Derek Koopowitz 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 17:18
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] f09 scoresheets


  Mark,

  I've modified the scoresheet on the website... it is now correct.

  Thanks,

  -Derek


  On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Mark Hunt <flyintexan at att.net> wrote:

    Any help would be appreciated concerning the following:

    F09 scoresheet available as a pdf on the nsrca website shows manuever #4 as a pull-push-pull humpty....should be push-pull-pull.  Manuever #16 listed as a reverse pull-pull-push humpty.....I think it should be a pull-push-pull.  Is it possible to clarify and edit this quickly, as I would like to print and copy scoresheets for a contest this weekend.


    Regards,
    Mark


    _______________________________________________
    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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090609/f52e217c/attachment.html>

From rdpee at juno.com  Tue Jun  9 17:16:37 2009
From: rdpee at juno.com (Ralph D Perillo)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:16:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] still left to sell
Message-ID: <20090609.211536.1292.2.rdpee@juno.com>

For Sale
 
      The Futaba 9ZAP system  is Sold!!!!!!!!
      The Used YS 140 Type AR Mt. is Sold!!!!!!!!!
      New Cline P.C.F.S. Proportional Control Fuel System for 2 or 4
Cycle Engines is sold!!!!!
      Still For Sale -  Reasonable offers will be considered.
 
1-   Like New ( one tank run not flown )  excellent condition 3M 170
Engine w/ 3M Header, Hyde Type A Mount, 3M (Aeroslave) Carbon    
      Tuned Pipe.($900.00 Value)      $395.00
1-   New Hyde OS160 Type A Soft Mt.    $80.00
1-   Used Hyde YS 140 Type A Mt. excellent shape. $50.00
1-   New Karl Mueller OS 160 Fx Wrap Around Header Inverted 1 3/8 drop
$30.00
1-   New AAP Aluminum 120-160 Pipe  3/4"  $50.00
2-   New YS  61   RX Exhaust Headers (one straight rise, one offset rise
to clear a nose gear)  $20.00
2-   Used  60-90 Pipes (  1 Hatori Aluminum , 1 Carbon/Aluminum Pipe) 
Both $20.00

        Postage is not included!!!
 
      Will accept Paypal, Check, or Money orders.
Contact me off list
Ralph D Perillo  (rdpee at juno.com)
Buffalo,NY
____________________________________________________________
Click for top financial advice. Reduce debt & save for retirement.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTIlfgDD65Ok4NSqpKxNJRyN4093rz7UwOoLEItWrlgL0zxlJQV0mE/

From frackowiak at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun  9 18:09:12 2009
From: frackowiak at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Frackowiak)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:09:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] PL Partner Kits for Sale
In-Reply-To: <20090609.211536.1292.2.rdpee@juno.com>
References: <20090609.211536.1292.2.rdpee@juno.com>
Message-ID: <675695FB-8E73-4817-A452-209E08879BA5@sbcglobal.net>

Hi,

I have for sale two brand new in the box PL Partner kits for sale.  
They are both in perfect condition. These are the fuselage, pre- 
sheeted wings and stabs, wing and stab tubes, pre-sheeted rudder and  
all remaining wood.

Price - asking $1,200 each plus shipping. You can email me at frackowiak at sbcglobal.net 
.

Thanks!

Tony Frackowiak

From vanputte at cox.net  Wed Jun 10 11:24:39 2009
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:24:39 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Need Judge Volunteers For Nats
Message-ID: <4D33C237-B589-4126-9D0A-E91931D89BC5@cox.net>

Due to the lower than expected Nats Advanced and F3A entry levels,  
Dave Guerin is looking for judge volunteers from the Advanced and F3A  
pilots to judge the Intermediate and Master class events.  Dave's  
Mother died and he is off attending the funeral, but asked me to  
"ping" the NSRCA Discussion List for him.  If you are an Advanced or  
F3A pilot and can judge more than your one session, please contact me  
directly.  Thanks.

Ron Van Putte

From rdpee at juno.com  Wed Jun 10 14:57:03 2009
From: rdpee at juno.com (Ralph D Perillo)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:57:03 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Sales update
Message-ID: <20090610.185552.2936.1.rdpee@juno.com>

For Sale

      The Futaba 9ZAP system  is Sold!!!!!!!!
      The Used YS 140 Type AR Mt. is Sold!!!!!!!!!
      New Cline P.C.F.S. Proportional Control Fuel System for 2 or 4
Cycle Engines is sold!!!!!
      2-   New YS  61   RX Exhaust Headers (one straight rise, one offset
rise
       to clear a nose gear) are sold!!!!!!!!!!

Still For Sale -  Reasonable offers will be considered.

1-   Like New ( one tank run not flown )  excellent condition 3M 170
Engine w/ 3M Header, Hyde Type A Mount, 3M (Aeroslave) Carbon    
      Tuned Pipe.($900.00 Value)      $395.00
1-   New Hyde OS160 Type A Soft Mt.    $80.00
1-   Used Hyde YS 140 Type A Mt. excellent shape. $50.00
1-   New Karl Mueller OS 160 Fx Wrap Around Header Inverted 1 3/8 drop
       $30.00
1-   New AAP Aluminum 120-160 Pipe  3/4"  $50.00
2-   Used  60-90 Pipes (  1 Hatori Aluminum , 1 Carbon/Aluminum Pipe) 
       Both $20.00
 
        Postage is not included!!!

      Will accept Paypal, Check, or Money orders.
Contact me off list
Ralph D Perillo  (rdpee at juno.com)
Buffalo,NY
____________________________________________________________
Save on Criminal Lawyer Services. Click Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTOVoLXgeCr4bWOJVnjZW1v8ZSINY0BhIN2DkQvFffUFpOR29npE7e/

From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Thu Jun 11 07:10:56 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:10:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
Message-ID: <323479.50951.qm@web82102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I bought an electric arming assembly in Toldeo and I find myself in need of another, does anyone know who makes it and where I can get it? It is basically a set of wires where one end goes to the ESC and the other to the?battery with a mount to the inside of the fuselage. To arm the plane you insert the plug.
?
Thanks
Anthony

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090611/8c698715/attachment.html>

From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Thu Jun 11 07:17:24 2009
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:17:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
In-Reply-To: <323479.50951.qm@web82102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ABDB2172EBD042CF9506161F34B3C1E6@jaysdesktop>

Try MPI

 

Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Abdullah
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:11 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?

 


I bought an electric arming assembly in Toldeo and I find myself in need of
another, does anyone know who makes it and where I can get it? It is
basically a set of wires where one end goes to the ESC and the other to the
battery with a mount to the inside of the fuselage. To arm the plane you
insert the plug.

 

Thanks

Anthony

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090611/b52a4fd7/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 11 07:17:45 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:17:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
Message-ID: <518321.44870.qm@web51008.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 Anthony I think a lot of guys are getting away from the deans style connectors. I know I've just switched everything over to 6MM connectors. Anyone have any thoughts on that? Mike

--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 10:10 AM
> I
> bought an electric arming assembly in Toldeo and I find
> myself in need of another, does anyone know who makes it and
> where I can get it? It is basically a set of wires where one
> end goes to the ESC and the other to the?battery with a
> mount to the inside of the fuselage. To arm the plane you
> insert the plug.
> ?
> Thanks
> Anthony
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      

From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Thu Jun 11 07:21:52 2009
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:21:52 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
In-Reply-To: <323479.50951.qm@web82102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <F1167183A01B4EC4A0C2F2F4A9CED2B2@jaysdesktop>

Check http://www.maxxprod.com/mpi/mpi-21.html at bottom of page. They work
great!

 

Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Abdullah
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:11 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?

 


I bought an electric arming assembly in Toldeo and I find myself in need of
another, does anyone know who makes it and where I can get it? It is
basically a set of wires where one end goes to the ESC and the other to the
battery with a mount to the inside of the fuselage. To arm the plane you
insert the plug.

 

Thanks

Anthony

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090611/784387b5/attachment.html>

From chadnortheast at shaw.ca  Thu Jun 11 07:28:14 2009
From: chadnortheast at shaw.ca (Chad Northeast)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:28:14 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
In-Reply-To: <518321.44870.qm@web51008.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <518321.44870.qm@web51008.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <d1cbdafa4500.4a30ce2c@shaw.ca>

Hi Mike

I started using these connectors,

http://hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=8939

Very inexpensive, and 4mm is really all we need for our app.? No heat shrink required, plugs remain together (so not flopping around), no worries about shorting anything out and impossible to connect in reverse.

I also stopped using my anti-spark circuit with these plugs since conventional bullets don't care about the spark since the contact portion is not damaged by it like a Neu connector is.? Plus since the spark happens inside the housing you can't really see or hear it either :)

I also do not use arming plugs, mainly because most ESC's if plugged in at certain throttle positions are disarmed.? For instance, with the Schulze if you start at full throttle and plug in the pack the controller does not arm until you reach idle for at least 2 seconds.? Since my brake is on a switch I have to bring back to idle, then activate the brake before the ESC will arm.? My brake switch is a condition which on Futaba alarms if on when the radio is turned on, so I always have the brake off when the radio is turned on.? Essentially this setup makes it virtually impossible to arm the controller by accident.

Chad

Chad

----- Original Message -----
From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:18 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

> ?Anthony I think a lot of guys are getting away from the 
> deans style connectors. I know I've just switched everything 
> over to 6MM connectors. Anyone have any thoughts on that? Mike
> 
> --- On Thu, 6/11/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> > From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-
> discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 
> 10:10 AM
> > I
> > bought an electric arming assembly in Toldeo and I find
> > myself in need of another, does anyone know who makes it and
> > where I can get it? It is basically a set of wires where one
> > end goes to the ESC and the other to the?battery with a
> > mount to the inside of the fuselage. To arm the plane you
> > insert the plug.
> > ?
> > Thanks
> > Anthony
> > 
> > 
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090611/62f0701a/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Thu Jun 11 07:32:26 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:32:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
In-Reply-To: <518321.44870.qm@web51008.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <518321.44870.qm@web51008.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4A312389.9050008@cox.net>

Here's what I'm using. Very cool device.

http://shop.rc-electronic.com/e-vendo.php?shop=k_emcotec_e&SessionId=&a=article&ProdNr=A72005&t=11&c=764&p=764

I get them here:

http://www.hkm-models.com/Emcotec.html

I also use this for my radio switch:

http://shop.rc-electronic.com/e-vendo.php?shop=k_emcotec_e&SessionId=&a=article&ProdNr=A11050&t=6&c=541&p=541

They make a single battery version as well:
http://shop.rc-electronic.com/e-vendo.php?shop=k_emcotec_e&SessionId=&a=article&ProdNr=A11060&t=6&c=541&p=541

I run dual 2S 730 mAh lipos. Call me old school. But I have a very light 
plane so I am not overly concerned about weight. But in any case, these 
products are worth the weight







From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Thu Jun 11 07:35:24 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:35:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
Message-ID: <424643.80492.qm@web82101.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Great info guys!!! the list comes through again.
?
Thanks
Anthony

--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:


From: Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 11:32 AM


Here's what I'm using. Very cool device.

http://shop.rc-electronic.com/e-vendo.php?shop=k_emcotec_e&SessionId=&a=article&ProdNr=A72005&t=11&c=764&p=764

I get them here:

http://www.hkm-models.com/Emcotec.html

I also use this for my radio switch:

http://shop.rc-electronic.com/e-vendo.php?shop=k_emcotec_e&SessionId=&a=article&ProdNr=A11050&t=6&c=541&p=541

They make a single battery version as well:
http://shop.rc-electronic.com/e-vendo.php?shop=k_emcotec_e&SessionId=&a=article&ProdNr=A11060&t=6&c=541&p=541

I run dual 2S 730 mAh lipos. Call me old school. But I have a very light plane so I am not overly concerned about weight. But in any case, these products are worth the weight






_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090611/b61fa171/attachment.html>

From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Thu Jun 11 07:36:08 2009
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:36:08 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
In-Reply-To: <d1cbdafa4500.4a30ce2c@shaw.ca>
Message-ID: <F7F5C51C6BE34F04880028C6518A7F83@jaysdesktop>

What is "High amp rating"?

 

Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Chad
Northeast
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:28 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?

 

Hi Mike

I started using these connectors,

http://hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=8939

Very inexpensive, and 4mm is really all we need for our app.  No heat shrink
required, plugs remain together (so not flopping around), no worries about
shorting anything out and impossible to connect in reverse.

I also stopped using my anti-spark circuit with these plugs since
conventional bullets don't care about the spark since the contact portion is
not damaged by it like a Neu connector is.  Plus since the spark happens
inside the housing you can't really see or hear it either :)

I also do not use arming plugs, mainly because most ESC's if plugged in at
certain throttle positions are disarmed.  For instance, with the Schulze if
you start at full throttle and plug in the pack the controller does not arm
until you reach idle for at least 2 seconds.  Since my brake is on a switch
I have to bring back to idle, then activate the brake before the ESC will
arm.  My brake switch is a condition which on Futaba alarms if on when the
radio is turned on, so I always have the brake off when the radio is turned
on.  Essentially this setup makes it virtually impossible to arm the
controller by accident.

Chad

Chad

----- Original Message -----
From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:18 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

>  Anthony I think a lot of guys are getting away from the 
> deans style connectors. I know I've just switched everything 
> over to 6MM connectors. Anyone have any thoughts on that? Mike
> 
> --- On Thu, 6/11/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> > From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-
> discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 
> 10:10 AM
> > I
> > bought an electric arming assembly in Toldeo and I find
> > myself in need of another, does anyone know who makes it and
> > where I can get it? It is basically a set of wires where one
> > end goes to the ESC and the other to the battery with a
> > mount to the inside of the fuselage. To arm the plane you
> > insert the plug.
> >  
> > Thanks
> > Anthony
> > 
> > 
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090611/fcb16e8a/attachment.html>

From chadnortheast at shaw.ca  Thu Jun 11 07:44:35 2009
From: chadnortheast at shaw.ca (Chad Northeast)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:44:35 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
In-Reply-To: <F7F5C51C6BE34F04880028C6518A7F83@jaysdesktop>
References: <d1cbdafa4500.4a30ce2c@shaw.ca>
	<F7F5C51C6BE34F04880028C6518A7F83@jaysdesktop>
Message-ID: <d15ae0206694.4a30d202@shaw.ca>

In general 4mm bullets can deal with 80A, 5.5mm 150A, 6mm 200+A, Deans are 55A rated, 3.5mm are 50A rated usually.

F3A typically is around 30-35A average during a flight with peaks of 70-80A, so 4mm is  sufficient, Deans are good, 3.5 is a little small, and anything bigger than that is just bonus :)

For Deans its important how you solder them as you can really hurt the rating if you overheat the housing which causes the pins to not make good contact.? Same thing with bullets, you can overheat them and take the spring out of the leaf's which will cause poor contact = higher resistance.? Its important to try and keep the housing on a Deans and the leafs on a bullet cool while soldering. 

Chad

----- Original Message -----
From: Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:37 am
Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
To: chad at f3acanada.org, 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

> What is "High amp rating"?
> 
> ?
> 
> Jay Marshall 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Chad
> Northeast
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:28 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
> 
> ?
> 
> Hi Mike
> 
> I started using these connectors,
> 
> http://hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=8939
> 
> Very inexpensive, and 4mm is really all we need for our 
> app.? No heat shrink
> required, plugs remain together (so not flopping around), no 
> worries about
> shorting anything out and impossible to connect in reverse.
> 
> I also stopped using my anti-spark circuit with these plugs since
> conventional bullets don't care about the spark since the 
> contact portion is
> not damaged by it like a Neu connector is.? Plus since the 
> spark happens
> inside the housing you can't really see or hear it either :)
> 
> I also do not use arming plugs, mainly because most ESC's if 
> plugged in at
> certain throttle positions are disarmed.? For instance, 
> with the Schulze if
> you start at full throttle and plug in the pack the controller 
> does not arm
> until you reach idle for at least 2 seconds.? Since my 
> brake is on a switch
> I have to bring back to idle, then activate the brake before the 
> ESC will
> arm.? My brake switch is a condition which on Futaba alarms 
> if on when the
> radio is turned on, so I always have the brake off when the 
> radio is turned
> on.? Essentially this setup makes it virtually impossible 
> to arm the
> controller by accident.
> 
> Chad
> 
> Chad
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:18 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> >? Anthony I think a lot of guys are getting away from the 
> > deans style connectors. I know I've just switched everything 
> > over to 6MM connectors. Anyone have any thoughts on that? Mike
> > 
> > --- On Thu, 6/11/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> 
> wrote:> 
> > > From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
> > > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
> > > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-
> > discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 
> > 10:10 AM
> > > I
> > > bought an electric arming assembly in Toldeo and I find
> > > myself in need of another, does anyone know who makes it and
> > > where I can get it? It is basically a set of wires where one
> > > end goes to the ESC and the other to the battery with a
> > > mount to the inside of the fuselage. To arm the plane you
> > > insert the plug.
> > >? 
> > > Thanks
> > > Anthony
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090611/84fca152/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 11 07:44:48 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:44:48 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
Message-ID: <125309.7069.qm@web51011.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 Chad!!!!!!! I just switched to the HK 6MM bullets now these??????
 No all kidding aside there very cool and light. Next year I want to be like Chad! M2

--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at shaw.ca> wrote:

> From: Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at shaw.ca>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 10:28 AM
> Hi Mike
> 
> I started using these connectors,
> 
> http://hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=8939
> 
> Very inexpensive, and 4mm is really all we need for our
> app.? No heat shrink required, plugs remain together
> (so not flopping around), no worries about shorting anything
> out and impossible to connect in reverse.
> 
> I also stopped using my anti-spark circuit with these plugs
> since conventional bullets don't care about the spark
> since the contact portion is not damaged by it like a Neu
> connector is.? Plus since the spark happens inside the
> housing you can't really see or hear it either :)
> 
> I also do not use arming plugs, mainly because most
> ESC's if plugged in at certain throttle positions are
> disarmed.? For instance, with the Schulze if you start
> at full throttle and plug in the pack the controller does
> not arm until you reach idle for at least 2 seconds.?
> Since my brake is on a switch I have to bring back to idle,
> then activate the brake before the ESC will arm.? My
> brake switch is a condition which on Futaba alarms if on
> when the radio is turned on, so I always have the brake off
> when the radio is turned on.? Essentially this setup
> makes it virtually impossible to arm the controller by
> accident.
> 
> Chad
> 
> Chad
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:18 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer
> and source?
> To: General pattern discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> > ?Anthony I think a lot of guys are getting away
> from the 
> > deans style connectors. I know I've just switched
> everything 
> > over to 6MM connectors. Anyone have any thoughts on
> that? Mike
> > 
> > --- On Thu, 6/11/09, Anthony Abdullah
> <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Anthony Abdullah
> <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
> > > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug
> manufacturer and source?
> > > To: "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-
> > discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> Date: Thursday,
> June 11, 2009, 
> > 10:10 AM
> > > I
> > > bought an electric arming assembly in Toldeo and
> I find
> > > myself in need of another, does anyone know who
> makes it and
> > > where I can get it? It is basically a set of
> wires where one
> > > end goes to the ESC and the other to
> the?battery with a
> > > mount to the inside of the fuselage. To arm the
> plane you
> > > insert the plug.
> > > ?
> > > Thanks
> > > Anthony
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      

From bob at toprudder.com  Thu Jun 11 08:20:09 2009
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:20:09 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
Message-ID: <919688.35607.qm@web1116.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

Great. But, once armed, the only way to disarm it is to unplug the battery, right?

--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at shaw.ca> wrote:



Hi Mike

I started using these connectors,

http://hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=8939

Very inexpensive, and 4mm is really all we need for our app.? No heat shrink required, plugs remain together (so not flopping around), no worries about shorting anything out and impossible to connect in reverse.

I also stopped using my anti-spark circuit with these plugs since conventional bullets don't care about the spark since the contact portion is not damaged by it like a Neu connector is.? Plus since the spark happens inside the housing you can't really see or hear it either :)

I also do not use arming plugs, mainly because most ESC's if plugged in at certain throttle positions are disarmed.? For instance, with the Schulze if you start at full throttle and plug in the pack the controller does not arm until you reach idle for at least 2 seconds.? Since my brake is on a switch I have to bring back to idle, then activate the brake before the ESC will arm.? My brake switch is a condition which on Futaba alarms if on when the radio is turned on, so I always have the brake off when the radio is turned on.? Essentially this setup makes it virtually impossible to arm the controller by accident.

Chad


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090611/3c58d286/attachment.html>

From chadnortheast at shaw.ca  Thu Jun 11 08:31:38 2009
From: chadnortheast at shaw.ca (Chad Northeast)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:31:38 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
In-Reply-To: <919688.35607.qm@web1116.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
References: <919688.35607.qm@web1116.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <d2acea246890.4a30dd08@shaw.ca>

Yes, but an arming plug is fundamentally the same thing.? Someone has to physically remove/deactivate the arming plug, or disconnect the batteries once the system is armed.

Chad

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com>
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009 10:20 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

> Great. But, once armed, the only way to disarm it is to unplug 
> the battery, right?
> 
> --- On Thu, 6/11/09, Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Mike
> 
> I started using these connectors,
> 
> http://hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=8939
> 
> Very inexpensive, and 4mm is really all we need for our app.? No 
> heat shrink required, plugs remain together (so not flopping 
> around), no worries about shorting anything out and impossible 
> to connect in reverse.
> 
> I also stopped using my anti-spark circuit with these plugs 
> since conventional bullets don't care about the spark since the 
> contact portion is not damaged by it like a Neu connector is.? 
> Plus since the spark happens inside the housing you can't really 
> see or hear it either :)
> 
> I also do not use arming plugs, mainly because most ESC's if 
> plugged in at certain throttle positions are disarmed.? For 
> instance, with the Schulze if you start at full throttle and 
> plug in the pack the controller does not arm until you reach 
> idle for at least 2 seconds.? Since my brake is on a switch I 
> have to bring back to idle, then activate the brake before the 
> ESC will arm.? My brake switch is a condition which on Futaba 
> alarms if on when the radio is turned on, so I always have the 
> brake off when the radio is turned on.? Essentially this setup 
> makes it virtually impossible to arm the controller by accident.
> 
> Chad
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090611/b332b068/attachment.html>

From dkrev at shaw.ca  Thu Jun 11 08:38:12 2009
From: dkrev at shaw.ca (dkrev at shaw.ca)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:38:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
In-Reply-To: <125309.7069.qm@web51011.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <125309.7069.qm@web51011.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <39942773-1244738273-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-731468686-@bxe1058.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

Yawn..... Chad is finally catching up to the west coast boys... Been using 4mm for two years now :-)

Dave
Sent from Dave's Crackberry

-----Original Message-----
From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:44:45 
To: <chad at f3acanada.org>; General pattern discussion<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?



 Chad!!!!!!! I just switched to the HK 6MM bullets now these??????
 No all kidding aside there very cool and light. Next year I want to be like Chad! M2

--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at shaw.ca> wrote:

> From: Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at shaw.ca>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 10:28 AM
> Hi Mike
> 
> I started using these connectors,
> 
> http://hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=8939
> 
> Very inexpensive, and 4mm is really all we need for our
> app.? No heat shrink required, plugs remain together
> (so not flopping around), no worries about shorting anything
> out and impossible to connect in reverse.
> 
> I also stopped using my anti-spark circuit with these plugs
> since conventional bullets don't care about the spark
> since the contact portion is not damaged by it like a Neu
> connector is.? Plus since the spark happens inside the
> housing you can't really see or hear it either :)
> 
> I also do not use arming plugs, mainly because most
> ESC's if plugged in at certain throttle positions are
> disarmed.? For instance, with the Schulze if you start
> at full throttle and plug in the pack the controller does
> not arm until you reach idle for at least 2 seconds.?
> Since my brake is on a switch I have to bring back to idle,
> then activate the brake before the ESC will arm.? My
> brake switch is a condition which on Futaba alarms if on
> when the radio is turned on, so I always have the brake off
> when the radio is turned on.? Essentially this setup
> makes it virtually impossible to arm the controller by
> accident.
> 
> Chad
> 
> Chad
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:18 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer
> and source?
> To: General pattern discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> > ?Anthony I think a lot of guys are getting away
> from the 
> > deans style connectors. I know I've just switched
> everything 
> > over to 6MM connectors. Anyone have any thoughts on
> that? Mike
> > 
> > --- On Thu, 6/11/09, Anthony Abdullah
> <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Anthony Abdullah
> <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
> > > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug
> manufacturer and source?
> > > To: "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-
> > discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> Date: Thursday,
> June 11, 2009, 
> > 10:10 AM
> > > I
> > > bought an electric arming assembly in Toldeo and
> I find
> > > myself in need of another, does anyone know who
> makes it and
> > > where I can get it? It is basically a set of
> wires where one
> > > end goes to the ESC and the other to
> the?battery with a
> > > mount to the inside of the fuselage. To arm the
> plane you
> > > insert the plug.
> > > ?
> > > Thanks
> > > Anthony
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > > 
> > >_______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
>_______________________________________________
> 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

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 11 08:42:51 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:42:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
Message-ID: <546960.55654.qm@web51012.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 A problem with the arming plugs and yes I've seen this happen is losing them/ forgetting them/ a buddy throws it in his pocket and forgets. I've actually seen all these things happen. Results were no extra's a no more flying. To me your better off throwing one of the lines outside the fuse and connecting it like that. M2

--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at shaw.ca> wrote:

> From: Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at shaw.ca>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 11:31 AM
> Yes, but an arming plug is
> fundamentally the same thing.? Someone has to
> physically remove/deactivate the arming plug, or disconnect
> the batteries once the system is armed.
> 
> Chad
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com>
> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009 10:20 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer
> and source?
> To: General pattern discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> > Great. But, once armed, the only way to disarm it is
> to unplug 
> > the battery, right?
> > 
> > --- On Thu, 6/11/09, Chad Northeast
> <chadnortheast at shaw.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Mike
> > 
> > I started using these connectors,
> > 
> >
> http://hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=8939
> > 
> > Very inexpensive, and 4mm is really all we need for
> our app.? No 
> > heat shrink required, plugs remain together (so not
> flopping 
> > around), no worries about shorting anything out and
> impossible 
> > to connect in reverse.
> > 
> > I also stopped using my anti-spark circuit with these
> plugs 
> > since conventional bullets don't care about the
> spark since the 
> > contact portion is not damaged by it like a Neu
> connector is.? 
> > Plus since the spark happens inside the housing you
> can't really 
> > see or hear it either :)
> > 
> > I also do not use arming plugs, mainly because most
> ESC's if 
> > plugged in at certain throttle positions are
> disarmed.? For 
> > instance, with the Schulze if you start at full
> throttle and 
> > plug in the pack the controller does not arm until you
> reach 
> > idle for at least 2 seconds.? Since my brake is
> on a switch I 
> > have to bring back to idle, then activate the brake
> before the 
> > ESC will arm.? My brake switch is a condition
> which on Futaba 
> > alarms if on when the radio is turned on, so I always
> have the 
> > brake off when the radio is turned on.?
> Essentially this setup 
> > makes it virtually impossible to arm the controller by
> accident.
> > 
> > Chad
> > 
> > 
> >
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      

From vanputte at cox.net  Thu Jun 11 09:36:33 2009
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:36:33 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
In-Reply-To: <323479.50951.qm@web82102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <323479.50951.qm@web82102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C2A937F6-0883-4D96-BECF-0A1B627DD5DD@cox.net>

Maxx Products.  Their arming plug is an Anderson Power Pole.  You can  
buy the system with either Anderson Power Poles or Deans Ultra  
connectors on the wire.

Ron Van Putte

On Jun 11, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Anthony Abdullah wrote:

> I bought an electric arming assembly in Toldeo and I find myself in  
> need of another, does anyone know who makes it and where I can get  
> it? It is basically a set of wires where one end goes to the ESC  
> and the other to the battery with a mount to the inside of the  
> fuselage. To arm the plane you insert the plug.
>
> Thanks
> Anthony
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Thu Jun 11 09:47:00 2009
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:47:00 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
In-Reply-To: <C2A937F6-0883-4D96-BECF-0A1B627DD5DD@cox.net>
Message-ID: <7A4D13A112F84DFCB8BC31AD929D245A@jaysdesktop>

Those Anderson Power Pole connectors look interesting. Anyone tried them?

Jay Marshall

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 1:36 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?

Maxx Products.  Their arming plug is an Anderson Power Pole.  You can  
buy the system with either Anderson Power Poles or Deans Ultra  
connectors on the wire.

Ron Van Putte

On Jun 11, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Anthony Abdullah wrote:

> I bought an electric arming assembly in Toldeo and I find myself in  
> need of another, does anyone know who makes it and where I can get  
> it? It is basically a set of wires where one end goes to the ESC  
> and the other to the battery with a mount to the inside of the  
> fuselage. To arm the plane you insert the plug.
>
> Thanks
> Anthony
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From vanputte at cox.net  Thu Jun 11 10:19:02 2009
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:19:02 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
In-Reply-To: <7A4D13A112F84DFCB8BC31AD929D245A@jaysdesktop>
References: <7A4D13A112F84DFCB8BC31AD929D245A@jaysdesktop>
Message-ID: <B0EC2FBC-2E25-47C3-812A-AAFC5E6AC32C@cox.net>

I have.  The problem with the Anderson Power Pole arming plug is that  
there will be a spark at the end of the mating surfaces when it's  
plugged in.  As time goes on, the burning/pitting will cause a poor  
electrical connection.  Then the mating surfaces must be cleaned or  
connectors replaced.  I tried using a 100 ohm resistor across the  
receptacle to allow the big capacitor in the ESC to charge, as  
suggested by Jim Oddino, but it took a long time to charge the  
capacitors and I'd often get a spark anyway.

Ron Van Putte

On Jun 11, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Jay Marshall wrote:

> Those Anderson Power Pole connectors look interesting. Anyone tried  
> them?
>
> Jay Marshall
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron  
> Van Putte
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 1:36 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
>
> Maxx Products.  Their arming plug is an Anderson Power Pole.  You can
> buy the system with either Anderson Power Poles or Deans Ultra
> connectors on the wire.
>
> Ron Van Putte
>
> On Jun 11, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Anthony Abdullah wrote:
>
>> I bought an electric arming assembly in Toldeo and I find myself in
>> need of another, does anyone know who makes it and where I can get
>> it? It is basically a set of wires where one end goes to the ESC
>> and the other to the battery with a mount to the inside of the
>> fuselage. To arm the plane you insert the plug.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Anthony
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


From timsautopro at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 11 10:41:32 2009
From: timsautopro at yahoo.com (Tim Taylor)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:41:32 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
Message-ID: <740894.1942.qm@web62307.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

I use?Anderson connectors?on a lot of electric stuff. They do pit at the very end of the connector when connected but that is not where the final connection is made which makes the pitting a moot point. The final contact point, and the one that is important is farther up and I've not had a set go bad yet. I prefer them to anything else.

Tim
--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:


From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 2:18 PM


I have.? The problem with the Anderson Power Pole arming plug is that there will be a spark at the end of the mating surfaces when it's plugged in.? As time goes on, the burning/pitting will cause a poor electrical connection.? Then the mating surfaces must be cleaned or connectors replaced.? I tried using a 100 ohm resistor across the receptacle to allow the big capacitor in the ESC to charge, as suggested by Jim Oddino, but it took a long time to charge the capacitors and I'd often get a spark anyway.

Ron Van Putte

On Jun 11, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Jay Marshall wrote:

> Those Anderson Power Pole connectors look interesting. Anyone tried them?
> 
> Jay Marshall
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 1:36 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
> 
> Maxx Products.? Their arming plug is an Anderson Power Pole.? You can
> buy the system with either Anderson Power Poles or Deans Ultra
> connectors on the wire.
> 
> Ron Van Putte
> 
> On Jun 11, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Anthony Abdullah wrote:
> 
>> I bought an electric arming assembly in Toldeo and I find myself in
>> need of another, does anyone know who makes it and where I can get
>> it? It is basically a set of wires where one end goes to the ESC
>> and the other to the battery with a mount to the inside of the
>> fuselage. To arm the plane you insert the plug.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Anthony
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090611/b015e059/attachment.html>

From verne at twmi.rr.com  Thu Jun 11 10:59:17 2009
From: verne at twmi.rr.com (Verne Koester)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:59:17 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
In-Reply-To: <518321.44870.qm@web51008.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <518321.44870.qm@web51008.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <006e01c9eac6$ba6d01a0$2f4704e0$@rr.com>

I switched to 5.5 mm bullets last year and like them a lot. They hold up to
the arcing a lot better than the Deans because the spark hits right on the
end of the bullet which isn't where the electrical connection is made. The
Deans connectors I ran the year before that were in pretty bad shape from
the arcing.

Verne

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of mike mueller
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:18 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?


 Anthony I think a lot of guys are getting away from the deans style
connectors. I know I've just switched everything over to 6MM connectors.
Anyone have any thoughts on that? Mike

--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 10:10 AM
> I
> bought an electric arming assembly in Toldeo and I find
> myself in need of another, does anyone know who makes it and
> where I can get it? It is basically a set of wires where one
> end goes to the ESC and the other to the?battery with a
> mount to the inside of the fuselage. To arm the plane you
> insert the plug.
> ?
> Thanks
> Anthony
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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



From vanputte at cox.net  Thu Jun 11 11:09:46 2009
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:09:46 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
In-Reply-To: <006e01c9eac6$ba6d01a0$2f4704e0$@rr.com>
References: <518321.44870.qm@web51008.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<006e01c9eac6$ba6d01a0$2f4704e0$@rr.com>
Message-ID: <3A1AADE9-13C5-4F06-B42F-3BA31F1EC0BE@cox.net>

In my experience, the order of resistance to the effects of arcing  
are the bullet connectors, followed by Deans connectors, followed by  
the Anderson Power poles.

Ron VP

On Jun 11, 2009, at 1:59 PM, Verne Koester wrote:

> I switched to 5.5 mm bullets last year and like them a lot. They  
> hold up to
> the arcing a lot better than the Deans because the spark hits right  
> on the
> end of the bullet which isn't where the electrical connection is  
> made. The
> Deans connectors I ran the year before that were in pretty bad  
> shape from
> the arcing.
>
> Verne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of mike  
> mueller
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:18 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
>
>
>  Anthony I think a lot of guys are getting away from the deans style
> connectors. I know I've just switched everything over to 6MM  
> connectors.
> Anyone have any thoughts on that? Mike
>
> --- On Thu, 6/11/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
>> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 10:10 AM
>> I
>> bought an electric arming assembly in Toldeo and I find
>> myself in need of another, does anyone know who makes it and
>> where I can get it? It is basically a set of wires where one
>> end goes to the ESC and the other to the battery with a
>> mount to the inside of the fuselage. To arm the plane you
>> insert the plug.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Anthony
>>
>>
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 11 11:11:21 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:11:21 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
Message-ID: <797702.87760.qm@web51007.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 I agree that the 5.5mm are the best but the 6mm bullets are about half the weight. Since weight means so much it becomes an important factor. Unless you fly the 2 designs out there that have no problem making weight but that's a whole can of whoop a----- that I don't want to rehash over and over again. I'm going to try Chad's 4MM idea next.
 Plus the 5.5MM's are pricy. M2

--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Verne Koester <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:

> From: Verne Koester <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 1:59 PM
> I switched to 5.5 mm bullets last
> year and like them a lot. They hold up to
> the arcing a lot better than the Deans because the spark
> hits right on the
> end of the bullet which isn't where the electrical
> connection is made. The
> Deans connectors I ran the year before that were in pretty
> bad shape from
> the arcing.
> 
> Verne
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of mike mueller
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:18 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer
> and source?
> 
> 
>  Anthony I think a lot of guys are getting away from the
> deans style
> connectors. I know I've just switched everything over to
> 6MM connectors.
> Anyone have any thoughts on that? Mike
> 
> --- On Thu, 6/11/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer
> and source?
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 10:10 AM
> > I
> > bought an electric arming assembly in Toldeo and I
> find
> > myself in need of another, does anyone know who makes
> it and
> > where I can get it? It is basically a set of wires
> where one
> > end goes to the ESC and the other to the?battery with
> a
> > mount to the inside of the fuselage. To arm the plane
> you
> > insert the plug.
> > ?
> > Thanks
> > Anthony
> > 
> > 
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 


      

From wemodels at cox.net  Thu Jun 11 11:36:23 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:36:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
In-Reply-To: <797702.87760.qm@web51007.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <797702.87760.qm@web51007.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4A315CB3.90509@cox.net>

mike mueller wrote:
>  I agree that the 5.5mm are the best but the 6mm bullets are about half the weight. Since weight means so much it becomes an important factor. Unless you fly the 2 designs out there that have no problem making weight but that's a whole can of whoop a----- that I don't want to rehash over and over again. I'm going to try Chad's 4MM idea next.
>  Plus the 5.5MM's are pricy. M2
>   
>

The 5.5mm actually have more surface area than the 6mm do. A pair of 
5.5mm is 5 grams. A pair of 6mm is 4 grams. So for three sets the 5.5 
will cost you 3 grams of weight (0.106 ounces).

I buy my 5.5 bullets from Offshoreelectrics.com

http://www.offshoreelectrics.com/proddetail.php?prod=ose-55bullet

I buy 10 pairs at  a time. $1.75 a pair that way. Dean's cost more than 
that.



 





From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 11 12:39:57 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:39:57 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
Message-ID: <569104.58667.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 Thanks Bill

--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:

> From: Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 2:36 PM
> mike mueller wrote:
> >? I agree that the 5.5mm are the best but the 6mm
> bullets are about half the weight. Since weight means so
> much it becomes an important factor. Unless you fly the 2
> designs out there that have no problem making weight but
> that's a whole can of whoop a----- that I don't want to
> rehash over and over again. I'm going to try Chad's 4MM idea
> next.
> >? Plus the 5.5MM's are pricy. M2
> >???
> 
> The 5.5mm actually have more surface area than the 6mm do.
> A pair of 5.5mm is 5 grams. A pair of 6mm is 4 grams. So for
> three sets the 5.5 will cost you 3 grams of weight (0.106
> ounces).
> 
> I buy my 5.5 bullets from Offshoreelectrics.com
> 
> http://www.offshoreelectrics.com/proddetail.php?prod=ose-55bullet
> 
> I buy 10 pairs at? a time. $1.75 a pair that way.
> Dean's cost more than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 


      

From jcwilsonjr at comcast.net  Thu Jun 11 16:54:33 2009
From: jcwilsonjr at comcast.net (Jerry Wilson)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:54:33 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wing incidence adjusters
In-Reply-To: <323479.50951.qm@web82102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20090612005432.BC77E11540@bridi.netexpress.com>

Is there a source for these now days?

 

Thanks,

Jerry

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/c8cb11c4/attachment.html>

From pcosky at comcast.net  Thu Jun 11 17:36:37 2009
From: pcosky at comcast.net (Pete Cosky)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:36:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wing incidence adjusters
In-Reply-To: <20090612005432.BC77E11540@bridi.netexpress.com>
References: <323479.50951.qm@web82102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20090612005432.BC77E11540@bridi.netexpress.com>
Message-ID: <007101c9eafe$4c7aaa70$e56fff50$@net>

RVP sold me some that were very nice.

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Wilson
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:54 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wing incidence adjusters

 

Is there a source for these now days?

 

Thanks,

Jerry

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/31976cac/attachment.html>

From jcwilsonjr at comcast.net  Thu Jun 11 17:54:13 2009
From: jcwilsonjr at comcast.net (Jerry Wilson)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:54:13 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wing incidence adjusters
In-Reply-To: <007101c9eafe$4c7aaa70$e56fff50$@net>
Message-ID: <20090612015412.2569311540@bridi.netexpress.com>

Do you have a web address?

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Pete Cosky
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:37 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] wing incidence adjusters

 

RVP sold me some that were very nice.

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Wilson
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:54 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wing incidence adjusters

 

Is there a source for these now days?

 

Thanks,

Jerry

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/9b014966/attachment.html>

From homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 11 18:26:40 2009
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com (krishlan fitzsimmons)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:26:40 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
Message-ID: <339220.97078.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Actually, Deans Ultra Plugs are rated to 80 amps. I have used these for four years now with no issues at all. Some others out here in D7 use the Astro Flight Zero Loss connector for a shorting plug. I don't because its only rated to 60 amps. I have also seen the 4 mm bullets used with good success. You can't go wrong either way IMO. 

Perfect for applications requiring up to 80 amps continuous current and
beyond, the Deans Ultra connectors are recommended for all applications
requiring more than 12amps in continuous current. Comes with two Male
connectors and heat shrink tubing




Chris   ?  ?  ?

--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at shaw.ca> wrote:

From: Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
To: "General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 8:44 AM

In general 4mm bullets can deal with 80A, 5.5mm 150A, 6mm 200+A, Deans are 55A rated, 3.5mm are 50A rated usually.

F3A typically is around 30-35A average during a flight with peaks of 70-80A, so 4mm is  sufficient, Deans are good, 3.5 is a little small, and anything bigger than that is just bonus :)

For Deans its important how you solder them as you can really hurt the rating if you overheat the housing which causes the pins to not make good contact.? Same thing with bullets, you can overheat them and take the spring out of the leaf's which will cause poor contact = higher resistance.? Its important to try and keep the housing on a Deans and the leafs on a bullet cool while soldering. 

Chad

----- Original Message -----
From: Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:37 am
Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
To: chad at f3acanada.org, 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

> What is "High amp rating"?
> 
> ?
> 
> Jay Marshall 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Chad
> Northeast
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:28 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
> 
> ?
> 
> Hi Mike
> 
> I started using these connectors,
> 
> http://hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=8939
> 
> Very inexpensive, and 4mm is really all we need for our 
> app.? No heat shrink
> required, plugs remain together (so not flopping around), no 
> worries about
> shorting anything out and impossible to connect in reverse.
> 
> I also stopped using my anti-spark circuit with these plugs since
> conventional bullets don't care about the spark since the 
> contact portion is
> not damaged by it like a Neu connector is.? Plus since the 
> spark happens
> inside the housing you can't really see or hear it either :)
> 
> I also do not use arming plugs, mainly because most ESC's if 
> plugged in at
> certain throttle positions are disarmed.? For instance, 
> with the Schulze if
> you start at full throttle and plug in the pack the controller 
> does not arm
> until you reach idle for at least 2 seconds.? Since my 
> brake is on a switch
> I have to bring back to idle, then activate the brake before the 
> ESC will
> arm.? My brake switch is a condition which on Futaba alarms 
> if on when the
> radio is turned on, so I always have the brake off when the 
> radio is turned
> on.? Essentially this setup makes it virtually impossible 
> to arm the
> controller by accident.
> 
> Chad
> 
> Chad
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:18 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> >? Anthony I think a lot of guys are getting away from the 
> > deans style connectors. I know I've just switched everything 
> > over to 6MM connectors. Anyone have any thoughts on that? Mike
> > 
> > --- On Thu, 6/11/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> 
> wrote:> 
> > > From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
> > > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
> > > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-
> > discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 
> > 10:10 AM
> > > I
> > > bought an electric arming assembly in Toldeo and I find
> > > myself in need of another, does anyone know who makes it and
> > > where I can get it? It is basically a set of wires where one
> > > end goes to the ESC and the other to the battery with a
> > > mount to the inside of the fuselage. To arm the plane you
> > > insert the plug.
> > >? 
> > > Thanks
> > > Anthony
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > 
> 
>

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/9b603a06/attachment.html>

From duane.e.beck at comcast.net  Thu Jun 11 18:29:37 2009
From: duane.e.beck at comcast.net (Duane Beck)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:29:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wing incidence adjusters
In-Reply-To: <20090612005432.BC77E11540@bridi.netexpress.com>
References: <20090612005432.BC77E11540@bridi.netexpress.com>
Message-ID: <4A31BD8C.1090705@comcast.net>

http://www.centralhobbies.com/control_linkage/wingadj.html
http://www.radiosouthrc.com/thumbnail.asp?cid=21
http://www.airborne-models.com/html/AccessoriesGroup.asp?AGroupID=16

Jerry Wilson wrote:
> Is there a source for these now days?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jerry


From vanputte at cox.net  Thu Jun 11 18:33:55 2009
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:33:55 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wing incidence adjusters
In-Reply-To: <007101c9eafe$4c7aaa70$e56fff50$@net>
References: <323479.50951.qm@web82102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20090612005432.BC77E11540@bridi.netexpress.com>
	<007101c9eafe$4c7aaa70$e56fff50$@net>
Message-ID: <BBECE195-FC6B-4054-AB9C-3B186F19A898@cox.net>

They are World Models adjusters; Airborne Models distributes them in  
this country.

Ron VP

On Jun 11, 2009, at 8:37 PM, Pete Cosky wrote:

> RVP sold me some that were very nice.
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Wilson
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:54 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wing incidence adjusters
>
>
>
> Is there a source for these now days?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jerry
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From jshulman at cfl.rr.com  Thu Jun 11 18:43:19 2009
From: jshulman at cfl.rr.com (J Shu)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:43:19 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Looking for
Message-ID: <E9557DCAF144419E9872453424DE1188@UncleJasPC>

Does anyone have any contact info for Frank Icabella?

Regards,
Jason
www.shulmanaviation.com
www.composite-arf.com


From rcairbob1 at comcast.net  Thu Jun 11 18:44:43 2009
From: rcairbob1 at comcast.net (Robert G. Satalino)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:44:43 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
In-Reply-To: <FBE30736EB404E45B66393B7567C21D0@toshibauser>
References: <FBE30736EB404E45B66393B7567C21D0@toshibauser>
Message-ID: <F17C4C08-3059-4FA6-AE55-D94CFA9B8068@comcast.net>

We all had a great time Ron great to see you......


Robert Satalino
rcairbob1 at comcast.net



On Jun 8, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Ron Hansen wrote:

> Glad to say I?m sufferin? no ill effects from handing out with the  
> D5 guys this weekend.
>
> Thanks for helping me celebrate my wedding anniversary this weekendJ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah
> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 10:41 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
>
> A big thank you to everyone that helped organize and run the event.  
> It takes a lot of work to put on an contest we really appreciate it.
>
> My wife and I had a great time and we are looking forward to seeing  
> the Chicago gang in Hoffman Estates! Just got to get out and  
> practice so I don't embarrass myself further.
>
> I'll have my glass eye and Spongebob wardrobe in towe and will be  
> ready to swing with all you crazy cats.
>
> Anthony
>
> --- On Mon, 6/8/09, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 10:36 AM
>
> Anthony is too cool. I like his Sammy Davis impression. "And I mean  
> that"!
> M2
>
> --- On Mon, 6/8/09, Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 9:20 AM
> >
> > The look on Bobby's face when Anthony "thanked" him is
> > priceless.
> >
> > More kudos to Ray, Bobby and additional support staff who
> > jumped in to help.
> >
> > Thanks to Mike Klein for "loaning" me the wire and crimp
> > sleeve to fix my snapped rudder cable. Of all the stuff in
> > my flight box I did not have any rudder cable repair parts.
> > I do now.
> >
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> > To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Monday, June 8, 2009 8:48:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> >
> >
> > Great job D4.
> > Here's some pics.
> > http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8819923/tm.htm
> > Mike
> >
> > --- On Mon, 6/8/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> > > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> > > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca- 
> discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 7:41 AM
> > > GO D4!!!
> > >
> > > Big thanks to Ray Morton, Bobby Satalino and a variety
> > of
> > > others that put on a great contest at the AMA site in
> > Muncie
> > > this weekend.  We had awesome weather (did you
> > hear
> > > that D5??  No more excuses for staying home!)
> > and
> > > everything ran smoothly.  I'm sure someone will
> > post
> > > scores soon.
> > >
> > > D4 took home the trophy though due primarily to a
> > strong
> > > turnout.  Those that did come from D5 put on a
> > strong
> > > show though.  Kudos to Mike Mueller and Bobby S.
> > for
> > > 1st and 2nd in Masters.   And we have
> > proof
> > > that old dogs CAN learn new tricks as Mike Klein
> > (anyone
> > > remember that name from the 80's and 90's???)
> > re-emerged
> > > from his golf swing and took 1st in FAI.
> > Thankfully
> > > he's from D4 :):):)
> > >
> > > Again, thanks to all that worked hard to make this a
> > > success and a BIG thanks to Ray Morton who spent
> > hours
> > > manually tabulating scores when the software bit the
> > dust.
> > >
> > > I look forward to seeing you all up in Chicago in a
> > few
> > > weeks.
> > >
> > > -Mark
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/2515cb7c/attachment.html>

From rcairbob1 at comcast.net  Thu Jun 11 18:45:33 2009
From: rcairbob1 at comcast.net (Robert G. Satalino)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:45:33 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
In-Reply-To: <888fdd980906081531u1cb41695g881d6586f52774c4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <148198.71271.qm@web82108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<FBE30736EB404E45B66393B7567C21D0@toshibauser>
	<888fdd980906081531u1cb41695g881d6586f52774c4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <634F314D-3E1A-4F2F-BB91-49F6B46F37FE@comcast.net>

Thanks Bob for the judging efford.


Robert Satalino
rcairbob1 at comcast.net



On Jun 8, 2009, at 5:31 PM, Bob Wilson wrote:

> Thanks guys, the Peoria contingent had a great time!
>
> Bob Wilson
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com> wrote:
> Glad to say I?m sufferin? no ill effects from handing out with the  
> D5 guys this weekend.
>
>
> Thanks for helping me celebrate my wedding anniversary this weekendJ
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah
> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 10:41 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
>
>
> A big thank you to everyone that helped organize and run the event.  
> It takes a lot of work to put on an contest we really appreciate it.
>
>
> My wife and I had a great time and we are looking forward to seeing  
> the Chicago gang in Hoffman Estates! Just got to get out and  
> practice so I don't embarrass myself further.
>
>
> I'll have my glass eye and Spongebob wardrobe in towe and will be  
> ready to swing with all you crazy cats.
>
>
> Anthony
>
> --- On Mon, 6/8/09, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 10:36 AM
>
>
> Anthony is too cool. I like his Sammy Davis impression. "And I mean  
> that"!
> M2
>
> --- On Mon, 6/8/09, Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 9:20 AM
> >
> > The look on Bobby's face when Anthony "thanked" him is
> > priceless.
> >
> > More kudos to Ray, Bobby and additional support staff who
> > jumped in to help.
> >
> > Thanks to Mike Klein for "loaning" me the wire and crimp
> > sleeve to fix my snapped rudder cable. Of all the stuff in
> > my flight box I did not have any rudder cable repair parts.
> > I do now.
> >
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> > To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Monday, June 8, 2009 8:48:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> >
> >
> > Great job D4.
> > Here's some pics.
> > http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8819923/tm.htm
> > Mike
> >
> > --- On Mon, 6/8/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> > > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D4 vs D5 Shootout!!!
> > > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca- 
> discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 7:41 AM
> > > GO D4!!!
> > >
> > > Big thanks to Ray Morton, Bobby Satalino and a variety
> > of
> > > others that put on a great contest at the AMA site in
> > Muncie
> > > this weekend.  We had awesome weather (did you
> > hear
> > > that D5??  No more excuses for staying home!)
> > and
> > > everything ran smoothly.  I'm sure someone will
> > post
> > > scores soon.
> > >
> > > D4 took home the trophy though due primarily to a
> > strong
> > > turnout.  Those that did come from D5 put on a
> > strong
> > > show though.  Kudos to Mike Mueller and Bobby S.
> > for
> > > 1st and 2nd in Masters.   And we have
> > proof
> > > that old dogs CAN learn new tricks as Mike Klein
> > (anyone
> > > remember that name from the 80's and 90's???)
> > re-emerged
> > > from his golf swing and took 1st in FAI.
> > Thankfully
> > > he's from D4 :):):)
> > >
> > > Again, thanks to all that worked hard to make this a
> > > success and a BIG thanks to Ray Morton who spent
> > hours
> > > manually tabulating scores when the software bit the
> > dust.
> > >
> > > I look forward to seeing you all up in Chicago in a
> > few
> > > weeks.
> > >
> > > -Mark
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/8b210322/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Thu Jun 11 19:01:42 2009
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:01:42 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
Message-ID: <471106.81007.qm@web1113.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

Well, yeah. :-) 
?
My point is that the arming plug can be mounted on the outside of the plane, which is easier than unplugging the battery on some planes. I don't have any arming plugs on my planes, since all my planes have?canopies that pop off easily for battery access. Keep it simple. But if I had a plane?that did not have easy battery access, I would want an arming plug of some sort.?

--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at shaw.ca> wrote:



Yes, but an arming plug is fundamentally the same thing.? Someone has to physically remove/deactivate the arming plug, or disconnect the batteries once the system is armed.

Chad

> Great. But, once armed, the only way to disarm it is to unplug 
> the battery, right?
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/0bbec09a/attachment.html>

From jnhiller at earthlink.net  Thu Jun 11 19:52:49 2009
From: jnhiller at earthlink.net (J N Hiller)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:52:49 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wing incidence adjusters
In-Reply-To: <20090612005432.BC77E11540@bridi.netexpress.com>
Message-ID: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPEEKMEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>

PAC may still have some Gator adjusters. This # may work 615-220-0655.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Jerry Wilson
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 5:54 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wing incidence adjusters

Is there a source for these now days?

Thanks,
Jerry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/146c6a90/attachment.html>

From maureendunphy at bellsouth.net  Fri Jun 12 03:40:17 2009
From: maureendunphy at bellsouth.net (MAUREEN DUNPHY)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:40:17 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wing incidence adjusters
In-Reply-To: <20090612005432.BC77E11540@bridi.netexpress.com>
References: <20090612005432.BC77E11540@bridi.netexpress.com>
Message-ID: <314661.90857.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

We still have some.? You will need to call 615-220-0655 because our website is?temporarily down.

Maureen
?PAC R/C Hobbies

215 South Lowry Street
Smyrna, TN 37167
615-220-0655


www.pac-rc.com 




________________________________
From: Jerry Wilson <jcwilsonjr at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:54:29 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] wing incidence adjusters


Is there a source for these now days?
?
Thanks,
Jerry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/6105bc8c/attachment.html>

From DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com  Fri Jun 12 04:40:41 2009
From: DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com (Dean & Melissa Williams)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:40:41 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane
Message-ID: <50369373A10A4B0FB08539FF687F9320@dean>

Hi
Which servos (brand and #) would you use for a 90 size pattern plane like the ESM Adrenaline 90 and which ones on what surfaces ?
Thanking you for your sugestions
                                               Dean (Outback OZ)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/e0f30f93/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 04:47:04 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:47:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern
	plane
Message-ID: <693621.58920.qm@web51004.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 How about JR 3421SA on everything but the rudder which would work well with a JR 8321. Mike

--- On Fri, 6/12/09, Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com> wrote:

> From: Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:40 AM
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> 
>  
> Hi
> Which servos (brand and #)
> would you use for a 90 
> size pattern plane like the ESM Adrenaline 90 and which
> ones on what surfaces 
> ?
> Thanking you for your
> sugestions
> ??????????????????????????????????????????????
> 
> Dean (Outback OZ) 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      

From jonlowe at aol.com  Fri Jun 12 05:04:35 2009
From: jonlowe at aol.com (Jon Lowe)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:04:35 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern
	plane
In-Reply-To: <50369373A10A4B0FB08539FF687F9320@dean>
References: <50369373A10A4B0FB08539FF687F9320@dean>
Message-ID: <8CBB97562B00D77-CD0-21B@webmail-stg-d06.sysops.aol.com>

JR  (or Spektrum) DS821 on everything except rudder, and something like 
a DS8411SA on rudder.  The DS821's are very precise, almost zero 
deadband, have about 72 oz-in of torque @ 4.8v, 88 @ 6v, carbonite 
gears and only cost about $30 US. Amazing servo for the money.  I've 
seen them on several 2 meter planes.  I've checked Hitec's and Futaba's 
offerings at this price point, and they either lack the torque, the 
speed or both.   I'd run on 6 volts for a little extra speed and 
torque.  The 8411 has the extra power you need on rudder.

And no, I'm not sponsored by JR!


Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Fri, Jun 12, 2009 7:40 am
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern 
plane
















Hi


Which servos (brand and #) would you use for a 90
size pattern plane like the ESM Adrenaline 90 and which ones on what 
surfaces
?


Thanking you for your sugestions


??????????????????????????????????????????????
Dean (Outback OZ)







_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org

http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion






From homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 05:13:56 2009
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com (krishlan fitzsimmons)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:13:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
Message-ID: <780214.51511.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

They also mount the bullet connector arming plug on the outside of the plane. 

Chris   ?  ?  ?

--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com> wrote:

From: Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming plug manufacturer and source?
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 8:01 PM

Well, yeah. :-) 
?
My point is that the arming plug can be mounted on the outside of the plane, which is easier than unplugging the battery on some planes. I don't have any arming plugs on my planes, since all my planes have?canopies that pop off easily for battery access. Keep it simple. But if I had a plane?that did not have easy battery access, I would want an arming plug of some sort.?

--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at shaw.ca> wrote:



Yes, but an arming plug is fundamentally the same thing.? Someone has to physically remove/deactivate the arming plug, or disconnect the batteries once the system is armed.

Chad

> Great. But, once armed, the only way to disarm it is to unplug 
> the battery, right?
> 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/6c0cb669/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 05:54:43 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:54:43 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern
	plane
Message-ID: <220950.98931.qm@web51009.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 Not to be argumentative but I think the 8411 is overkill on a 90 sized plane thus the 8231 reccomondation on rudder. It's cheaper especially used ($35) and it has the SA like gear train. I think that we are using larger than needed servos in most of our planes. But hey it's just my opinion and I could be wrong. Mike

--- On Fri, 6/12/09, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com> wrote:

> From: Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 8:03 AM
> JR? (or Spektrum) DS821 on
> everything except rudder, and something like a DS8411SA on
> rudder.? The DS821's are very precise, almost zero
> deadband, have about 72 oz-in of torque @ 4.8v, 88 @ 6v,
> carbonite gears and only cost about $30 US. Amazing servo
> for the money.? I've seen them on several 2 meter
> planes.? I've checked Hitec's and Futaba's offerings at
> this price point, and they either lack the torque, the speed
> or both.???I'd run on 6 volts for a little
> extra speed and torque.? The 8411 has the extra power
> you need on rudder.
> 
> And no, I'm not sponsored by JR!
> 
> 
> Jon Lowe
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Sent: Fri, Jun 12, 2009 7:40 am
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90
> size pattern plane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> 
> Which servos (brand and #) would you use for a 90
> size pattern plane like the ESM Adrenaline 90 and which
> ones on what surfaces
> ?
> 
> 
> Thanking you for your sugestions
> 
> 
> ??????????????????????????????????????????????
> Dean (Outback OZ)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


      

From tretas513 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 06:13:56 2009
From: tretas513 at yahoo.com (Tommy Scarmardo)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:13:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern
	plane
Message-ID: <776893.20241.qm@web111501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

The 3421sa's are great little servos, I have two on elevator on my new ship, but you
should be careful where you use them. The motor is stronger than the nylon gear
train and is easily stripped under certain conditions. The gears are tiny.
?
tommy s

--- On Fri, 6/12/09, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:47 AM



How about JR 3421SA on everything but the rudder which would work well with a JR 8321. Mike

--- On Fri, 6/12/09, Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com> wrote:

> From: Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:40 AM
> 
> 
>? 
>? 
> 
> 
>? 
> Hi
> Which servos (brand and #)
> would you use for a 90 
> size pattern plane like the ESM Adrenaline 90 and which
> ones on what surfaces 
> ?
> Thanking you for your
> sugestions
> ??????????????????????????????????????????????
> 
> Dean (Outback OZ) 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/8699ad56/attachment.html>

From jim.woodward at baesystems.com  Fri Jun 12 06:19:11 2009
From: jim.woodward at baesystems.com (Woodward, Jim (US SSA))
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:19:11 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] unsubscribe
In-Reply-To: <776893.20241.qm@web111501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7nafpc$o39m9@dmzms99902.na.baesystems.com>

unsubscribe

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/7d130ab2/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 06:25:04 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:25:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern
	plane
Message-ID: <622989.44617.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 Tommy I worried about the 3421's until I looked at the size servo's that QQ was running on his Euphoria. He runs dual ailerons on 1 small servo. I'm running 3421 metals on my ailerons on my new Sickle so far so good. It was because of weight and also because I really think an E. plane can get away with less servo. I run it on a 6volt regulated 2 cell lipo. I think everyone is in to the security that overkill allows and that's great if your not worried about the weight. Mike

--- On Fri, 6/12/09, Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 9:13 AM
> The 3421sa's are great little
> servos, I have two on elevator on my new ship, but you
> should be careful where you use them. The motor is
> stronger than the nylon gear
> train and is easily stripped under certain conditions.
> The gears are tiny.
> ?
> tommy s
> 
> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, mike mueller
> <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90
> size pattern plane
> To: "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:47 AM
> 
> 
> 
> How about JR 3421SA on everything but the rudder which
> would work well with a JR 8321. Mike
> 
> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a
> 90 size pattern plane
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:40 AM
> > 
> > 
> >? 
> >? 
> > 
> > 
> >? 
> > Hi
> > Which servos
>  (brand and #)
> > would you use for a 90 
> > size pattern plane like the ESM Adrenaline 90 and
> which
> > ones on what surfaces 
> > ?
> > Thanking you for your
> > sugestions
> >
> ??????????????????????????????????????????????
> > 
> > Dean (Outback OZ) 
> > 
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
>       
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      

From moleski at canisius.edu  Fri Jun 12 06:28:42 2009
From: moleski at canisius.edu (Martin X. Moleski, SJ)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:28:42 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] unsubscribe
In-Reply-To: <7nafpc$o39m9@dmzms99902.na.baesystems.com>
References: <7nafpc$o39m9@dmzms99902.na.baesystems.com>
Message-ID: <4A326615.8060907@canisius.edu>

Woodward, Jim (US SSA) wrote:

> unsubscribe

At the bottom of every post in this list is a link that
will take you to a page where you may unsubscribe yourself:

> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

					Marty

From simestd at netexpress.com  Fri Jun 12 06:34:41 2009
From: simestd at netexpress.com (Tom Simes)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:34:41 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] unsubscribe
In-Reply-To: <4A326615.8060907@canisius.edu>
References: <7nafpc$o39m9@dmzms99902.na.baesystems.com>
	<4A326615.8060907@canisius.edu>
Message-ID: <20090612063439.338b9b0c.simestd@netexpress.com>

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:28:37 -0400
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <moleski at canisius.edu> wrote:

> Woodward, Jim (US SSA) wrote:
> 
> > unsubscribe
> 
> At the bottom of every post in this list is a link that
> will take you to a page where you may unsubscribe yourself:
> 
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> 					Marty

Just took care of him - I try to shag these administrative requests as
soon as I see them.  Thanks for pointing out the link though for others
Marty :)

-- 
Tom
 
======================================================================
   "Z-80 system stack overflow.  Shut 'er down Scotty, the system's
         sucking mud" - Error message on TRS 80 Model-16B

Tom Simes                                       simestd at netexpress.com 
======================================================================

From vicenterc at comcast.net  Fri Jun 12 06:51:23 2009
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:51:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern
 plane
In-Reply-To: <622989.44617.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1751369463.3533421244818281166.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>



Mike, 



I agree.? I am flying the same plane electric and glow (Abbra).? The electric uses around 50-60 mah and the glow 150-200 mah per each Master round.? This is about 1/3 of the power.? For sure, electric planes can use smaller servos. 



VB 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:24:59 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane 


?Tommy I worried about the 3421's until I looked at the size servo's that QQ was running on his Euphoria. He runs dual ailerons on 1 small servo. I'm running 3421 metals on my ailerons on my new Sickle so far so good. It was because of weight and also because I really think an E. plane can get away with less servo. I run it on a 6volt regulated 2 cell lipo. I think everyone is in to the security that overkill allows and that's great if your not worried about the weight. Mike 

--- On Fri, 6/12/09, Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com> wrote: 

> From: Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane 
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 9:13 AM 
> The 3421sa's are great little 
> servos, I have two on elevator on my new ship, but you 
> should be careful where you use them. The motor is 
> stronger than the nylon gear 
> train and is easily stripped under certain conditions. 
> The gears are tiny. 
> ? 
> tommy s 
> 
> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, mike mueller 
> <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> 
> 
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 
> size pattern plane 
> To: "General pattern discussion" 
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:47 AM 
> 
> 
> 
> How about JR 3421SA on everything but the rudder which 
> would work well with a JR 8321. Mike 
> 
> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com> 
> wrote: 
> 
> > From: Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com> 
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 
> 90 size pattern plane 
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> > Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:40 AM 
> > 
> > 
> >? 
> >? 
> > 
> > 
> >? 
> > Hi 
> > Which servos 
> ?(brand and #) 
> > would you use for a 90 
> > size pattern plane like the ESM Adrenaline 90 and 
> which 
> > ones on what surfaces 
> > ? 
> > Thanking you for your 
> > sugestions 
> > 
> ?????????????????????????????????????????????? 
> > 
> > Dean (Outback OZ) 
> > 
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > 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 
> 
> 
> 
> ? ? ? 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/c1757123/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Fri Jun 12 06:58:44 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:58:44 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern
	plane
In-Reply-To: <1751369463.3533421244818281166.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1751369463.3533421244818281166.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <4A326D22.9030501@cox.net>

Vicente "Vince" Bortone wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
>  
>
> I agree.  I am flying the same plane electric and glow (Abbra).  The 
> electric uses around 50-60 mah and the glow 150-200 mah per each 
> Master round.  This is about 1/3 of the power.  For sure, electric 
> planes can use smaller servos.
>
>  
>
> VB
>

My Abbra has 3421SA on the elevator (one per half). As far as the 
difference in amp draw that is mostly due to the servo not having to 
constantly fight the vibration of the engine to keep the surface in the 
commanded position. The surface size and loads on it during flight are 
the same, but the work the servo needs to do is greater when it also has 
to dampen the engine vibration. I am not sure that a bigger servo is 
needed for this so much as a bigger battery since it burns up more juice.

Keep in mind as well that if you do go to a smaller servo it also has a 
smaller geartrain and this may be more likely to fail under load if you 
try to go too small.





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/76226687/attachment.html>

From jaqfly at prodigy.net  Fri Jun 12 07:08:17 2009
From: jaqfly at prodigy.net (Jim Quinn)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:08:17 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] unsubscribe
In-Reply-To: <20090612063439.338b9b0c.simestd@netexpress.com>
References: <7nafpc$o39m9@dmzms99902.na.baesystems.com>
	<4A326615.8060907@canisius.edu>
	<20090612063439.338b9b0c.simestd@netexpress.com>
Message-ID: <370905.27436.qm@web83302.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>


Tom and Marty,

Thanks for all you do for our web services. 

There is a bar in Binghamton, NY?called Tom and Marty's. Do you guys have a part time job I don't know about?
?Jim Quinn 



----- Original Message ----
From: Tom Simes <simestd at netexpress.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 10:34:39 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] unsubscribe

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:28:37 -0400
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <moleski at canisius.edu> wrote:

> Woodward, Jim (US SSA) wrote:
> 
> > unsubscribe
> 
> At the bottom of every post in this list is a link that
> will take you to a page where you may unsubscribe yourself:
> 
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? Marty

Just took care of him - I try to shag these administrative requests as
soon as I see them.? Thanks for pointing out the link though for others
Marty :)

-- 
Tom

======================================================================
? "Z-80 system stack overflow.? Shut 'er down Scotty, the system's
? ? ? ? sucking mud" - Error message on TRS 80 Model-16B

Tom Simes? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? simestd at netexpress.com 
======================================================================
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From moleski at canisius.edu  Fri Jun 12 07:09:05 2009
From: moleski at canisius.edu (Martin X. Moleski, SJ)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:09:05 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] unsubscribe
In-Reply-To: <20090612063439.338b9b0c.simestd@netexpress.com>
References: <7nafpc$o39m9@dmzms99902.na.baesystems.com>	<4A326615.8060907@canisius.edu>
	<20090612063439.338b9b0c.simestd@netexpress.com>
Message-ID: <4A326F8C.3000400@canisius.edu>

Tom Simes wrote:

>> At the bottom of every post in this list is a link that
>> will take you to a page where you may unsubscribe yourself:

>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

> Just took care of him - I try to shag these administrative requests as
> soon as I see them.

You're too kind.  A true BOFH would make him figure
it out for himself.  :-O

> Thanks for pointing out the link though for others
> Marty :)

Every little bit helps.

				Marty

From moleski at canisius.edu  Fri Jun 12 07:15:02 2009
From: moleski at canisius.edu (Martin X. Moleski, SJ)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:15:02 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] unsubscribe
In-Reply-To: <370905.27436.qm@web83302.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <7nafpc$o39m9@dmzms99902.na.baesystems.com>	<4A326615.8060907@canisius.edu>	<20090612063439.338b9b0c.simestd@netexpress.com>
	<370905.27436.qm@web83302.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4A3270F1.5090603@canisius.edu>

Jim Quinn wrote:

> Thanks for all you do for our web services.

You're welcome.

> There is a bar in Binghamton, NY called Tom and Marty's. Do you guys have a
> part time job I don't know about?

Not in Syracuse!

Must be my evil twin ...

				Marty


From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Fri Jun 12 07:29:18 2009
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:29:18 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern
	plane
In-Reply-To: <1751369463.3533421244818281166.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <937D84CEBF1A4D719920059D86207041@jaysdesktop>

Are you confusing torque and current drain? The additional current drain is
probably due to more corrections due to vibration. The torque requirements
shouldn't differ and therefore the required size of the servo should be the
same - or am I missing something?

 

Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Vicente
"Vince" Bortone
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 10:51 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern
plane

 

Mike,

 

I agree.  I am flying the same plane electric and glow (Abbra).  The
electric uses around 50-60 mah and the glow 150-200 mah per each Master
round.  This is about 1/3 of the power.  For sure, electric planes can use
smaller servos.

 

VB 
----- Original Message -----
From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:24:59 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern
plane


 Tommy I worried about the 3421's until I looked at the size servo's that QQ
was running on his Euphoria. He runs dual ailerons on 1 small servo. I'm
running 3421 metals on my ailerons on my new Sickle so far so good. It was
because of weight and also because I really think an E. plane can get away
with less servo. I run it on a 6volt regulated 2 cell lipo. I think everyone
is in to the security that overkill allows and that's great if your not
worried about the weight. Mike

--- On Fri, 6/12/09, Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern
plane
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 9:13 AM
> The 3421sa's are great little
> servos, I have two on elevator on my new ship, but you
> should be careful where you use them. The motor is
> stronger than the nylon gear
> train and is easily stripped under certain conditions.
> The gears are tiny.
>  
> tommy s
> 
> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, mike mueller
> <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90
> size pattern plane
> To: "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:47 AM
> 
> 
> 
> How about JR 3421SA on everything but the rudder which
> would work well with a JR 8321. Mike
> 
> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a
> 90 size pattern plane
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:40 AM
> > 
> > 
> >  
> >  
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > Hi
> > Which servos
>  (brand and #)
> > would you use for a 90 
> > size pattern plane like the ESM Adrenaline 90 and
> which
> > ones on what surfaces 
> > ?
> > Thanking you for your
> > sugestions
> >
>                                               
> > 
> > Dean (Outback OZ) 
> > 
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
>       
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/68486bbc/attachment.html>

From jnhiller at earthlink.net  Fri Jun 12 08:03:56 2009
From: jnhiller at earthlink.net (J N Hiller)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:03:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size patternplane
In-Reply-To: <220950.98931.qm@web51009.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPCELBEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>

Mike I agree that we are probably stronger / more expensive servos than most
of us needed.
What's really needed is a tight servo that returns to center from either
direction. I'm not familiar with JR stuff I still use Futaba and kind of
like their standard torque S-3151 and high torque S-3152 digital servos,
both in the $30 - $35 range. I don't think I would notice the difference
between these and $100+ servos. As for torque, set up the linkage to use
full travel (100 - 120%) on both aileron and elevator which gives near
maximum torque amplification converting 40+ degrees of servo rotation to 7 -
9 degrees aileron deflection and unless you are flying snaps or spins 10 -
14 elevator control surface deflection. Many will likely disagree with what
I've said and that's OK.
How many of us really get our money's worth using the latest and greatest.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of mike mueller
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 6:55 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size
patternplane


 Not to be argumentative but I think the 8411 is overkill on a 90 sized
plane thus the 8231 reccomondation on rudder. It's cheaper especially used
($35) and it has the SA like gear train. I think that we are using larger
than needed servos in most of our planes. But hey it's just my opinion and I
could be wrong. Mike

--- On Fri, 6/12/09, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com> wrote:

> From: Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern
plane
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 8:03 AM
> JR  (or Spektrum) DS821 on
> everything except rudder, and something like a DS8411SA on
> rudder.  The DS821's are very precise, almost zero
> deadband, have about 72 oz-in of torque @ 4.8v, 88 @ 6v,
> carbonite gears and only cost about $30 US. Amazing servo
> for the money.  I've seen them on several 2 meter
> planes.  I've checked Hitec's and Futaba's offerings at
> this price point, and they either lack the torque, the speed
> or both.   I'd run on 6 volts for a little
> extra speed and torque.  The 8411 has the extra power
> you need on rudder.
>
> And no, I'm not sponsored by JR!
>
>
> Jon Lowe
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Sent: Fri, Jun 12, 2009 7:40 am
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90
> size pattern plane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
> Which servos (brand and #) would you use for a 90
> size pattern plane like the ESM Adrenaline 90 and which
> ones on what surfaces
> ?
>
>
> Thanking you for your sugestions
>
>
>
> Dean (Outback OZ)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From kerlock at comcast.net  Fri Jun 12 08:10:12 2009
From: kerlock at comcast.net (Mike Hester)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:10:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] For sale: YS 160DZ
Message-ID: <5833C99930CD490B9321AD2B1CD55075@Sanity>

hey guys,

I'm selling my #1 YS 160 as I am pretty much all converted to 170s now. This has been my #1 engine for a couple of years. it's fresh back from YS and is still in the box. This engine is proven reliable and very strong, fresh everything.

I'll take $400 shipped in the lower 48. Contact me offline at kerlock at comcast.net if interested.

-Mike Hester
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/cc3df4f2/attachment.html>

From vicenterc at comcast.net  Fri Jun 12 08:26:55 2009
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:26:55 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern
 plane
In-Reply-To: <699818413.3576081244823961121.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <1439065575.3576611244824014403.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>



High vibration levels will require more power to compensate.??Yes,?more torque will be required in?strong vibration environment .? It is like you have?an unbalance prop.? The power output is less?since some is been use by the vibration.? It is difficult to explain but for sure is there.? Another example is the effect of the soft mounts.? It is well know that large gasoline planes required several servos per surface to compensate the additional vibration.? If we use soft mount (I do in 100 cc planes) in those large planes we can reduce the number or servos per surface.? Currently I am using one servo in 100 cc plane with soft mount.? I have seen the same plane with?3 servos without the soft mount. 



VB? 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jay Marshall" < lightfoot @ sc . rr .com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 10:29:03 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane 




Are you confusing torque and current drain? The additional current drain is probably due to more corrections due to vibration. The torque requirements shouldn ?t differ and therefore the required size of the servo should be the same ? or am I missing something? 




Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message----- 
From: nsrca -discussion-bounces at lists. nsrca .org [mailto: nsrca -discussion-bounces at lists. nsrca .org] On Behalf Of Vicente "Vince" Bortone 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 10:51 AM 
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane 




Mike, 



I agree.? I am flying the same plane electric and glow (Abbra).? The electric uses around 50-60 mah and the glow 150-200 mah per each Master round.? This is about 1/3 of the power.? For sure, electric planes can use smaller servos. 



VB 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:24:59 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane 


?Tommy I worried about the 3421's until I looked at the size servo's that QQ was running on his Euphoria. He runs dual ailerons on 1 small servo. I'm running 3421 metals on my ailerons on my new Sickle so far so good. It was because of weight and also because I really think an E. plane can get away with less servo. I run it on a 6volt regulated 2 cell lipo. I think everyone is in to the security that overkill allows and that's great if your not worried about the weight. Mike 

--- On Fri, 6/12/09, Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com> wrote: 

> From: Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane 
> To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 9:13 AM 
> The 3421sa's are great little 
> servos, I have two on elevator on my new ship, but you 
> should be careful where you use them. The motor is 
> stronger than the nylon gear 
> train and is easily stripped under certain conditions. 
> The gears are tiny. 
> ? 
> tommy s 
> 
> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, mike mueller 
> <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> 
> 
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 
> size pattern plane 
> To: "General pattern discussion" 
> < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:47 AM 
> 
> 
> 
> How about JR 3421SA on everything but the rudder which 
> would work well with a JR 8321. Mike 
> 
> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com> 
> wrote: 
> 
> > From: Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com> 
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 
> 90 size pattern plane 
> > To: nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org 
> > Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:40 AM 
> > 
> > 
> >? 
> >? 
> > 
> > 
> >? 
> > Hi 
> > Which servos 
> ?(brand and #) 
> > would you use for a 90 
> > size pattern plane like the ESM Adrenaline 90 and 
> which 
> > ones on what surfaces 
> > ? 
> > Thanking you for your 
> > sugestions 
> > 
> ?????????????????????????????????????????????? 
> > 
> > Dean (Outback OZ) 
> > 
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > 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 
> 
> 
> 
> ? ? ? 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/db100845/attachment.html>

From simestd at netexpress.com  Fri Jun 12 08:41:27 2009
From: simestd at netexpress.com (Tom Simes)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:41:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] unsubscribe
In-Reply-To: <4A326F8C.3000400@canisius.edu>
References: <7nafpc$o39m9@dmzms99902.na.baesystems.com>
	<4A326615.8060907@canisius.edu>
	<20090612063439.338b9b0c.simestd@netexpress.com>
	<4A326F8C.3000400@canisius.edu>
Message-ID: <20090612084124.7726a2b5.simestd@netexpress.com>

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:09:00 -0400
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <moleski at canisius.edu> wrote:

> Tom Simes wrote:

> > Just took care of him - I try to shag these administrative requests
> > as soon as I see them.
> 
> You're too kind.  A true BOFH would make him figure
> it out for himself.  :-O

Nah, a truly skillful BOFH would have helpfully walked him through
reducing every electronic device in the house to a smoldering slag
pile.  THEN he would have left him convinced that the only way to get
off the list was to dye the neighbor's cat bright chartreuse and launch
it into the nearest substation during the third full moon in Octember.

For those with too much time on their hands:

http://bofh.ntk.net/Bastard.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/odds/bofh/

Obligatory pattern content:  Does anyone know what size tank you would
need on an OS AX120 to get two sequences in without refueling in the
lower classes?


-- 
Tom
 
======================================================================
   "Z-80 system stack overflow.  Shut 'er down Scotty, the system's
         sucking mud" - Error message on TRS 80 Model-16B

Tom Simes                                       simestd at netexpress.com 
======================================================================

From jnhiller at earthlink.net  Fri Jun 12 08:42:16 2009
From: jnhiller at earthlink.net (J N Hiller)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:42:16 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern
	plane
In-Reply-To: <1439065575.3576611244824014403.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPMELBEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>

Why not balance the control surfaces in high vibration applications?
Jim Hiller
 
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:27 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane
 
High vibration levels will require more power to compensate.  Yes, more torque will be required in strong vibration environment.  It is like you have an unbalance prop.  The power output is less since some is been use by the vibration.  It is difficult to explain but for sure is there.  Another example is the effect of the soft mounts.  It is well know that large gasoline planes required several servos per surface to compensate the additional vibration.  If we use soft mount (I do in 100 cc planes) in those large planes we can reduce the number or servos per surface.  Currently I am using one servo in 100 cc plane with soft mount.  I have seen the same plane with 3 servos without the soft mount.
 
VB 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Marshall" <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 10:29:03 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane
Are you confusing torque and current drain? The additional current drain is probably due to more corrections due to vibration. The torque requirements shouldn?t differ and therefore the required size of the servo should be the same ? or am I missing something?
 
Jay Marshall 
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 10:51 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane
 
Mike,
 
I agree.  I am flying the same plane electric and glow (Abbra).  The electric uses around 50-60 mah and the glow 150-200 mah per each Master round.  This is about 1/3 of the power.  For sure, electric planes can use smaller servos.
 
VB 
----- Original Message -----
From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:24:59 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane


 Tommy I worried about the 3421's until I looked at the size servo's that QQ was running on his Euphoria. He runs dual ailerons on 1 small servo. I'm running 3421 metals on my ailerons on my new Sickle so far so good. It was because of weight and also because I really think an E. plane can get away with less servo. I run it on a 6volt regulated 2 cell lipo. I think everyone is in to the security that overkill allows and that's great if your not worried about the weight. Mike

--- On Fri, 6/12/09, Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 9:13 AM
> The 3421sa's are great little
> servos, I have two on elevator on my new ship, but you
> should be careful where you use them. The motor is
> stronger than the nylon gear
> train and is easily stripped under certain conditions.
> The gears are tiny.
>  
> tommy s
> 
> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, mike mueller
> <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90
> size pattern plane
> To: "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:47 AM
> 
> 
> 
> How about JR 3421SA on everything but the rudder which
> would work well with a JR 8321. Mike
> 
> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a
> 90 size pattern plane
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:40 AM
> > 
> > 
> >  
> >  
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > Hi
> > Which servos
>  (brand and #)
> > would you use for a 90 
> > size pattern plane like the ESM Adrenaline 90 and
> which
> > ones on what surfaces 
> > ?
> > Thanking you for your
> > sugestions
> >
>                                               
> > 
> > Dean (Outback OZ) 
> > 
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
>       
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/92035076/attachment.html>

From jnhiller at earthlink.net  Fri Jun 12 08:49:50 2009
From: jnhiller at earthlink.net (J N Hiller)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:49:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] unsubscribe
In-Reply-To: <20090612084124.7726a2b5.simestd@netexpress.com>
Message-ID: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPGELCEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>

I used a 14 oz tank and was able to regularly flue two advanced sequences
running a 16-10 prop on a 9+ lb airplane. In Masters I don't think I could
get two with a 16 oz tank in calm air.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Tom Simes
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:41 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] unsubscribe

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:09:00 -0400
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <moleski at canisius.edu> wrote:

> Tom Simes wrote:

> > Just took care of him - I try to shag these administrative requests
> > as soon as I see them.
>
> You're too kind.  A true BOFH would make him figure
> it out for himself.  :-O

Nah, a truly skillful BOFH would have helpfully walked him through
reducing every electronic device in the house to a smoldering slag
pile.  THEN he would have left him convinced that the only way to get
off the list was to dye the neighbor's cat bright chartreuse and launch
it into the nearest substation during the third full moon in Octember.

For those with too much time on their hands:

http://bofh.ntk.net/Bastard.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/odds/bofh/

Obligatory pattern content:  Does anyone know what size tank you would
need on an OS AX120 to get two sequences in without refueling in the
lower classes?


--
Tom

======================================================================
   "Z-80 system stack overflow.  Shut 'er down Scotty, the system's
         sucking mud" - Error message on TRS 80 Model-16B

Tom Simes                                       simestd at netexpress.com
======================================================================
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From simestd at netexpress.com  Fri Jun 12 08:53:13 2009
From: simestd at netexpress.com (Tom Simes)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:53:13 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] unsubscribe
In-Reply-To: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPGELCEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>
References: <20090612084124.7726a2b5.simestd@netexpress.com>
	<HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPGELCEJAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <20090612085310.26c1a923.simestd@netexpress.com>

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:49:57 -0700
"J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

> I used a 14 oz tank and was able to regularly flue two advanced
> sequences running a 16-10 prop on a 9+ lb airplane. In Masters I don't
> think I could get two with a 16 oz tank in calm air.
> Jim Hiller

Thanks for the great answer Jim :)

-- 
Tom
 
======================================================================
   "Z-80 system stack overflow.  Shut 'er down Scotty, the system's
         sucking mud" - Error message on TRS 80 Model-16B

Tom Simes                                       simestd at netexpress.com 
======================================================================

From tretas513 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 10:21:46 2009
From: tretas513 at yahoo.com (Tommy Scarmardo)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:21:46 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern
	plane
Message-ID: <172504.22928.qm@web111515.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Mike, 
On my Helios 63e practice pattern ship I have 3421sa's on ailerons that have both?been retrofitted with metal gears after losing gear teeth during normal pattern maneuvers. I
like these servos very much but?I'm?just saying be careful.
?
tommy s

--- On Fri, 6/12/09, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 9:24 AM



Tommy I worried about the 3421's until I looked at the size servo's that QQ was running on his Euphoria. He runs dual ailerons on 1 small servo. I'm running 3421 metals on my ailerons on my new Sickle so far so good. It was because of weight and also because I really think an E. plane can get away with less servo. I run it on a 6volt regulated 2 cell lipo. I think everyone is in to the security that overkill allows and that's great if your not worried about the weight. Mike

--- On Fri, 6/12/09, Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 9:13 AM
> The 3421sa's are great little
> servos, I have two on elevator on my new ship, but you
> should be careful where you use them. The motor is
> stronger than the nylon gear
> train and is easily stripped under certain conditions.
> The gears are tiny.
> ?
> tommy s
> 
> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, mike mueller
> <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90
> size pattern plane
> To: "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:47 AM
> 
> 
> 
> How about JR 3421SA on everything but the rudder which
> would work well with a JR 8321. Mike
> 
> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a
> 90 size pattern plane
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:40 AM
> > 
> > 
> >? 
> >? 
> > 
> > 
> >? 
> > Hi
> > Which servos
>? (brand and #)
> > would you use for a 90 
> > size pattern plane like the ESM Adrenaline 90 and
> which
> > ones on what surfaces 
> > ?
> > Thanking you for your
> > sugestions
> >
> ??????????????????????????????????????????????
> > 
> > Dean (Outback OZ) 
> > 
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
>? ? ???
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/cacd623e/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 10:51:31 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:51:31 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern
	plane
Message-ID: <983560.30859.qm@web51012.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 Thanks Tommy I will head your warning and be careful. I tend to push the limits and hopefully it won't come back to bite me in the posterior.Mike
 By the way the Helios 63E is a great looking plane. In saw the pictures of it on RCU. Where did you get yours? Mike

--- On Fri, 6/12/09, Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 1:21 PM
> Mike, 
> On my Helios 63e practice pattern ship I have
> 3421sa's on ailerons that have both?been
> retrofitted with metal gears after losing gear teeth during
> normal pattern maneuvers. I
> like these servos very much but?I'm?just
> saying be careful.
> ?
> tommy s
> 
> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, mike mueller
> <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90
> size pattern plane
> To: "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 9:24 AM
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy I worried about the 3421's until I looked at the
> size servo's that QQ was running on his Euphoria. He
> runs dual ailerons on 1 small servo. I'm running 3421
> metals on my ailerons on my new Sickle so far so good. It
> was because of weight and also because I really think an E.
> plane can get away with less servo. I run it on a 6volt
> regulated 2 cell lipo. I think everyone is in to the
> security that overkill allows and that's great if your
> not worried about the weight. Mike
> 
> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for
> a 90 size pattern
>  plane
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 9:13 AM
> > The 3421sa's are great little
> > servos, I have two on elevator on my new ship, but
> you
> > should be careful where you use them. The motor is
> > stronger than the nylon gear
> > train and is easily stripped under certain
> conditions.
> > The gears are tiny.
> > ?
> > tommy s
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 6/12/09, mike mueller
> > <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for
> a 90
> > size pattern plane
> > To: "General pattern discussion"
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:47 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > How about JR 3421SA on everything but the rudder
> which
> > would work well with a JR 8321. Mike
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 6/12/09, Dean & Melissa Williams
> <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
> > > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions
> for a
> > 90 size pattern plane
> > > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > > Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:40 AM
> > > 
> > > 
> > >? 
> > >? 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >? 
> > > Hi
> > > Which servos
> >? (brand and #)
> > > would you use for a 90 
> > > size pattern plane like the ESM Adrenaline 90
> and
> > which
> > > ones on what surfaces 
> > > ?
> > > Thanking you for your
> > > sugestions
> > >
> >
> 
> ??????????????????????????????????????????????
> > > 
> > > Dean (Outback OZ) 
> > > 
> > > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >? ? ???
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
>       
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      

From jpavlick at idseng.com  Fri Jun 12 11:33:46 2009
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:33:46 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size patternplane
Message-ID: <605433.74974.qm@web80507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I'm a Futaba guy too but the 3151's are not really that good. I much prefer the 3152's - about the same price and they're a MUCH better servo to use for?budget Pattern setups.
?
John Pavlick

--- On Fri, 6/12/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:


From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size patternplane
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 12:04 PM


Mike I agree that we are probably stronger / more expensive servos than most
of us needed.
What's really needed is a tight servo that returns to center from either
direction. I'm not familiar with JR stuff I still use Futaba and kind of
like their standard torque S-3151 and high torque S-3152 digital servos,
both in the $30 - $35 range. I don't think I would notice the difference
between these and $100+ servos. As for torque, set up the linkage to use
full travel (100 - 120%) on both aileron and elevator which gives near
maximum torque amplification converting 40+ degrees of servo rotation to 7 -
9 degrees aileron deflection and unless you are flying snaps or spins 10 -
14 elevator control surface deflection. Many will likely disagree with what
I've said and that's OK.
How many of us really get our money's worth using the latest and greatest.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of mike mueller
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 6:55 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size
patternplane


Not to be argumentative but I think the 8411 is overkill on a 90 sized
plane thus the 8231 reccomondation on rudder. It's cheaper especially used
($35) and it has the SA like gear train. I think that we are using larger
than needed servos in most of our planes. But hey it's just my opinion and I
could be wrong. Mike

--- On Fri, 6/12/09, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com> wrote:

> From: Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern
plane
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 8:03 AM
> JR? (or Spektrum) DS821 on
> everything except rudder, and something like a DS8411SA on
> rudder.? The DS821's are very precise, almost zero
> deadband, have about 72 oz-in of torque @ 4.8v, 88 @ 6v,
> carbonite gears and only cost about $30 US. Amazing servo
> for the money.? I've seen them on several 2 meter
> planes.? I've checked Hitec's and Futaba's offerings at
> this price point, and they either lack the torque, the speed
> or both.???I'd run on 6 volts for a little
> extra speed and torque.? The 8411 has the extra power
> you need on rudder.
>
> And no, I'm not sponsored by JR!
>
>
> Jon Lowe
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Sent: Fri, Jun 12, 2009 7:40 am
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90
> size pattern plane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
> Which servos (brand and #) would you use for a 90
> size pattern plane like the ESM Adrenaline 90 and which
> ones on what surfaces
> ?
>
>
> Thanking you for your sugestions
>
>
>
> Dean (Outback OZ)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/a70af876/attachment.html>

From pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net  Fri Jun 12 12:58:27 2009
From: pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net (Ihncheol Park)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:58:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern
	plane
In-Reply-To: <50369373A10A4B0FB08539FF687F9320@dean>
References: <50369373A10A4B0FB08539FF687F9320@dean>
Message-ID: <734195.74781.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Below is what I think.

Assuming you will be using a glow setup on a soft mount and adding weights for the counter balances and Pattern Purpose.

I would go with?DS821?for JR, S3152 for futaba.

Servo recommendations will have lots of differences based on how you power the model.

Ihncheol



________________________________
From: Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 7:40:25 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern plane


Hi
Which servos (brand and #) would you use for a 90 size pattern plane like the ESM Adrenaline 90 and which ones on what surfaces ?
Thanking you for your sugestions
?????????????????????????????????????????????? Dean (Outback OZ)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090612/9c547950/attachment.html>

From jonlowe at aol.com  Fri Jun 12 15:45:23 2009
From: jonlowe at aol.com (Jon Lowe)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:45:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size pattern
	plane
In-Reply-To: <622989.44617.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <622989.44617.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8CBB9CEDF482974-C78-8CD@webmail-stg-d06.sysops.aol.com>

Don't try metal geared 3421's on a fuel airplane on ailerons.  Stripped 
them out, in flight, after less than half a season. The constant 
vibration killed the tiny, fine toothed gears.  I wouldn't use metal 
geared 3421's on elevators either.  I regularly use 3421SAs on 
elevators without an issue.


Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Fri, Jun 12, 2009 9:24 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size 
pattern plane











  Tommy I worried about the 3421's until I looked at the size servo's 
that QQ was
running on his Euphoria. He runs dual ailerons on 1 small servo. I'm 
running
3421 metals on my ailerons on my new Sickle so far so good. It was 
because of
weight and also because I really think an E. plane can get away with 
less servo.
I run it on a 6volt regulated 2 cell lipo. I think everyone is in to 
the
security that overkill allows and that's great if your not worried 
about the
weight. Mike

--- On Fri, 6/12/09, Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size 
pattern plane
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 9:13 AM
> The 3421sa's are great little0D
> servos, I have two on elevator on my new ship, but you
> should be careful where you use them. The motor is
> stronger than the nylon gear
> train and is easily stripped under certain conditions.
> The gears are tiny.
> ?
> tommy s
>
> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, mike mueller
> <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90
> size pattern plane
> To: "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:47 AM
>
>
>
> How about JR 3421SA on everything but the rudder which
> would work well with a JR 8321. Mike
>
> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a
> 90 size pattern plane
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:40 AM
> >
> >
> >?
> >?
> >
> >
> >?
> > Hi
> > Which servos
>  (brand and #)
> > would you use for a 90
> > size pattern plane like the ESM Adrenaline 90 and
> which
> > ones on what surfaces
> > ?
> > Thanking you for your
> > sugestions
> >
> ???????????????????????????????????
??????????
> >
> > Dean (Outback OZ)
> >
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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






From rdpee at juno.com  Fri Jun 12 16:28:15 2009
From: rdpee at juno.com (Ralph D Perillo)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:28:15 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Some items still not sold
Message-ID: <20090612.202628.4088.2.rdpee@juno.com>

For Sale
 
      The Futaba 9ZAP system  is Sold!!!!!!!!
      The Used YS 140 Type AR Mt. is Sold!!!!!!!!!
      New Cline P.C.F.S. Proportional Control Fuel System for 2 or 4
Cycle Engines is sold!!!!!
      2-   New YS  61   RX Exhaust Headers (one straight rise, one offset
rise
       to clear a nose gear) are sold!!!!!!!!!!
 
Still For Sale -  Reasonable offers will be considered.
 
1-   Like New ( one tank run not flown )  excellent condition 3M 170
Engine w/ 3M Header, Hyde Type A Mount, 3M (Aeroslave) Carbon    
      Tuned Pipe.($900.00 Value)      $395.00
1-   New Hyde OS160 Type A Soft Mt.    $80.00
1-   Used Hyde YS 140 Type A Mt. excellent shape. $50.00
1-   New Karl Mueller OS 160 Fx Wrap Around Header Inverted 1 3/8 drop
       $30.00
1-   New AAP Aluminum 120-160 Pipe  3/4"  $50.00
2-   Used  60-90 Pipes (  1 Hatori Aluminum , 1 Carbon/Aluminum Pipe) 
       Both $20.00

        Postage is not included!!!
 
      Will accept Paypal, Check, or Money orders.
Contact me off list
Ralph D Perillo  (rdpee at juno.com)
Buffalo,NY
____________________________________________________________
Hit it out of the park with a new bat. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTNfqF0W2YQQmjoFO0P6Y2wi3HMqMpQx0blHuB3EQvjiO5OpQ1Ayfm/

From ronnan57 at gmail.com  Fri Jun 12 17:27:28 2009
From: ronnan57 at gmail.com (Ron)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:27:28 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jr help
Message-ID: <6b0974bd0906121827i35464929u832a39e70a65f64c@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,  I have flaps setup on my 10x on the flap system, menu #66 and
the flaps work fine but when i put the flaps on the plane wants to roll to
the left just slightly. I can land ok like this but it is just anoying to
have to hold the right in when landing.  My question is, Is there a way to
trim the ailerons to put a little right on the ailerons only with the flaps
on and not effect the normal rate condition that i fly in. Seems like there
ought to be flap trim or something like that.  Any help would be greatly
appreciated
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090613/9dfa070d/attachment.html>

From ronnan57 at gmail.com  Fri Jun 12 17:42:20 2009
From: ronnan57 at gmail.com (Ron)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:42:20 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] checking if the list is working with this email
Message-ID: <6b0974bd0906121842n13156f16yf56a1fe67e4d8c00@mail.gmail.com>

Can someone tell me if this message comes through on the list. thanks Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090613/d90265d0/attachment.html>

From Snaproll4 at aol.com  Fri Jun 12 17:44:28 2009
From: Snaproll4 at aol.com (Snaproll4 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:44:28 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] checking if the list is working with this
	email
Message-ID: <ca6.489e42c8.37645e5a@aol.com>

Yes.  And we also saw your JR question.  Steve
 
 
In a message dated 6/12/2009 9:42:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
ronnan57 at gmail.com writes:

Can  someone tell me if this message comes through on the list. thanks Ron  

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion  mailing  list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

**************Shop Dell?s full line of Laptops now starting at $349! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221881320x1201406166/aol?redir=http:%2F%2
Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215218036%3B37264217%3Bz)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090613/e257447e/attachment.html>

From pcosky at comcast.net  Fri Jun 12 17:44:38 2009
From: pcosky at comcast.net (Pete Cosky)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:44:38 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] checking if the list is working with this
	email
In-Reply-To: <6b0974bd0906121842n13156f16yf56a1fe67e4d8c00@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6b0974bd0906121842n13156f16yf56a1fe67e4d8c00@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005f01c9ebc8$96220bd0$c2662370$@net>

yep

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:42 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] checking if the list is working with this email

 

Can someone tell me if this message comes through on the list. thanks Ron 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090613/839cc95f/attachment.html>

From chuenkan at comcast.net  Fri Jun 12 17:48:31 2009
From: chuenkan at comcast.net (Phil Spelt)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:48:31 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jr help
In-Reply-To: <6b0974bd0906121827i35464929u832a39e70a65f64c@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <6b0974bd0906121827i35464929u832a39e70a65f64c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090613014830.67DDE115A4@bridi.netexpress.com>

Ron,

I assume you are using 2 servos for the ailerons?  If so, you need to 
go to the travel adjustment for the aileron (should be right wing) 
and flap (should be left wing) and set the travel so that they are 
both going down (?) the same amount.  On my pattern planes, I use 
"spoilers" -- the ailerons go up, not down.  This gives wash-out to 
the wings and helps prevent tip-stall at low air speeds.  This 
arrangement usually requires a bit of down elevator mixed in (on the 
landing or the flaps screen) to keep the plane flying at the proper 
angle of attack.  With this arrangement, when the plane touches down, 
the spoilers keep it from "ballooning" up into the air again.  I have 
seen a buddy literally smack a paved runway on landing without bouncing.

Hope this helps...

At 09:27 PM 6/12/2009, you wrote:
>Hi everyone,  I have flaps setup on my 10x on the flap system, menu 
>#66 and the flaps work fine but when i put the flaps on the plane 
>wants to roll to the left just slightly. I can land ok like this but 
>it is just anoying to have to hold the right in when landing.  My 
>question is, Is there a way to trim the ailerons to put a little 
>right on the ailerons only with the flaps on and not effect the 
>normal rate condition that i fly in. Seems like there ought to be 
>flap trim or something like that.  Any help would be greatly appreciated

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Webmaster & Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member, SPA--177
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090613/88202dc4/attachment.html>

From flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net  Fri Jun 12 18:11:21 2009
From: flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net (William C. Harden)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:11:21 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] checking if the list is working with this
	email
In-Reply-To: <6b0974bd0906121842n13156f16yf56a1fe67e4d8c00@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6b0974bd0906121842n13156f16yf56a1fe67e4d8c00@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8FCE0B8536C44182891E61FA795E6A3B@bill>

Yeah, it works.

 

Bill

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:42 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] checking if the list is working with this email

 

Can someone tell me if this message comes through on the list. thanks Ron 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090613/a04a3018/attachment.html>

From ronnan57 at gmail.com  Fri Jun 12 18:15:59 2009
From: ronnan57 at gmail.com (Ron)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:15:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] checking if the list is working with this
	email
In-Reply-To: <ca6.489e42c8.37645e5a@aol.com>
References: <ca6.489e42c8.37645e5a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <6b0974bd0906121915n7fecde01q8258687c3d55bc11@mail.gmail.com>

ok thanks



On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:43 PM, <Snaproll4 at aol.com> wrote:

>  Yes.  And we also saw your JR question.  Steve
>
>  In a message dated 6/12/2009 9:42:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> ronnan57 at gmail.com writes:
>
> Can someone tell me if this message comes through on the list. thanks Ron
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Shop Dell's full line of Laptops now starting at $349!<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221881320x1201406166/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215218036%3B37264217%3Bz>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090613/c00615b8/attachment.html>

From homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 20:25:32 2009
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com (krishlan fitzsimmons)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 04:25:32 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] For Sale
Message-ID: <334410.77887.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Selling my True RC packs that have 3 cycles. 2 sets. Buy both sets, I'll throw in a set of FP 5350 F3A's that have 45 + - cycles for free. 

$350 for all. 

Chris   ?  ?  ?


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090613/6af2ecc3/attachment.html>

From moleski at canisius.edu  Sat Jun 13 08:19:48 2009
From: moleski at canisius.edu (Martin X. Moleski, SJ)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:19:48 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 88 F3A tickets sold--thanks!
Message-ID: <4A33D19C.3010308@canisius.edu>

I put the finishing touches on the raffle system
last night.

Ticket numbers have been issued to everybody.

We have a method for retrieving ticket lists
and printing stubs to go into the drum.

Online sales will close July 9.  That will
give us a full week to make sure that the
stubs are issued and deposited.

			Marty


From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 13 09:08:04 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:08:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] E items for sale
Message-ID: <855151.52583.qm@web51011.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 Lipos:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/market/item.cfm?itemID=524013
 2 CC HV 85's:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/market/item.cfm?itemID=524078
 Thanks, Mike


      

From Snaproll4 at aol.com  Sat Jun 13 09:57:54 2009
From: Snaproll4 at aol.com (Snaproll4 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:57:54 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue
Message-ID: <ced.5aa6bc26.3765428d@aol.com>

Hi Everyone,
 
        I have a serious problem with my  radio and I was wondering if 
anyone has any experience with this.
 
 
        I have a JR 10X that has  performed flawlessly for 8 years.  It is 
72mhz with a top JR receiver.  Today while flying it went into failsafe mode 
twice.  It only faded for a  split second and then came back. It never lost 
battery power, so I reasoned that  it 's not the battery, voltage reg or 
switch. I assume it must be the  transmitter, receiver or antennae.  I can put 
another receiver in it, but  the only way to test is to put the plane in 
the air.
 
        How would I know if it is the  transmitter?  BTW, range checking on 
the ground with the motor running  turned up nothing. 
 
 
TIA, Steve
 
            
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377049x1201454365/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=
JunestepsfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090613/e4067c13/attachment.html>

From troy at troynewman.net  Sat Jun 13 10:08:10 2009
From: troy at troynewman.net (Troy Newman)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:08:10 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue
In-Reply-To: <ced.5aa6bc26.3765428d@aol.com>
References: <ced.5aa6bc26.3765428d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939950@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>

Last time the module was in for service?

 

Last time the TX was in for service?

 

Over time the module output can weaken. It usually comes from running
the TX in the shop without the antenna on it...this causes the module to
heat up...reducing the life of the output transistor.

 

But if you radio has not been in for service in those 8yrs its well past
time. I usually send my TX's in every other year for service. They check
it and make sure nothing is a problem.

 

 

I think the newer synth modules are better on the heat issue without the
antenna, but it's still a matter of time of prolonged use. 

What module do you have in it....do you have another module to use?

 

 

 

Troy

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
Snaproll4 at aol.com
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 10:58 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue

 

Hi Everyone,

 

        I have a serious problem with my radio and I was wondering if
anyone has any experience with this.

 

 

        I have a JR 10X that has performed flawlessly for 8 years.  It
is 72mhz with a top JR receiver. Today while flying it went into
failsafe mode twice.  It only faded for a split second and then came
back. It never lost battery power, so I reasoned that it 's not the
battery, voltage reg or switch. I assume it must be the transmitter,
receiver or antennae.  I can put another receiver in it, but the only
way to test is to put the plane in the air.

 

        How would I know if it is the transmitter?  BTW, range checking
on the ground with the motor running turned up nothing. 

 

 

TIA, Steve

 

            

 

________________________________

A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377049x1201454365/aol?redir
=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%2
6bcd=JunestepsfooterNO62> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090613/6f05b155/attachment.html>

From twildey1 at twcny.rr.com  Sat Jun 13 10:14:45 2009
From: twildey1 at twcny.rr.com (Theron Wildey)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:14:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue
In-Reply-To: <ced.5aa6bc26.3765428d@aol.com>
References: <ced.5aa6bc26.3765428d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <0E697E3F02454727925A3A9DD840ABF3@theronm71kmzgu>

Steve:

 

I had a problem similar to this with my 10X a couple of weeks ago.

 

The battery connection was oxidized and not making good contact with the
transmitter connector.

When I would adjust the LCD brightness the engine would sometimes go into
low idle (FAILSAFE)

and was really random.  The transmitter did not perform a power cycle during
these problems.    

 

 

Do you remove your battery or change batteries on occasion?  Is the battery
seated well and

the cover snapped down to hold the battery in position?

 

Terry

 

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
Snaproll4 at aol.com
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 1:58 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue

 

Hi Everyone,

 

        I have a serious problem with my radio and I was wondering if anyone
has any experience with this.

 

 

        I have a JR 10X that has performed flawlessly for 8 years.  It is
72mhz with a top JR receiver. Today while flying it went into failsafe mode
twice.  It only faded for a split second and then came back. It never lost
battery power, so I reasoned that it 's not the battery, voltage reg or
switch. I assume it must be the transmitter, receiver or antennae.  I can
put another receiver in it, but the only way to test is to put the plane in
the air.

 

        How would I know if it is the transmitter?  BTW, range checking on
the ground with the motor running turned up nothing. 

 

 

TIA, Steve

 

            

 

  _____  

A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377049x1201454365/aol?redir=htt
p://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=Jun
estepsfooterNO62>  yours in just 2 easy steps!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090613/be8b7024/attachment.html>

From Snaproll4 at aol.com  Sat Jun 13 10:23:15 2009
From: Snaproll4 at aol.com (Snaproll4 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:23:15 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue
Message-ID: <bff.5f6551b1.37654874@aol.com>

Troy,  
       Every point you made made me  cringe.  Transmitter has never been 
serviced.  I do occasionally run  it without the attenna ( only for very short 
periods).  Module is a  PCM(J72P). I do not have another module.  If  you 
think that could be  the problem, I can order one right away. Thanks.
 
 
In a message dated 6/13/2009 2:08:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
troy at troynewman.net writes:

 
Last  time the module was in for service? 
Last  time the TX was in for service? 
Over  time the module output can weaken. It usually comes from running the 
TX in the  shop without the antenna on it?this causes the module to heat up?
reducing the  life of the output transistor. 
But  if you radio has not been in for service in those 8yrs its well past 
time. I  usually send my TX?s in every other year for service. They check it 
and make  sure nothing is a problem. 
I  think the newer synth modules are better on the heat issue without the  
antenna, but it?s still a matter of time of prolonged use.   
What  module do you have in it?.do you have another module to  use? 
Troy 
 
 
From:  nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org  
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of  Snaproll4 at aol.com
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 10:58  AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject:  [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue

 
Hi  Everyone,
 

 
I have a serious problem with my radio and I was wondering if anyone has 
any  experience with this.
 

 

 
I have a JR 10X that has performed flawlessly for 8 years.  It is 72mhz  
with a top JR receiver. Today while flying it went into failsafe mode  twice.  
It only faded for a split second and then came back. It never  lost battery 
power, so I reasoned that it 's not the battery, voltage reg or  switch. I 
assume it must be the transmitter, receiver or antennae.  I can  put another 
receiver in it, but the only way to test is to put the plane in  the air.
 

 
How would I know if it is the transmitter?  BTW, range checking on the  
ground with the motor running turned up nothing. 
 

 

 
TIA,  Steve
 

 

 
  
____________________________________
 
A  Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. _See  yours in just 2 easy steps!_ 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377049x1201454365/aol?redir=http:/
/www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=Junestepsf
ooterNO62) 



_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion  mailing  list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377049x1201454365/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=
JunestepsfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090613/81338ded/attachment.html>

From vanputte at cox.net  Sat Jun 13 10:37:52 2009
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:37:52 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue
In-Reply-To: <bff.5f6551b1.37654874@aol.com>
References: <bff.5f6551b1.37654874@aol.com>
Message-ID: <B11C834D-69D7-409E-976A-47F70C66BD28@cox.net>

This discussion reminded me of my Futaba 9Z's performance at last  
year's Nats.  My airplane suffered loss of control during a flight,  
but I was able to land it successfully by elevating the transmitter  
antenna..

It was later pointed out that the 9Z's antenna is not really  
connected to the RF module until the "ball" at the lower end of the  
antenna was engaged.  That meant the large diameter antenna link had  
to be fully entended.  I had always pulled the antenna out one small  
diameter link when doing work on the ground.  As mentioned by Troy, I  
had persistently degraded the module's output by overheating the  
output transistor by my practice, until the transmitter's output was  
down to 40% of normal.

Ron VP

On Jun 13, 2009, at 1:22 PM, Snaproll4 at aol.com wrote:

> Troy,
>        Every point you made made me cringe.  Transmitter has never  
> been serviced.  I do occasionally run it without the attenna ( only  
> for very short periods).  Module is a PCM(J72P). I do not have  
> another module.  If  you think that could be the problem, I can  
> order one right away. Thanks.
>
> In a message dated 6/13/2009 2:08:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
> troy at troynewman.net writes:
> Last time the module was in for service?
>
>
>
> Last time the TX was in for service?
>
>
>
> Over time the module output can weaken. It usually comes from  
> running the TX in the shop without the antenna on it?this causes  
> the module to heat up?reducing the life of the output transistor.
>
>
>
> But if you radio has not been in for service in those 8yrs its well  
> past time. I usually send my TX?s in every other year for service.  
> They check it and make sure nothing is a problem.
>
>
>
>
>
> I think the newer synth modules are better on the heat issue  
> without the antenna, but it?s still a matter of time of prolonged use.
>
> What module do you have in it?.do you have another module to use?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Troy
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Snaproll4 at aol.com
> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 10:58 AM
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue
>
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
>
>
>         I have a serious problem with my radio and I was wondering  
> if anyone has any experience with this.
>
>
>
>
>
>         I have a JR 10X that has performed flawlessly for 8 years.   
> It is 72mhz with a top JR receiver. Today while flying it went into  
> failsafe mode twice.  It only faded for a split second and then  
> came back. It never lost battery power, so I reasoned that it 's  
> not the battery, voltage reg or switch. I assume it must be the  
> transmitter, receiver or antennae.  I can put another receiver in  
> it, but the only way to test is to put the plane in the air.
>
>
>
>         How would I know if it is the transmitter?  BTW, range  
> checking on the ground with the motor running turned up nothing.
>
>
>
>
>
> TIA, Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From troy at troynewman.net  Sat Jun 13 12:58:51 2009
From: troy at troynewman.net (Troy Newman)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:58:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue
In-Reply-To: <bff.5f6551b1.37654874@aol.com>
References: <bff.5f6551b1.37654874@aol.com>
Message-ID: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939953@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>

Steve,

 

You need to get that module fixed up. There might be something else that is the cause but my first thought is the module.

 

I can loan you a module?.but you really need to get your radio in for service. Other things like the lithium backup battery need service too.

 

If you want let me know your address and I can send you a good synth module as a loaner but?..

 

you need to get your programs backed up?.and send your TX in for service.

 

Let me know, I can send a module out on Monday as a loaner. I?m not flying my 72mhz stuff at all. Let me know offline your address.

 

Troy

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Snaproll4 at aol.com
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 11:23 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue

 

Troy,  

       Every point you made made me cringe.  Transmitter has never been serviced.  I do occasionally run it without the attenna ( only for very short periods).  Module is a PCM(J72P). I do not have another module.  If  you think that could be the problem, I can order one right away. Thanks.

 

In a message dated 6/13/2009 2:08:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, troy at troynewman.net writes:

	Last time the module was in for service?

	 

	Last time the TX was in for service?

	 

	Over time the module output can weaken. It usually comes from running the TX in the shop without the antenna on it?this causes the module to heat up?reducing the life of the output transistor.

	 

	But if you radio has not been in for service in those 8yrs its well past time. I usually send my TX?s in every other year for service. They check it and make sure nothing is a problem.

	 

	 

	I think the newer synth modules are better on the heat issue without the antenna, but it?s still a matter of time of prolonged use. 

	What module do you have in it?.do you have another module to use?

	 

	 

	 

	Troy

	 

	From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Snaproll4 at aol.com
	Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 10:58 AM
	To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
	Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue

	 

	Hi Everyone,

	 

	        I have a serious problem with my radio and I was wondering if anyone has any experience with this.

	 

	 

	        I have a JR 10X that has performed flawlessly for 8 years.  It is 72mhz with a top JR receiver. Today while flying it went into failsafe mode twice.  It only faded for a split second and then came back. It never lost battery power, so I reasoned that it 's not the battery, voltage reg or switch. I assume it must be the transmitter, receiver or antennae.  I can put another receiver in it, but the only way to test is to put the plane in the air.

	 

	        How would I know if it is the transmitter?  BTW, range checking on the ground with the motor running turned up nothing. 

	 

	 

	TIA, Steve

	 

	            

	 

	
________________________________


	A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377049x1201454365/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=JunestepsfooterNO62> 

	
	
	_______________________________________________
	NSRCA-discussion mailing list
	NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
	http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

 

________________________________

A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377049x1201454365/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=JunestepsfooterNO62> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090613/9d966ef6/attachment.html>

From ronnan57 at gmail.com  Sat Jun 13 15:30:56 2009
From: ronnan57 at gmail.com (Ron)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 23:30:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue
In-Reply-To: <ced.5aa6bc26.3765428d@aol.com>
References: <ced.5aa6bc26.3765428d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <6b0974bd0906131630w17ce3d09h76e8e6f2f3fce878@mail.gmail.com>

Steve, call me I have a synth. module that you can borrow. Ron



On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:57 PM, <Snaproll4 at aol.com> wrote:

>  Hi Everyone,
>
>         I have a serious problem with my radio and I was wondering if
> anyone has any experience with this.
>
>
>         I have a JR 10X that has performed flawlessly for 8 years.  It is
> 72mhz with a top JR receiver. Today while flying it went into failsafe mode
> twice.  It only faded for a split second and then came back. It never lost
> battery power, so I reasoned that it 's not the battery, voltage reg or
> switch. I assume it must be the transmitter, receiver or antennae.  I can
> put another receiver in it, but the only way to test is to put the plane in
> the air.
>
>         How would I know if it is the transmitter?  BTW, range checking on
> the ground with the motor running turned up nothing.
>
>
> TIA, Steve
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377049x1201454365/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=JunestepsfooterNO62>
> *
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090613/d685336b/attachment.html>

From jonlowe at aol.com  Sat Jun 13 17:49:33 2009
From: jonlowe at aol.com (Jon Lowe)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 01:49:33 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue
In-Reply-To: <ced.5aa6bc26.3765428d@aol.com>
References: <ced.5aa6bc26.3765428d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <8CBBAA96E898D06-12DC-1561@WEBMAIL-MZ21.sysops.aol.com>

It is very common for the 10x battery cassette to move slightly and 
momentarily disconnect, or increase resistance causing a brownout or 
reboot of the transmitter.  The battery door latch loosens with time, 
and the rubber strip inside the battery compartment either compresses 
or falls out with age.  I know of one case where the battery fell 
completely out of the transmitter, crashing the plane, and I had one 
fall halfway out on the bench.  The cassette doesn't have to move very 
far for it to lose connection.

Make sure the battery cassette is a very tight fit in its compartment.  
If you can tap on the back of the transmitter with the battery cover 
open and have the cassette move at all, it is too loose!  You can use a 
piece of thin rubber weatherstrip with adhesive backing on one side to 
compress between the cassette and its compartment.  The cassette should 
be a very tight fit, and somewhat difficult to remove.  You can also 
carefully rebend the latch on the battery compartment cover with a 
judicious use of a heat gun and a little patience.  Probably the best 
solution is to drill a small hole thru the bottom of the transmitter 
case and thru the latch tab, and secure it with a small sheet metal 
screw.


Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: Snaproll4 at aol.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Sat, Jun 13, 2009 12:57 pm
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue

=0
D












Hi Everyone,


?


??????? I have a serious problem with my
radio and I was wondering if anyone has any experience with this.


?


?


??????? I have a JR 10X that has
performed flawlessly for 8 years.? It is 72mhz with a top JR receiver.
Today while flying it went into failsafe mode twice.? It only faded for 
a
split second and then came back. It never lost battery power, so I 
reasoned that
it 's not the battery, voltage reg or switch. I assume it must be the
transmitter, receiver or antennae.? I can put another receiver in it, 
but
the only way to test is to put the plane in the air.


?


??????? How would I know if it is the
transmitter?? BTW, range checking on the ground with the motor running
turned up nothing.


?


?


TIA, Steve


?


????????????



------------------------------------------------------------
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!







_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion






From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Sat Jun 13 18:17:11 2009
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 02:17:11 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size patternplane
In-Reply-To: <8CBB9CEDF482974-C78-8CD@webmail-stg-d06.sysops.aol.com>
References: <622989.44617.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<8CBB9CEDF482974-C78-8CD@webmail-stg-d06.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <5094330048F548ADB27AD735DDF7800C@davedesktop>

A lot of good points made in this thread.

The actual load a servo experiences can be substantially higher in seemingly
equal planes because -
- the control surface weighs more
- the surface deflects further
- less servo travel is being used to give equal surface deflection
- more vibration (different motors, different props, different mounts, etc)

When a servo works well in one plane (but is close to it's limits), small
differences in the details may cause it to not work well in another plane.

I think something that is often overlooked (and I don't think mentioned in
this thread yet) is this - the aileron servos are working hardest when at
neutral when the plane is changing in pitch.  The differential pressure as
the wing generates lift tries to pull the ailerons off center.  If they do
not hold position equally, you get unwanted roll, and the airplane becomes
very difficult and unsettled in loop tracking.  This can happen with
absolutely no hint of lack of aileron servo torque in rolling maneuvers.

I prefer to know I have enough servo power, and know the servo is "loafing"
and running efficiently, compared to being near it's limit and being
stressed.

Regards,

Dave


 
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 7:45 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size
patternplane

Don't try metal geared 3421's on a fuel airplane on ailerons.  Stripped 
them out, in flight, after less than half a season. The constant 
vibration killed the tiny, fine toothed gears.  I wouldn't use metal 
geared 3421's on elevators either.  I regularly use 3421SAs on 
elevators without an issue.


Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Fri, Jun 12, 2009 9:24 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size 
pattern plane











  Tommy I worried about the 3421's until I looked at the size servo's 
that QQ was
running on his Euphoria. He runs dual ailerons on 1 small servo. I'm 
running
3421 metals on my ailerons on my new Sickle so far so good. It was 
because of
weight and also because I really think an E. plane can get away with 
less servo.
I run it on a 6volt regulated 2 cell lipo. I think everyone is in to 
the
security that overkill allows and that's great if your not worried 
about the
weight. Mike

--- On Fri, 6/12/09, Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90 size 
pattern plane
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 9:13 AM
> The 3421sa's are great little0D
> servos, I have two on elevator on my new ship, but you
> should be careful where you use them. The motor is
> stronger than the nylon gear
> train and is easily stripped under certain conditions.
> The gears are tiny.
> ?
> tommy s
>
> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, mike mueller
> <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a 90
> size pattern plane
> To: "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:47 AM
>
>
>
> How about JR 3421SA on everything but the rudder which
> would work well with a JR 8321. Mike
>
> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Dean & Melissa Williams <DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com>
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servos suggestions for a
> 90 size pattern plane
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 7:40 AM
> >
> >
> >?
> >?
> >
> >
> >?
> > Hi
> > Which servos
>  (brand and #)
> > would you use for a 90
> > size pattern plane like the ESM Adrenaline 90 and
> which
> > ones on what surfaces
> > ?
> > Thanking you for your
> > sugestions
> >
> ???????????????????????????????????
??????????
> >
> > Dean (Outback OZ)
> >
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From schale at optonline.net  Sat Jun 13 18:36:01 2009
From: schale at optonline.net (Stuart Chale)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 02:36:01 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Futaba 9VAP reset
In-Reply-To: <4A315CB3.90509@cox.net>
References: <797702.87760.qm@web51007.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4A315CB3.90509@cox.net>
Message-ID: <4A346205.90603@optonline.net>

I have a Futaba 9VAP that I am putting on Ebay for a friend.  (not 
trying to sell it here :) )
He set a code so that the user name can not be changed but has no clue 
of what it is. 

Does anyone know of way to reset it or to access the service menu to 
retrieve it like you can in the 9Z's

Thanks
Stuart C.




From anthonyr105 at hotmail.com  Sat Jun 13 18:51:06 2009
From: anthonyr105 at hotmail.com (Anthony Romano)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 02:51:06 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] For Sale
In-Reply-To: <334410.77887.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <334410.77887.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <SNT119-W17108902A1314987F01FE2E2410@phx.gbl>


Hi Chris,
  Are these still available? 10c or 15c? 
Did you get an SD-10 yet? I think Mark Atwood is the only one.

Anthony Romano

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:25:30 -0700
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] For Sale

Selling my True RC packs that have 3 cycles. 2 sets. Buy both sets, I'll throw in a set of FP 5350 F3A's that have 45 + - cycles for free. 

$350 for all. 

Chris          

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits. 
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090614/858aece9/attachment.html>

From perkinsrx at centurytel.net  Sat Jun 13 20:47:39 2009
From: perkinsrx at centurytel.net (Eddie Batchelor P.D.)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 04:47:39 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue
In-Reply-To: <ced.5aa6bc26.3765428d@aol.com>
References: <ced.5aa6bc26.3765428d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <34A7CD71DB11451BA6223346515093DC@EddieLapTopPC>

Very interesting that you post this.
I recently had almost the same issue with my JR9303 and 770PCM Rx. Radio went into hold and crashed the plane( 2 horizontal rolls turned into endless rolls until it crashed .
new plane and upon take off had some down trim due to DEPS growing as the plane warmed up. elevator trim did nothing and finally I got on the stick -still nothing - then all of a sudden it pitched straight up.

called tony and sent him TX and both 770 Rx's. all he could find was tx power was down about 20%.  I don't know if that low power output cold cause the hold situation or not. Haven't put it back ina plane yet :-)

any help would be appreciated.

edie
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Snaproll4 at aol.com 
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
  Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 12:57 PM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue


  Hi Everyone,

          I have a serious problem with my radio and I was wondering if anyone has any experience with this.


          I have a JR 10X that has performed flawlessly for 8 years.  It is 72mhz with a top JR receiver. Today while flying it went into failsafe mode twice.  It only faded for a split second and then came back. It never lost battery power, so I reasoned that it 's not the battery, voltage reg or switch. I assume it must be the transmitter, receiver or antennae.  I can put another receiver in it, but the only way to test is to put the plane in the air.

          How would I know if it is the transmitter?  BTW, range checking on the ground with the motor running turned up nothing. 


  TIA, Steve

              


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090614/7cf57ec3/attachment.html>

From jlachow at hotmail.com  Sun Jun 14 12:09:06 2009
From: jlachow at hotmail.com (Joe Lachowski)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:09:06 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Pre-registration - Pocono Pattern Contest June
	20 & 21
Message-ID: <SNT104-W48F1AF17DDAAFC1C4AA079BB410@phx.gbl>


If you plan on attending this year, please pre-register. Send your name, class, channel and AMA number to jlachow at hotmail.com. That is all I need. 

 

Thanks.

_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. 
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090614/82bd9c3d/attachment.html>

From davercotton at hotmail.com  Sun Jun 14 15:20:23 2009
From: davercotton at hotmail.com (David Cotton )
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:20:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue
Message-ID: <COL108-DS9B5AD8269388FF4F11875A6410@phx.gbl>

A few years ago I had the same thing with my futaba 9zap. I lost 3 planes before I found the problem. I had a synthesizer tx module that started to drift off frequency. I have a spectrum analyzer and can therefore monitor the tx power and frequency; I  put the tx unit out in the sun and monitored it for 30 mins. The output frequency drifted in the Texas heat and the rx went into failsafe mode.  When I sent it in they said the power was down, but I am 100% certain that was not the fundamental problem. 
 
Dave Cotton, fm  BlackBerry 

-----Original Message-----
From: "Eddie Batchelor P.D." <perkinsrx at centurytel.net>

Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 04:47:32 
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue


Very interesting that you post this. 
I recently had almost the same issue with my JR9303 and 770PCM Rx. Radio went into hold and crashed the plane( 2 horizontal rolls turned into endless rolls?until it crashed . 
new plane and upon take off had some down trim due to DEPS growing as the plane warmed up. elevator trim did nothing and finally I got on the stick -still nothing - then all of a sudden it pitched straight up. 
? 
called tony and sent him TX and both 770 Rx's. all he could find was tx power was down about 20%.? I don't know if that low power output cold cause the hold situation or not. Haven't put it back ina plane yet :-) 
? 
any help would be appreciated. 
? 
edie 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Snaproll4 at aol.com <mailto:Snaproll4 at aol.com>  
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 12:57 PM 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Radio Issue 

 
Hi Everyone, 
? 
??????? I have a serious problem with my radio and I was wondering if anyone has any experience with this. 
? 
? 
??????? I have a JR 10X that has performed flawlessly for 8 years.? It is 72mhz with a top JR receiver. Today while flying it went into failsafe mode twice.? It only faded for a split second and then came back. It never lost battery power, so I reasoned that it 's not the battery, voltage reg or switch. I assume it must be the transmitter, receiver or antennae.? I can put another receiver in it, but the only way to test is to put the plane in the air. 
? 
??????? How would I know if it is the transmitter?? BTW, range checking on the ground with the motor running turned up nothing. 
? 
? 
TIA, Steve 
? 
???????????? 

 
----------------
 A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See 
  yours in just 2 easy steps! <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377049x1201454365/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=JunestepsfooterNO62> 
 
----------------
 
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

From don.ramsey at suddenlink.net  Sun Jun 14 17:02:11 2009
From: don.ramsey at suddenlink.net (Don Ramsey)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 01:02:11 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest Results
In-Reply-To: <BLU106-W7DE8A5FD0C85E7F52F323CDB00@phx.gbl>
References: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPIENNEFAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>	<837EEEAF-E6FD-4D26-8DA0-EC8DC6AF9DB7@socal.rr.com>
	<BLU106-W7DE8A5FD0C85E7F52F323CDB00@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <000b01c9ed54$e99ebd20$bcdc3760$@ramsey@suddenlink.net>

Results for the Lone Star Contest, Crosby, Texas is posted on 
 
http://pages.suddenlink.net/donramsey/
 
I seem to have lost the Intermediate results but will post as soon as I get
them.
 
 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090615/cc7fb8ea/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 15 05:34:10 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:34:10 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial contest FAI notice
Message-ID: <746685.30988.qm@web51002.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 Hi all we are getting ready for what should be a big event June 27th and 28th here in Northern Illinois. The Jim Hubbard Memorial looks like it will be very well attended this year.
 We want to pass the word along that the FAI flyers will be using the P09 pattern on Saturday for 3 counting rounds and 2 rounds of F09 for 1 counting round on Sunday. This is a change from the contest flyer. Thanks, Mike Mueller
 Info on the contest can be seen on the District 5 website:
http://nsrca.us/d5/


      

From anthonyr105 at hotmail.com  Mon Jun 15 05:48:19 2009
From: anthonyr105 at hotmail.com (Anthony Romano)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:48:19 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Pre-registration - Black Dirt Squadron Pattern
 Challenge June	27 & 28
In-Reply-To: <SNT104-W48F1AF17DDAAFC1C4AA079BB410@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT104-W48F1AF17DDAAFC1C4AA079BB410@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <SNT119-W3AA783DE3BA412C3EC076E23E0@phx.gbl>



Tried this to the District list yesterday and it didn't seem to work.



If you plan on attending this year, please pre-register. Send your name, class, channel and AMA number to anthonyr105 at hotmail.com. 

Please let me know if you are bring a signficant other so I can order enough food. 
 
Thanks.

 

Anthony


_________________________________________________________________
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that?s right for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090615/dfa7678e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00000
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090615/dfa7678e/attachment.ksh>

From flyintexan at att.net  Mon Jun 15 07:09:02 2009
From: flyintexan at att.net (Mark Hunt)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:09:02 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] District 6 - updated points standings
In-Reply-To: <SNT119-W3AA783DE3BA412C3EC076E23E0@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT104-W48F1AF17DDAAFC1C4AA079BB410@phx.gbl>
	<SNT119-W3AA783DE3BA412C3EC076E23E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <171769.76853.qm@web80704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

For those interested, the D6 standings have been updated and the spreadsheet is available at:

http://www.nsrca.us/districts/d6.html

-mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090615/aa5bc6f5/attachment.html>

From ahrensw at charter.net  Mon Jun 15 07:12:58 2009
From: ahrensw at charter.net (ahrensw at charter.net)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:12:58 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial contest FAI notice
In-Reply-To: <746685.30988.qm@web51002.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <746685.30988.qm@web51002.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1184722029-1245078775-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-77021413-@bxe1059.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

Mike
Due to change I will not be able to attend.
Bill Ahrens
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:34:07 
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial contest FAI notice



 Hi all we are getting ready for what should be a big event June 27th and 28th here in Northern Illinois. The Jim Hubbard Memorial looks like it will be very well attended this year.
 We want to pass the word along that the FAI flyers will be using the P09 pattern on Saturday for 3 counting rounds and 2 rounds of F09 for 1 counting round on Sunday. This is a change from the contest flyer. Thanks, Mike Mueller
 Info on the contest can be seen on the District 5 website:
http://nsrca.us/d5/


      
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

From scott at rcfoamy.com  Mon Jun 15 07:15:29 2009
From: scott at rcfoamy.com (scott anderson)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:15:29 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D3 Knoxville Contest
Message-ID: <361AE341E4F34934ACACFC8BEE67FA68@ScottPC>

House Mountain

Pattern Classic

August 29 & 30, 2009, Knoxville, TN

 

New Venue, Wide Open Spaces!!

Field open for flying at noon on Friday

CD: Scott Anderson (865) 712-1658     Asst: Mike Robinson (706) 463-3407

scott at rcfoamy.com                              shineyobject at gmail.com

 

Pilots' Meeting 9:00am Saturday

Entry fee is $30.00

Come Enjoy a More Relaxed Post-Nats Competition

In Beautiful East Tennessee Scenery!!

All AMA Classes & FAI schedule

Contestant Judging

Lunch available on-site Saturday

Directions and motel information are on page 2

Directions to Field:

Take the East Town Mall (Washington Pike) exit 8 off Interstate 640 (map

below). Stay on Washington Pike for ~8 miles, past the intersection with Roberts

Road (House Mountain convenience mart on the right). You're now less than a

mile from the turn-in to the field, which will be on your left just past a horse

stable/farm on the right. The satellite view, second below, shows Roberts Road,

the horse farm and the flying site.

GPS: N36 07.591, W83 47.641

Motels @ Exit 398 on I-40 east of Knoxville:

Motel 6 (865) 633-6646     Econo Lodge Inn (865) 932-1217

LaQuinta (865) 633-5100      Best Western 865/544-7737 

Hol.Day Inn Exp 865-5255100     Quality Inn East (865) 342-0003 

These are all relatively new Motels - Motel 6 is a multi-story building, looks very

New and clean, inside room entrance. This exit is closest to the field - maps

>From this exit will be available
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090615/1a6e1ee4/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 15 07:25:16 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:25:16 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial contest FAI notice
Message-ID: <550242.21467.qm@web51007.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 Sorry to hear that. Mike
--- On Mon, 6/15/09, ahrensw at charter.net <ahrensw at charter.net> wrote:

> From: ahrensw at charter.net <ahrensw at charter.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial contest FAI notice
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 10:12 AM
> Mike
> Due to change I will not be able to attend.
> Bill Ahrens
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> 
> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:34:07 
> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial contest
> FAI notice
> 
> 
> 
>  Hi all we are getting ready for what should be a big event
> June 27th and 28th here in Northern Illinois. The Jim
> Hubbard Memorial looks like it will be very well attended
> this year.
>  We want to pass the word along that the FAI flyers will be
> using the P09 pattern on Saturday for 3 counting rounds and
> 2 rounds of F09 for 1 counting round on Sunday. This is a
> change from the contest flyer. Thanks, Mike Mueller
>  Info on the contest can be seen on the District 5
> website:
> http://nsrca.us/d5/
> 
> 
> ? ? ? 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 


      

From warrior523 at mchsi.com  Mon Jun 15 13:00:37 2009
From: warrior523 at mchsi.com (Dan)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:00:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] KCRC
Message-ID: <001801c9edfc$50cfffc0$6500a8c0@warrior>

Okay, this weeks shout out goes to the KCRC club for hosting a really enjoyble contest this past weekend.  Cool weather, just enough crosswind to make it challenging and some great competition made for some fun times.  Threatening weather caused the cancellation of Sunday's rounds but it didn't dampen the enjoyment.  Thanks to Dan Olsen and Vince Bortone and the KCRC members.

Dan Curtis and the rest of the Springfield pattern guys.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090615/056bb59d/attachment.html>

From rdpee at juno.com  Mon Jun 15 15:57:27 2009
From: rdpee at juno.com (Ralph D Perillo)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:57:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] sale items remaining
Message-ID: <20090615.195656.3524.3.rdpee@juno.com>

For Sale

      The Futaba 9ZAP system  is Sold!!!!!!!!
      The Used YS 140 Type AR Mt. is Sold!!!!!!!!!
      New Cline P.C.F.S. Proportional Control Fuel System for 2 or 4
      Cycle Engines is sold!!!!!
      
           Still For Sale -  Reasonable offers will be considered.

1-   Like New ( one tank run not flown )  excellent condition 3M 170
Engine w/ 3M Header, Hyde Type A Mount, 3M (Aeroslave) Carbon    
      Tuned Pipe.($900.00 Value)      Now     $360.00 for all!!!!!!!!!!
1-   New Hyde OS160 Type A Soft Mt.    $80.00
1-   Used Hyde YS 140 Type A Mt. excellent shape. $50.00
1-   New Karl Mueller OS 160 Fx Wrap Around Header Inverted 1 3/8 drop
       $30.00
1-   New AAP Aluminum 120-160 Pipe  3/4"  $50.00
2-   Used  60-90 Pipes (  1 Hatori Aluminum , 1 Carbon/Aluminum Pipe) 
       Both $20.00
 2-   New YS  61   RX Exhaust Headers (one straight rise, one offset rise
       to clear a nose gear) both for $20.00

        Postage is not included!!!

      Will accept Paypal, Check, or Money orders.
Contact me off list
Ralph D Perillo  (rdpee at juno.com)
Buffalo,NY
____________________________________________________________
All is not lost! Click now for professional data recovery.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTLygKSWV8tnqOWZuUaheKZNaDVPrR3xtbJ4Wm8aKqSmhT9poXhDgM/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090615/fcd5f748/attachment.html>

From bob.lavey at cox.net  Mon Jun 15 16:53:45 2009
From: bob.lavey at cox.net (Bob Lavey)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:53:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] KCRC
In-Reply-To: <001801c9edfc$50cfffc0$6500a8c0@warrior>
References: <001801c9edfc$50cfffc0$6500a8c0@warrior>
Message-ID: <1B126AF57C374C33A4D654BB95C34A10@LAVEYFAMILYXP>

I've got to second this, Dan.  We had a ball up in KC over the weekend, even
though we were rained out on Sunday.  We got up there about noon on Friday
and had a chance to visit with a bunch of the KCRC members.  They were a
great bunch of guys.  There was a lot of good practice time on Friday and a
lot of great competition on Saturday.  As usual, I enjoyed watching the
upper classes fly, and I got a lot of good pointers from the more
experienced pilots.
 
A few more Sportsman pilots would have been nice, though :)
 
Bob Lavey


  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dan
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 4:00 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] KCRC


Okay, this weeks shout out goes to the KCRC club for hosting a really
enjoyble contest this past weekend.  Cool weather, just enough crosswind to
make it challenging and some great competition made for some fun times.
Threatening weather caused the cancellation of Sunday's rounds but it didn't
dampen the enjoyment.  Thanks to Dan Olsen and Vince Bortone and the KCRC
members.
 
Dan Curtis and the rest of the Springfield pattern guys.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090616/b967c8f8/attachment.html>

From vanputte at cox.net  Mon Jun 15 20:51:23 2009
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 04:51:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Focus Cowl?
Message-ID: <640ABE67-6A6A-440F-8325-196706DB64DC@cox.net>

I am helping a young pilot learn how to fly R/C aerobatics.  After he  
had several smaller airplanes, I gave him my old Focus (the original  
Focus).  Today he was practicing the Sportsman maneuver schedule and  
the firewall separated from the motor box and the prop tore up the  
cowl.  It can be repaired, but not without a lot of work.  I'd like  
to get an intact cowl from someone who has one just lying around the  
shop.  Please contact me off List if you have one.  Thanks.

Ron Van Putte

From burtona at atmc.net  Mon Jun 15 21:01:59 2009
From: burtona at atmc.net (Dave Burton)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:01:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Focus Cowl?
In-Reply-To: <640ABE67-6A6A-440F-8325-196706DB64DC@cox.net>
References: <640ABE67-6A6A-440F-8325-196706DB64DC@cox.net>
Message-ID: <007201c9ee3f$a559dcd0$f00d9670$@net>

If you haven't already, contact Steve Wall at Piedmont Models. They may have
some spares available.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:51 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Focus Cowl?

I am helping a young pilot learn how to fly R/C aerobatics.  After he  
had several smaller airplanes, I gave him my old Focus (the original  
Focus).  Today he was practicing the Sportsman maneuver schedule and  
the firewall separated from the motor box and the prop tore up the  
cowl.  It can be repaired, but not without a lot of work.  I'd like  
to get an intact cowl from someone who has one just lying around the  
shop.  Please contact me off List if you have one.  Thanks.

Ron Van Putte
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From jzeigenfus at comcast.net  Tue Jun 16 04:06:46 2009
From: jzeigenfus at comcast.net (jzeigenfus at comcast.net)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:06:46 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Focus Cowl?
In-Reply-To: <640ABE67-6A6A-440F-8325-196706DB64DC@cox.net>
Message-ID: <853163722.5233251245154000627.JavaMail.root@sz0093a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>

I have a spare one, contact me off line. JEZ 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Van Putte" <vanputte at cox.net> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:51:12 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Focus Cowl? 

I am helping a young pilot learn how to fly R/C aerobatics. After he 
had several smaller airplanes, I gave him my old Focus (the original 
Focus). Today he was practicing the Sportsman maneuver schedule and 
the firewall separated from the motor box and the prop tore up the 
cowl. It can be repaired, but not without a lot of work. I'd like 
to get an intact cowl from someone who has one just lying around the 
shop. Please contact me off List if you have one. Thanks. 

Ron Van Putte 
_______________________________________________ 
NSRCA-discussion mailing list 
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090616/321b0223/attachment.html>

From tony at radiosouthrc.com  Tue Jun 16 09:01:56 2009
From: tony at radiosouthrc.com (Tony)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:01:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lamar Blair
Message-ID: <E4ACE9566E9E4108ABE00DD69BDBB874@Tony>

Does anyone have a good contact e-mail for Lamar?  I get bounces from his
e-mail.  I know he has been pretty bad off with his back.  Can anyone update
us on his condition?

 

Tony Stillman, President

Radio South, Inc.

139 Altama Connector, Box 322

Brunswick, GA  31525

1-800-962-7802

www.radiosouthrc.com

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090616/ba187988/attachment.html>

From kerlock at comcast.net  Tue Jun 16 10:22:49 2009
From: kerlock at comcast.net (Mike Hester)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:22:49 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] For sale: YS 160DZ
References: <5833C99930CD490B9321AD2B1CD55075@Sanity>
Message-ID: <B680E51A654941899661A646AAC81347@Sanity>

Engine is sold.

Thanks guys, see you in Muncie!

-Mike

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mike Hester 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:10 PM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] For sale: YS 160DZ


  hey guys,

  I'm selling my #1 YS 160 as I am pretty much all converted to 170s now. This has been my #1 engine for a couple of years. it's fresh back from YS and is still in the box. This engine is proven reliable and very strong, fresh everything.

  I'll take $400 shipped in the lower 48. Contact me offline at kerlock at comcast.net if interested.

  -Mike Hester



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090616/0b3d41d7/attachment.html>

From rcpilot at wowway.com  Tue Jun 16 17:14:16 2009
From: rcpilot at wowway.com (Ron Hansen)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:14:16 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Central Hobbies Composite Landing Gear
Message-ID: <02B5AA9C54814BE6BC8737822343DCCD@toshibauser>

Anyone tried the landing gear from central hobbies?
 
It has a 6.5" rise, 6" width, weights 112 g and costs $80.
 
They seem a little short and a little narrow to me???
 
http://www.centralhobbies.com/landing_gear/esdflg.html
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090617/aebe7412/attachment.html>

From JAStebbins at worldnet.att.net  Tue Jun 16 17:18:21 2009
From: JAStebbins at worldnet.att.net (Jerry Stebbins)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:18:21 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lamar Blair
References: <E4ACE9566E9E4108ABE00DD69BDBB874@Tony>
Message-ID: <000001c9eee9$81766360$6001a8c0@jerryscomputer>

Tony, Lamar's computer is down. Got a bad virus and has not been able to fix it,or get it off. I am trying to get him to let me take it to Terry (PC Guru) and get it wiped and re formatted.
He is waiting on an appointment late this month at Birmingham (VA) to get some more tests done. They are trying to find out what is causing him to have random seizures. Most are light, but a couple have knocked him out. They have conducted all the neurological/brain wave tests--and ruled out a problem that way.Now looking at his pulmonary system.
They have found his problem with feeling in his right hand and arm to be a pinched nerve in his neck-and are talking surgery to fix it.
He is doing about the same on the back/leg pain he has always had. 
Obviously not doing any flying. Got planes he can fly-but not in the condition he is in right now. 
Not doing any new building.
Jerry

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tony 
  To: 'General pattern discussion' 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:01 PM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lamar Blair


  Does anyone have a good contact e-mail for Lamar?  I get bounces from his e-mail.  I know he has been pretty bad off with his back.  Can anyone update us on his condition?

   

  Tony Stillman, President

  Radio South, Inc.

  139 Altama Connector, Box 322

  Brunswick, GA  31525

  1-800-962-7802

  www.radiosouthrc.com

   



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090617/9da4e765/attachment.html>

From k6xyz at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun 16 18:39:47 2009
From: k6xyz at sbcglobal.net (Dave Harmon)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:39:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Central Hobbies Composite Landing Gear
In-Reply-To: <02B5AA9C54814BE6BC8737822343DCCD@toshibauser>
Message-ID: <34CA75136A5F422F869372C3FA0353BC@skunkputer>

That's gotta be a mis-print.

I saw that too so I measured my Bolly gear and they are 9.5" tall from axel
to fuse flat.

 

Regards

Dave Harmon
NSRCA 586
K6XYZ[at]sbcglobal[dot]net
Sperry, Ok. 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Hansen
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:14 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Central Hobbies Composite Landing Gear

 

Anyone tried the landing gear from central hobbies?

 

It has a 6.5" rise, 6" width, weights 112 g and costs $80.

 

They seem a little short and a little narrow to me???

 

http://www.centralhobbies.com/landing_gear/esdflg.html

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090617/069ce1e1/attachment.html>

From ronnan57 at gmail.com  Tue Jun 16 19:17:40 2009
From: ronnan57 at gmail.com (Ron)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:17:40 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jr radio
Message-ID: <6b0974bd0906162017o3e0d4a4bq30426f42679c94c2@mail.gmail.com>

Hello everyone, can anyone tell me if the new JR9303 2.4 radio is 2048
resolution. I can't find it anywhere. Thanks  Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090617/c6945223/attachment.html>

From jlachow at hotmail.com  Tue Jun 16 19:20:02 2009
From: jlachow at hotmail.com (Joe Lachowski)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:20:02 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jr radio
In-Reply-To: <6b0974bd0906162017o3e0d4a4bq30426f42679c94c2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6b0974bd0906162017o3e0d4a4bq30426f42679c94c2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <SNT104-W33085DD718CDE3925A8C89BB3C0@phx.gbl>


yup with the 9 ch receiver it is
 


Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:17:38 -0400
From: ronnan57 at gmail.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jr radio

Hello everyone, can anyone tell me if the new JR9303 2.4 radio is 2048 resolution. I can't find it anywhere. Thanks  Ron
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090617/b82aac7c/attachment.html>

From ronnan57 at gmail.com  Tue Jun 16 19:30:55 2009
From: ronnan57 at gmail.com (Ron)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:30:55 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jr radio
In-Reply-To: <SNT104-W33085DD718CDE3925A8C89BB3C0@phx.gbl>
References: <6b0974bd0906162017o3e0d4a4bq30426f42679c94c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT104-W33085DD718CDE3925A8C89BB3C0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <6b0974bd0906162030r74956407u168b0e6dad09c3cf@mail.gmail.com>

Ok thanks Joe

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com> wrote:

> yup with the 9 ch receiver it is
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:17:38 -0400
> From: ronnan57 at gmail.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jr radio
>
> Hello everyone, can anyone tell me if the new JR9303 2.4 radio is 2048
> resolution. I can't find it anywhere. Thanks  Ron
>  ------------------------------
> Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits. Check
> it out.<http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090617/08faadd8/attachment.html>

From tony at radiosouthrc.com  Wed Jun 17 03:34:04 2009
From: tony at radiosouthrc.com (Tony)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:34:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lamar Blair
In-Reply-To: <000001c9eee9$81766360$6001a8c0@jerryscomputer>
References: <E4ACE9566E9E4108ABE00DD69BDBB874@Tony>
	<000001c9eee9$81766360$6001a8c0@jerryscomputer>
Message-ID: <04846E98A7784B7082D76F005C90255E@Tony>

OK, thanks.

 

Tony Stillman, President

Radio South, Inc.

139 Altama Connector, Box 322

Brunswick, GA  31525

1-800-962-7802

www.radiosouthrc.com

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jerry
Stebbins
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 5:20 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Lamar Blair

 

Tony, Lamar's computer is down. Got a bad virus and has not been able to fix
it,or get it off. I am trying to get him to let me take it to Terry (PC
Guru) and get it wiped and re formatted.

He is waiting on an appointment late this month at Birmingham (VA) to get
some more tests done. They are trying to find out what is causing him to
have random seizures. Most are light, but a couple have knocked him out.
They have conducted all the neurological/brain wave tests--and ruled out a
problem that way.Now looking at his pulmonary system.

They have found his problem with feeling in his right hand and arm to be a
pinched nerve in his neck-and are talking surgery to fix it.

He is doing about the same on the back/leg pain he has always had. 

Obviously not doing any flying. Got planes he can fly-but not in the
condition he is in right now. 

Not doing any new building.

Jerry

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Tony <mailto:tony at radiosouthrc.com>  

To: 'General pattern discussion' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:01 PM

Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lamar Blair

 

Does anyone have a good contact e-mail for Lamar?  I get bounces from his
e-mail.  I know he has been pretty bad off with his back.  Can anyone update
us on his condition?

 

Tony Stillman, President

Radio South, Inc.

139 Altama Connector, Box 322

Brunswick, GA  31525

1-800-962-7802

www.radiosouthrc.com

 


  _____  


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090617/b53454e7/attachment.html>

From tony at radiosouthrc.com  Wed Jun 17 03:34:41 2009
From: tony at radiosouthrc.com (Tony)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:34:41 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lamar Blair
In-Reply-To: <000001c9eee9$81766360$6001a8c0@jerryscomputer>
References: <E4ACE9566E9E4108ABE00DD69BDBB874@Tony>
	<000001c9eee9$81766360$6001a8c0@jerryscomputer>
Message-ID: <D833853D22294E3690826C67831B70C7@Tony>

Thanks, Jerry.  He has had such a tough time. I really hate it for him.

 

Tony Stillman, President

Radio South, Inc.

139 Altama Connector, Box 322

Brunswick, GA  31525

1-800-962-7802

www.radiosouthrc.com

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jerry
Stebbins
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 5:20 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Lamar Blair

 

Tony, Lamar's computer is down. Got a bad virus and has not been able to fix
it,or get it off. I am trying to get him to let me take it to Terry (PC
Guru) and get it wiped and re formatted.

He is waiting on an appointment late this month at Birmingham (VA) to get
some more tests done. They are trying to find out what is causing him to
have random seizures. Most are light, but a couple have knocked him out.
They have conducted all the neurological/brain wave tests--and ruled out a
problem that way.Now looking at his pulmonary system.

They have found his problem with feeling in his right hand and arm to be a
pinched nerve in his neck-and are talking surgery to fix it.

He is doing about the same on the back/leg pain he has always had. 

Obviously not doing any flying. Got planes he can fly-but not in the
condition he is in right now. 

Not doing any new building.

Jerry

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Tony <mailto:tony at radiosouthrc.com>  

To: 'General pattern discussion' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:01 PM

Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lamar Blair

 

Does anyone have a good contact e-mail for Lamar?  I get bounces from his
e-mail.  I know he has been pretty bad off with his back.  Can anyone update
us on his condition?

 

Tony Stillman, President

Radio South, Inc.

139 Altama Connector, Box 322

Brunswick, GA  31525

1-800-962-7802

www.radiosouthrc.com

 


  _____  


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090617/c2b7865b/attachment.html>

From humptybump at sbcglobal.net  Wed Jun 17 05:11:24 2009
From: humptybump at sbcglobal.net (Richard Lewis)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:11:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lone Star Pattern Challenge, Crosby TX,
	proceeds donated to US F3A Team
In-Reply-To: <314661.90857.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <20090612005432.BC77E11540@bridi.netexpress.com>
	<314661.90857.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <371825.39984.qm@web80507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

PropNuts R/C club voted at their monthly meeting on June 16 to dontate $100 of the proceeds from the Lone Star Pattern Challenge that they hosted last weekend to support the US F3A World Team.
?
This just another class act from this club.? They hosted the contest on short notice to replace a couple of cancelled pre-Nats contests in the D6 area.
?
Thank you Prop-Nuts!!
?
?
Richard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090617/2cd9b345/attachment.html>

From mwickizer at msn.com  Wed Jun 17 08:02:45 2009
From: mwickizer at msn.com (Michael Wickizer)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:02:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lone Star Pattern Challenge, Crosby TX,
	proceeds donated to US F3A Team
In-Reply-To: <371825.39984.qm@web80507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20090612005432.BC77E11540@bridi.netexpress.com>
	<314661.90857.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> 
	<371825.39984.qm@web80507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <COL117-W527589E744735541A94F8CBA3C0@phx.gbl>


excellent!

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:11:23 -0700
From: humptybump at sbcglobal.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lone Star Pattern Challenge, Crosby TX,	proceeds donated to US F3A Team



PropNuts R/C club voted at their monthly meeting on June 16 to dontate $100 of the proceeds from the Lone Star Pattern Challenge that they hosted last weekend to support the US F3A World Team.

 

This just another class act from this club.  They hosted the contest on short notice to replace a couple of cancelled pre-Nats contests in the D6 area.

 

Thank you Prop-Nuts!!

 

 

Richard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090617/51806ef1/attachment.html>

From Andrew.Jesky at soaringsoftware.com  Wed Jun 17 08:04:49 2009
From: Andrew.Jesky at soaringsoftware.com (Andrew Jesky)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:04:49 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lone Star Pattern Challenge, Crosby TX,
	proceeds donated to US F3A Team
In-Reply-To: <371825.39984.qm@web80507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20090612005432.BC77E11540@bridi.netexpress.com>
	<314661.90857.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<371825.39984.qm@web80507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6084008B82B59040B38447C69FF9903304D9A5EF5D@SS2.SoaringSoftware.local>

Thank you very much for this.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Richard Lewis
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:11 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lone Star Pattern Challenge, Crosby TX, proceeds donated to US F3A Team


PropNuts R/C club voted at their monthly meeting on June 16 to dontate $100 of the proceeds from the Lone Star Pattern Challenge that they hosted last weekend to support the US F3A World Team.



This just another class act from this club.  They hosted the contest on short notice to replace a couple of cancelled pre-Nats contests in the D6 area.



Thank you Prop-Nuts!!





Richard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090617/c75a3c3f/attachment.html>

From jshulman at cfl.rr.com  Wed Jun 17 08:40:22 2009
From: jshulman at cfl.rr.com (J Shu)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:40:22 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lone Star Pattern Challenge, Crosby TX,
	proceeds donated to US F3A Team
In-Reply-To: <371825.39984.qm@web80507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20090612005432.BC77E11540@bridi.netexpress.com><314661.90857.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<371825.39984.qm@web80507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8A25B185DB36483F802015E2FA3B10A1@UncleJasPC>

Richard,

Please thank the PropNuts R/C Club on behalf of the 2009 US F3A Pattern Team. Thank you.

Regards,
Jason
www.shulmanaviation.com
www.composite-arf.com

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Lewis 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:11 AM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lone Star Pattern Challenge, Crosby TX,proceeds donated to US F3A Team


  PropNuts R/C club voted at their monthly meeting on June 16 to dontate $100 of the proceeds from the Lone Star Pattern Challenge that they hosted last weekend to support the US F3A World Team.



  This just another class act from this club.  They hosted the contest on short notice to replace a couple of cancelled pre-Nats contests in the D6 area.



  Thank you Prop-Nuts!!





  Richard



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090617/97534ed3/attachment.html>

From billglaze at bellsouth.net  Wed Jun 17 10:25:43 2009
From: billglaze at bellsouth.net (Bill Glaze)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:25:43 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lamar Blair
References: <E4ACE9566E9E4108ABE00DD69BDBB874@Tony><000001c9eee9$81766360$6001a8c0@jerryscomputer>
	<D833853D22294E3690826C67831B70C7@Tony>
Message-ID: <7230104EAF534EBCA2EA9895F18437CA@glazecstp32xp>

Jerry:
I'm sure he already knows it, but please tell him he's got a whole lot of folks praying and pulling for his speedy recovery.
Bill glaze
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tony 
  To: 'General pattern discussion' 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:34 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Lamar Blair


  Thanks, Jerry.  He has had such a tough time. I really hate it for him.

   

  Tony Stillman, President

  Radio South, Inc.

  139 Altama Connector, Box 322

  Brunswick, GA  31525

  1-800-962-7802

  www.radiosouthrc.com


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Stebbins
  Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 5:20 PM
  To: General pattern discussion
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Lamar Blair

   

  Tony, Lamar's computer is down. Got a bad virus and has not been able to fix it,or get it off. I am trying to get him to let me take it to Terry (PC Guru) and get it wiped and re formatted.

  He is waiting on an appointment late this month at Birmingham (VA) to get some more tests done. They are trying to find out what is causing him to have random seizures. Most are light, but a couple have knocked him out. They have conducted all the neurological/brain wave tests--and ruled out a problem that way.Now looking at his pulmonary system.

  They have found his problem with feeling in his right hand and arm to be a pinched nerve in his neck-and are talking surgery to fix it.

  He is doing about the same on the back/leg pain he has always had. 

  Obviously not doing any flying. Got planes he can fly-but not in the condition he is in right now. 

  Not doing any new building.

  Jerry

   

    ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: Tony 

    To: 'General pattern discussion' 

    Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:01 PM

    Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lamar Blair

     

    Does anyone have a good contact e-mail for Lamar?  I get bounces from his e-mail.  I know he has been pretty bad off with his back.  Can anyone update us on his condition?

     

    Tony Stillman, President

    Radio South, Inc.

    139 Altama Connector, Box 322

    Brunswick, GA  31525

    1-800-962-7802

    www.radiosouthrc.com

     


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    _______________________________________________
    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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090617/87058dad/attachment.html>

From drmikedds at sbcglobal.net  Wed Jun 17 12:39:28 2009
From: drmikedds at sbcglobal.net (michael s harrison)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:39:28 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lamar Blair
In-Reply-To: <7230104EAF534EBCA2EA9895F18437CA@glazecstp32xp>
References: <E4ACE9566E9E4108ABE00DD69BDBB874@Tony><000001c9eee9$81766360$6001a8c0@jerryscomputer>	<D833853D22294E3690826C67831B70C7@Tony>
	<7230104EAF534EBCA2EA9895F18437CA@glazecstp32xp>
Message-ID: <003701c9ef8b$b41a39c0$1c4ead40$@net>

I hope the best for him.  Tell him we are all thinking of him.

Mike harrison

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill Glaze
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:26 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Lamar Blair

 

Jerry:

I'm sure he already knows it, but please tell him he's got a whole lot of
folks praying and pulling for his speedy recovery.

Bill glaze

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Tony <mailto:tony at radiosouthrc.com>  

To: 'General pattern discussion' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:34 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Lamar Blair

 

Thanks, Jerry.  He has had such a tough time. I really hate it for him.

 

Tony Stillman, President

Radio South, Inc.

139 Altama Connector, Box 322

Brunswick, GA  31525

1-800-962-7802

www.radiosouthrc.com

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jerry
Stebbins
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 5:20 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Lamar Blair

 

Tony, Lamar's computer is down. Got a bad virus and has not been able to fix
it,or get it off. I am trying to get him to let me take it to Terry (PC
Guru) and get it wiped and re formatted.

He is waiting on an appointment late this month at Birmingham (VA) to get
some more tests done. They are trying to find out what is causing him to
have random seizures. Most are light, but a couple have knocked him out.
They have conducted all the neurological/brain wave tests--and ruled out a
problem that way.Now looking at his pulmonary system.

They have found his problem with feeling in his right hand and arm to be a
pinched nerve in his neck-and are talking surgery to fix it.

He is doing about the same on the back/leg pain he has always had. 

Obviously not doing any flying. Got planes he can fly-but not in the
condition he is in right now. 

Not doing any new building.

Jerry

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Tony <mailto:tony at radiosouthrc.com>  

To: 'General pattern discussion' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:01 PM

Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lamar Blair

 

Does anyone have a good contact e-mail for Lamar?  I get bounces from his
e-mail.  I know he has been pretty bad off with his back.  Can anyone update
us on his condition?

 

Tony Stillman, President

Radio South, Inc.

139 Altama Connector, Box 322

Brunswick, GA  31525

1-800-962-7802

www.radiosouthrc.com

 

  _____  

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090617/581cf68e/attachment.html>

From KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com  Wed Jun 17 18:16:52 2009
From: KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com (Ken Thompson)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:16:52 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lone Star Pattern Challenge, Crosby TX,
	proceeds donated to US F3A Team
References: <20090612005432.BC77E11540@bridi.netexpress.com><314661.90857.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<371825.39984.qm@web80507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002901c9efbb$9c4db170$0200a8c0@kencopepere>

Awesome news!!!  I've thanked the club members on several occasions, this deserves another huge thanks!!!

Ken
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Lewis 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:11 AM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lone Star Pattern Challenge, Crosby TX,proceeds donated to US F3A Team


  PropNuts R/C club voted at their monthly meeting on June 16 to dontate $100 of the proceeds from the Lone Star Pattern Challenge that they hosted last weekend to support the US F3A World Team.



  This just another class act from this club.  They hosted the contest on short notice to replace a couple of cancelled pre-Nats contests in the D6 area.



  Thank you Prop-Nuts!!





  Richard



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090618/c117940b/attachment.html>

From KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com  Wed Jun 17 18:22:25 2009
From: KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com (Ken Thompson)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:22:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lone Star Pattern Challenge, Crosby TX,
	proceeds donated to US F3A Team
References: <20090612005432.BC77E11540@bridi.netexpress.com><314661.90857.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><371825.39984.qm@web80507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<002901c9efbb$9c4db170$0200a8c0@kencopepere>
Message-ID: <002301c9efbc$645a0100$0200a8c0@kencopepere>

On another note...I'd like to thank you and Mark for making my first contest in 2 years one of the best.  I had a ball, didn't fly as well as I'd have liked, but had a great time...the Prop Nuts pulled together and did all of the behind the scenes stuff...Huge kudo's to them!!!

Thanks again!!!
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ken Thompson 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Lone Star Pattern Challenge, Crosby TX,proceeds donated to US F3A Team


  Awesome news!!!  I've thanked the club members on several occasions, this deserves another huge thanks!!!

  Ken
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Richard Lewis 
    To: General pattern discussion 
    Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:11 AM
    Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lone Star Pattern Challenge, Crosby TX,proceeds donated to US F3A Team


    PropNuts R/C club voted at their monthly meeting on June 16 to dontate $100 of the proceeds from the Lone Star Pattern Challenge that they hosted last weekend to support the US F3A World Team.



    This just another class act from this club.  They hosted the contest on short notice to replace a couple of cancelled pre-Nats contests in the D6 area.



    Thank you Prop-Nuts!!





    Richard



----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    _______________________________________________
    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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090618/451ee634/attachment.html>

From rdpee at juno.com  Thu Jun 18 14:30:04 2009
From: rdpee at juno.com (Ralph D Perillo)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:30:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] For Sale
Message-ID: <20090618.182837.2952.1.rdpee@juno.com>

For Sale

      The Futaba 9ZAP system  is Sold!!!!!!!!
      The Used YS 140 Type AR Mt. is Sold!!!!!!!!!
      New Cline P.C.F.S. Proportional Control Fuel System for 2 or 4
Cycle Engines is sold!!!!!
      Still For Sale -  Reasonable offers will be considered.

1-   Like New ( one tank run not flown )  excellent condition 3M 170
Engine w/ 3M Header, Hyde Type A Mount, 3M (Aeroslave) Carbon    
      Tuned Pipe.($900.00 Value)      $395.00
1-   New Hyde OS160 Type A Soft Mt.    $80.00
1-   Used Hyde YS 140 Type A Mt. excellent shape. $50.00
1-   New Karl Mueller OS 160 Fx Wrap Around Header Inverted 1 3/8 drop
$30.00
1-   New AAP Aluminum 120-160 Pipe  3/4"  $50.00
2-   New YS  61   RX Exhaust Headers (one straight rise, one offset rise
to clear a nose gear)  $20.00
2-   Used  60-90 Pipes (  1 Hatori Aluminum , 1 Carbon/Aluminum Pipe) 
Both $20.00
 
        Postage is not included!!!

      Will accept Paypal, Check, or Money orders.
Contact me off list
Ralph D Perillo  (rdpee at juno.com)
Buffalo,NY
____________________________________________________________
Put your future on the fast track with a pharmacy career. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTEMzKVC0HlAGChc5DXAMQYTZq54kBSAxIzFnoopbC0u7dLZCjZPLy/

From lodomjr at verizon.net  Thu Jun 18 19:21:38 2009
From: lodomjr at verizon.net (Lawrence Odom)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:21:38 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Webra headers
References: <060820092022.17531.4A2D72EB0008AC250000447B22228869349B0A02D2089B9A019C04040A0DBF960B090E9D0E039C@att.net>
Message-ID: <0B1A773519C54B4589B4F0B160D65CA8@LAWRENCEODOM>

Ryan e-mail me off line, I may be able to help you.

Larry
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ryan Smith 
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
  Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 1:22 PM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Webra headers


  Hey guys,

  I am looking on behalf of a friend that is not on the discussion list if anyone has any headers for a Webra laying around? My friend broke the last one he had, and so far going to suppliers (Macs and Mueller) have not yielded any results.

  If anyone has a header or headers, please get back with me and I will pass this information along to him.

  Kind regards,

  Ryan Smith


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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 - www.avg.com 
  Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.58/2164 - Release Date: 06/08/09 17:59:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090619/98aef39e/attachment.html>

From rdpee at juno.com  Fri Jun 19 19:30:20 2009
From: rdpee at juno.com (Ralph D Perillo)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 03:30:20 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] for sale
Message-ID: <20090619.232746.3996.1.rdpee@juno.com>

For Sale

                 Still For Sale 
1-   Like New ( one tank run not flown )  excellent condition 3M 170
Engine w/ 3M Header, Hyde Type A Mount, 3M (Aeroslave) Carbon    
      Tuned Pipe.($900.00 Value)      Now     $350.00 for all!!!!!!!!!!
1-   New Hyde OS160 Type A Soft Mt.& New Karl Mueller OS 160 Fx Wrap
Around Header Inverted 1 3/8 drop
        both for $85.00
1-   Used Hyde YS 140 Type A Mt. excellent shape. $35.00
1-   New AAP Aluminum 120-160 Pipe  3/4"  $50.00

       Postage is not included!!!

      Will accept Paypal, Check, or Money orders.
Contact me off list
Ralph D Perillo  (rdpee at juno.com)
Buffalo,NY
____________________________________________________________
Free information - Learn about Criminal Lawyers. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTOVoM1qfzFTHBeOvwBw9QgN02hiEbkovg9NlLsHF2VN4liajXNZrK/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090620/a05ab8e0/attachment.html>

From jcwilsonjr at comcast.net  Sat Jun 20 04:45:53 2009
From: jcwilsonjr at comcast.net (Jerry Wilson)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:45:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] for sale
In-Reply-To: <20090619.232746.3996.1.rdpee@juno.com>
Message-ID: <20090620124553.03B2A115B2@bridi.netexpress.com>

I'm interested.  Please send me a private message.

 

Thanks,

jerry.wilson at comcast.net

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ralph D
Perillo
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 10:28 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] for sale

 

For Sale

 

                 Still For Sale 

1-   Like New ( one tank run not flown )  excellent condition 3M 170
Engine w/ 3M Header, Hyde Type A Mount, 3M (Aeroslave) Carbon    
      Tuned Pipe.($900.00 Value)      Now     $350.00 for all!!!!!!!!!!
1-   New Hyde OS160 Type A Soft Mt.& New Karl Mueller OS 160 Fx Wrap Around
Header Inverted 1 3/8 drop
        both for $85.00
1-   Used Hyde YS 140 Type A Mt. excellent shape. $35.00
1-   New AAP Aluminum 120-160 Pipe  3/4"  $50.00


       Postage is not included!!!

 

      Will accept Paypal, Check, or Money orders.
Contact me off list
Ralph D Perillo  (rdpee at juno.com)
Buffalo,NY



____________________________________________________________ 
Free information - Learn about Criminal Lawyers. Click here.
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/BLSrjpTOVoM1qfzFTHBeOvwBw9QgN02
hiEbkovg9NlLsHF2VN4liajXNZrK/> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090620/da9f8dd2/attachment.html>

From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Sat Jun 20 07:12:35 2009
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:12:35 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
Message-ID: <B94197C498DC4013AFAB51D8C1C70A11@jaysdesktop>

I'm sure everyone knows the answer to this - but me. Is the control signal
sent from the receiver to the servos analog or a pulse width controlled
signal?

 

Jay Marshall 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090620/da1d318b/attachment.html>

From flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net  Sat Jun 20 07:18:54 2009
From: flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net (William C. Harden)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:18:54 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <B94197C498DC4013AFAB51D8C1C70A11@jaysdesktop>
References: <B94197C498DC4013AFAB51D8C1C70A11@jaysdesktop>
Message-ID: <7A152FFDDD494A62BD083F7595E6193F@bill>

It is  a pulse signal.

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jay Marshall
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 10:12 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

 

I'm sure everyone knows the answer to this - but me. Is the control signal
sent from the receiver to the servos analog or a pulse width controlled
signal?

 

Jay Marshall 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090620/f49c3414/attachment.html>

From edvwhite at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 20 08:52:25 2009
From: edvwhite at yahoo.com (Ed White)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:52:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <B94197C498DC4013AFAB51D8C1C70A11@jaysdesktop>
References: <B94197C498DC4013AFAB51D8C1C70A11@jaysdesktop>
Message-ID: <834498.5579.qm@web83503.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Its pulse width modulation.  The pulse length varies from roughly 1.0 millisecond to 2.0 milliseconds in length, with center at roughly 1.5 msec.  For a typical radio, the pulse is repeated about 50 times per second or about once every 20 msec (though this can vary quite a lot).

Ed




________________________________
From: Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 10:12:24 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

 
I?m sure everyone knows the answer to this ? but
me. Is the control signal sent from the receiver to the servos analog or a
pulse width controlled signal?
 
Jay Marshall 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090620/f3c066e7/attachment.html>

From humptybump at sbcglobal.net  Sat Jun 20 16:51:34 2009
From: humptybump at sbcglobal.net (Richard Lewis)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:51:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <834498.5579.qm@web83503.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <B94197C498DC4013AFAB51D8C1C70A11@jaysdesktop>
	<834498.5579.qm@web83503.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <565759.9761.qm@web80508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

More accurately it is a pulse position signal.? The RX sends a beginning pulse that the RX recognizes and then a position pulse at a later time.? The time between the start pulse and the position pulse is the absolute position that the servo is commanded to move to.

Link to a tutorial:

http://www.hooked-on-rc-airplanes.com/servo-tutorial.html

Richard




________________________________
From: Ed White <edvwhite at yahoo.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 11:52:22 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals


Its pulse width modulation.? The pulse length varies from roughly 1.0 millisecond to 2.0 milliseconds in length, with center at roughly 1.5 msec.? For a typical radio, the pulse is repeated about 50 times per second or about once every 20 msec (though this can vary quite a lot).

Ed




________________________________
From: Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 10:12:24 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals


I?m sure everyone knows the answer to this ? but me. Is the control signal sent from the receiver to the servos analog or a pulse width controlled signal?
?
Jay Marshall 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090621/9b0f1ade/attachment.html>

From humptybump at sbcglobal.net  Sat Jun 20 17:02:39 2009
From: humptybump at sbcglobal.net (Richard Lewis)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:02:39 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <565759.9761.qm@web80508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <B94197C498DC4013AFAB51D8C1C70A11@jaysdesktop>
	<834498.5579.qm@web83503.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<565759.9761.qm@web80508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <816906.46561.qm@web80507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

And....Interestingly enough.....It does not matter what kind of fancy whopping digital super latest and greatest TX/RX system you have, the signals to the servos are still firmly rooted in good old 1970's technology....:)? And...Your super whopper digital brushless whatever servo still has an analog pot for position feedback....:)

I for one am eager to see a leap in servo technology.....Bidirectional serial?comms to the servos with the servo being able to feed back torque, amps, position, rate, etc.....and encoder/resolver position feedback in the servos to really?catch up with the world we live?in......

Richard?




________________________________
From: Richard Lewis <humptybump at sbcglobal.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 7:51:32 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals


More accurately it is a pulse position signal.? The RX sends a beginning pulse that the RX recognizes and then a position pulse at a later time.? The time between the start pulse and the position pulse is the absolute position that the servo is commanded to move to.

Link to a tutorial:

http://www.hooked-on-rc-airplanes.com/servo-tutorial.html

Richard




________________________________
From: Ed White <edvwhite at yahoo.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 11:52:22 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals


Its pulse width modulation.? The pulse length varies from roughly 1.0 millisecond to 2.0 milliseconds in length, with center at roughly 1.5 msec.? For a typical radio, the pulse is repeated about 50 times per second or about once every 20 msec (though this can vary quite a lot).

Ed




________________________________
From: Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 10:12:24 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals


I?m sure everyone knows the answer to this ? but me. Is the control signal sent from the receiver to the servos analog or a pulse width controlled signal?
?
Jay Marshall 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090621/be566859/attachment.html>

From duane.e.beck at comcast.net  Sat Jun 20 17:07:37 2009
From: duane.e.beck at comcast.net (Duane Beck)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:07:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <565759.9761.qm@web80508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <B94197C498DC4013AFAB51D8C1C70A11@jaysdesktop>	<834498.5579.qm@web83503.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<565759.9761.qm@web80508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4A3D87D5.3030409@comcast.net>

Over-the-air transmitted signal is PPM.  The RX separates each channel 
and sends PWM to the servo.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2474091
http://www.pabr.org/pxarc/doc/pxarc.en.html#opwm_ppm

Duane

Richard Lewis wrote:
> More accurately it is a pulse position signal.  The RX sends a beginning 
> pulse that the RX recognizes and then a position pulse at a later time.  
> The time between the start pulse and the position pulse is the absolute 
> position that the servo is commanded to move to.
>  
> Link to a tutorial:
>  
> http://www.hooked-on-rc-airplanes.com/servo-tutorial.html
>  
> Richard


From cahochhalter at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 20 17:51:38 2009
From: cahochhalter at yahoo.com (Chuck Hochhalter)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:51:38 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <4A3D87D5.3030409@comcast.net>
References: <B94197C498DC4013AFAB51D8C1C70A11@jaysdesktop>	<834498.5579.qm@web83503.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><565759.9761.qm@web80508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<4A3D87D5.3030409@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <6670A394B7AC4ADAB2143E39A26FE5BC@ChuckLaptop>

As long as they wiggle when I wiggle the sticks.... I am good.

Chuck Hochhalter

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Duane Beck" <duane.e.beck at comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 8:07 PM
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

> Over-the-air transmitted signal is PPM.  The RX separates each channel and 
> sends PWM to the servo.
>
> http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2474091
> http://www.pabr.org/pxarc/doc/pxarc.en.html#opwm_ppm
>
> Duane
>
> Richard Lewis wrote:
>> More accurately it is a pulse position signal.  The RX sends a beginning 
>> pulse that the RX recognizes and then a position pulse at a later time. 
>> The time between the start pulse and the position pulse is the absolute 
>> position that the servo is commanded to move to.
>>  Link to a tutorial:
>>  http://www.hooked-on-rc-airplanes.com/servo-tutorial.html
>>  Richard
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 



From bob at toprudder.com  Sat Jun 20 18:23:37 2009
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:23:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
Message-ID: <102741.55611.qm@web1108.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

--- On Sat, 6/20/09, Richard Lewis <humptybump at sbcglobal.net> wrote:







And....Interestingly enough.....It does not matter what kind of fancy whopping digital super latest and greatest TX/RX system you have, the signals to the servos are still firmly rooted in good old 1970's technology....:)? And...Your super whopper digital brushless whatever servo still has an analog pot for position feedback....:)
?
I for one am eager to see a leap in servo technology.....Bidirectional serial?comms to the servos with the servo being able to feed back torque, amps, position, rate, etc.....and encoder/resolver position feedback in the servos to really?catch up with the world we live?in......
?
Amen to that. We have digital servos and?digital receivers, yet they talk to each other via an analog method and use analog feedback.
?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090621/a793e6d1/attachment.html>

From chuenkan at comcast.net  Sun Jun 21 03:14:50 2009
From: chuenkan at comcast.net (Phil Spelt)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:14:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <816906.46561.qm@web80507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <B94197C498DC4013AFAB51D8C1C70A11@jaysdesktop>
	<834498.5579.qm@web83503.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<565759.9761.qm@web80508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<816906.46561.qm@web80507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20090621111446.C6214115DD@bridi.netexpress.com>

Yea, Richard, "Dream on, dream on, Teenage 
Queen..." to quote a pop song from the '60s/'70s/???

On second thought, here's your chance for 15 
minutes in the spotlight!  Get to work...

At 09:02 PM 6/20/2009, you wrote:
>
>I for one am eager to see a leap in servo 
>technology.....Bidirectional serial comms to the 
>servos with the servo being able to feed back 
>torque, amps, position, rate, etc.....and 
>encoder/resolver position feedback in the servos 
>to really catch up with the world we live in......
>
>Richard
>
>
>From: Richard Lewis <humptybump at sbcglobal.net>
>To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 7:51:32 PM
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>
>More accurately it is a pulse position 
>signal.  The RX sends a beginning pulse that the 
>RX recognizes and then a position pulse at a 
>later time.  The time between the start pulse 
>and the position pulse is the absolute position 
>that the servo is commanded to move to.
>
>Link to a tutorial:
>
>http://www.hooked-on-rc-airplanes.com/servo-tutorial.html
>
>Richard
>
>
>From: Ed White <edvwhite at yahoo.com>
>To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 11:52:22 AM
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>
>Its pulse width modulation.  The pulse length 
>varies from roughly 1.0 millisecond to 2.0 
>milliseconds in length, with center at roughly 
>1.5 msec.  For a typical radio, the pulse is 
>repeated about 50 times per second or about once 
>every 20 msec (though this can vary quite a lot).
>
>Ed
>
>
>From: Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
>To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 10:12:24 AM
>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>
>I???m sure everyone knows the answer to this ? 
>but me. Is the control signal sent from the 
>receiveer to the servos analog or a pulse width controlled signal?
>
>
>
>Jay Marshall
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Webmaster & Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member, SPA--177
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090621/574893c7/attachment.html>

From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Sun Jun 21 03:18:31 2009
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:18:31 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <102741.55611.qm@web1108.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <DA0B34AE09C94BD5B600E9A25A7240CA@jaysdesktop>

I remember from my days in control systems theory that the analog computers
were faster and more accurate than the IBM big iron computers. Analog pots
are still cheaper, lighter, and higher resolution than digital encoders - as
long as they are clean.

 

Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 10:24 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

 


--- On Sat, 6/20/09, Richard Lewis <humptybump at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

 

And....Interestingly enough.....It does not matter what kind of fancy
whopping digital super latest and greatest TX/RX system you have, the
signals to the servos are still firmly rooted in good old 1970's
technology....:)  And...Your super whopper digital brushless whatever servo
still has an analog pot for position feedback....:)

 

I for one am eager to see a leap in servo technology.....Bidirectional
serial comms to the servos with the servo being able to feed back torque,
amps, position, rate, etc.....and encoder/resolver position feedback in the
servos to really catch up with the world we live in......

 

Amen to that. We have digital servos and digital receivers, yet they talk to
each other via an analog method and use analog feedback.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090621/1b351963/attachment.html>

From rcmaster199 at aol.com  Sun Jun 21 04:32:34 2009
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com (rcmaster199 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:32:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <20090621111446.C6214115DD@bridi.netexpress.com>
References: <20090621111446.C6214115DD@bridi.netexpress.com>
Message-ID: <8CBC0836B16B79C-E10-A9D@MBLK-M30.sysops.aol.com>

HMMM!!! Better servos in general always a better way to go. On the 
other hand, how much better do we really from today's standard top of 
the line stuff? Unlike the radio link advances, I am not too sure that 
any "better" in the elctromechanical link will result in much real 
gain. All of the extra servo capability may not be able to fly your 
model any better. No matter how you slice and dice it, unless there is 
a paradigm shift in our event's management, it will still be at the 
mercy of the loose screw in front of the control

MattK

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Spelt <chuenkan at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:15 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

Yea, Richard, "Dream on, dream on, Teenage
Queen..." to quote a pop song from the '60s/'70s/???


On second thought, here's your chance for 15 minutes in the
spotlight!? Get to work...


At 09:02 PM 6/20/2009, you wrote:

?

I for one am eager to see a leap in servo technology.....Bidirectional
serial comms to the servos with the servo being able to feed back 
torque,
amps, position, rate, etc.....and encoder/resolver position feedback in
the servos to really catch up with the world we live in......

?

Richard




From: Richard Lewis
&lt;humptybump at sbcglobal.net&gt;

To: General pattern discussion
&lt;nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org&gt
;

Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 7:51:32 PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals



More accurately it is a pulse position signal.? The RX sends a
beginning pulse that the RX recognizes and then a position pulse at a
later time.? The time between the start pulse and the position pulse
is the absolute position that the servo is commanded to move to.

?

Link to a tutorial:

?


http://www.hooked-on-rc-airplanes.com/servo-tutorial.html

?

Richard




From: Ed White
&lt;edvwhite at yahoo.com&gt;

To: General pattern discussion
&lt;nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org&gt;

Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 11:52:22 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals



Its pulse width modulation.? The pulse length varies from roughly
1.0 millisecond to 2.0 milliseconds in length, with center at roughly 
1.5
msec.? For a typical radio, the pulse is repeated about 50 times per
second or about once every 20 msec (though this can vary quite a
lot).


Ed




From: Jay Marshall
&lt;lightfoot at sc.rr.com&gt;

To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org

Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 10:12:24 AM

Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals



I???m sure everyone knows the
answer to this ? but me. Is the control signal sent from the receiveer 
to
the servos analog or a pulse width controlled signal?



?





Jay
Marshall


?

_______________________________________________

NSRCA-discussion mailing list

NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org


http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


--&gt;There
are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.


Phil Spelt, Webmaster & Past President,
Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.

?????? URL:

http://www.kcrctn.com

AMA--1294,? Scientific Leader Member, SPA--177

????? My URL:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/

????? (865) 435-1476 v? (865) 604-0541
c _______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



From humptybump at sbcglobal.net  Sun Jun 21 08:35:15 2009
From: humptybump at sbcglobal.net (Richard Lewis)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:35:15 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <4A3D87D5.3030409@comcast.net>
References: <B94197C498DC4013AFAB51D8C1C70A11@jaysdesktop>
	<834498.5579.qm@web83503.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<565759.9761.qm@web80508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<4A3D87D5.3030409@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <818582.15548.qm@web80501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Sorry....there is no PWM implementation in our current radio systems signals to the servos.......

The TX/RX signal is a series of PPM pulse groups?in a specific order, one for each channel.? Each?pulse group?in the signal represents a channel to the RX the RX decodes them and send the the appropriate Pulse Position Moduated signal to the individual servos....

PCM encodes more data into the signals and each "frame" of data contains position commands and failsafe info.? This is more like?simplex serial communications.......


Richard



________________________________
From: Duane Beck <duane.e.beck at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 8:07:33 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

Over-the-air transmitted signal is PPM.? The RX separates each channel and sends PWM to the servo.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2474091
http://www.pabr.org/pxarc/doc/pxarc.en.html#opwm_ppm

Duane

Richard Lewis wrote:
> More accurately it is a pulse position signal.? The RX sends a beginning pulse that the RX recognizes and then a position pulse at a later time.? The time between the start pulse and the position pulse is the absolute position that the servo is commanded to move to.
>? Link to a tutorial:
>? http://www.hooked-on-rc-airplanes.com/servo-tutorial.html
>? Richard

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090621/d07f2d2f/attachment.html>

From wgalligan at att.net  Mon Jun 22 05:38:23 2009
From: wgalligan at att.net (Wayne Galligan)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:38:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <6670A394B7AC4ADAB2143E39A26FE5BC@ChuckLaptop>
References: <B94197C498DC4013AFAB51D8C1C70A11@jaysdesktop>	<834498.5579.qm@web83503.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><565759.9761.qm@web80508.mail.mud.yahoo.com><4A3D87D5.3030409@comcast.net>
	<6670A394B7AC4ADAB2143E39A26FE5BC@ChuckLaptop>
Message-ID: <B213853BA7594FAB91E2C3A1556D3D27@WaynePC>

That's a whole lot wigglin goin on....

Wayne Galligan


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chuck Hochhalter" <cahochhalter at yahoo.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals


> As long as they wiggle when I wiggle the sticks.... I am good.
>
> Chuck Hochhalter
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Duane Beck" <duane.e.beck at comcast.net>
> Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 8:07 PM
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>
>> Over-the-air transmitted signal is PPM.  The RX separates each channel 
>> and sends PWM to the servo.
>>
>> http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2474091
>> http://www.pabr.org/pxarc/doc/pxarc.en.html#opwm_ppm
>>
>> Duane
>>
>> Richard Lewis wrote:
>>> More accurately it is a pulse position signal.  The RX sends a beginning 
>>> pulse that the RX recognizes and then a position pulse at a later time. 
>>> The time between the start pulse and the position pulse is the absolute 
>>> position that the servo is commanded to move to.
>>>  Link to a tutorial:
>>>  http://www.hooked-on-rc-airplanes.com/servo-tutorial.html
>>>  Richard
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 


From bob at toprudder.com  Mon Jun 22 09:06:21 2009
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:06:21 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
Message-ID: <240023.68019.qm@web1101.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the problem, it depends on contact between two components and the friction wears them out.
?
I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and possibly some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors for feedback. not much to wear.
?
Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days" you were talking about? :-)? 
?
Bob R.


--- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:









I remember from my days in control systems theory that the analog computers were faster and more accurate than the IBM big iron computers. Analog pots are still cheaper, lighter, and higher resolution than digital encoders ? as long as they are clean?
?

?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090622/7ba1cabc/attachment.html>

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Mon Jun 22 09:16:47 2009
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:16:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57EB74A@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

The old heathkit servos (mine anyway) were kit versions of the Kraft K-15 servos. 

In fact the whole radio I believe was a Kraft design. 
-Mark 
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld


----- Original Message -----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon Jun 22 13:06:18 2009
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals


Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the problem, it depends on contact between two components and the friction wears them out.
 
I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and possibly some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors for feedback. not much to wear.
 
Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days" you were talking about? :-)  
 
Bob R.


--- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:



I remember from my days in control systems theory that the analog computers were faster and more accurate than the IBM big iron computers. Analog pots are still cheaper, lighter, and higher resolution than digital encoders ? as long as they are clean?


 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00

  

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 22 09:31:47 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:31:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
Message-ID: <419438.7771.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 Mark there's a guy Mike --- sorry I forgot his last name that comes to the contests that was an engineer for heathkit. He'll be at the Jim Hubbard this weekend. I'll tell him you had a Heathkit he will get a kick out of that. Mike

--- On Mon, 6/22/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 12:13 PM
> The old heathkit servos (mine anyway)
> were kit versions of the Kraft K-15 servos. 
> 
> In fact the whole radio I believe was a Kraft design. 
> -Mark 
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Mon Jun 22 13:06:18 2009
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> 
> 
> Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the problem, it
> depends on contact between two components and the friction
> wears them out.
>  
> I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and possibly
> some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors for feedback.
> not much to wear.
>  
> Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days" you were talking
> about? :-)? 
>  
> Bob R.
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember from my days in control systems theory that the
> analog computers were faster and more accurate than the IBM
> big iron computers. Analog pots are still cheaper, lighter,
> and higher resolution than digital encoders ? as long as
> they are clean?
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release
> Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
> 
> ? 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      

From pcosky at comcast.net  Mon Jun 22 09:34:51 2009
From: pcosky at comcast.net (Pete Cosky)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:34:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
References: <419438.7771.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5F12D1EB762E4A39987B32C50BB107ED@usa.ccu.clearchannel.com>

I used to live at the Heathkit store in Pittsburgh when I was a kid. Never 
used their RC stuff but I did build one of their robots. I miss their kits.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals


>
> Mark there's a guy Mike --- sorry I forgot his last name that comes to the 
> contests that was an engineer for heathkit. He'll be at the Jim Hubbard 
> this weekend. I'll tell him you had a Heathkit he will get a kick out of 
> that. Mike
>
> --- On Mon, 6/22/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>> To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'" 
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 12:13 PM
>> The old heathkit servos (mine anyway)
>> were kit versions of the Kraft K-15 servos.
>>
>> In fact the whole radio I believe was a Kraft design.
>> -Mark
>> --------------------------
>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Mon Jun 22 13:06:18 2009
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>>
>>
>> Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the problem, it
>> depends on contact between two components and the friction
>> wears them out.
>>
>> I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and possibly
>> some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors for feedback.
>> not much to wear.
>>
>> Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days" you were talking
>> about? :-)
>>
>> Bob R.
>>
>>
>> --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I remember from my days in control systems theory that the
>> analog computers were faster and more accurate than the IBM
>> big iron computers. Analog pots are still cheaper, lighter,
>> and higher resolution than digital encoders ? as long as
>> they are clean?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release
>> Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 



From bob at toprudder.com  Mon Jun 22 09:34:51 2009
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:34:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
Message-ID: <361095.12882.qm@web1108.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

Yeah, Kraft = Heathkit, that is what I was told back then as well. Did not remember the servo model number, though. My first radio was a Kraft 5ch Sport Series. Came with the KPS-11 servos, with tops that could be changed for linear rack outputs. 
?
Now that is one feature I would like to see on a servo - linear rack output. That would remove a lot of the geometry problems from linkage setups.
?
Bob R.


--- On Mon, 6/22/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:




The old heathkit servos (mine anyway) were kit versions of the Kraft K-15 servos. 

In fact the whole radio I believe was a Kraft design. 
-Mark 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090622/f420b130/attachment.html>

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Mon Jun 22 11:36:19 2009
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:36:19 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <419438.7771.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <419438.7771.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E8778@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

Awesome!  I was a Heathkit addict in my youth.  Use to spend hours upon hours in the store until I finally worked there for a while.

Built everything from my stereo, Tv, and a variety of other stuff...and then I saw the RC transmitter, and it was the last Heathkit I built.  I apparently got addicted to another hobby :)

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of mike mueller
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:32 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals


 Mark there's a guy Mike --- sorry I forgot his last name that comes to the contests that was an engineer for heathkit. He'll be at the Jim Hubbard this weekend. I'll tell him you had a Heathkit he will get a kick out of that. Mike

--- On Mon, 6/22/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 12:13 PM
> The old heathkit servos (mine anyway)
> were kit versions of the Kraft K-15 servos. 
> 
> In fact the whole radio I believe was a Kraft design. 
> -Mark 
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Mon Jun 22 13:06:18 2009
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> 
> 
> Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the problem, it
> depends on contact between two components and the friction
> wears them out.
>  
> I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and possibly
> some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors for feedback.
> not much to wear.
>  
> Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days" you were talking
> about? :-)? 
>  
> Bob R.
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember from my days in control systems theory that the
> analog computers were faster and more accurate than the IBM
> big iron computers. Analog pots are still cheaper, lighter,
> and higher resolution than digital encoders ? as long as
> they are clean?
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release
> Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
> 
> ? 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Mon Jun 22 11:37:47 2009
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:37:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <5F12D1EB762E4A39987B32C50BB107ED@usa.ccu.clearchannel.com>
References: <419438.7771.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<5F12D1EB762E4A39987B32C50BB107ED@usa.ccu.clearchannel.com>
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E8779@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

Agree on missing the stores and the kits.  That was my introduction to Elec. Engineering and programming which has ended up putting a lot of food on my table over the past 20 years.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Pete Cosky
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:35 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

I used to live at the Heathkit store in Pittsburgh when I was a kid. Never 
used their RC stuff but I did build one of their robots. I miss their kits.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals


>
> Mark there's a guy Mike --- sorry I forgot his last name that comes to the 
> contests that was an engineer for heathkit. He'll be at the Jim Hubbard 
> this weekend. I'll tell him you had a Heathkit he will get a kick out of 
> that. Mike
>
> --- On Mon, 6/22/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>> To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'" 
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 12:13 PM
>> The old heathkit servos (mine anyway)
>> were kit versions of the Kraft K-15 servos.
>>
>> In fact the whole radio I believe was a Kraft design.
>> -Mark
>> --------------------------
>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Mon Jun 22 13:06:18 2009
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>>
>>
>> Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the problem, it
>> depends on contact between two components and the friction
>> wears them out.
>>
>> I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and possibly
>> some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors for feedback.
>> not much to wear.
>>
>> Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days" you were talking
>> about? :-)
>>
>> Bob R.
>>
>>
>> --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I remember from my days in control systems theory that the
>> analog computers were faster and more accurate than the IBM
>> big iron computers. Analog pots are still cheaper, lighter,
>> and higher resolution than digital encoders ? as long as
>> they are clean?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release
>> Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00

From ronlock at comcast.net  Mon Jun 22 11:51:54 2009
From: ronlock at comcast.net (ronlock at comcast.net)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:51:54 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits
In-Reply-To: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E8779@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
Message-ID: <938069816.7241781245700312376.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>



I'm still using a Heath ESV, one of the few that does single nicads. 

Though, I have not found much use for the timing light for a while -? <VBG> 



Ron Lockhart 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:37:44 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals 

Agree on missing the stores and the kits. ?That was my introduction to Elec. Engineering and programming which has ended up putting a lot of food on my table over the past 20 years. 

-----Original Message----- 
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Pete Cosky 
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:35 PM 
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals 

I used to live at the Heathkit store in Pittsburgh when I was a kid. Never 
used their RC stuff but I did build one of their robots. I miss their kits. 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:31 PM 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals 


> 
> Mark there's a guy Mike --- sorry I forgot his last name that comes to the 
> contests that was an engineer for heathkit. He'll be at the Jim Hubbard 
> this weekend. I'll tell him you had a Heathkit he will get a kick out of 
> that. Mike 
> 
> --- On Mon, 6/22/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote: 
> 
>> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> 
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals 
>> To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'" 
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
>> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 12:13 PM 
>> The old heathkit servos (mine anyway) 
>> were kit versions of the Kraft K-15 servos. 
>> 
>> In fact the whole radio I believe was a Kraft design. 
>> -Mark 
>> -------------------------- 
>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
>> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> 
>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
>> Sent: Mon Jun 22 13:06:18 2009 
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals 
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the problem, it 
>> depends on contact between two components and the friction 
>> wears them out. 
>> 
>> I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and possibly 
>> some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors for feedback. 
>> not much to wear. 
>> 
>> Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days" you were talking 
>> about? :-) 
>> 
>> Bob R. 
>> 
>> 
>> --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> 
>> wrote: 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I remember from my days in control systems theory that the 
>> analog computers were faster and more accurate than the IBM 
>> big iron computers. Analog pots are still cheaper, lighter, 
>> and higher resolution than digital encoders ? as long as 
>> they are clean? 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> No virus found in this incoming message. 
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
>> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release 
>> Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> 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 - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00 
_______________________________________________ 
NSRCA-discussion mailing list 
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090622/cc60b00b/attachment.html>

From jeffghughes at comcast.net  Mon Jun 22 12:13:27 2009
From: jeffghughes at comcast.net (jeffghughes at comcast.net)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:13:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits
In-Reply-To: <938069816.7241781245700312376.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <2127730183.6978341245701606461.JavaMail.root@sz0016a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>



Heathkit is still in business selling electronic training stuff. I grew up in SW michigan where they are headquartered, so between my Dad, brother and I we built most of their stereo, electronic?and TV stuff. 







----- Original Message ----- 
From: ronlock at comcast.net 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:51:52 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits 




I'm still using a Heath ESV, one of the few that does single nicads. 

Though, I have not found much use for the timing light for a while -? <VBG> 



Ron Lockhart 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:37:44 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals 

Agree on missing the stores and the kits. ?That was my introduction to Elec. Engineering and programming which has ended up putting a lot of food on my table over the past 20 years. 

-----Original Message----- 
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Pete Cosky 
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:35 PM 
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals 

I used to live at the Heathkit store in Pittsburgh when I was a kid. Never 
used their RC stuff but I did build one of their robots. I miss their kits. 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:31 PM 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals 


> 
> Mark there's a guy Mike --- sorry I forgot his last name that comes to the 
> contests that was an engineer for heathkit. He'll be at the Jim Hubbard 
> this weekend. I'll tell him you had a Heathkit he will get a kick out of 
> that. Mike 
> 
> --- On Mon, 6/22/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote: 
> 
>> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> 
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals 
>> To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'" 
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
>> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 12:13 PM 
>> The old heathkit servos (mine anyway) 
>> were kit versions of the Kraft K-15 servos. 
>> 
>> In fact the whole radio I believe was a Kraft design. 
>> -Mark 
>> -------------------------- 
>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
>> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> 
>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
>> Sent: Mon Jun 22 13:06:18 2009 
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals 
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the problem, it 
>> depends on contact between two components and the friction 
>> wears them out. 
>> 
>> I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and possibly 
>> some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors for feedback. 
>> not much to wear. 
>> 
>> Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days" you were talking 
>> about? :-) 
>> 
>> Bob R. 
>> 
>> 
>> --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> 
>> wrote: 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I remember from my days in control systems theory that the 
>> analog computers were faster and more accurate than the IBM 
>> big iron computers. Analog pots are still cheaper, lighter, 
>> and higher resolution than digital encoders ? as long as 
>> they are clean? 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> No virus found in this incoming message. 
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
>> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release 
>> Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> 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 - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00 
_______________________________________________ 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090622/68abfaa3/attachment.html>

From shannah1806 at gmail.com  Mon Jun 22 12:24:23 2009
From: shannah1806 at gmail.com (steve hannah)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:24:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits
In-Reply-To: <938069816.7241781245700312376.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
References: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E8779@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<938069816.7241781245700312376.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <c3f99b710906221324k407b3fdfy9c286550f8b6018f@mail.gmail.com>

My Dad is Bill Hannah, who used to be the VP of Engineering for Heath
Company.  He was the one that introduced the RC equipment into the Heath
lineup.  As a kid I built A LOT of Heathkits.  I learned how to debug all
sorts of electronic problems and lead to my engineering career.  Of course,
I learned to fly on Heathkit radios.

Heath radios were a kit version of the Kraft radios.  They had some of their
own designs in the later years as well.

I believe the engineer you are talking about is Mike Geishin (SP?).  I'm not
sure of his exact title when he was at Heath, but he was instrumental in
their radio designs.  He flew with my Dad back in the day.

By the way, I still have the Heath stereo system I built when I was in high
school.  It survived the endless torment I subjected it to in my college
years.  Good stuff.

Steve Hannah.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:51 PM, <ronlock at comcast.net> wrote:

> I'm still using a Heath ESV, one of the few that does single nicads.
>
> Though, I have not found much use for the timing light for a while -  <VBG>
>
>
>
> Ron Lockhart
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:37:44 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>
> Agree on missing the stores and the kits.  That was my introduction to
> Elec. Engineering and programming which has ended up putting a lot of food
> on my table over the past 20 years.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Pete Cosky
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:35 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>
> I used to live at the Heathkit store in Pittsburgh when I was a kid. Never
> used their RC stuff but I did build one of their robots. I miss their kits.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>
>
> >
> > Mark there's a guy Mike --- sorry I forgot his last name that comes to
> the
> > contests that was an engineer for heathkit. He'll be at the Jim Hubbard
> > this weekend. I'll tell him you had a Heathkit he will get a kick out of
> > that. Mike
> >
> > --- On Mon, 6/22/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> >> To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'"
> >> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 12:13 PM
> >> The old heathkit servos (mine anyway)
> >> were kit versions of the Kraft K-15 servos.
> >>
> >> In fact the whole radio I believe was a Kraft design.
> >> -Mark
> >> --------------------------
> >> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Sent: Mon Jun 22 13:06:18 2009
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the problem, it
> >> depends on contact between two components and the friction
> >> wears them out.
> >>
> >> I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and possibly
> >> some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors for feedback.
> >> not much to wear.
> >>
> >> Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days" you were talking
> >> about? :-)
> >>
> >> Bob R.
> >>
> >>
> >> --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I remember from my days in control systems theory that the
> >> analog computers were faster and more accurate than the IBM
> >> big iron computers. Analog pots are still cheaper, lighter,
> >> and higher resolution than digital encoders ? as long as
> >> they are clean?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release
> >> Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release Date: 06/19/09
> 17:56:00
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090622/62911e26/attachment.html>

From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Mon Jun 22 12:41:15 2009
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:41:15 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <240023.68019.qm@web1101.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BB18109661AA4EF590251676B196FEF8@jaysdesktop>

Days? How about 35 years...

 

Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:06 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

 


Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the problem, it depends on contact
between two components and the friction wears them out.

 

I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and possibly some Kraft)
servos used variable capacitors for feedback. not much to wear.

 

Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days" you were talking about? :-)  

 

Bob R.



--- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:

 

I remember from my days in control systems theory that the analog computers
were faster and more accurate than the IBM big iron computers. Analog pots
are still cheaper, lighter, and higher resolution than digital encoders - as
long as they are clean.

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090622/18fad30f/attachment.html>

From jlkonn at hotmail.com  Mon Jun 22 12:43:52 2009
From: jlkonn at hotmail.com (John Konneker)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:43:52 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits
In-Reply-To: <c3f99b710906221324k407b3fdfy9c286550f8b6018f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E8779@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<938069816.7241781245700312376.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
	<c3f99b710906221324k407b3fdfy9c286550f8b6018f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BLU106-W184BDACC0CB44F0142DEBACD390@phx.gbl>


I found this "virtual" Heath museum:

http://www.heathkit-museum.com/

JLK
 


Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:24:19 -0700
From: shannah1806 at gmail.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits

My Dad is Bill Hannah, who used to be the VP of Engineering for Heath Company.  He was the one that introduced the RC equipment into the Heath lineup.  As a kid I built A LOT of Heathkits.  I learned how to debug all sorts of electronic problems and lead to my engineering career.  Of course, I learned to fly on Heathkit radios.  

Heath radios were a kit version of the Kraft radios.  They had some of their own designs in the later years as well.  

I believe the engineer you are talking about is Mike Geishin (SP?).  I'm not sure of his exact title when he was at Heath, but he was instrumental in their radio designs.  He flew with my Dad back in the day.

By the way, I still have the Heath stereo system I built when I was in high school.  It survived the endless torment I subjected it to in my college years.  Good stuff.

Steve Hannah.


On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:51 PM, <ronlock at comcast.net> wrote:




I'm still using a Heath ESV, one of the few that does single nicads.

Though, I have not found much use for the timing light for a while -  <VBG>

 

Ron Lockhart


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:37:44 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

Agree on missing the stores and the kits.  That was my introduction to Elec. Engineering and programming which has ended up putting a lot of food on my table over the past 20 years.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Pete Cosky
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:35 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

I used to live at the Heathkit store in Pittsburgh when I was a kid. Never 
used their RC stuff but I did build one of their robots. I miss their kits.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals


>
> Mark there's a guy Mike --- sorry I forgot his last name that comes to the 
> contests that was an engineer for heathkit. He'll be at the Jim Hubbard 
> this weekend. I'll tell him you had a Heathkit he will get a kick out of 
> that. Mike
>
> --- On Mon, 6/22/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>> To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'" 
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 12:13 PM
>> The old heathkit servos (mine anyway)
>> were kit versions of the Kraft K-15 servos.
>>
>> In fact the whole radio I believe was a Kraft design.
>> -Mark
>> --------------------------
>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Mon Jun 22 13:06:18 2009
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>>
>>
>> Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the problem, it
>> depends on contact between two components and the friction
>> wears them out.
>>
>> I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and possibly
>> some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors for feedback.
>> not much to wear.
>>
>> Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days" you were talking
>> about? :-)
>>
>> Bob R.
>>
>>
>> --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I remember from my days in control systems theory that the
>> analog computers were faster and more accurate than the IBM
>> big iron computers. Analog pots are still cheaper, lighter,
>> and higher resolution than digital encoders ? as long as
>> they are clean?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release
>> Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090622/b0287c27/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 22 12:59:50 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:59:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits
Message-ID: <619915.79641.qm@web51006.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 Steve your right it's Mike Gaishin. He still owns patents for Radio Control equipment. He is doing a pretty good job flying again too.
 I remember flying pattern with your Dad Bill and his buddy Andy who died tragically.
 Your father was a very nice man. Mike Mueller

--- On Mon, 6/22/09, steve hannah <shannah1806 at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: steve hannah <shannah1806 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 3:24 PM
> My Dad is Bill Hannah, who used to be
> the VP of Engineering for Heath Company.? He was the one
> that introduced the RC equipment into the Heath lineup.? As
> a kid I built A LOT of Heathkits.? I learned how to debug
> all sorts of electronic problems and lead to my engineering
> career.? Of course, I learned to fly on Heathkit radios.?
> 
> 
> 
> Heath radios were a kit version of the Kraft radios.? They
> had some of their own designs in the later years as well.?
> 
> 
> I believe the engineer you are talking about is Mike
> Geishin (SP?).? I'm not sure of his exact title when he
> was at Heath, but he was instrumental in their radio
> designs.? He flew with my Dad back in the day.
> 
> 
> By the way, I still have the Heath stereo system I built
> when I was in high school.? It survived the endless torment
> I subjected it to in my college years.? Good stuff.
> 
> Steve Hannah.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:51 PM,  <ronlock at comcast.net>
> wrote:
> 
> I'm still using a Heath ESV, one of the few that
> does single nicads.
> Though, I have not found much use for the timing light
> for a while -? <VBG>
> ?
> Ron Lockhart
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:37:44 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada
> Eastern
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> 
> Agree on missing the stores and the kits. ?That was my
> introduction to Elec. Engineering and programming which has
> ended up putting a lot of food on my table over the past 20
> years.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of Pete Cosky
> 
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:35 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> 
> I used to live at the Heathkit store in Pittsburgh when I
> was a kid. Never 
> used their RC stuff but I did build one of their robots. I
> miss their kits.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> 
> 
> >
> > Mark there's a guy Mike --- sorry I forgot his
> last name that comes to the 
> > contests that was an engineer for heathkit. He'll
> be at the Jim Hubbard 
> 
> > this weekend. I'll tell him you had a Heathkit he
> will get a kick out of 
> > that. Mike
> >
> > --- On Mon, 6/22/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> >> To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'"
> 
> 
> >> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 12:13 PM
> >> The old heathkit servos (mine anyway)
> 
> >> were kit versions of the Kraft K-15 servos.
> >>
> >> In fact the whole radio I believe was a Kraft
> design.
> >> -Mark
> >> --------------------------
> >> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> 
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> >> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Sent: Mon Jun 22 13:06:18 2009
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> 
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the
> problem, it
> >> depends on contact between two components and the
> friction
> >> wears them out.
> >>
> >> I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and
> possibly
> 
> >> some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors for
> feedback.
> >> not much to wear.
> >>
> >> Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days"
> you were talking
> >> about? :-)
> >>
> 
> >> Bob R.
> >>
> >>
> >> --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> 
> >> I remember from my days in control systems theory
> that the
> >> analog computers were faster and more accurate
> than the IBM
> >> big iron computers. Analog pots are still cheaper,
> lighter,
> >> and higher resolution than digital encoders ? as
> long as
> 
> >> they are clean?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> 
> >> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188
> - Release
> >> Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release
> Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      

From dkrev at shaw.ca  Mon Jun 22 13:32:42 2009
From: dkrev at shaw.ca (Dave Reaville)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:32:42 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Victoria BC Contest results
Message-ID: <A66EFDEEA2BE45B2B5E3C21C96620A5B@Dave007>

Hi folks

For those interested, I have updated the News and Results section of the website for the Victoria, BC contest held this past weekend

News.... http://members.shaw.ca/patternwestnews/rcnews.htm

Results & Pictures linked here... http://members.shaw.ca/patternwestnews/result09.htm

Thanks,

Dave Reaville
NSRCA I-VP Canada 
NSRCA 3156
MAAC 56510 
http://members.shaw.ca/patternwestnews/
http://patternwest.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090622/ff86c8b0/attachment.html>

From rob at koolsoft.com  Mon Jun 22 13:41:21 2009
From: rob at koolsoft.com (Robert L. Beaubien)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:41:21 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 3rd Annual Oakdale Pattern Contest
Message-ID: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB2019399FE@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>

Just a reminder to pre-register for the contest.  Weather looks like it
is going to be great for this one.

 

Flyer:  http://www.patternflying.net/NewsDetailPage.aspx?ID=48

 

Pre-Registration Form:
http://www.patternflying.net/TempRegistrationPage.aspx

 

Hope to see you there!

 

- Robert Beaubien

- NSRCA, District 7 Webmaster

-

"No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, however a large
number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced."

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090622/8473cbad/attachment.html>

From rdpee at juno.com  Mon Jun 22 13:50:21 2009
From: rdpee at juno.com (Ralph D Perillo)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:50:21 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] a few sale items left!
Message-ID: <20090622.174836.3908.1.rdpee@juno.com>

For Sale

                 Still For Sale 
1-   As Good As  New ( one tank run not flown )  excellent condition 3M
170
Engine with 3M Header, Hyde Type A Mount, 3M (Aeroslave) Carbon    
      Tuned Pipe.($900.00 Value)      Now     $350.00 for all!!!!!!!!!!
1-   Used Hyde YS 140 Type A Mt. excellent shape. $30.00
1-   New AAP Aluminum 120-160 Pipe  3/4"  $35.00

       Postage is not included!!!

      Will accept Paypal, Check, or Money orders.
Contact me off list
Ralph D Perillo  (rdpee at juno.com)
Buffalo,NY
____________________________________________________________
You're never too old to date. Senior Dating. Click Here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTQbQX8vOb9fqWe0mgKZQZeTW7bo0BcnKEzsvOTqZwBgX5CJWqqJAM/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090622/bd481a66/attachment.html>

From ed_alt at hotmail.com  Mon Jun 22 14:18:42 2009
From: ed_alt at hotmail.com (Ed Alt)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:18:42 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits
In-Reply-To: <c3f99b710906221324k407b3fdfy9c286550f8b6018f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E8779@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>	<938069816.7241781245700312376.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
	<c3f99b710906221324k407b3fdfy9c286550f8b6018f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY139-DAV4B03114B11DAC58AE3CD8E8390@phx.gbl>

I had a used GD-17 and also built a GDA-19 when I was 16.  The GD-17 had
Bonner sticks and had a large, 2 deck metal cased receiver that was fairly
heavy even by late 60's standards. Not too reliable because of intermittent
receiver problems, but the rest of it was fine.   I didn't think it was a
Kraft design, but maybe it was.  Servos were Kraft KPS-9 cases, with
electronics that I think were probably Kraft or very closely derived from
Kraft.  The RF section was apparently a Heathkit design, and as for the
encoder electronics, I always assumed it was influenced by Kraft, of was
designed for them by Kraft, but was not necessarily a direct copy.

 

The GD-19 was on 72 Mhz and had the closed gimbal Kraft sticks, with what
appeared to be a Heath RF section and encoder.  Again, maybe derived from or
done by Kraft?  The receiver was Heathkit designed and really kicked butt
for its day.  It was single conversion, with a ceramic filter IF amplifier
and If I remember right, it used a series of SCS (silicon controlled
switches) in the decoder.  It was very selective for a single conversion
receiver, and very sensitive too.  In fact, several of us who flew at
Mitchell Field in Hempstead, NY were able to fly in an interference
environment caused by a local UHF TV transmitter (right off the corner of
the runway) that was close enough and strong enough to make a servo
connected to just a battery jitter if you held it up and moved it around a
little bit.  Kraft was sending engineers out to Mitchell to figure out why
their Series 7x stuff was crashing, while the Heathkits were impervious.
(Other brands had trouble too).  Several of us even demonstrated that we
could fly with the antenna up only one stage (obviously we only did this at
a safe altitude and with a helper ready to extend it if control was lost).
Heck of a radio for 1971.  

 

They eventually came out with some really nice IC based servos in the
KPS-11, KPS-12 and I suppose other Kraft cases.  I never built any of their
later radios, but a lot of local guys did and they just worked great.  I
miss those days.

 

Ed

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of steve hannah
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 4:24 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits

 

My Dad is Bill Hannah, who used to be the VP of Engineering for Heath
Company.  He was the one that introduced the RC equipment into the Heath
lineup.  As a kid I built A LOT of Heathkits.  I learned how to debug all
sorts of electronic problems and lead to my engineering career.  Of course,
I learned to fly on Heathkit radios.  

Heath radios were a kit version of the Kraft radios.  They had some of their
own designs in the later years as well.  

I believe the engineer you are talking about is Mike Geishin (SP?).  I'm not
sure of his exact title when he was at Heath, but he was instrumental in
their radio designs.  He flew with my Dad back in the day.

By the way, I still have the Heath stereo system I built when I was in high
school.  It survived the endless torment I subjected it to in my college
years.  Good stuff.

Steve Hannah.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:51 PM, <ronlock at comcast.net> wrote:

I'm still using a Heath ESV, one of the few that does single nicads.

Though, I have not found much use for the timing light for a while -  <VBG>

 

Ron Lockhart


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:37:44 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

Agree on missing the stores and the kits.  That was my introduction to Elec.
Engineering and programming which has ended up putting a lot of food on my
table over the past 20 years.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Pete Cosky
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:35 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

I used to live at the Heathkit store in Pittsburgh when I was a kid. Never 
used their RC stuff but I did build one of their robots. I miss their kits.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals


>
> Mark there's a guy Mike --- sorry I forgot his last name that comes to the

> contests that was an engineer for heathkit. He'll be at the Jim Hubbard 
> this weekend. I'll tell him you had a Heathkit he will get a kick out of 
> that. Mike
>
> --- On Mon, 6/22/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>> To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'" 
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 12:13 PM
>> The old heathkit servos (mine anyway)
>> were kit versions of the Kraft K-15 servos.
>>
>> In fact the whole radio I believe was a Kraft design.
>> -Mark
>> --------------------------
>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Mon Jun 22 13:06:18 2009
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>>
>>
>> Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the problem, it
>> depends on contact between two components and the friction
>> wears them out.
>>
>> I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and possibly
>> some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors for feedback.
>> not much to wear.
>>
>> Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days" you were talking
>> about? :-)
>>
>> Bob R.
>>
>>
>> --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I remember from my days in control systems theory that the
>> analog computers were faster and more accurate than the IBM
>> big iron computers. Analog pots are still cheaper, lighter,
>> and higher resolution than digital encoders - as long as
>> they are clean.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release
>> Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release Date: 06/19/09
17:56:00
_______________________________________________
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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090622/8a076c4f/attachment.html>

From ed_alt at hotmail.com  Mon Jun 22 14:24:22 2009
From: ed_alt at hotmail.com (Ed Alt)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:24:22 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <240023.68019.qm@web1101.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
References: <240023.68019.qm@web1101.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY139-DAV18CFB2D144010D212999FE8390@phx.gbl>

The Kraft  KPS-9 servo that Kraft sold with the Gold Medal radios had the variable cap.  Not sure about what may have come before it.   This was the same servo mechanics that Heathkit sold with the GD-17 and GD-19 (eventually replaced by the KPS-11 and KPS-12 servo mechanics on the GD-19).  Still have a box full of KPS-9?s from the Heathkits and they mostly work.  All the later Kraft servos used a carbon element pot.

 

Ed

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:06 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

 


Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the problem, it depends on contact between two components and the friction wears them out.

 

I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and possibly some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors for feedback. not much to wear.

 

Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days" you were talking about? :-)  

 

Bob R.



--- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:

 

I remember from my days in control systems theory that the analog computers were faster and more accurate than the IBM big iron computers. Analog pots are still cheaper, lighter, and higher resolution than digital encoders ? as long as they are clean?

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090622/9eab4f92/attachment.html>

From derekkoopowitz at gmail.com  Mon Jun 22 14:49:06 2009
From: derekkoopowitz at gmail.com (Derek Koopowitz)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:49:06 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] BARCS Contest Rescheduled to August 1st and 2nd
	in D7 - Northern California
Message-ID: <3454543c0906221549l1ee21aebv6f69f7169f794b01@mail.gmail.com>

Everyone,

The BARCS contest was rained out over the May 2nd and 3rd weekend.  We've
rescheduled the contest and it will be held at the BARCS field the weekend
of August 1st and 2nd.  I will send out a flyer shortly to the list.  We had
a huge 2 1/2 month gap in our contests in the northern part of D7 and with
the rescheduling there will only be a 1 1/2 month gap now.

The Oakdale contest is this coming weekend followed by BARCS one month later
and then the Hollister contest in mid-September.

See you at all three contests!

-Derek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090622/e83b0ad0/attachment.html>

From jferrell13 at triad.rr.com  Mon Jun 22 15:12:01 2009
From: jferrell13 at triad.rr.com (John Ferrell)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:12:01 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits
References: <938069816.7241781245700312376.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <C46DF9A2FF4046D6AEAA3C4BF34259BF@xppro2>

Hang onto the timing light! Some day you will want to work on a small engine for a mower, generator or similar. It takes an old fashioned timing light...

John Ferrell  W8CCW
 
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."
-Barry Goldwater
"You don't get harmony when everybody sings the same note."
-Doug Floyd

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: ronlock at comcast.net 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:51 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits


  I'm still using a Heath ESV, one of the few that does single nicads.

  Though, I have not found much use for the timing light for a while -  <VBG>



  Ron Lockhart


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
  To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:37:44 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

  Agree on missing the stores and the kits.  That was my introduction to Elec. Engineering and programming which has ended up putting a lot of food on my table over the past 20 years.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Pete Cosky
  Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:35 PM
  To: General pattern discussion
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

  I used to live at the Heathkit store in Pittsburgh when I was a kid. Never 
  used their RC stuff but I did build one of their robots. I miss their kits.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
  To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:31 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals


  >
  > Mark there's a guy Mike --- sorry I forgot his last name that comes to the 
  > contests that was an engineer for heathkit. He'll be at the Jim Hubbard 
  > this weekend. I'll tell him you had a Heathkit he will get a kick out of 
  > that. Mike
  >
  > --- On Mon, 6/22/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
  >
  >> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
  >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
  >> To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'" 
  >> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  >> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 12:13 PM
  >> The old heathkit servos (mine anyway)
  >> were kit versions of the Kraft K-15 servos.
  >>
  >> In fact the whole radio I believe was a Kraft design.
  >> -Mark
  >> --------------------------
  >> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
  >>
  >>
  >> ----- Original Message -----
  >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
  >> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
  >> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  >> Sent: Mon Jun 22 13:06:18 2009
  >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
  >>
  >>
  >> Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the problem, it
  >> depends on contact between two components and the friction
  >> wears them out.
  >>
  >> I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and possibly
  >> some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors for feedback.
  >> not much to wear.
  >>
  >> Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days" you were talking
  >> about? :-)
  >>
  >> Bob R.
  >>
  >>
  >> --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
  >> wrote:
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> I remember from my days in control systems theory that the
  >> analog computers were faster and more accurate than the IBM
  >> big iron computers. Analog pots are still cheaper, lighter,
  >> and higher resolution than digital encoders ? as long as
  >> they are clean?
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> No virus found in this incoming message.
  >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  >> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release
  >> Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
  >>
  >>
  >> _______________________________________________
  >> 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 - www.avg.com 
  Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
  _______________________________________________
  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090622/a5237569/attachment.html>

From tocdon at netscape.net  Mon Jun 22 19:08:53 2009
From: tocdon at netscape.net (tocdon at netscape.net)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:08:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Cute
In-Reply-To: <C46DF9A2FF4046D6AEAA3C4BF34259BF@xppro2>
References: <938069816.7241781245700312376.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
	<C46DF9A2FF4046D6AEAA3C4BF34259BF@xppro2>
Message-ID: <8CBC1C70B0AB8F8-AE4-FEB@webmail-da21.sysops.aol.com>


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7s57Me44GQ&feature=channel_page

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090623/61ef4bda/attachment.html>

From cjm767driver at hotmail.com  Mon Jun 22 19:25:02 2009
From: cjm767driver at hotmail.com (Chris Moon)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:25:02 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Cute
In-Reply-To: <8CBC1C70B0AB8F8-AE4-FEB@webmail-da21.sysops.aol.com>
References: <938069816.7241781245700312376.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>	<C46DF9A2FF4046D6AEAA3C4BF34259BF@xppro2>
	<8CBC1C70B0AB8F8-AE4-FEB@webmail-da21.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <BLU137-DAV49442616025AE384AA12C83360@phx.gbl>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090623/ca48a596/attachment.html>

From joddino at socal.rr.com  Mon Jun 22 21:12:27 2009
From: joddino at socal.rr.com (James Oddino)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:12:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <102741.55611.qm@web1108.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
References: <102741.55611.qm@web1108.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9B5B4736-9722-4E22-AFA0-0C1AD43EA353@socal.rr.com>

What do they say in the Capital 1 commercials, not literally?   
Transmitters communicate with receivers digitally in PCM mode and  
analog in PPM mode.  Receivers communicate with servos analogy (?)  
with PWM.  The servos are analog.

Jim O


On Jun 20, 2009, at 7:23 PM, Bob Richards wrote:

> --- On Sat, 6/20/09, Richard Lewis <humptybump at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> And....Interestingly enough.....It does not matter what kind of  
> fancy whopping digital super latest and greatest TX/RX system you  
> have, the signals to the servos are still firmly rooted in good old  
> 1970's technology....:)  And...Your super whopper digital brushless  
> whatever servo still has an analog pot for position feedback....:)
>
> I for one am eager to see a leap in servo  
> technology.....Bidirectional serial comms to the servos with the  
> servo being able to feed back torque, amps, position, rate,  
> etc.....and encoder/resolver position feedback in the servos to  
> really catch up with the world we live in......
>
> Amen to that. We have digital servos and digital receivers, yet they  
> talk to each other via an analog method and use analog feedback.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090623/05f90247/attachment.html>

From vicenterc at comcast.net  Tue Jun 23 04:03:04 2009
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:03:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <9B5B4736-9722-4E22-AFA0-0C1AD43EA353@socal.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1403864956.7271591245758581380.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>



Jim, 



I don't know anything about electronics.? I am sure that the following question if very simple for you:? Why the digital servos are called digital? 



Thanks, 



Vicente "Vince" Bortone 




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:12:23 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals 

What do they say in the Capital 1 commercials, not literally? ?Transmitters communicate with receivers digitally in PCM mode and analog in PPM mode. ?Receivers communicate with servos analogy (?) with PWM. ?The servos are analog. 


Jim O 





On Jun 20, 2009, at 7:23 PM, Bob Richards wrote: 



--- On ? Sat, 6/20/09, Richard Lewis ? < humptybump at sbcglobal.net > ? wrote: 






And....Interestingly enough.....It does not matter what kind of fancy whopping digital super latest and greatest TX/RX system you have, the signals to the servos are still firmly rooted in good old 1970's technology....:)? And...Your super whopper digital brushless whatever servo still has an analog pot for position feedback....:) 

I for one am eager to see a leap in servo technology.....Bidirectional serial?comms to the servos with the servo being able to feed back torque, amps, position, rate, etc.....and encoder/resolver position feedback in the servos to really?catch up with the world we live?in...... 

Amen to that. We have digital servos and?digital receivers, yet they talk to each other via an analog method and use analog feedback. 
_______________________________________________ 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090623/dafe5d8a/attachment.html>

From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Tue Jun 23 04:18:37 2009
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:18:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <1403864956.7271591245758581380.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <0228D172F39A4C2F99A11BCEE018FC49@jaysdesktop>

Because they use a digital processor, rather than an analog processor, in
the electronics. This allows easy tailoring of the control system parameters
even to the extent of different performing servos to have the same hardware
inside.

 

Is this too much information?

 

Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Vicente
"Vince" Bortone
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:03 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

 

Jim,

 

I don't know anything about electronics.  I am sure that the following
question if very simple for you:  Why the digital servos are called digital?

 

Thanks,

 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone

 


----- Original Message -----
From: "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:12:23 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

What do they say in the Capital 1 commercials, not literally?  Transmitters
communicate with receivers digitally in PCM mode and analog in PPM mode.
Receivers communicate with servos analogy (?) with PWM.  The servos are
analog.

 

Jim O

 

 

On Jun 20, 2009, at 7:23 PM, Bob Richards wrote:

 


--- On Sat, 6/20/09, Richard Lewis <humptybump at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

 

And....Interestingly enough.....It does not matter what kind of fancy
whopping digital super latest and greatest TX/RX system you have, the
signals to the servos are still firmly rooted in good old 1970's
technology....:)  And...Your super whopper digital brushless whatever servo
still has an analog pot for position feedback....:)

 

I for one am eager to see a leap in servo technology.....Bidirectional
serial comms to the servos with the servo being able to feed back torque,
amps, position, rate, etc.....and encoder/resolver position feedback in the
servos to really catch up with the world we live in......

 

Amen to that. We have digital servos and digital receivers, yet they talk to
each other via an analog method and use analog feedback.

 

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090623/edbe9480/attachment.html>

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 23 04:27:38 2009
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:27:38 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E8778@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
References: <419438.7771.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E8778@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
Message-ID: <425956.33097.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Loved the catalog.  That one and Lafayette.

 Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com



----- Original Message ----
From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:36:15 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

Awesome!  I was a Heathkit addict in my youth.  Use to spend hours upon hours in the store until I finally worked there for a while.

Built everything from my stereo, Tv, and a variety of other stuff...and then I saw the RC transmitter, and it was the last Heathkit I built.  I apparently got addicted to another hobby :)

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of mike mueller
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:32 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals


Mark there's a guy Mike --- sorry I forgot his last name that comes to the contests that was an engineer for heathkit. He'll be at the Jim Hubbard this weekend. I'll tell him you had a Heathkit he will get a kick out of that. Mike

--- On Mon, 6/22/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 12:13 PM
> The old heathkit servos (mine anyway)
> were kit versions of the Kraft K-15 servos. 
> 
> In fact the whole radio I believe was a Kraft design. 
> -Mark 
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Mon Jun 22 13:06:18 2009
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> 
> 
> Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the problem, it
> depends on contact between two components and the friction
> wears them out.
>  
> I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and possibly
> some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors for feedback.
> not much to wear.
>  
> Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days" you were talking
> about? :-)  
>  
> Bob R.
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember from my days in control systems theory that the
> analog computers were faster and more accurate than the IBM
> big iron computers. Analog pots are still cheaper, lighter,
> and higher resolution than digital encoders ? as long as
> they are clean?
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release
> Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
> 
>   
> _______________________________________________
> 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 - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      

From humptybump at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun 23 04:37:59 2009
From: humptybump at sbcglobal.net (Richard Lewis)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:37:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <1403864956.7271591245758581380.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1403864956.7271591245758581380.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <970198.70604.qm@web80506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

The time between the pulses in the PPM signal from the RX to the servo is?measured and turned into digital data that is fed to a microprocessor (comand position).? The analog pot signal is also sampled and turned into digital data that is fed to the microprocessor (feedback position).? The processor does the math required to produce a command to the amplifier that drives the motor to reduce the error between the command position and the feedback position.

Richard




________________________________
From: "Vicente "Vince" Bortone" <vicenterc at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:03:01 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals


Jim,
?
I don't know anything about electronics.? I am sure that the following question if very simple for you:? Why the digital servos are called digital?
?
Thanks,
?
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
?

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:12:23 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

What do they say in the Capital 1 commercials, not literally? ?Transmitters communicate with receivers digitally in PCM mode and analog in PPM mode. ?Receivers communicate with servos analogy (?) with PWM. ?The servos are analog.

Jim O



On Jun 20, 2009, at 7:23 PM, Bob Richards wrote:

--- On?Sat, 6/20/09, Richard Lewis?<humptybump at sbcglobal.net>?wrote:




And....Interestingly enough.....It does not matter what kind of fancy whopping digital super latest and greatest TX/RX system you have, the signals to the servos are still firmly rooted in good old 1970's technology....:)? And...Your super whopper digital brushless whatever servo still has an analog pot for position feedback....:)

I for one am eager to see a leap in servo technology.....Bidirectional serial?comms to the servos with the servo being able to feed back torque, amps, position, rate, etc.....and encoder/resolver position feedback in the servos to really?catch up with the world we live?in......

Amen to that. We have digital servos and?digital receivers, yet they talk to each other via an analog method and use analog feedback.
 _______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090623/6b961058/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Tue Jun 23 04:58:53 2009
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:58:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits
Message-ID: <719888.91911.qm@web1104.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

The club where I first learned to fly RC in the early 70s was started by a handful of guys that had mostly Heath GD-19 setups. One guy had one transmitter and several receivers - one of the only guys I knew at the time that could bring multiple planes to the field.
?
I never built a Heathkit radio, but a few years later I did build an Ace Silver Seven from a kit. It worked! (Still does). I decided electronics was something I could do for a living.
?
Bob R.


--- On Mon, 6/22/09, Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com> wrote:


From: Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 7:19 PM








I had a used GD-17 and also built a GDA-19 when I was 16.? The GD-17 had Bonner sticks and had a large, 2 deck metal cased receiver that was fairly heavy even by late 60?s standards. Not too reliable because of intermittent receiver problems, but the rest of it was fine.? ?I didn?t think it was a Kraft design, but maybe it was.? Servos were Kraft KPS-9 cases, with electronics that I think were probably Kraft or very closely derived from Kraft.? The RF section was apparently a Heathkit design, and as for the encoder electronics, I always assumed it was influenced by Kraft, of was designed for them by Kraft, but was not necessarily a direct copy.
?
The GD-19 was on 72 Mhz and had the closed gimbal Kraft sticks, with what appeared to be a Heath RF section and encoder.? Again, maybe derived from or done by Kraft?? The receiver was Heathkit designed and really kicked butt for its day.? It was single conversion, with a ceramic filter IF amplifier and If I remember right, it used a series of SCS (silicon controlled switches) in the decoder.? It was very selective for a single conversion receiver, and very sensitive too.? In fact, several of us who flew at Mitchell Field in Hempstead, NY were able to fly in an interference environment caused by a local UHF TV transmitter (right off the corner of the runway) that was close enough and strong enough to make a servo connected to just a battery jitter if you held it up and moved it around a little bit.? Kraft was sending engineers out to Mitchell to figure out why their Series 7x stuff was crashing, while the Heathkits were impervious.? (Other brands
 had trouble too).? Several of us even demonstrated that we could fly with the antenna up only one stage (obviously we only did this at a safe altitude and with a helper ready to extend it if control was lost).? Heck of a radio for 1971.? 
?
They eventually came out with some really nice IC based servos in the KPS-11, KPS-12 and I suppose other Kraft cases.? I never built any of their later radios, but a lot of local guys did and they just worked great.? I miss those days.
?
Ed
?

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of steve hannah
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 4:24 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits
?
My Dad is Bill Hannah, who used to be the VP of Engineering for Heath Company.? He was the one that introduced the RC equipment into the Heath lineup.? As a kid I built A LOT of Heathkits.? I learned how to debug all sorts of electronic problems and lead to my engineering career.? Of course, I learned to fly on Heathkit radios.? 

Heath radios were a kit version of the Kraft radios.? They had some of their own designs in the later years as well.? 

I believe the engineer you are talking about is Mike Geishin (SP?).? I'm not sure of his exact title when he was at Heath, but he was instrumental in their radio designs.? He flew with my Dad back in the day.

By the way, I still have the Heath stereo system I built when I was in high school.? It survived the endless torment I subjected it to in my college years.? Good stuff.

Steve Hannah.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:51 PM, <ronlock at comcast.net> wrote:


I'm still using a Heath ESV, one of the few that does single nicads.
Though, I have not found much use for the timing light for a while -? <VBG>
?
Ron Lockhart


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:37:44 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

Agree on missing the stores and the kits. ?That was my introduction to Elec. Engineering and programming which has ended up putting a lot of food on my table over the past 20 years.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Pete Cosky
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:35 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

I used to live at the Heathkit store in Pittsburgh when I was a kid. Never 
used their RC stuff but I did build one of their robots. I miss their kits.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals


>
> Mark there's a guy Mike --- sorry I forgot his last name that comes to the 
> contests that was an engineer for heathkit. He'll be at the Jim Hubbard 
> this weekend. I'll tell him you had a Heathkit he will get a kick out of 
> that. Mike
>
> --- On Mon, 6/22/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>> To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'" 
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 12:13 PM
>> The old heathkit servos (mine anyway)
>> were kit versions of the Kraft K-15 servos.
>>
>> In fact the whole radio I believe was a Kraft design.
>> -Mark
>> --------------------------
>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Mon Jun 22 13:06:18 2009
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>>
>>
>> Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the problem, it
>> depends on contact between two components and the friction
>> wears them out.
>>
>> I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and possibly
>> some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors for feedback.
>> not much to wear.
>>
>> Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days" you were talking
>> about? :-)
>>
>> Bob R.
>>
>>
>> --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I remember from my days in control systems theory that the
>> analog computers were faster and more accurate than the IBM
>> big iron computers. Analog pots are still cheaper, lighter,
>> and higher resolution than digital encoders ? as long as
>> they are clean?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release
>> Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
_______________________________________________
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
?
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090623/00af7861/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Tue Jun 23 05:00:53 2009
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:00:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits
Message-ID: <987265.10113.qm@web1108.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

I occasionally have used my old timing light just to see that I am getting a spark with a small engine.

--- On Mon, 6/22/09, John Ferrell <jferrell13 at triad.rr.com> wrote:


From: John Ferrell <jferrell13 at triad.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 8:15 PM


? 
#yiv1027977715 P {
MARGIN:0px;}


Hang onto the timing light! Some day you will want to work on a small engine for a mower, generator or similar. It takes an old fashioned timing light...
?
John Ferrell? W8CCW
?
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."
-Barry Goldwater
"You don't get harmony when everybody sings the same note."
-Doug Floyd


----- Original Message ----- 
From: ronlock at comcast.net 
To: General pattern discussion 
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits



I'm still using a Heath ESV, one of the few that does single nicads.
Though, I have not found much use for the timing light for a while -? <VBG>
?
Ron Lockhart


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:37:44 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

Agree on missing the stores and the kits. ?That was my introduction to Elec. Engineering and programming which has ended up putting a lot of food on my table over the past 20 years.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Pete Cosky
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:35 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

I used to live at the Heathkit store in Pittsburgh when I was a kid. Never 
used their RC stuff but I did build one of their robots. I miss their kits.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals


>
> Mark there's a guy Mike --- sorry I forgot his last name that comes to the 
> contests that was an engineer for heathkit. He'll be at the Jim Hubbard 
> this weekend. I'll tell him you had a Heathkit he will get a kick out of 
> that. Mike
>
> --- On Mon, 6/22/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>> To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'" 
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 12:13 PM
>> The old heathkit servos (mine anyway)
>> were kit versions of the Kraft K-15 servos.
>>
>> In fact the whole radio I believe was a Kraft design.
>> -Mark
>> --------------------------
>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Mon Jun 22 13:06:18 2009
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>>
>>
>> Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the problem, it
>> depends on contact between two components and the friction
>> wears them out.
>>
>> I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and possibly
>> some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors for feedback.
>> not much to wear.
>>
>> Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days" you were talking
>> about? :-)
>>
>> Bob R.
>>
>>
>> --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I remember from my days in control systems theory that the
>> analog computers were faster and more accurate than the IBM
>> big iron computers. Analog pots are still cheaper, lighter,
>> and higher resolution than digital encoders ? as long as
>> they are clean?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release
>> Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
_______________________________________________
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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090623/0002c0d9/attachment.html>

From vanputte at cox.net  Tue Jun 23 05:11:13 2009
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:11:13 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <425956.33097.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <419438.7771.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E8778@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<425956.33097.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C8DDE3AC-197A-4B28-A58C-181025C91B44@cox.net>

Yeah and I used to do mail order with a little company out on Long  
Island.  I think it was called Radio Shack.

Ron

On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:27 AM, Bob Kane wrote:

>
> Loved the catalog.  That one and Lafayette.
>
>  Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:36:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>
> Awesome!  I was a Heathkit addict in my youth.  Use to spend hours  
> upon hours in the store until I finally worked there for a while.
>
> Built everything from my stereo, Tv, and a variety of other  
> stuff...and then I saw the RC transmitter, and it was the last  
> Heathkit I built.  I apparently got addicted to another hobby :)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of mike mueller
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:32 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>
>
> Mark there's a guy Mike --- sorry I forgot his last name that comes  
> to the contests that was an engineer for heathkit. He'll be at the  
> Jim Hubbard this weekend. I'll tell him you had a Heathkit he will  
> get a kick out of that. Mike
>
> --- On Mon, 6/22/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>> To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'" <nsrca- 
>> discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 12:13 PM
>> The old heathkit servos (mine anyway)
>> were kit versions of the Kraft K-15 servos.
>>
>> In fact the whole radio I believe was a Kraft design.
>> -Mark
>> --------------------------
>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Mon Jun 22 13:06:18 2009
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>>
>>
>> Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the problem, it
>> depends on contact between two components and the friction
>> wears them out.
>>
>> I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and possibly
>> some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors for feedback.
>> not much to wear.
>>
>> Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days" you were talking
>> about? :-)
>>
>> Bob R.
>>
>>
>> --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I remember from my days in control systems theory that the
>> analog computers were faster and more accurate than the IBM
>> big iron computers. Analog pots are still cheaper, lighter,
>> and higher resolution than digital encoders ? as long as
>> they are clean?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release
>> Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release Date:  
> 06/19/09 17:56:00
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From vicenterc at comcast.net  Tue Jun 23 05:17:39 2009
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:17:39 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <0228D172F39A4C2F99A11BCEE018FC49@jaysdesktop>
Message-ID: <541437901.7290641245763058897.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>



No, that is good information.?It is nice to know how works. 



Thanks, 



VB? 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jay Marshall" <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:18:16 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals 




Because they use a digital processor, rather than an analog processor, in the electronics. This allows easy tailoring of the control system parameters even to the extent of different performing servos to have the same hardware inside. 



Is this too much information? 




Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message----- 
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Vicente "Vince" Bortone 
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:03 AM 
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals 




Jim, 



I don't know anything about electronics.? I am sure that the following question if very simple for you:? Why the digital servos are called digital? 



Thanks, 



Vicente "Vince" Bortone 




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:12:23 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals 

What do they say in the Capital 1 commercials, not literally? ?Transmitters communicate with receivers digitally in PCM mode and analog in PPM mode. ?Receivers communicate with servos analogy (?) with PWM. ?The servos are analog. 





Jim O 









On Jun 20, 2009, at 7:23 PM, Bob Richards wrote: 






--- On ? Sat, 6/20/09, Richard Lewis ? < humptybump at sbcglobal.net > ? wrote: 





And....Interestingly enough.....It does not matter what kind of fancy whopping digital super latest and greatest TX/RX system you have, the signals to the servos are still firmly rooted in good old 1970's technology....:)? And...Your super whopper digital brushless whatever servo still has an analog pot for position feedback....:) 





I for one am eager to see a leap in servo technology.....Bidirectional serial?comms to the servos with the servo being able to feed back torque, amps, position, rate, etc.....and encoder/resolver position feedback in the servos to really?catch up with the world we live?in...... 





Amen to that. We have digital servos and?digital receivers, yet they talk to each other via an analog method and use analog feedback. 








And....Interestingly enough.....It does not matter what kind of fancy whopping digital super latest and greatest TX/RX system you have, the signals to the servos are still firmly rooted in good old 1970's technology....:)? And...Your super whopper digital brushless whatever servo still has an analog pot for position feedback....:) 





I for one am eager to see a leap in servo technology.....Bidirectional serial?comms to the servos with the servo being able to feed back torque, amps, position, rate, etc.....and encoder/resolver position feedback in the servos to really?catch up with the world we live?in...... 





Amen to that. We have digital servos and?digital receivers, yet they talk to each other via an analog method and use analog feedback. 




_______________________________________________ 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090623/5aa7e8c7/attachment.html>

From deanfunk1 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 23 05:33:11 2009
From: deanfunk1 at yahoo.com (Dean Funk)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:33:11 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] FIRE SALE !!!!  :)
Message-ID: <567975.14439.qm@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


YS 160 NIB - 1/2 tank bench run only $475

YS 160 Used Excellent - 1 gallon of fuel since fresh rebuild, new everything $400

YS 140L Used Excellent - 3 gallons fuel, great runner $325.00

ES Carbon Pipe for YS 160-170 NIB - ESD4C160C7 $140

NIB OS 61 RF Pumper + OS Header $250

NIB Webra LS 61 ABC with Dynamix  + webra header  and Macs pipe $250


please contact me off list 


      

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Tue Jun 23 06:51:38 2009
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:51:38 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] CC problems/warning
Message-ID: <BAY128-W100680789E82CB4D4BA20FA0360@phx.gbl>


I got nailed for almost 1400.00 4/28/09 from the Apple Online Store in CA fraudulently--and somehow they (evil doers) managed to change my address and personal information.  Since many of us use the same places and Paypal, you might consider checking your CC account(s).  I had several purchases and a couple returns that I wanted to verify were correct and was looking for the statement.  Last month was screwed up due to a family injury and didn't think about it much, but with things settled down now, I was looking for it and it never came--called 'em and found the problems. They're going to eat it, but this is the third time in as many years I've had to get this thing reissued.

 

Be vigilant,

 

Richard

_________________________________________________________________
Microsoft brings you a new way to search the web.  Try  Bing? now
http://www.bing.com?form=MFEHPG&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MFEHPG_Core_tagline_try_bing_1x1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090623/55339735/attachment.html>

From tretas513 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 23 07:54:06 2009
From: tretas513 at yahoo.com (Tommy Scarmardo)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:54:06 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] CC problems/warning
Message-ID: <486612.56949.qm@web111512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Richard,
I don't know if the rest of the country is the same but here in Houston my
banker informed me the time limit to do something about bank and credit card
fraud is 90 days and 15 days for checks !!
?
tommy s

--- On Tue, 6/23/09, Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote:


From: Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] CC problems/warning
To: "NSRCA DISCUSSION" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 9:51 AM




#yiv1797441239 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv1797441239 {
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

I got nailed for almost 1400.00 4/28/09 from the Apple Online Store in CA fraudulently--and somehow they (evil doers)?managed to change my address and personal information.? Since many of us?use the same places and Paypal, you might consider checking your CC account(s).? I had several purchases and a couple returns that I wanted to verify were correct and was looking for the statement.? Last month was screwed up due to a family injury and didn't think about it much, but with things settled down now, I was looking for it and it never came--called 'em and found the problems. They're going to eat it, but this is the third time in as many years I've had to get this thing reissued.
?
Be vigilant,
?
Richard



Microsoft brings you a new way to search the web. Try Bing? now 
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090623/ba045140/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Tue Jun 23 08:14:05 2009
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:14:05 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] CC problems/warning
In-Reply-To: <486612.56949.qm@web111512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <486612.56949.qm@web111512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W201E3A0B152937C0D10351A0360@phx.gbl>


I would have normally caught it a month ago, but Pam broke her ankle last month and the missing statement just didn't register--but I knew I had some big hits coming (batteries and receivers) and was on the lookout for it.  In these tough times, my business is pretty much running on the strength
of my personal credit--so I get nervous when anything may even remotely affect it.  

Thanks, Tommy,

 

Richard


Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:54:04 -0700
From: tretas513 at yahoo.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] CC problems/warning






Richard,
I don't know if the rest of the country is the same but here in Houston my
banker informed me the time limit to do something about bank and credit card
fraud is 90 days and 15 days for checks !!
 
tommy s

--- On Tue, 6/23/09, Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote:


From: Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] CC problems/warning
To: "NSRCA DISCUSSION" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 9:51 AM




I got nailed for almost 1400.00 4/28/09 from the Apple Online Store in CA fraudulently--and somehow they (evil doers) managed to change my address and personal information.  Since many of us use the same places and Paypal, you might consider checking your CC account(s).  I had several purchases and a couple returns that I wanted to verify were correct and was looking for the statement.  Last month was screwed up due to a family injury and didn't think about it much, but with things settled down now, I was looking for it and it never came--called 'em and found the problems. They're going to eat it, but this is the third time in as many years I've had to get this thing reissued.
 
Be vigilant,
 
Richard



Microsoft brings you a new way to search the web. Try Bing? now 
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_________________________________________________________________
Microsoft brings you a new way to search the web.  Try  Bing? now
http://www.bing.com?form=MFEHPG&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MFEHPG_Core_tagline_try_bing_1x1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090623/f3e2a6b3/attachment.html>

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 23 08:59:30 2009
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:59:30 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Pica Gluit
Message-ID: <840026.43672.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Does anyone make a product similar to Pica Gluit?  My old bottle is almost dried up.  Thanks.

 Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com



      

From shannah1806 at gmail.com  Tue Jun 23 10:19:17 2009
From: shannah1806 at gmail.com (steve hannah)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:19:17 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits
In-Reply-To: <619915.79641.qm@web51006.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <619915.79641.qm@web51006.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c3f99b710906231119l44ed361fp1b3607ebd8df62ab@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Mike,
I'll let my Dad know that you remember flying with him.  I remember going to
a couple contests with him (long before I was flying competitively) and how
he commented about your flying skills.  I think it was somthing like "Darn
Kids!!".  I'm sure he'll get a kick out of this.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:59 PM, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>  Steve your right it's Mike Gaishin. He still owns patents for Radio
> Control equipment. He is doing a pretty good job flying again too.
>  I remember flying pattern with your Dad Bill and his buddy Andy who died
> tragically.
>  Your father was a very nice man. Mike Mueller
>
> --- On Mon, 6/22/09, steve hannah <shannah1806 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: steve hannah <shannah1806 at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 3:24 PM
> > My Dad is Bill Hannah, who used to be
> > the VP of Engineering for Heath Company.  He was the one
> > that introduced the RC equipment into the Heath lineup.  As
> > a kid I built A LOT of Heathkits.  I learned how to debug
> > all sorts of electronic problems and lead to my engineering
> > career.  Of course, I learned to fly on Heathkit radios.
> >
> >
> >
> > Heath radios were a kit version of the Kraft radios.  They
> > had some of their own designs in the later years as well.
> >
> >
> > I believe the engineer you are talking about is Mike
> > Geishin (SP?).  I'm not sure of his exact title when he
> > was at Heath, but he was instrumental in their radio
> > designs.  He flew with my Dad back in the day.
> >
> >
> > By the way, I still have the Heath stereo system I built
> > when I was in high school.  It survived the endless torment
> > I subjected it to in my college years.  Good stuff.
> >
> > Steve Hannah.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:51 PM,  <ronlock at comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > I'm still using a Heath ESV, one of the few that
> > does single nicads.
> > Though, I have not found much use for the timing light
> > for a while -  <VBG>
> >
> > Ron Lockhart
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >
> > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:37:44 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada
> > Eastern
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> >
> > Agree on missing the stores and the kits.  That was my
> > introduction to Elec. Engineering and programming which has
> > ended up putting a lot of food on my table over the past 20
> > years.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> > On Behalf Of Pete Cosky
> >
> > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:35 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> >
> > I used to live at the Heathkit store in Pittsburgh when I
> > was a kid. Never
> > used their RC stuff but I did build one of their robots. I
> > miss their kits.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >
> > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Mark there's a guy Mike --- sorry I forgot his
> > last name that comes to the
> > > contests that was an engineer for heathkit. He'll
> > be at the Jim Hubbard
> >
> > > this weekend. I'll tell him you had a Heathkit he
> > will get a kick out of
> > > that. Mike
> > >
> > > --- On Mon, 6/22/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> > >> To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'"
> >
> >
> > >> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 12:13 PM
> > >> The old heathkit servos (mine anyway)
> >
> > >> were kit versions of the Kraft K-15 servos.
> > >>
> > >> In fact the whole radio I believe was a Kraft
> > design.
> > >> -Mark
> > >> --------------------------
> > >> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > >> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> >
> > >> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >> Sent: Mon Jun 22 13:06:18 2009
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the
> > problem, it
> > >> depends on contact between two components and the
> > friction
> > >> wears them out.
> > >>
> > >> I remember years ago that the large heathkit (and
> > possibly
> >
> > >> some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors for
> > feedback.
> > >> not much to wear.
> > >>
> > >> Ok, Jay, how long ago were the "days"
> > you were talking
> > >> about? :-)
> > >>
> >
> > >> Bob R.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > >> I remember from my days in control systems theory
> > that the
> > >> analog computers were faster and more accurate
> > than the IBM
> > >> big iron computers. Analog pots are still cheaper,
> > lighter,
> > >> and higher resolution than digital encoders ? as
> > long as
> >
> > >> they are clean?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> > >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >
> > >> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188
> > - Release
> > >> Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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 - www.avg.com
> > Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release
> > Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090623/91ec6a94/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 23 11:10:59 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:10:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits
Message-ID: <920645.53116.qm@web51012.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 Hey Steve how cool is that?  Thanks, Mike

--- On Tue, 6/23/09, steve hannah <shannah1806 at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: steve hannah <shannah1806 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 1:19 PM
> Hi Mike,
> I'll let my Dad know that you remember flying with
> him.? I remember going to a couple contests with him (long
> before I was flying competitively) and how he commented
> about your flying skills.? I think it was somthing like
> "Darn Kids!!".? I'm sure he'll get a kick
> out of this.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:59 PM,
> mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ?Steve your right it's Mike Gaishin. He still owns
> patents for Radio Control equipment. He is doing a pretty
> good job flying again too.
> 
> ?I remember flying pattern with your Dad Bill and his
> buddy Andy who died tragically.
> 
> ?Your father was a very nice man. Mike Mueller
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 6/22/09, steve hannah <shannah1806 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > From: steve hannah <shannah1806 at gmail.com>
> 
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Heathkits
> 
> > To: "General pattern
> discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> > Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 3:24 PM
> 
> > My Dad is Bill Hannah,
> who used to be
> 
> > the VP of Engineering for Heath Company.? He was the
> one
> 
> > that introduced the RC equipment into the Heath
> lineup.? As
> 
> > a kid I built A LOT of Heathkits.? I learned how to
> debug
> 
> > all sorts of electronic problems and lead to my
> engineering
> 
> > career.? Of course, I learned to fly on Heathkit
> radios.?
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > Heath radios were a kit version of the Kraft radios.?
> They
> 
> > had some of their own designs in the later years as
> well.?
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > I believe the engineer you are talking about is Mike
> 
> > Geishin (SP?).? I'm not sure of his exact title
> when he
> 
> > was at Heath, but he was instrumental in their radio
> 
> > designs.? He flew with my Dad back in the day.
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > By the way, I still have the Heath stereo system I
> built
> 
> > when I was in high school.? It survived the endless
> torment
> 
> > I subjected it to in my college years.? Good stuff.
> 
> >
> 
> > Steve Hannah.
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:51 PM, ?<ronlock at comcast.net>
> 
> > wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > I'm still using a Heath ESV, one of the few that
> 
> > does single nicads.
> 
> > Though, I have not found much use for the timing
> light
> 
> > for a while -? <VBG>
> 
> > ?
> 
> > Ron Lockhart
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> 
> > From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> 
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> >
> 
> > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:37:44 PM GMT -05:00
> US/Canada
> 
> > Eastern
> 
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> 
> >
> 
> > Agree on missing the stores and the kits. ?That was
> my
> 
> > introduction to Elec. Engineering and programming
> which has
> 
> > ended up putting a lot of food on my table over the
> past 20
> 
> > years.
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> 
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> 
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> 
> > On Behalf Of Pete Cosky
> 
> >
> 
> > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:35 PM
> 
> > To: General pattern discussion
> 
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> 
> >
> 
> > I used to live at the Heathkit store in Pittsburgh
> when I
> 
> > was a kid. Never
> 
> > used their RC stuff but I did build one of their
> robots. I
> 
> > miss their kits.
> 
> >
> 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> 
> > From: "mike mueller" <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> 
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> >
> 
> > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:31 PM
> 
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Mark there's a guy Mike --- sorry I forgot
> his
> 
> > last name that comes to the
> 
> > > contests that was an engineer for heathkit.
> He'll
> 
> > be at the Jim Hubbard
> 
> >
> 
> > > this weekend. I'll tell him you had a
> Heathkit he
> 
> > will get a kick out of
> 
> > > that. Mike
> 
> > >
> 
> > > --- On Mon, 6/22/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> 
> > wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > >
> 
> > >> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> 
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo
> Signals
> 
> > >> To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'"
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > >> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> > >> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 12:13 PM
> 
> > >> The old heathkit servos (mine anyway)
> 
> >
> 
> > >> were kit versions of the Kraft K-15 servos.
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >> In fact the whole radio I believe was a
> Kraft
> 
> > design.
> 
> > >> -Mark
> 
> > >> --------------------------
> 
> > >> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> 
> >
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> > >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> 
> > >> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> >
> 
> > >> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> > >> Sent: Mon Jun 22 13:06:18 2009
> 
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo
> Signals
> 
> >
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >> Yes, as long as they are clean. That is the
> 
> > problem, it
> 
> > >> depends on contact between two components and
> the
> 
> > friction
> 
> > >> wears them out.
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >> I remember years ago that the large heathkit
> (and
> 
> > possibly
> 
> >
> 
> > >> some Kraft) servos used variable capacitors
> for
> 
> > feedback.
> 
> > >> not much to wear.
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >> Ok, Jay, how long ago were the
> "days"
> 
> > you were talking
> 
> > >> about? :-)
> 
> > >>
> 
> >
> 
> > >> Bob R.
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >> --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
> 
> > >> wrote:
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >>
> 
> >
> 
> > >> I remember from my days in control systems
> theory
> 
> > that the
> 
> > >> analog computers were faster and more
> accurate
> 
> > than the IBM
> 
> > >> big iron computers. Analog pots are still
> cheaper,
> 
> > lighter,
> 
> > >> and higher resolution than digital encoders
> ? as
> 
> > long as
> 
> >
> 
> > >> they are clean?
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> 
> > >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> 
> >
> 
> > >> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database:
> 270.12.81/2188
> 
> > - Release
> 
> > >> Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >>
> _______________________________________________
> 
> > >> 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 - www.avg.com
> 
> > Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 -
> Release
> 
> > Date: 06/19/09 17:56:00
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> 
> >
> 
> > 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
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> >
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> 
> > 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
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Tue Jun 23 11:52:21 2009
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:52:21 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Cute
In-Reply-To: <BLU137-DAV49442616025AE384AA12C83360@phx.gbl>
References: <938069816.7241781245700312376.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
	<C46DF9A2FF4046D6AEAA3C4BF34259BF@xppro2>
	<8CBC1C70B0AB8F8-AE4-FEB@webmail-da21.sysops.aol.com> 
	<BLU137-DAV49442616025AE384AA12C83360@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W252D693D88D73157A86D3AA0360@phx.gbl>


Eh,...get used to it...

RS
 


Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:24:04 -0400
From: cjm767driver at hotmail.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Cute

Don:
Don't forget to mention how bad my flight looked compared to Joseph's....ahhh out flown by a 9 year old....

Chris

tocdon at netscape.net wrote: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7s57Me44GQ&feature=channel_page





Save energy, paper and money -- get the Green Toolbar. 
_______________________________________________
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 - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.88/2196 - Release Date: 06/22/09 18:11:00

  
_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090623/a28c4ef9/attachment.html>

From jpavlick at idseng.com  Tue Jun 23 12:04:22 2009
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:04:22 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Cute
Message-ID: <561845.96797.qm@web80503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

That's one of the "dangers" of this hobby - the fact that it's so safe. :)?If?it?makes you feel uncomfortable?then you'd be better off doing something where that can't possibly happen. Some things that come to mind: drag racing, stock car racing, jet boat racing... LOL
?
John Pavlick

--- On Tue, 6/23/09, Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote:


From: Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Cute
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 3:52 PM




#yiv694786034 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv694786034 {
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

Eh,...get used to it...
RS
?


Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:24:04 -0400
From: cjm767driver at hotmail.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Cute

Don:
Don't forget to mention how bad my flight looked compared to Joseph's....ahhh out flown by a 9 year old....

Chris

tocdon at netscape.net wrote: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7s57Me44GQ&feature=channel_page





Save energy, paper and money -- get the Green Toolbar. 
_______________________________________________
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 - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.88/2196 - Release Date: 06/22/09 18:11:00

  


Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. See how. 
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090623/9df8531f/attachment.html>

From joddino at socal.rr.com  Tue Jun 23 12:51:33 2009
From: joddino at socal.rr.com (James Oddino)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:51:33 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <1403864956.7271591245758581380.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1403864956.7271591245758581380.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <851316F3-E61C-4BD1-94B2-FB80857460A2@socal.rr.com>

They are called digital because they use digital techniques.  The  
transistors are either on of off.  As far as I know Jerry Pullen was  
the first to build them and this was his explanation.  Doug Spreng who  
worked with Jerry at JPL was the first to produce and sell a system  
with them (Digicon).  Many improvements were made through the years  
and eventually JR made what they called a Super Servo that contained a  
microprocessor.  This led to the modern day "Digital' servos that also  
contain microprocessors.  At that point all the previous digital  
servos began being called analog.  The truth is they are all analog  
and the basic concept has never changed.  The input is a pulse that  
varies in width from 1 to 2 milliseconds and the output position is  
proportional (analogous) to the pulse width.  A true digital servo  
would be sent a binary coded input (ones and zeros) like a PCM  
transmitter sends to the receiver.

Hope this helps, Jim



On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:03 AM, Vicente Vince Bortone wrote:

> Jim,
>
> I don't know anything about electronics.  I am sure that the  
> following question if very simple for you:  Why the digital servos  
> are called digital?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:12:23 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>
> What do they say in the Capital 1 commercials, not literally?   
> Transmitters communicate with receivers digitally in PCM mode and  
> analog in PPM mode.  Receivers communicate with servos analogy (?)  
> with PWM.  The servos are analog.
>
> Jim O
>
>
> On Jun 20, 2009, at 7:23 PM, Bob Richards wrote:
>
> --- On Sat, 6/20/09, Richard Lewis <humptybump at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> And....Interestingly enough.....It does not matter what kind of  
> fancy whopping digital super latest and greatest TX/RX system you  
> have, the signals to the servos are still firmly rooted in good old  
> 1970's technology....:)  And...Your super whopper digital brushless  
> whatever servo still has an analog pot for position feedback....:)
>
> I for one am eager to see a leap in servo  
> technology.....Bidirectional serial comms to the servos with the  
> servo being able to feed back torque, amps, position, rate,  
> etc.....and encoder/resolver position feedback in the servos to  
> really catch up with the world we live in......
>
> Amen to that. We have digital servos and digital receivers, yet they  
> talk to each other via an analog method and use analog feedback.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090623/910ae357/attachment.html>

From jpavlick at idseng.com  Tue Jun 23 13:01:05 2009
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:01:05 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
Message-ID: <897317.11007.qm@web80506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Actually the VERY early R/C systems were truly digital as far as the controls went. The escapements drove the surface either neutral or full left, etc. Galloping Ghost just had more "bits". :)
?
The fact is that we want the control surfaces to move in an analog fashion. Regardless of how the servo determines and maintains it's position. We live in an analog world.
?
John Pavlick

--- On Tue, 6/23/09, James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com> wrote:


From: James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 4:51 PM


They are called digital because they use digital techniques. ?The transistors are either on of off. ?As far as I know Jerry Pullen was the first to build them and this was his explanation. ?Doug Spreng who worked with Jerry at JPL was the first to produce and sell a system with them (Digicon). ?Many improvements were made through the years and eventually JR made what they called a Super Servo that contained a microprocessor. ?This led to the modern day "Digital' servos that also contain microprocessors. ?At that point all the previous digital servos began being called analog. ?The truth is they are all analog and the basic concept has never changed. ?The input is a pulse that varies in width from 1 to 2 milliseconds and the output position is proportional (analogous) to the pulse width. ?A true digital servo would be sent a binary coded input (ones and zeros) like a PCM transmitter sends to the receiver.


Hope this helps, Jim








On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:03 AM, Vicente Vince Bortone wrote:




Jim,
?
I don't know anything about electronics.? I am sure that the following question if very simple for you:? Why the digital servos are called digital?
?
Thanks,
?
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
?

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:12:23 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals

What do they say in the Capital 1 commercials, not literally? ?Transmitters communicate with receivers digitally in PCM mode and analog in PPM mode. ?Receivers communicate with servos analogy (?) with PWM. ?The servos are analog.


Jim O





On Jun 20, 2009, at 7:23 PM, Bob Richards wrote:






--- On?Sat, 6/20/09, Richard Lewis?<humptybump at sbcglobal.net>?wrote:





And....Interestingly enough.....It does not matter what kind of fancy whopping digital super latest and greatest TX/RX system you have, the signals to the servos are still firmly rooted in good old 1970's technology....:)? And...Your super whopper digital brushless whatever servo still has an analog pot for position feedback....:)
?
I for one am eager to see a leap in servo technology.....Bidirectional serial?comms to the servos with the servo being able to feed back torque, amps, position, rate, etc.....and encoder/resolver position feedback in the servos to really?catch up with the world we live?in......
?
Amen to that. We have digital servos and?digital receivers, yet they talk to each other via an analog method and use analog feedback.
?_______________________________________________
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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090623/cc8a1ca6/attachment.html>

From joddino at socal.rr.com  Tue Jun 23 13:12:24 2009
From: joddino at socal.rr.com (James Oddino)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:12:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
In-Reply-To: <897317.11007.qm@web80506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <897317.11007.qm@web80506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1F4A1DF1-0137-44A1-A0B7-7DA7B24A6E58@socal.rr.com>

True.

On Jun 23, 2009, at 2:01 PM, John Pavlick wrote:

> Actually the VERY early R/C systems were truly digital as far as the  
> controls went. The escapements drove the surface either neutral or  
> full left, etc. Galloping Ghost just had more "bits". :)
>
> The fact is that we want the control surfaces to move in an analog  
> fashion. Regardless of how the servo determines and maintains it's  
> position. We live in an analog world.
>
> John Pavlick
>
> --- On Tue, 6/23/09, James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com> wrote:
>
> From: James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 4:51 PM
>
> They are called digital because they use digital techniques.  The  
> transistors are either on of off.  As far as I know Jerry Pullen was  
> the first to build them and this was his explanation.  Doug Spreng  
> who worked with Jerry at JPL was the first to produce and sell a  
> system with them (Digicon).  Many improvements were made through the  
> years and eventually JR made what they called a Super Servo that  
> contained a microprocessor.  This led to the modern day "Digital'  
> servos that also contain microprocessors.  At that point all the  
> previous digital servos began being called analog.  The truth is  
> they are all analog and the basic concept has never changed.  The  
> input is a pulse that varies in width from 1 to 2 milliseconds and  
> the output position is proportional (analogous) to the pulse width.   
> A true digital servo would be sent a binary coded input (ones and  
> zeros) like a PCM transmitter sends to the receiver.
>
> Hope this helps, Jim
>
>
>
> On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:03 AM, Vicente Vince Bortone wrote:
>
>> Jim,
>>
>> I don't know anything about electronics.  I am sure that the  
>> following question if very simple for you:  Why the digital servos  
>> are called digital?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:12:23 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Signals
>
> What do they say in the Capital 1 commercials, not literally?   
> Transmitters communicate with receivers digitally in PCM mode and  
> analog in PPM mode.  Receivers communicate with servos analogy (?)  
> with PWM.  The servos are analog.
>
> Jim O
>
>
> On Jun 20, 2009, at 7:23 PM, Bob Richards wrote:
>
> --- On Sat, 6/20/09, Richard Lewis <humptybump at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> And....Interestingly enough.....It does not matter what kind of  
> fancy whopping digital super latest and greatest TX/RX system you  
> have, the signals to the servos are still firmly rooted in good old  
> 1970's technology....:)  And...Your super whopper digital brushless  
> whatever servo still has an analog pot for position feedback....:)
>
> I for one am eager to see a leap in servo  
> technology.....Bidirectional serial comms to the servos with the  
> servo being able to feed back torque, amps, position, rate,  
> etc.....and encoder/resolver position feedback in the servos to  
> really catch up with the world we live in......
>
> Amen to that. We have digital servos and digital receivers, yet they  
> talk to each other via an analog method and use analog feedback.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090623/d34898e0/attachment.html>

From Tom.Koenig at actewagl.com.au  Tue Jun 23 16:48:45 2009
From: Tom.Koenig at actewagl.com.au (Koenig, Tom)
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:48:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] CDI
Message-ID: <724ADB95DA93CC4BA53B10F84AF85777C53948EE@CBRMAIL10.actewagl.production.com.au>

Hi Chaps,

Ok-this will only impact a few of you :)

What's the scoop on the ( low oil version) YS CDI?

Prop and fuel tank of choice? Oil content of choice??



Troy...what is the 'new' in development engine? A YS 220 CDI, twin turbo, supercharged, double plug EFI CDI??? :)


Thanks guys, just getting a feeler as I have a new low oil YS CDI  waiting at the post office. I am after a long while attempting to get back to flying again. Any help is appreciated.

Best regards

Tom Koenig

INSTRUMENT & CONTROL TECHNICIAN
ActewAGL
Telephone 02 6248 3428
Facsimile 02 6248 3482
GPO Box 366 Canberra ACT 2601
www.actewagl.com.au<file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\maackland\Application%20Data\Microsoft\Signatures\www.actewagl.com.au>


________________________________
************************************************************************
*PLEASE NOTE* This email and any attachments may
be confidential. If received in error, please delete all
copies and advise the sender. The reproduction or
dissemination of this email or its attachments is
prohibited without the consent of the sender.

WARNING RE VIRUSES: Our computer systems sweep
outgoing email to guard against viruses, but no warranty
is given that this email or its attachments are virus free.
Before opening or using attachments, please check for
viruses. Our liability is limited to the re-supply of any
affected attachments.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views of the
organisation.
************************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090624/2eeb03e2/attachment.html>

From anthonyr105 at hotmail.com  Wed Jun 24 04:45:46 2009
From: anthonyr105 at hotmail.com (Anthony Romano)
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:45:46 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Black Dirt Squadron Registration
Message-ID: <SNT119-W35997DB095F2593899344FE2370@phx.gbl>


Hi all, 

 Sorry to send this to the everyone but it seems the D1 list isn't working.

 

Just a shameless plug for the Black Dirt Squadron Pattern Challenge this weekend June 27 and 28. The field will be rolled Thursday and cut on Friday to get ready for the event. Come join us for fun and the last chance tune up for the Nats in D1. 

 Please send me you name, class, AMA # and frequency for pre-registration.

 

 Directions are here. Or the site is on 7 Indiana road.

 

 

http://www.blackdirtsquadron.org/BDS%20Contest.pdf

 

 

http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=m&lat=41.32963&lon=-74.416133&zoom=11&q1=7%2520Indiana%2520Rd%252C%2520Goshen%252C%2520NY%252C%252010924

 

 

 

Hope to see you there,

 

Anthony

_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090624/4ad6f740/attachment.html>

From simestd at netexpress.com  Wed Jun 24 07:21:20 2009
From: simestd at netexpress.com (Tom Simes)
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:21:20 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Black Dirt Squadron Registration
In-Reply-To: <SNT119-W35997DB095F2593899344FE2370@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT119-W35997DB095F2593899344FE2370@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20090624072117.5a57489f.simestd@netexpress.com>

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:45:38 -0400
Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Hi all, 
> 
>  Sorry to send this to the everyone but it seems the D1 list isn't
>  working.

Hi everyone, 

Just a friendly reminder to check your address book for old NSRCA list
entries.  ALL the NSRCA lists now reside on the lists.nsrca.org server. 

In this case, dist1-request at nsrca.org is indeed defunct, but
nsrca-dist1 at lists.nsrca.org is up and working fine.

For a complete list of the public NSRCA lists, and to manage your
subscriptions just head over to http://lists.nsrca.org/


-- 
Tom
 
======================================================================
   "Z-80 system stack overflow.  Shut 'er down Scotty, the system's
         sucking mud" - Error message on TRS 80 Model-16B

Tom Simes                                       simestd at netexpress.com 
======================================================================

From deanfunk1 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 24 07:46:02 2009
From: deanfunk1 at yahoo.com (Dean Funk)
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:46:02 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] FIRE SALE !!!!  :)  Update !!
Message-ID: <26565.68830.qm@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Hi all,

looks like the used 160dz is sold, I still have a NIB one half tank bench run YS 160 DZ for $475.00

I also have for sale a Black Magic V2.2 kit with carbon canopy, and honeycombed wing cores. It's a builders kit with parts. You need to supply the sheeting wood. It also comes with a framed up v2 fuselage. So the hard work of building the box is competed.

I am asking $250.00 and could deliever to nats.

Contact me off list and I can send pics

thanks for looking, Dean





--- On Tue, 6/23/09, Dean Funk <deanfunk1 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Dean Funk <deanfunk1 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] FIRE SALE !!!!  :)
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 9:33 AM
> 
> YS 160 NIB - 1/2 tank bench run only $475
> 
> YS 160 Used Excellent - 1 gallon of fuel since fresh
> rebuild, new everything $400
> 
> YS 140L Used Excellent - 3 gallons fuel, great runner
> $325.00
> 
> ES Carbon Pipe for YS 160-170 NIB - ESD4C160C7 $140
> 
> NIB OS 61 RF Pumper + OS Header $250
> 
> NIB Webra LS 61 ABC with Dynamix? + webra header?
> and Macs pipe $250
> 
> 
> please contact me off list 
> 
> 
> ? ? ? 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 


      

From schale at optonline.net  Wed Jun 24 09:22:57 2009
From: schale at optonline.net (Stuart Chale)
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:22:57 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Black Dirt Squadron Registration
In-Reply-To: <SNT119-W35997DB095F2593899344FE2370@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT119-W35997DB095F2593899344FE2370@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4A4260EE.2050204@optonline.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090624/1aaf2925/attachment.html>

From jivey61 at bellsouth.net  Wed Jun 24 10:02:50 2009
From: jivey61 at bellsouth.net (jivey)
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:02:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] CDI
In-Reply-To: <724ADB95DA93CC4BA53B10F84AF85777C53948EE@CBRMAIL10.actewagl.production.com.au>
References: <724ADB95DA93CC4BA53B10F84AF85777C53948EE@CBRMAIL10.actewagl.production.com.au>
Message-ID: <1FDEBE263C5740DBADAEC9D11B9E40B3@JimPC>

Are you related to Larry Koenig who live in atlanta 47 years ago? just wondering!
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Koenig, Tom 
  To: 'General pattern discussion' 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:48 PM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] CDI


  Hi Chaps,

   

  Ok-this will only impact a few of you J

   

  What's the scoop on the ( low oil version) YS CDI? 

   

  Prop and fuel tank of choice? Oil content of choice??

   

   

   

  Troy.what is the 'new' in development engine? A YS 220 CDI, twin turbo, supercharged, double plug EFI CDI??? J

   

   

  Thanks guys, just getting a feeler as I have a new low oil YS CDI  waiting at the post office. I am after a long while attempting to get back to flying again. Any help is appreciated.

   

  Best regards

   

  Tom Koenig

   

  INSTRUMENT & CONTROL TECHNICIAN

  ActewAGL 

  Telephone 02 6248 3428 

  Facsimile 02 6248 3482 

  GPO Box 366 Canberra ACT 2601 

  www.actewagl.com.au

   



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ************************************************************************
  *PLEASE NOTE* This email and any attachments may
  be confidential. If received in error, please delete all
  copies and advise the sender. The reproduction or
  dissemination of this email or its attachments is
  prohibited without the consent of the sender.

  WARNING RE VIRUSES: Our computer systems sweep
  outgoing email to guard against viruses, but no warranty
  is given that this email or its attachments are virus free.
  Before opening or using attachments, please check for
  viruses. Our liability is limited to the re-supply of any
  affected attachments.

  Any views expressed in this message are those of the
  individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
  and with authority, states them to be the views of the
  organisation.
  ************************************************************************



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090624/eb8d8a69/attachment.html>

From anthonyr105 at hotmail.com  Wed Jun 24 10:06:04 2009
From: anthonyr105 at hotmail.com (Anthony Romano)
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:06:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Black Dirt Squadron Registration
In-Reply-To: <4A4260EE.2050204@optonline.net>
References: <SNT119-W35997DB095F2593899344FE2370@phx.gbl>
	<4A4260EE.2050204@optonline.net>
Message-ID: <SNT119-W5348CF1DBB54054368F04BE2370@phx.gbl>


Great glad to see you getting to some more contests!

 

Anthony
 


Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:22:54 -0400
From: schale at optonline.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Black Dirt Squadron Registration

Stuart Chale
Masters
83511
2.4

Should be there.
Stu



Anthony Romano wrote: 


Hi all, 
 Sorry to send this to the everyone but it seems the D1 list isn't working.
 
Just a shameless plug for the Black Dirt Squadron Pattern Challenge this weekend June 27 and 28. The field will be rolled Thursday and cut on Friday to get ready for the event. Come join us for fun and the last chance tune up for the Nats in D1. 
 Please send me you name, class, AMA # and frequency for pre-registration.
 
 Directions are here. Or the site is on 7 Indiana road.
 
 
http://www.blackdirtsquadron.org/BDS%20Contest.pdf
 
 
http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=m&lat=41.32963&lon=-74.416133&zoom=11&q1=7%2520Indiana%2520Rd%252C%2520Goshen%252C%2520NY%252C%252010924
 
 
 
Hope to see you there,
 
Anthony



Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. See how. 
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
  
_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090624/5943750e/attachment.html>

From Tom.Koenig at actewagl.com.au  Wed Jun 24 13:53:45 2009
From: Tom.Koenig at actewagl.com.au (Koenig, Tom)
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:53:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] CDI
In-Reply-To: <1FDEBE263C5740DBADAEC9D11B9E40B3@JimPC>
References: <724ADB95DA93CC4BA53B10F84AF85777C53948EE@CBRMAIL10.actewagl.production.com.au>
	<1FDEBE263C5740DBADAEC9D11B9E40B3@JimPC>
Message-ID: <724ADB95DA93CC4BA53B10F84AF85777C53948F9@CBRMAIL10.actewagl.production.com.au>

Jim,

Cant say I am...but anything is possible!

I do have an Uncle and Aunty down in Clearwater, Florida since about 1948...and cousins etc in New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia.

My family is strewn all over the planet, Canada, US, Australia (brother and I), Germany.

So, does anyone have info on preferred set-ups for the CDI? I picked it up last night and now am motivated to get going. I was thinking a 12 oz tank should be more than enough? 19x 11  with 10% oil multiviscosity. The MV oil is the Red and Blue coolpower mixed 50/50.

Should I run a separate battery for ignition? Or is that only necessary if not on 2.4??

Just some thoughts I am having.

Now I have to get back to the drudgery of working for a living!!

Tom Koenig

INSTRUMENT & CONTROL TECHNICIAN
ActewAGL
Telephone 02 6248 3428
Facsimile 02 6248 3482
GPO Box 366 Canberra ACT 2601
www.actewagl.com.au<file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\maackland\Application%20Data\Microsoft\Signatures\www.actewagl.com.au>
________________________________
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of jivey
Sent: Thursday, 25 June 2009 4:03 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] CDI

Are you related to Larry Koenig who live in atlanta 47 years ago? just wondering!
----- Original Message -----
From: Koenig, Tom<mailto:Tom.Koenig at actewagl.com.au>
To: 'General pattern discussion'<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:48 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] CDI

Hi Chaps,

Ok-this will only impact a few of you :)

What's the scoop on the ( low oil version) YS CDI?

Prop and fuel tank of choice? Oil content of choice??



Troy...what is the 'new' in development engine? A YS 220 CDI, twin turbo, supercharged, double plug EFI CDI??? :)


Thanks guys, just getting a feeler as I have a new low oil YS CDI  waiting at the post office. I am after a long while attempting to get back to flying again. Any help is appreciated.

Best regards

Tom Koenig

INSTRUMENT & CONTROL TECHNICIAN
ActewAGL
Telephone 02 6248 3428
Facsimile 02 6248 3482
GPO Box 366 Canberra ACT 2601
www.actewagl.com.au<file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\maackland\Application%20Data\Microsoft\Signatures\www.actewagl.com.au>


________________________________
************************************************************************
*PLEASE NOTE* This email and any attachments may
be confidential. If received in error, please delete all
copies and advise the sender. The reproduction or
dissemination of this email or its attachments is
prohibited without the consent of the sender.

WARNING RE VIRUSES: Our computer systems sweep
outgoing email to guard against viruses, but no warranty
is given that this email or its attachments are virus free.
Before opening or using attachments, please check for
viruses. Our liability is limited to the re-supply of any
affected attachments.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views of the
organisation.
************************************************************************
________________________________
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

________________________________
************************************************************************
*PLEASE NOTE* This email and any attachments may
be confidential. If received in error, please delete all
copies and advise the sender. The reproduction or
dissemination of this email or its attachments is
prohibited without the consent of the sender.

WARNING RE VIRUSES: Our computer systems sweep
outgoing email to guard against viruses, but no warranty
is given that this email or its attachments are virus free.
Before opening or using attachments, please check for
viruses. Our liability is limited to the re-supply of any
affected attachments.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views of the
organisation.
************************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090624/b9ed4e6f/attachment.html>

From jzeigenfus at comcast.net  Wed Jun 24 19:20:24 2009
From: jzeigenfus at comcast.net (jzeigenfus at comcast.net)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:20:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Black Dirt Squadron Registration
In-Reply-To: <SNT119-W35997DB095F2593899344FE2370@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <2064478878.8838571245900023816.JavaMail.root@sz0093a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>

Joe Zeigenfus 
Advanced 
698576 
2.4g 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony Romano" <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com> 
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org, "district one" <dist1-request at nsrca.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 8:45:38 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Black Dirt Squadron Registration 

Hi all, 
Sorry to send this to the everyone but it seems the D1 list isn't working. 

Just a shameless plug for the Black Dirt Squadron Pattern Challenge this weekend June 27 and 28. The field will be rolled Thursday and cut on Friday to get ready for the event. Come join us for fun and the last chance tune up for the Nats in D1. 
Please send me you name, class, AMA # and frequency for pre-registration. 

Directions are here. Or the site is on 7 Indiana road. 


http://www.blackdirtsquadron.org/BDS%20Contest.pdf 


http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=m&lat=41.32963&lon=-74.416133&zoom=11&q1=7%2520Indiana%2520Rd%252C%2520Goshen%252C%2520NY%252C%252010924 



Hope to see you there, 

Anthony 


Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. See how. 
_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090625/739765bb/attachment.html>

From Autoford6 at aol.com  Thu Jun 25 04:41:04 2009
From: Autoford6 at aol.com (Autoford6 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:41:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Black Dirt Squadron Registration
Message-ID: <d0b.4f8d8960.3774ca52@aol.com>

Walter Erickson   AMA 5083  ch.  2.4
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090625/cb5f04ae/attachment.html>

From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Thu Jun 25 09:45:33 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:45:33 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Flying field near Logan, WV?
Message-ID: <905446.59037.qm@web82104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Due to my apparent?good fortune I have to travel to Logan, West Virginia over the extended?holiday?weekend. I would love to take an airplane (even a sport plane) and sneak away from the in laws for a couple of flights each day but have no idea on what the local RC activity is for WV or if there is even an airfield within a reasonable driving distance from Logan.
?
If anyone knows about airfields in the vicinity of Logal WV, I would appreciate a heads up. I don't know exactly where we will be staying all I know is it will be in or near Logan.
?
Thanks
Anthony
NSRCA #759
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090625/6d46b7e9/attachment.html>

From Snaproll4 at aol.com  Thu Jun 25 09:53:03 2009
From: Snaproll4 at aol.com (Snaproll4 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:53:03 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Flying field near Logan, WV?
Message-ID: <be2.509fe701.3775135f@aol.com>

Go to the AMA web site at http://www.modelaircraft.org/clubsearch.aspx and  
type in the zip code.  Works great.
 
 
In a message dated 6/25/2009 1:46:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
aabdu at sbcglobal.net writes:

Due to my apparent good fortune I have to travel to Logan,  West Virginia 
over the extended holiday weekend. I would love  to take an airplane (even a 
sport plane) and sneak away from the in laws  for a couple of flights each 
day but have no idea on what the local RC  activity is for WV or if there is 
even an airfield within a reasonable  driving distance from Logan.
 
If anyone knows about airfields in the vicinity of Logal WV, I  would 
appreciate a heads up. I don't know exactly where we will be  staying all I know 
is it will be in or near Logan.
 
Thanks
Anthony
NSRCA  #759



_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion  mailing  list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the 
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090625/b31a586e/attachment.html>

From astafford at swtexas.net  Thu Jun 25 11:43:01 2009
From: astafford at swtexas.net (Archie Stafford)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:43:01 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Flying field near Logan, WV?
In-Reply-To: <905446.59037.qm@web82104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <905446.59037.qm@web82104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <005e01c9f5cd$0dc8bd10$295a3730$@net>

Anthony.  I can pretty safely say there aren't many flying field near Logan.
The terrain just isn't that friendly for it.  You will have to drive up near
Charleston where you can find a couple.  Give me a call when you can,

 

Arch

 

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Abdullah
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:46 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Flying field near Logan, WV?

 


Due to my apparent good fortune I have to travel to Logan, West Virginia
over the extended holiday weekend. I would love to take an airplane (even a
sport plane) and sneak away from the in laws for a couple of flights each
day but have no idea on what the local RC activity is for WV or if there is
even an airfield within a reasonable driving distance from Logan.

 

If anyone knows about airfields in the vicinity of Logal WV, I would
appreciate a heads up. I don't know exactly where we will be staying all I
know is it will be in or near Logan.

 

Thanks

Anthony

NSRCA #759

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090625/e94834c0/attachment.html>

From tocdon at netscape.net  Thu Jun 25 14:01:33 2009
From: tocdon at netscape.net (tocdon at netscape.net)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:01:33 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Cute
In-Reply-To: <BLU137-DAV49442616025AE384AA12C83360@phx.gbl>
References: <938069816.7241781245700312376.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>	<C46DF9A2FF4046D6AEAA3C4BF34259BF@xppro2><8CBC1C70B0AB8F8-AE4-FEB@webmail-da21.sysops.aol.com>
	<BLU137-DAV49442616025AE384AA12C83360@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <8CBC3F795DE1156-E14-216B@webmail-db08.sysops.aol.com>

Chris, Actually I think this is his nomination for?next years Masters sequence.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Moon <cjm767driver at hotmail.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, Jun 22, 2009 11:24 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Cute


Don:
Don't forget to mention how bad my flight looked compared to Joseph's....ahhh out flown by a 9 year old....

Chris

tocdon at netscape.net wrote: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7s57Me44GQ&feature=channel_page



Save energy, paper and money -- get the Green Toolbar. 


_______________________________________________
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 - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.88/2196 - Release Date: 06/22/09 18:11:00

  




_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090625/e7d34a83/attachment.html>

From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Thu Jun 25 16:04:14 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:04:14 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Flying field near Logan, WV?
Message-ID: <257662.46913.qm@web82104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Arch,I got your voicemail, I will give you a ring this evening.
ThanksAnthony

--- On Thu, 6/25/09, Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net> wrote:

From: Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Flying field near Logan, WV?
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2009, 3:42 PM




 
 




 



Anthony.? I can pretty safely say there aren?t many flying field
near Logan.? The terrain just isn?t that friendly for it.? You will have to
drive up near Charleston where you can find a couple.? Give me a call when you
can, 

 ? 

Arch 

 ? 

 ? 



From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Abdullah

Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:46 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Flying field near Logan, WV? 



 ? 


 
  
  
  Due to my apparent?good fortune I have to travel to
  Logan, West Virginia over the extended?holiday?weekend. I would
  love to take an airplane (even a sport plane) and sneak away from the in laws
  for a couple of flights each day but have no idea on what the local RC
  activity is for WV or if there is even an airfield within a reasonable
  driving distance from Logan. 
  
  
  ? 
  
  
  If anyone knows about airfields in the vicinity of Logal
  WV, I would appreciate a heads up. I don't know exactly where we will be
  staying all I know is it will be in or near Logan. 
  
  
  ? 
  
  
  Thanks 
  
  
  Anthony 
  
  
  NSRCA #759 
  
  
 


 ? 



 



-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/7c48260c/attachment.html>

From bevc at rochester.rr.com  Thu Jun 25 16:11:12 2009
From: bevc at rochester.rr.com (Bev Cowell)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:11:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Black Dirt Squadron Registration
References: <SNT119-W35997DB095F2593899344FE2370@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4ED76E2944A5432D9701AA5EE2943868@BevC>

Bev Cowell
advanced
38174
2.4
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anthony Romano 
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org ; district one 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 8:45 AM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Black Dirt Squadron Registration


  Hi all, 
   Sorry to send this to the everyone but it seems the D1 list isn't working.
   
  Just a shameless plug for the Black Dirt Squadron Pattern Challenge this weekend June 27 and 28. The field will be rolled Thursday and cut on Friday to get ready for the event. Come join us for fun and the last chance tune up for the Nats in D1. 
   Please send me you name, class, AMA # and frequency for pre-registration.
   
   Directions are here. Or the site is on 7 Indiana road.
   
   
  http://www.blackdirtsquadron.org/BDS%20Contest.pdf
   
   
  http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=m&lat=41.32963&lon=-74.416133&zoom=11&q1=7%2520Indiana%2520Rd%252C%2520Goshen%252C%2520NY%252C%252010924
   
   
   
  Hope to see you there,
   
  Anthony


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. See how. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/4b06cb48/attachment.html>

From flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net  Thu Jun 25 16:50:51 2009
From: flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net (William C. Harden)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:50:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Cute
In-Reply-To: <8CBC3F795DE1156-E14-216B@webmail-db08.sysops.aol.com>
References: <938069816.7241781245700312376.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>	<C46DF9A2FF4046D6AEAA3C4BF34259BF@xppro2><8CBC1C70B0AB8F8-AE4-FEB@webmail-da21.sysops.aol.com><BLU137-DAV49442616025AE384AA12C83360@phx.gbl>
	<8CBC3F795DE1156-E14-216B@webmail-db08.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <8875B8AEB41B4DCB95A8460CCABC94C0@bill>

Yeah, Joseph looked good in the video.  It will be interesting to watch him
over the next few years. 

 

Hey Don, he will catch up to you pretty quick.  Oh yeah, this will be
interesting to watch.

 

Bill

 


tocdon at netscape.net wrote: 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7s57Me44GQ
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7s57Me44GQ&feature=channel_page>
&feature=channel_page





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/954bb837/attachment.html>

From jpavlick at idseng.com  Thu Jun 25 19:15:13 2009
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:15:13 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Black Dirt contest hotel room
Message-ID: <001801c9f60c$50d07910$9501a8c0@GW7422>

Guys,
 I'm going to the Black Dirt contest this weekend but I have to leave on Saturday afternoon after we fly so I won't need my room at the Days Inn in Middletown / New Hampton on Saturday night. If anyone needs a place to stay, let me know. Maybe we can work something out.

John Pavlick
http://www.idseng.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/4d96a415/attachment.html>

From jpavlick at idseng.com  Thu Jun 25 19:19:51 2009
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:19:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Cute
References: <938069816.7241781245700312376.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>	<C46DF9A2FF4046D6AEAA3C4BF34259BF@xppro2><8CBC1C70B0AB8F8-AE4-FEB@webmail-da21.sysops.aol.com><BLU137-DAV49442616025AE384AA12C83360@phx.gbl><8CBC3F795DE1156-E14-216B@webmail-db08.sysops.aol.com>
	<8875B8AEB41B4DCB95A8460CCABC94C0@bill>
Message-ID: <005f01c9f60c$f68fcef0$9501a8c0@GW7422>

Don't worry guys. He'll discover girls pretty soon. That's what happened to me when I was about 13 and flying pre-turnaround stuff better than the "old" guys in my club. LOL

John Pavlick
http://www.idseng.com
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: William C. Harden 
  To: 'General pattern discussion' 
  Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Cute


  Yeah, Joseph looked good in the video.  It will be interesting to watch him over the next few years. 

   

  Hey Don, he will catch up to you pretty quick.  Oh yeah, this will be interesting to watch.

   

  Bill

   


  tocdon at netscape.net wrote: 


  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7s57Me44GQ&feature=channel_page







------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/b8b49600/attachment.html>

From vicenterc at comcast.net  Fri Jun 26 03:36:50 2009
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:36:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem
Message-ID: <1011000292.392801246016209287.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>



The engine has been running well after replacing the piston ring.? Got a good compression.? I flew 20 flights before starting to have?problems.? Here is what happen: The engine started to die sometimes when on ground when giving a little power.??This engine never die before.? I replaced the glow plug with no change.? I also try to adjust the pump with no change.? Finally, the engine always die when trying to accelerate so I can not use it anymore.? 



I am thinking that could be the pump or bearing but not sure.? Any suggestions to fix it welcome.? 



Thanks, 



Vicente "Vince" Bortone 




?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/b65b2127/attachment.html>

From rdpee at juno.com  Fri Jun 26 03:44:55 2009
From: rdpee at juno.com (Ralph D Perillo)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:44:55 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fire sale
Message-ID: <20090626.074327.1952.3.rdpee@juno.com>

For Sale

             
1-   Like Brand New ( one tank run not flown )  excellent condition 3M 
Mintor Twin Plug 170 Engine w/ 3M Header, Hyde Type A Mount  Also fits OS
140, ES  Carbon    
      Tuned Pipe.($900.00 Value)      Now     $325.00 for all!!!!!!!!
(Pictures on Request)
1-   Used Hyde YS 140 Type A Mt. excellent shape. $35.00
1-   New AAP Aluminum 120-160 Pipe  3/4"  $50.00

       Postage is not included!!!

      Will accept Paypal, Check, or Money orders.
Contact me off list
Ralph D Perillo  (rdpee at juno.com)
Buffalo,NY
____________________________________________________________
Click to get Medical Insurance options that meet your needs.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTInCP4bs6dKAGhQaQXGT8NP3bEwXzxZxUSUSItkR8qpTA4mLa0IXu/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/e59b3988/attachment.html>

From jzeigenfus at comcast.net  Fri Jun 26 04:01:25 2009
From: jzeigenfus at comcast.net (jzeigenfus at comcast.net)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:01:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Abbra stuff for sale
Message-ID: <761066542.9300891246017681499.JavaMail.root@sz0093a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>

Hi, if anyone is looking for an Abbra Landing gear, wheel pants, and spinners , for electric email me off line. Thanks JEZ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/5bdad9d5/attachment.html>

From jeff at priusonline.com  Fri Jun 26 04:56:40 2009
From: jeff at priusonline.com (Jeff Hatton)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:56:40 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Looking for a home for a ys110
Message-ID: <4428EDB9-4754-445C-B975-7805C883D706@priusonline.com>

I have a ys110 that is in need of an airframe and was wondering if  
anyone has anything they would like to part with at nats so I can save  
some shipping costs?

- Jeff Hatton
------
If engineers designed machines like lawyers make laws, you'd need to  
hire an engineer to operate even the most trivial machine. 

From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Fri Jun 26 05:01:58 2009
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:01:58 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Looking for a home for a ys110
In-Reply-To: <4428EDB9-4754-445C-B975-7805C883D706@priusonline.com>
Message-ID: <A2B9B4AF90564169A962AC968C4F61EC@jaysdesktop>

Save it for a Black Magic 110....
Maybe Mike has a proto that he could bring up...

Jay Marshall

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hatton
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 8:54 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Looking for a home for a ys110

I have a ys110 that is in need of an airframe and was wondering if  
anyone has anything they would like to part with at nats so I can save  
some shipping costs?

- Jeff Hatton
------
If engineers designed machines like lawyers make laws, you'd need to  
hire an engineer to operate even the most trivial machine. 
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From jeff at priusonline.com  Fri Jun 26 05:15:43 2009
From: jeff at priusonline.com (Jeff Hatton)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:15:43 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Looking for a home for a ys110
In-Reply-To: <A2B9B4AF90564169A962AC968C4F61EC@jaysdesktop>
References: <A2B9B4AF90564169A962AC968C4F61EC@jaysdesktop>
Message-ID: <7C7635E0-2CC1-474A-A79D-07BC167487D9@priusonline.com>

That was the plan, but I am still waiting on the black magic 110. I  
would like something I could have flying for after work that is  
smaller than the v2 black magic currently in the car.

- Jeff Hatton
------
If engineers designed machines like lawyers make laws, you'd need to  
hire an engineer to operate even the most trivial machine.

On Jun 26, 2009, at 9:01 AM, "Jay Marshall" <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:

> Save it for a Black Magic 110....
> Maybe Mike has a proto that he could bring up...
>
> Jay Marshall
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jeff  
> Hatton
> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 8:54 AM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Looking for a home for a ys110
>
> I have a ys110 that is in need of an airframe and was wondering if
> anyone has anything they would like to part with at nats so I can save
> some shipping costs?
>
> - Jeff Hatton
> ------
> If engineers designed machines like lawyers make laws, you'd need to
> hire an engineer to operate even the most trivial machine.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Fri Jun 26 05:17:46 2009
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:17:46 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Looking for a home for a ys110
In-Reply-To: <7C7635E0-2CC1-474A-A79D-07BC167487D9@priusonline.com>
Message-ID: <A4262EB737734F2C9E9A0A645A6B03AA@jaysdesktop>

Have you looked at the Venus II or Focus Sport?

Jay Marshall

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hatton
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 9:14 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Looking for a home for a ys110

That was the plan, but I am still waiting on the black magic 110. I  
would like something I could have flying for after work that is  
smaller than the v2 black magic currently in the car.

- Jeff Hatton
------
If engineers designed machines like lawyers make laws, you'd need to  
hire an engineer to operate even the most trivial machine.

On Jun 26, 2009, at 9:01 AM, "Jay Marshall" <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:

> Save it for a Black Magic 110....
> Maybe Mike has a proto that he could bring up...
>
> Jay Marshall
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jeff  
> Hatton
> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 8:54 AM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Looking for a home for a ys110
>
> I have a ys110 that is in need of an airframe and was wondering if
> anyone has anything they would like to part with at nats so I can save
> some shipping costs?
>
> - Jeff Hatton
> ------
> If engineers designed machines like lawyers make laws, you'd need to
> hire an engineer to operate even the most trivial machine.
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From deanfunk1 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 26 05:32:15 2009
From: deanfunk1 at yahoo.com (Dean Funk)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:32:15 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] FIRE SALE !!!!  :)  Update !!
Message-ID: <955924.30218.qm@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Fire sale update.

Still available, please contact me off list ...

YS 160 NIB - 1/2 tank bench run only $475

YS 140L Used Excellent, great runner $325.00

Hyde HCMY4ARISA mount NIB - $225.00

ES Carbon Pipe for YS 160-170 NIB - ESD4C160C7 $125

NIB OS 61 ABC RF Pumper + OS Header $250

NIB Webra LS 61 ABC with Dynamix?+ webra header?and Macs pipe $250

Black Magic V2.2 kit with carbon canopy, and honeycombed wing cores. It's a builders kit with parts. You need to supply the sheeting wood. It also comes with a framed up v2 fuselage. I am asking $250.00 and would deliever to nats.


      

From bob at toprudder.com  Fri Jun 26 06:10:51 2009
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:10:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Beginning e pattern plane
Message-ID: <415920.48199.qm@web1108.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

I'm looking at getting my son a good e pattern plane. Not interested in the 2m stuff right now, kinda interested in the 90 sized stuff.
?
I have a Vanquish and Aspera, which are both good for practice, and I typically use 4S 3300-3700 packs in each. The 90 sized stuff I have seen can take two of these packs in series, so I am thinking I can save on some costs by sharing packs between the two sizes. So, anything that can use 8S 3700 would be economical for us. He will be starting out in Sportsman, but I suspect he will move up quick to intermediate once he gets started.
?
I've been looking at the?Hyperion Helios, but don't know?anything about it. ?http://www.allerc.com/product_info.php?cPath=2_87&products_id=3356
?
Any suggestions?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/edc0ac0d/attachment.html>

From teamvertical at excite.com  Fri Jun 26 06:17:19 2009
From: teamvertical at excite.com (David)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:17:19 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i
Message-ID: <20090626101705.17334@web003.roc2.bluetie.com>


I was reading on RCU jet forum that Home Depot is selling the Honeywell 2000i generator for $299 in store price. Has anyone had experience with this generator? You will not find this price at Home Depot online. It is a in store sale price only.
Thanks
Dave

------------------------------------------------------------
Laminating Machine
The difference is clear. Click now for a great laminating machine!
http://tagline.excite.com/fc/FgElN1gxFAiae03EkunclRHWass41ROz2XlexWbhlzVOPzjGBkHbLCsHPd2/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/5d4b973a/attachment.html>

From burtona at atmc.net  Fri Jun 26 06:27:26 2009
From: burtona at atmc.net (Dave Burton)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:27:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Beginning e pattern plane
In-Reply-To: <415920.48199.qm@web1108.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
References: <415920.48199.qm@web1108.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <003701c9f66a$453c3630$cfb4a290$@net>

I'm doing a Focus Sport in electric and planning a battery configuration of
two 4S 3700 packs.

Dave Burton

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 10:11 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Beginning e pattern plane

 


I'm looking at getting my son a good e pattern plane. Not interested in the
2m stuff right now, kinda interested in the 90 sized stuff.

 

I have a Vanquish and Aspera, which are both good for practice, and I
typically use 4S 3300-3700 packs in each. The 90 sized stuff I have seen can
take two of these packs in series, so I am thinking I can save on some costs
by sharing packs between the two sizes. So, anything that can use 8S 3700
would be economical for us. He will be starting out in Sportsman, but I
suspect he will move up quick to intermediate once he gets started.

 

I've been looking at the Hyperion Helios, but don't know anything about it.
http://www.allerc.com/product_info.php?cPath=2_87
<http://www.allerc.com/product_info.php?cPath=2_87&products_id=3356>
&products_id=3356

 

Any suggestions?

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/42f0717e/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Fri Jun 26 06:31:53 2009
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:31:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i
Message-ID: <126980.11382.qm@web1111.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

One guy on the RV forum bought one at that price. The only complaint he had about it was the eco mode causing it to speed up and slow down constantly while his coffee maker was on. :-)? I think it is worth looking at, and I plan to go down to HD today to see if they have one.
?
Bob R.


--- On Fri, 6/26/09, David <teamvertical at excite.com> wrote:


From: David <teamvertical at excite.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Friday, June 26, 2009, 11:17 AM




I was reading on RCU jet forum that Home Depot is selling the Honeywell 2000i generator for $299 in store price. Has anyone had experience with this generator? You will not find this price at Home Depot online. It is a in store sale price only.
Thanks
Dave












??
Laminating Machine

The difference is clear. Click now for a great laminating machine!

Click Here For More Information

? 
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/1616a429/attachment.html>

From AtwoodDon at aol.com  Fri Jun 26 06:32:39 2009
From: AtwoodDon at aol.com (AtwoodDon at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:32:39 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Beginning e pattern plane
Message-ID: <cd9.544acbb3.37763622@aol.com>

Couple guys in this area are using the Venus 2 with 6S 5000s and AXI 41xx  
motors.  I think the motors can use an 8S setup also.  They seem to  have 
good power for the Intermediate patterns...  I have not flown either  of them, 
just observed.
 
Don
 
 
In a message dated 6/26/2009 7:11:15 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
bob at toprudder.com writes:

I'm looking at getting my son a good e pattern plane. Not  interested in 
the 2m stuff right now, kinda interested in the 90 sized  stuff.
 
I have a Vanquish and Aspera, which are both good for practice, and  I 
typically use 4S 3300-3700 packs in each. The 90 sized stuff I have  seen can 
take two of these packs in series, so I am thinking I can save  on some costs 
by sharing packs between the two sizes. So, anything that  can use 8S 3700 
would be economical for us. He will be starting out in  Sportsman, but I 
suspect he will move up quick to intermediate once he  gets started.
 
I've been looking at the Hyperion Helios, but don't  know anything about 
it.  _http://www.allerc.com/product_info.php?cPath=2_87&products_id=3356_ 
(http://www.allerc.com/product_info.php?cPath=2_87&products_id=3356) 
 
Any  suggestions?


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion  mailing  list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the 
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/cc45e890/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Fri Jun 26 06:40:25 2009
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:40:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Beginning e pattern plane
Message-ID: <443548.72929.qm@web1105.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

I'm a little leary of converting a plane designed for glow, since I think there will be some weight penalty involved. But, I am keeping an open mind. I've wondered about the Focus Sport like Dave B suggested.
?
Bob R.


--- On Fri, 6/26/09, AtwoodDon at aol.com <AtwoodDon at aol.com> wrote:





Couple guys in this area are using the Venus 2 with 6S 5000s and AXI 41xx motors.? I think the motors can use an 8S setup also.? They seem to have good power for the Intermediate patterns...? I have not flown either of them, just observed.
?
Don
?

In a message dated 6/26/2009 7:11:15 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, bob at toprudder.com writes:





I'm looking at getting my son a good e pattern plane. Not interested in the 2m stuff right now, kinda interested in the 90 sized stuff.
?
I have a Vanquish and Aspera, which are both good for practice, and I typically use 4S 3300-3700 packs in each. The 90 sized stuff I have seen can take two of these packs in series, so I am thinking I can save on some costs by sharing packs between the two sizes. So, anything that can use 8S 3700 would be economical for us. He will be starting out in Sportsman, but I suspect he will move up quick to intermediate once he gets started.
?
I've been looking at the?Hyperion Helios, but don't know?anything about it. ?http://www.allerc.com/product_info.php?cPath=2_87&products_id=3356
?
Any suggestions?

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill.
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/a6925bf6/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Fri Jun 26 08:22:35 2009
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:22:35 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i
In-Reply-To: <126980.11382.qm@web1111.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
References: <126980.11382.qm@web1111.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W21ADE1D854350E67FCFC3CA0350@phx.gbl>


Well that would make sense--they speed up to produce power as it's needed--and a heating element is on and off to maintain an average temp.  Certainly worth looking at.  I like the little Honda as it's fairly easy on my wimpy back and quiet enough if you run an extension from having it at the front of the vehicle to the back--you are hardly aware it's there at full power.  There's enough power to run two chargers and a small fan for motor cooling on hot days...  I need to get a little oscillating fan--cool the motor--cool the pilot--cool the motor....

 

BTW, I happened to be in the Muncie area touring some glass and fiberglass manufacturing facilities--(HOT)--but got a chance to stop by the AMA Headquarters after hours.  What a great place to fly!

A few of the early bird CA guys were there practicing for the Aerobatic Nationals next week--impressive from what we were able to see...  Got me thinking a little about the bigger stuff--but I'm fighting it...
RS 


Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:31:50 -0700
From: bob at toprudder.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i






One guy on the RV forum bought one at that price. The only complaint he had about it was the eco mode causing it to speed up and slow down constantly while his coffee maker was on. :-)  I think it is worth looking at, and I plan to go down to HD today to see if they have one.
 
Bob R.


--- On Fri, 6/26/09, David <teamvertical at excite.com> wrote:


From: David <teamvertical at excite.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Friday, June 26, 2009, 11:17 AM




I was reading on RCU jet forum that Home Depot is selling the Honeywell 2000i generator for $299 in store price. Has anyone had experience with this generator? You will not find this price at Home Depot online. It is a in store sale price only.
Thanks
Dave












  
Laminating Machine

The difference is clear. Click now for a great laminating machine!

Click Here For More Information

  
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. 
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/87fdc1e5/attachment.html>

From adriancwong at earthlink.net  Fri Jun 26 08:41:45 2009
From: adriancwong at earthlink.net (adriancwong at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:41:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Looking for a home for a ys110
Message-ID: <11497935.1246034503883.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

World Models has a new Spot-On for 110

Adrian

-----Original Message-----
>From: Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
>Sent: Jun 26, 2009 9:17 AM
>To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Looking for a home for a ys110
>
>Have you looked at the Venus II or Focus Sport?
>
>Jay Marshall
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hatton
>Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 9:14 AM
>To: General pattern discussion
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Looking for a home for a ys110
>
>That was the plan, but I am still waiting on the black magic 110. I  
>would like something I could have flying for after work that is  
>smaller than the v2 black magic currently in the car.
>
>- Jeff Hatton
>------
>If engineers designed machines like lawyers make laws, you'd need to  
>hire an engineer to operate even the most trivial machine.
>
>On Jun 26, 2009, at 9:01 AM, "Jay Marshall" <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Save it for a Black Magic 110....
>> Maybe Mike has a proto that he could bring up...
>>
>> Jay Marshall
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jeff  
>> Hatton
>> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 8:54 AM
>> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Looking for a home for a ys110
>>
>> I have a ys110 that is in need of an airframe and was wondering if
>> anyone has anything they would like to part with at nats so I can save
>> some shipping costs?
>>
>> - Jeff Hatton
>> ------
>> If engineers designed machines like lawyers make laws, you'd need to
>> hire an engineer to operate even the most trivial machine.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From tretas513 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 26 08:55:16 2009
From: tretas513 at yahoo.com (Tommy Scarmardo)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:55:16 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Beginning e pattern plane
Message-ID: <686454.60499.qm@web111511.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

I got into e-pattern with a Helios 63e just to see if I liked electrics and it is a great
flying airplane. I now have a Sebart?e-power Wind 110 I fly in advanced pattern and I
just purchased a Helios 90e for a back up for the Sebart Wind 110. Obviously I haven't
?flown the 90 size Helios yet but if the smaller one is any indication it is a great
?flying airplane and at $359.95 it would be hard to beat. It looks good and the
construction is very light...designed for electric power, not converted. Check with
All e RC for availability, I think they are in stock now. 
www.allerc.com
Hyperion Helios 90e 
?
tommy s

--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com> wrote:


From: Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Beginning e pattern plane
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Friday, June 26, 2009, 9:10 AM







I'm looking at getting my son a good e pattern plane. Not interested in the 2m stuff right now, kinda interested in the 90 sized stuff.
?
I have a Vanquish and Aspera, which are both good for practice, and I typically use 4S 3300-3700 packs in each. The 90 sized stuff I have seen can take two of these packs in series, so I am thinking I can save on some costs by sharing packs between the two sizes. So, anything that can use 8S 3700 would be economical for us. He will be starting out in Sportsman, but I suspect he will move up quick to intermediate once he gets started.
?
I've been looking at the?Hyperion Helios, but don't know?anything about it. ?http://www.allerc.com/product_info.php?cPath=2_87&products_id=3356
?
Any suggestions?
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/e814b7ca/attachment.html>

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 26 11:55:32 2009
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:55:32 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
Message-ID: <776902.22695.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Good Luck to everybody this weekend, have a great contest. Wish I could be there. 

 Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com



      

From bob at toprudder.com  Fri Jun 26 12:25:52 2009
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:25:52 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i
Message-ID: <464032.10953.qm@web1103.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

Went by HD at lunch. No luck. Doesn't look like they ever carried that model at the store where I went. Drats.
?
I went online at the HD website and found this:
?
http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&productId=100669124
?
Only 26lbs. Price includes shipping. I ordered one. I figure 750w AC should run my chargers and a fan. :-)? I ran the?battery in my van down?once, it still started but the alternator quickly went out trying to charge a nearly dead battery. Don't want that to happen again. I have a 20 amp 12v power supply, but think I will get?a 30 or 40 amp RV converter to go with this generator. 
?
I'll let you know how it turns out.
?
Bob R.

--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote:





#yiv1850378299 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv1850378299 {
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

Well that would make sense--they speed up to produce power as it's needed--and a heating element is on?and off to maintain an average temp.? Certainly worth looking at.? I like the little Honda as it's fairly easy on my wimpy back and quiet enough if you run an extension from having it at the front of the vehicle to the back--you are hardly aware it's there at full power.? There's enough power to run two chargers and a small fan for motor cooling on?hot days...? I need to get a little oscillating fan--cool the motor--cool the pilot--cool the motor....
?
BTW, I happened to be in the Muncie area touring some glass and fiberglass?manufacturing facilities--(HOT)--but got a chance to stop by the AMA Headquarters after hours.? What a great place to fly!
A few of the early bird CA guys were there practicing for the Aerobatic Nationals next week--impressive from what we were able to see...? Got me thinking a little about the bigger stuff--but I'm fighting it...
RS?


Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:31:50 -0700
From: bob at toprudder.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i






One guy on the RV forum bought one at that price. The only complaint he had about it was the eco mode causing it to speed up and slow down constantly while his coffee maker was on. :-)? I think it is worth looking at, and I plan to go down to HD today to see if they have one.
?
Bob R.


--- On Fri, 6/26/09, David <teamvertical at excite.com> wrote:


From: David <teamvertical at excite.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Friday, June 26, 2009, 11:17 AM




I was reading on RCU jet forum that Home Depot is selling the Honeywell 2000i generator for $299 in store price. Has anyone had experience with this generator? You will not find this price at Home Depot online. It is a in store sale price only.
Thanks
Dave












??
Laminating Machine

The difference is clear. Click now for a great laminating machine!

Click Here For More Information

? 
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. Check it out. 
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/66e7b074/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Fri Jun 26 12:29:00 2009
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:29:00 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Beginning e pattern plane
Message-ID: <640786.2718.qm@web1106.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

Yeah, allerc is where I saw it. They used to have a Hyperion 90 Katana F3A pattern plane on a closeout deal, but it is gone now. I just did a search and Chief Aircraft still lists it as in stock, and it is $299.
?
I need to check out the Spot-On now.....
?
Thanks all.
?
Bob R.


--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Tommy Scarmardo <tretas513 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Beginning e pattern plane
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Friday, June 26, 2009, 1:55 PM







I got into e-pattern with a Helios 63e just to see if I liked electrics and it is a great
flying airplane. I now have a Sebart?e-power Wind 110 I fly in advanced pattern and I
just purchased a Helios 90e for a back up for the Sebart Wind 110. Obviously I haven't
?flown the 90 size Helios yet but if the smaller one is any indication it is a great
?flying airplane and at $359.95 it would be hard to beat. It looks good and the
construction is very light...designed for electric power, not converted. Check with
All e RC for availability, I think they are in stock now. 
www.allerc.com
Hyperion Helios 90e 
?
tommy s

--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com> wrote:


From: Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Beginning e pattern plane
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Friday, June 26, 2009, 9:10 AM







I'm looking at getting my son a good e pattern plane. Not interested in the 2m stuff right now, kinda interested in the 90 sized stuff.
?
I have a Vanquish and Aspera, which are both good for practice, and I typically use 4S 3300-3700 packs in each. The 90 sized stuff I have seen can take two of these packs in series, so I am thinking I can save on some costs by sharing packs between the two sizes. So, anything that can use 8S 3700 would be economical for us. He will be starting out in Sportsman, but I suspect he will move up quick to intermediate once he gets started.
?
I've been looking at the?Hyperion Helios, but don't know?anything about it. ?http://www.allerc.com/product_info.php?cPath=2_87&products_id=3356
?
Any suggestions?
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/2b87dd35/attachment.html>

From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Fri Jun 26 12:50:50 2009
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:50:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i
In-Reply-To: <464032.10953.qm@web1103.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <24591FF315D843DF986E6B0DA68ACE75@jaysdesktop>

Is that the one that uses the YS 1.40 4C?

 

Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 1:36 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i

 


Went by HD at lunch. No luck. Doesn't look like they ever carried that model
at the store where I went. Drats.

 

I went online at the HD website and found this:

 

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10
051
<http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=1
0051&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&productId=100669124>
&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&productId=100669124

 

Only 26lbs. Price includes shipping. I ordered one. I figure 750w AC should
run my chargers and a fan. :-)  I ran the battery in my van down once, it
still started but the alternator quickly went out trying to charge a nearly
dead battery. Don't want that to happen again. I have a 20 amp 12v power
supply, but think I will get a 30 or 40 amp RV converter to go with this
generator. 

 

I'll let you know how it turns out.

 

Bob R.

--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote:

 

Well that would make sense--they speed up to produce power as it's
needed--and a heating element is on and off to maintain an average temp.
Certainly worth looking at.  I like the little Honda as it's fairly easy on
my wimpy back and quiet enough if you run an extension from having it at the
front of the vehicle to the back--you are hardly aware it's there at full
power.  There's enough power to run two chargers and a small fan for motor
cooling on hot days...  I need to get a little oscillating fan--cool the
motor--cool the pilot--cool the motor....
 
BTW, I happened to be in the Muncie area touring some glass and fiberglass
manufacturing facilities--(HOT)--but got a chance to stop by the AMA
Headquarters after hours.  What a great place to fly!
A few of the early bird CA guys were there practicing for the Aerobatic
Nationals next week--impressive from what we were able to see...  Got me
thinking a little about the bigger stuff--but I'm fighting it...
RS 


  _____  


Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:31:50 -0700
From: bob at toprudder.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i


One guy on the RV forum bought one at that price. The only complaint he had
about it was the eco mode causing it to speed up and slow down constantly
while his coffee maker was on. :-)  I think it is worth looking at, and I
plan to go down to HD today to see if they have one.

 

Bob R.



--- On Fri, 6/26/09, David <teamvertical at excite.com> wrote:


From: David <teamvertical at excite.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Friday, June 26, 2009, 11:17 AM


I was reading on RCU jet forum that Home Depot is selling the Honeywell
2000i generator for $299 in store price. Has anyone had experience with this
generator? You will not find this price at Home Depot online. It is a in
store sale price only.

Thanks

Dave




  _____  



  

 
<http://tagline.excite.com/fc/FgElN1gxFAiae03EkunclRHWass41ROz2XlexWbhlzVOPz
jGBkHbLCsHPd2/> Laminating Machine


 
<http://tagline.excite.com/fc/FgElN1gxFAiae03EkunclRHWass41ROz2XlexWbhlzVOPz
jGBkHbLCsHPd2/> The difference is clear. Click now for a great laminating
machine!


 
<http://tagline.excite.com/fc/FgElN1gxFAiae03EkunclRHWass41ROz2XlexWbhlzVOPz
jGBkHbLCsHPd2/> Click Here For More Information


  


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.or
g> 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

 


  _____  


Windows LiveT: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
<http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009>  


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.or
g> 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/fb1b15f6/attachment.html>

From lodomjr at verizon.net  Fri Jun 26 12:54:52 2009
From: lodomjr at verizon.net (Lawrence Odom)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:54:52 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem
References: <1011000292.392801246016209287.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <7DBC971071BF468E8EF9E99878C61497@corp.globalproducesales.com>

Make sure you check the valve cover gasket and all the o-rings are seated properly.  Since you replaced the piston ring you could have a gasket or o-ring not sealing correct.  This happened to me on a 160 and if there are any leaks anywhere on that engine it will run the way you describe.  

Larry
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Vicente "Vince" Bortone 
  To: NSRCA 
  Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 7:36 AM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem


  The engine has been running well after replacing the piston ring.  Got a good compression.  I flew 20 flights before starting to have problems.  Here is what happen: The engine started to die sometimes when on ground when giving a little power.  This engine never die before.  I replaced the glow plug with no change.  I also try to adjust the pump with no change.  Finally, the engine always die when trying to accelerate so I can not use it anymore.  



  I am thinking that could be the pump or bearing but not sure.  Any suggestions to fix it welcome.  



  Thanks,



  Vicente "Vince" Bortone




   



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/c61ed1eb/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Fri Jun 26 13:24:31 2009
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:24:31 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i
In-Reply-To: <464032.10953.qm@web1103.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
References: <464032.10953.qm@web1103.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W20EF76AA1C956D63B5EA12A0350@phx.gbl>


Looks suspiciously like the Honda in many details...hmmm.

You can probably get an extended warranty with it for not too much.

RS
 


Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:35:53 -0700
From: bob at toprudder.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i






Went by HD at lunch. No luck. Doesn't look like they ever carried that model at the store where I went. Drats.
 
I went online at the HD website and found this:
 
http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&productId=100669124
 
Only 26lbs. Price includes shipping. I ordered one. I figure 750w AC should run my chargers and a fan. :-)  I ran the battery in my van down once, it still started but the alternator quickly went out trying to charge a nearly dead battery. Don't want that to happen again. I have a 20 amp 12v power supply, but think I will get a 30 or 40 amp RV converter to go with this generator. 
 
I'll let you know how it turns out.
 
Bob R.

--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote:





Well that would make sense--they speed up to produce power as it's needed--and a heating element is on and off to maintain an average temp.  Certainly worth looking at.  I like the little Honda as it's fairly easy on my wimpy back and quiet enough if you run an extension from having it at the front of the vehicle to the back--you are hardly aware it's there at full power.  There's enough power to run two chargers and a small fan for motor cooling on hot days...  I need to get a little oscillating fan--cool the motor--cool the pilot--cool the motor....
 
BTW, I happened to be in the Muncie area touring some glass and fiberglass manufacturing facilities--(HOT)--but got a chance to stop by the AMA Headquarters after hours.  What a great place to fly!
A few of the early bird CA guys were there practicing for the Aerobatic Nationals next week--impressive from what we were able to see...  Got me thinking a little about the bigger stuff--but I'm fighting it...
RS 


Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:31:50 -0700
From: bob at toprudder.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i






One guy on the RV forum bought one at that price. The only complaint he had about it was the eco mode causing it to speed up and slow down constantly while his coffee maker was on. :-)  I think it is worth looking at, and I plan to go down to HD today to see if they have one.
 
Bob R.


--- On Fri, 6/26/09, David <teamvertical at excite.com> wrote:


From: David <teamvertical at excite.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Friday, June 26, 2009, 11:17 AM




I was reading on RCU jet forum that Home Depot is selling the Honeywell 2000i generator for $299 in store price. Has anyone had experience with this generator? You will not find this price at Home Depot online. It is a in store sale price only.
Thanks
Dave












  
Laminating Machine

The difference is clear. Click now for a great laminating machine!

Click Here For More Information

  
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. Check it out. 
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Get 25 GB of free online storage.
http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/8f6f5d52/attachment.html>

From brian_w_young at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 26 15:26:14 2009
From: brian_w_young at yahoo.com (Brian)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:26:14 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] IOTA 55 Powersupply - not holding voltage.
Message-ID: <20090626232614.1FC13115A4@bridi.netexpress.com>

Has anyone had any problems with these? Mine when drawing from 2 chargers and only 19 amps or so on the supply output, drops output voltage to 12-11.9 vdc. My chargers dont like this.
Curious what might be going on with it.
Tks
Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:21 PM
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i

Looks suspiciously like the Honda in many details...hmmm.
You can probably get an extended warranty with it for not too much.
RS
?
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:35:53 -0700
From: bob at toprudder.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i

Went by HD at lunch. No luck. Doesn't look like they ever carried that model at the store where I went. Drats.
?
I went online at the HD website and found this:
?
http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&productId=100669124
?
Only 26lbs. Price includes shipping. I ordered one. I figure 750w AC should run my chargers and a fan. :-)? I ran the?battery in my van down?once, it still started but the alternator quickly went out trying to charge a nearly dead battery. Don't want that to happen again. I have a 20 amp 12v power supply, but think I will get?a 30 or 40 amp RV converter to go with this generator.
?
I'll let you know how it turns out.
?
Bob R.

--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote:

 Well that would make sense--they speed up to produce power as it's needed--and a heating element is on?and off to maintain an average temp.? Certainly worth looking at.? I like the little Honda as it's fairly easy on my wimpy back and quiet enough if you run an extension from having it at the front of the vehicle to the back--you are hardly aware it's there at full power.? There's enough power to run two chargers and a small fan for motor cooling on?hot days...? I need to get a little oscillating fan--cool the motor--cool the pilot--cool the motor....
?
BTW, I happened to be in the Muncie area touring some glass and fiberglass?manufacturing facilities--(HOT)--but got a chance to stop by the AMA Headquarters after hours.? What a great place to fly!
A few of the early bird CA guys were there practicing for the Aerobatic Nationals next week--impressive from what we were able to see...? Got me thinking a little about the bigger stuff--but I'm fighting it...
RS?
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:31:50 -0700
From: bob at toprudder.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i

One guy on the RV forum bought one at that price. The only complaint he had about it was the eco mode causing it to speed up and slow down constantly while his coffee maker was on. :-)? I think it is worth looking at, and I plan to go down to HD today to see if they have one.
?
Bob R.


--- On Fri, 6/26/09, David <teamvertical at excite.com> wrote:

From: David <teamvertical at excite.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Friday, June 26, 2009, 11:17 AM


I was reading on RCU jet forum that Home Depot is selling the Honeywell 2000i generator for $299 in store price. Has anyone had experience with this generator? You will not find this price at Home Depot online. It is a in store sale price only.
Thanks
Dave




[The entire original message is not included]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/b46a71c4/attachment.html>

From vicenterc at comcast.net  Fri Jun 26 15:43:27 2009
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:43:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] IOTA 55 Powersupply - not holding voltage.
In-Reply-To: <20090626232614.1FC13115A4@bridi.netexpress.com>
Message-ID: <1469986479.210521246059614928.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>



I wonder if this one is better: 



http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?jspStoreDir=hdus&catalogId=10053&productId=100669123&navFlow=3&keyword=etq%2B1600&langId=-1&searchRedirect=etq+1600&storeId=10051&endecaDataBean=com.homedepot.sa.el.wc.catalog.beans.EndecaDataBean%4029b0c9b0&ddkey=THDStoreFinder 



V B 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian" <brian_w_young at yahoo.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 6:22:45 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] IOTA 55 Powersupply - not holding voltage. 

Has anyone had any problems with these? Mine when drawing from 2 chargers and only 19 amps or so on the supply output, drops output voltage to 12-11.9 vdc. My chargers dont like this. 
Curious what might be going on with it. 
Tks 
Brian 








From: Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> 
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:21 PM 
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i 

Looks suspiciously like the Honda in many details...hmmm. 
You can probably get an extended warranty with it for not too much. 
RS 
? 





Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:35:53 -0700 
From: bob at toprudder.com 
To: nsrca-discussion at listsnsrca.org 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i 


Went by HD at lunch. No luck. Doesn't look like they ever carried that model at the store where I went. Drats. 

I went online at the HD website and found this: 

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&productId=100669124 

Only 26lbs. Price includes shipping. I ordered one. I figure 750w AC should run my chargers and a fan. :-)? I ran the?battery in my van down?once, it still started but the alternator quickly went out trying to charge a nearly dead battery. Don't want that to happen again. I have a 20 amp 12v power supply, but think I will get?a 30 or 40 amp RV converter to go with this generator. 

I'll let you know how it turns out. 

Bob R. 

--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote: 




Well that would make sense--they speed up to produce power as it's needed--and a heating element is on?and off to maintain an average temp.? Certainly worth looking at.? I like the little Honda as it's fairly easy on my wimpy back and quiet enough if you run an extension from having it at the front of the vehicle to the back--you are hardly aware it's there at full power.? There's enough power to run two chargers and a small fan for motor cooling on?hot days...? I need to get a little oscillating fan--cool the motor--cool the pilot--cool the motor.... 
? 
BTW, I happened to be in the Muncie area touring some glass and fiberglass?manufacturing facilities--(HOT)--but got a chance to stop by the AMA Headquarters after hours.? What a great place to fly! 
A few of the early bird CA guys were there practicing for the Aerobatic Nationals next week--impressive from what we were able to see...? Got me thinking a little about the bigger stuff--but I'm fighting it... 
RS? 

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:31:50 -0700 
From: bob at toprudder.com 
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i 


One guy on the RV forum bought one at that price. The only complaint he had about it was the eco mode causing it to speed up and slow down constantly while his coffee maker was on. :-)? I think it is worth looking at, and I plan to go down to HD today to see if they have one. 

Bob R. 


--- On Fri, 6/26/09, David <teamvertical at excite.com> wrote: 



From: David <teamvertical at excite.com> 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i 
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
Date: Friday, June 26, 2009, 11:17 AM 




I was reading on RCU jet forum that Home Depot is selling the Honeywell 2000i generator for $299 in store price. Has anyone had experience with this generator? You will not find this price at Home Depot online. It is a in store sale price only. 
Thanks 
Dave 





[The entire original message is not included] 
_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/26a5e6fe/attachment.html>

From teamvertical at excite.com  Fri Jun 26 15:43:53 2009
From: teamvertical at excite.com (David)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:43:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i
Message-ID: <20090626194351.27415@web007.roc2.bluetie.com>

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8869650/tm.htm
here is the link to the jet guys talking about them. They have had luck finding them in Florida and California along with a few other areas. 
I have not made it to any Phoenix area HD yet. Will tomorrow and let you know what I find.





-----Original Message-----
From: "Jay Marshall" [lightfoot at sc.rr.com]
Date: 06/26/2009 04:47 PM
To: "'General pattern discussion'" 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i

Note: Original message sent as attachment 

------------------------------------------------------------
Scale
Huge inventory of scales for all your weighing needs.
http://tagline.excite.com/fc/FgElN1gvzpXjUaFQkxf9huKGUG8zlw9tHB9ftb6fI1mcXmQWFrATPYUK096/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/1d6cedd7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Jay Marshall" <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:47:31 -0400
Size: 25739
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090626/1d6cedd7/attachment.mht>

From vicenterc at comcast.net  Fri Jun 26 16:37:37 2009
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:37:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem
In-Reply-To: <7DBC971071BF468E8EF9E99878C61497@corp.globalproducesales.com>
Message-ID: <1466631040.223631246063056826.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>



Thanks Larry, I will follow your advice.? 



Vince 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lawrence Odom" <lodomjr at verizon.net> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 12:50:45 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem 

? 
Make sure you?check the valve cover gasket and all the o-rings are seated properly.? Since you replaced the piston ring you could have a gasket or o-ring not sealing correct.? This happened to me on a 160 and if there are any leaks anywhere on that engine it will run the way you describe.? 

Larry 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Vicente "Vince" Bortone 
To: NSRCA 
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 7:36 AM 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem 




The engine has been running well after replacing the piston ring.? Got a good compression.? I flew 20 flights before starting to have?problems.? Here is what happen: The engine started to die sometimes when on ground when giving a little power.??This engine never die before.? I replaced the glow plug with no change.? I also try to adjust the pump with no change.? Finally, the engine always die when trying to accelerate so I can not use it anymore.? 



I am thinking that could be the pump or bearing but not sure.? Any suggestions to fix it welcome.? 



Thanks, 



Vicente "Vince" Bortone 




? 




_______________________________________________ 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090627/5015ee92/attachment.html>

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 26 17:37:44 2009
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:37:44 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem
In-Reply-To: <1466631040.223631246063056826.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1466631040.223631246063056826.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <812439.7913.qm@web32702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Might I ask why you replaced the ring?  Just curious.

 Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com




________________________________
From: "Vicente "Vince" Bortone" <vicenterc at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 8:37:36 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem


Thanks Larry, I will follow your advice.  
 
Vince
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Odom" <lodomjr at verizon.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 12:50:45 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem

?  
Make sure you check the valve cover gasket and all the o-rings are seated properly.  Since you replaced the piston ring you could have a gasket or o-ring not sealing correct.  This happened to me on a 160 and if there are any leaks anywhere on that engine it will run the way you describe.  
 
Larry
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Vicente "Vince" Bortone 
To: NSRCA 
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 7:36 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem

The engine has been running well after replacing the piston ring.  Got a good compression.  I flew 20 flights before starting to have problems.  Here is what happen: The engine started to die sometimes when on ground when giving a little power.  This engine never die before.  I replaced the glow plug with no change.  I also try to adjust the pump with no change.  Finally, the engine always die when trying to accelerate so I can not use it anymore.  
 
I am thinking that could be the pump or bearing but not sure.  Any suggestions to fix it welcome.  
 
Thanks,
 
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
 

 
________________________________
 _______________________________________________
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


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090627/523ca860/attachment.html>

From vicenterc at comcast.net  Fri Jun 26 19:04:36 2009
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:04:36 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem
In-Reply-To: <812439.7913.qm@web32702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1979146190.251191246071874703.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>



Low compression .? The ring gap was more than double than the new one.? Compression if fine now. 



VB 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Kane" < getterflash @yahoo.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 8:37:42 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem 


Might I ask why you replaced the ring?? Just curious. 

Bob Kane 
getterflash @yahoo.com 





From: "Vicente "Vince" Bortone " < vicenterc @comcast.net> 
To: General pattern discussion < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 8:37:36 PM 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem 




Thanks Larry, I will follow your advice.? 



Vince 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lawrence Odom" < lodomjr @ verizon .net> 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 12:50:45 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem 

? 
Make sure you?check the valve cover gasket and all the o-rings are seated properly.? Since you replaced the piston ring you could have a gasket or o-ring not sealing correct.? This happened to me on a 160 and if there are any leaks anywhere on that engine it will run the way you describe.? 

Larry 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Vicente "Vince" Bortone 
To: NSRCA 
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 7:36 AM 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem 




The engine has been running well after replacing the piston ring.? Got a good compression.? I flew 20 flights before starting to have?problems.? Here is what happen: The engine started to die sometimes when on ground when giving a little power.??This engine never die before.? I replaced the glow plug with no change.? I also try to adjust the pump with no change.? Finally, the engine always die when trying to accelerate so I can not use it anymore.? 



I am thinking that could be the pump or bearing but not sure.? Any suggestions to fix it welcome.? 



Thanks, 



Vicente "Vince" Bortone 




? 




_______________________________________________ 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090627/1cf15efd/attachment.html>

From deanfunk1 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 26 20:01:23 2009
From: deanfunk1 at yahoo.com (Dean Funk)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:01:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Black Magic V2.2 for sale
Message-ID: <496734.37312.qm@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


I am putting up my scratch built Black Magic v2.2 for sale. 

Please check the link:

http://blackmagicv2.deanfunk.com/

thanks for looking, 

Dean


      

From wemodels at cox.net  Fri Jun 26 20:28:46 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:28:46 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i
In-Reply-To: <20090626194351.27415@web007.roc2.bluetie.com>
References: <20090626194351.27415@web007.roc2.bluetie.com>
Message-ID: <4A459FFC.3010406@cox.net>

Got mine!!! Santa Ana Home depot. they have two left!!!

Corner of Harbor and MacArthur for those in SOCAL.




From derekkoopowitz at gmail.com  Fri Jun 26 20:40:23 2009
From: derekkoopowitz at gmail.com (Derek Koopowitz)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:40:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i
In-Reply-To: <4A459FFC.3010406@cox.net>
References: <20090626194351.27415@web007.roc2.bluetie.com>
	<4A459FFC.3010406@cox.net>
Message-ID: <000001c9f6e1$5f8b50d0$1ea1f270$@com>

For the $299 price?

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill's Email
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 9:29 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i

Got mine!!! Santa Ana Home depot. they have two left!!!

Corner of Harbor and MacArthur for those in SOCAL.



_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From wemodels at cox.net  Fri Jun 26 20:51:26 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:51:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i
In-Reply-To: <000001c9f6e1$5f8b50d0$1ea1f270$@com>
References: <20090626194351.27415@web007.roc2.bluetie.com>	<4A459FFC.3010406@cox.net>
	<000001c9f6e1$5f8b50d0$1ea1f270$@com>
Message-ID: <4A45A54C.7030005@cox.net>

Yep. They had three when I got there. Two now. I'll run it tomorrow.





Derek Koopowitz wrote:
> For the $299 price?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill's Email
> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 9:29 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Generator - Honeywell 2000i
>
> Got mine!!! Santa Ana Home depot. they have two left!!!
>
> Corner of Harbor and MacArthur for those in SOCAL.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>   


From lodomjr at verizon.net  Sat Jun 27 12:22:22 2009
From: lodomjr at verizon.net (Larry Odom)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:22:22 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem
In-Reply-To: <1979146190.251191246071874703.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <JGECJPKHFCGHOPOLPIAHEELNCBAA.lodomjr@verizon.net>

Vince,
Keep us informed on how you are getting along with your engine.

Larry
  -----Original Message-----
  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Vicente "Vince" Bortone
  Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 11:05 PM
  To: General pattern discussion
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem


  Low compression.  The ring gap was more than double than the new one.  Compression if fine now.



  VB


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Bob Kane" <getterflash at yahoo.com>
  To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 8:37:42 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem



  Might I ask why you replaced the ring?  Just curious.


  Bob Kane
  getterflash at yahoo.com 





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: "Vicente "Vince" Bortone" <vicenterc at comcast.net>
  To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 8:37:36 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem


  Thanks Larry, I will follow your advice.  



  Vince
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Lawrence Odom" <lodomjr at verizon.net>
  To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 12:50:45 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem

  ? 

  Make sure you check the valve cover gasket and all the o-rings are seated properly.  Since you replaced the piston ring you could have a gasket or o-ring not sealing correct.  This happened to me on a 160 and if there are any leaks anywhere on that engine it will run the way you describe.  

  Larry
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Vicente "Vince" Bortone 
    To: NSRCA 
    Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 7:36 AM
    Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 problem


    The engine has been running well after replacing the piston ring.  Got a good compression.  I flew 20 flights before starting to have problems.  Here is what happen: The engine started to die sometimes when on ground when giving a little power.  This engine never die before.  I replaced the glow plug with no change.  I also try to adjust the pump with no change.  Finally, the engine always die when trying to accelerate so I can not use it anymore.  



    I am thinking that could be the pump or bearing but not sure.  Any suggestions to fix it welcome.  



    Thanks,



    Vicente "Vince" Bortone




     



----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    _______________________________________________
    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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090627/06fdc0df/attachment.html>

From jlkonn at hotmail.com  Sat Jun 27 12:57:42 2009
From: jlkonn at hotmail.com (John Konneker)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:57:42 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
Message-ID: <BLU106-W10932F2E25DBFF9B327389CD320@phx.gbl>


Did anyone from the list buy one?

Any reports/opinions?

Thanks!

JLK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090627/3740aed2/attachment.html>

From trexlesh at msn.com  Sat Jun 27 17:19:54 2009
From: trexlesh at msn.com (Rex)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:19:54 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fun In The Sun
Message-ID: <BAY119-W1555679B9A12D40B846EB5CC330@phx.gbl>


Next weekend is the "Fun In The Sun" contest in Richland, Washinton.

Information on this contest is available on the D8 website

 

 

Rex Lesher

D8 VP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090628/dddf86c9/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Sat Jun 27 17:52:52 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:52:52 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
In-Reply-To: <BLU106-W10932F2E25DBFF9B327389CD320@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU106-W10932F2E25DBFF9B327389CD320@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4A46CCF1.9080404@cox.net>

John Konneker wrote:
> Did anyone from the list buy one?
> Any reports/opinions?
> Thanks!
> JLK
Got one at the Santa Ana, CA HD last night. They had 2 left. $299.95. I 
plan to run it later on tonight or tomorrow to see how it goes. The guy 
who posted on the jet list about them has run his and says it a a tiny 
bit louder than his Honda, but WAAAY cheaper. But it is not too loud 
either. Looks like the killer deal of late!!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090628/4a8e6b53/attachment.html>

From jgghome at comcast.net  Sat Jun 27 18:29:07 2009
From: jgghome at comcast.net (John Gayer)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 02:29:07 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
In-Reply-To: <4A46CCF1.9080404@cox.net>
References: <BLU106-W10932F2E25DBFF9B327389CD320@phx.gbl>
	<4A46CCF1.9080404@cox.net>
Message-ID: <4A46D564.7000705@comcast.net>

If you can find one.
Albuquerque does not stock them, most of the availability appears to be 
west coast.
Good luck in Iowa.
John

Bill's Email wrote:
> John Konneker wrote:
>> Did anyone from the list buy one?
>> Any reports/opinions?
>> Thanks!
>> JLK
> Got one at the Santa Ana, CA HD last night. They had 2 left. $299.95. 
> I plan to run it later on tonight or tomorrow to see how it goes. The 
> guy who posted on the jet list about them has run his and says it a a 
> tiny bit louder than his Honda, but WAAAY cheaper. But it is not too 
> loud either. Looks like the killer deal of late!!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From teamvertical at excite.com  Sat Jun 27 18:59:17 2009
From: teamvertical at excite.com (David)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 02:59:17 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
Message-ID: <20090627225915.21694@web007.roc2.bluetie.com>

There are 12 in Phoenix at the Cave Creek and Cactus store at $299. Come on over John.

Dave





-----Original Message-----
From: "John Gayer" [jgghome at comcast.net]
Date: 06/27/2009 10:35 PM
To: "General pattern discussion" 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator

Note: Original message sent as attachment 

------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business Tools
Free info for small business owners.  Click here to find great products geared for your business.
http://tagline.excite.com/fc/FgElN1gzL0jZ7r0BhmCf6AM15k3PasBYWQdTkJlpnLBsVt5NO8nyKsZMbq4/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090628/285cf5db/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:28:52 -0600
Size: 5414
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090628/285cf5db/attachment.mht>

From jgghome at comcast.net  Sat Jun 27 20:05:50 2009
From: jgghome at comcast.net (John Gayer)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:05:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
In-Reply-To: <20090627225915.21694@web007.roc2.bluetie.com>
References: <20090627225915.21694@web007.roc2.bluetie.com>
Message-ID: <4A46EC0D.3020104@comcast.net>

By coincidence I will be there tomorrow afternoon. Thanks for the info.
John

David wrote:
>
> There are 12 in Phoenix at the Cave Creek and Cactus store at $299. 
> Come on over John.
>
>  
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From: *"John Gayer" [jgghome at comcast.net]
> *Date: *06/27/2009 10:35 PM
> *To: *"General pattern discussion"
> *Subject: *Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
>
> Note: Original message sent as attachment
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 	
>    	Small Business Tools 
> <http://tagline.excite.com/fc/FgElN1gzL0jZ7r0BhmCf6AM15k3PasBYWQdTkJlpnLBsVt5NO8nyKsZMbq4/> 
>
> Free info for small business owners. Click here to find great products 
> geared for your business. 
> <http://tagline.excite.com/fc/FgElN1gzL0jZ7r0BhmCf6AM15k3PasBYWQdTkJlpnLBsVt5NO8nyKsZMbq4/> 
>
> Click Here For More Information 
> <http://tagline.excite.com/fc/FgElN1gzL0jZ7r0BhmCf6AM15k3PasBYWQdTkJlpnLBsVt5NO8nyKsZMbq4/> 
>
>
>  
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
> From:
> John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net>
> Date:
> Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:28:52 -0600
> To:
> General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> To:
> General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
>
> If you can find one.
> Albuquerque does not stock them, most of the availability appears to 
> be west coast.
> Good luck in Iowa.
> John
>
> Bill's Email wrote:
>> John Konneker wrote:
>>> Did anyone from the list buy one?
>>> Any reports/opinions?
>>> Thanks!
>>> JLK
>> Got one at the Santa Ana, CA HD last night. They had 2 left. $299.95. 
>> I plan to run it later on tonight or tomorrow to see how it goes. The 
>> guy who posted on the jet list about them has run his and says it a a 
>> tiny bit louder than his Honda, but WAAAY cheaper. But it is not too 
>> loud either. Looks like the killer deal of late!!
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> Exvb?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net  Sun Jun 28 07:09:07 2009
From: flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net (William C. Harden)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:09:07 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
In-Reply-To: <4A46D564.7000705@comcast.net>
References: <BLU106-W10932F2E25DBFF9B327389CD320@phx.gbl><4A46CCF1.9080404@cox.net>
	<4A46D564.7000705@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <3D68A39FCC094177AB5ED3FCBCFFB698@bill>

Would someone please again provide the Honeywell generator model for $299.95
that everyone is talking about here on the list?  

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Gayer
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 9:29 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator

If you can find one.
Albuquerque does not stock them, most of the availability appears to be 
west coast.
Good luck in Iowa.
John

Bill's Email wrote:
> John Konneker wrote:
>> Did anyone from the list buy one?
>> Any reports/opinions?
>> Thanks!
>> JLK
> Got one at the Santa Ana, CA HD last night. They had 2 left. $299.95. 
> I plan to run it later on tonight or tomorrow to see how it goes. The 
> guy who posted on the jet list about them has run his and says it a a 
> tiny bit louder than his Honda, but WAAAY cheaper. But it is not too 
> loud either. Looks like the killer deal of late!!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From d_bodary at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 28 08:00:46 2009
From: d_bodary at yahoo.com (Dennis Bodary)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:00:46 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
Message-ID: <615631.44219.qm@web51703.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

2000i

--- On Sun, 6/28/09, William C. Harden <flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net> wrote:


From: William C. Harden <flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009, 11:09 AM


Would someone please again provide the Honeywell generator model for $299.95
that everyone is talking about here on the list?? 

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Gayer
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 9:29 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator

If you can find one.
Albuquerque does not stock them, most of the availability appears to be 
west coast.
Good luck in Iowa.
John

Bill's Email wrote:
> John Konneker wrote:
>> Did anyone from the list buy one?
>> Any reports/opinions?
>> Thanks!
>> JLK
> Got one at the Santa Ana, CA HD last night. They had 2 left. $299.95. 
> I plan to run it later on tonight or tomorrow to see how it goes. The 
> guy who posted on the jet list about them has run his and says it a a 
> tiny bit louder than his Honda, but WAAAY cheaper. But it is not too 
> loud either. Looks like the killer deal of late!!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090628/42a270a7/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Sun Jun 28 08:14:19 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:14:19 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
In-Reply-To: <3D68A39FCC094177AB5ED3FCBCFFB698@bill>
References: <BLU106-W10932F2E25DBFF9B327389CD320@phx.gbl><4A46CCF1.9080404@cox.net>	<4A46D564.7000705@comcast.net>
	<3D68A39FCC094177AB5ED3FCBCFFB698@bill>
Message-ID: <4A4796D8.6060100@cox.net>

William C. Harden wrote:
> Would someone please again provide the Honeywell generator model for $299.95
> that everyone is talking about here on the list?  
>
> Thanks.
>   
>

Honeywell HW2000i

Comes packed in a large mostly red colored box.


SKU# 183779

http://www.honeywellgenerators.com/products/hw2000i






From wemodels at cox.net  Sun Jun 28 08:18:19 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:18:19 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
In-Reply-To: <4A4796D8.6060100@cox.net>
References: <BLU106-W10932F2E25DBFF9B327389CD320@phx.gbl><4A46CCF1.9080404@cox.net>	<4A46D564.7000705@comcast.net>	<3D68A39FCC094177AB5ED3FCBCFFB698@bill>
	<4A4796D8.6060100@cox.net>
Message-ID: <4A4797BE.5050802@cox.net>

Bill's Email wrote:
> William C. Harden wrote:
>> Would someone please again provide the Honeywell generator model for 
>> $299.95
>> that everyone is talking about here on the list? 
>> Thanks.
>>  
>
> Honeywell HW2000i
>
> Comes packed in a large mostly red colored box.
>
>
> SKU# 183779
>
> http://www.honeywellgenerators.com/products/hw2000i


Photo Link:  
http://www.honeywellgenerators.com/images/2009/03/16/pic_615393ca.jpg

From jlkonn at hotmail.com  Sun Jun 28 11:09:25 2009
From: jlkonn at hotmail.com (John Konneker)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:09:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
In-Reply-To: <4A4797BE.5050802@cox.net>
References: <BLU106-W10932F2E25DBFF9B327389CD320@phx.gbl><4A46CCF1.9080404@cox.net>
	<4A46D564.7000705@comcast.net>	<3D68A39FCC094177AB5ED3FCBCFFB698@bill>
	<4A4796D8.6060100@cox.net>  <4A4797BE.5050802@cox.net>
Message-ID: <BLU106-W236CC9B8487705F6820EF4CD330@phx.gbl>


I picked mine up today.  Availability is weird.  I got on the store locator and 4 out or 5 stores 

I called had never heard of it.

It is 2,000watts for $299.  I ran mine for about 5 minutes and it is louder than I remember the little Honda's.

But like one of the jet guys said it's a heck of a lot cheaper. Another good thing is it will come in handy during the ice storms here

in Iowa when we lose power.  
JLK
 
> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:18:06 -0700
> From: wemodels at cox.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
> 
> Bill's Email wrote:
> > William C. Harden wrote:
> >> Would someone please again provide the Honeywell generator model for 
> >> $299.95
> >> that everyone is talking about here on the list? 
> >> Thanks.
> >> 
> >
> > Honeywell HW2000i
> >
> > Comes packed in a large mostly red colored box.
> >
> >
> > SKU# 183779
> >
> > http://www.honeywellgenerators.com/products/hw2000i
> 
> 
> Photo Link: 
> http://www.honeywellgenerators.com/images/2009/03/16/pic_615393ca.jpg
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090628/43af6e13/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Sun Jun 28 11:32:26 2009
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:32:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
In-Reply-To: <BLU106-W236CC9B8487705F6820EF4CD330@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU106-W10932F2E25DBFF9B327389CD320@phx.gbl><4A46CCF1.9080404@cox.net>	<4A46D564.7000705@comcast.net>	<3D68A39FCC094177AB5ED3FCBCFFB698@bill>	<4A4796D8.6060100@cox.net>
	<4A4797BE.5050802@cox.net>
	<BLU106-W236CC9B8487705F6820EF4CD330@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4A47C548.2000901@cox.net>



I've run mine as well. If you put it in "Efficiency Mode" it is much 
quieter. In normal it is a bit louder than a Honda. But for the price 
difference I can buy a lot of extension cords. I walked 25 feet away and 
it is very quiet and tolerable. With a 50 foot extension cord you will 
not even notice it. Even at 25 feet it is no big deal.




John Konneker wrote:
> I picked mine up today.  Availability is weird.  I got on the store 
> locator and 4 out or 5 stores
> I called had never heard of it.
> It is 2,000watts for $299.  I ran mine for about 5 minutes and it is 
> louder than I remember the little Honda's.
> But like one of the jet guys said it's a heck of a lot cheaper. 
> Another good thing is it will come in handy during the ice storms here
> in Iowa when we lose power.  
> JLK

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090628/f0f99de8/attachment.html>

From flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net  Sun Jun 28 11:49:45 2009
From: flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net (William C. Harden)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:49:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
In-Reply-To: <BLU106-W236CC9B8487705F6820EF4CD330@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU106-W10932F2E25DBFF9B327389CD320@phx.gbl><4A46CCF1.9080404@cox.net><4A46D564.7000705@comcast.net>	<3D68A39FCC094177AB5ED3FCBCFFB698@bill><4A4796D8.6060100@cox.net>
	<4A4797BE.5050802@cox.net>
	<BLU106-W236CC9B8487705F6820EF4CD330@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <030E25AA656046759FF9F83C6107CC88@bill>

In my limited search I have been unable to find one in Huntsville, Alabama
for under $699.  

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Konneker
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 2:09 PM
To: Discussion List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator

 

I picked mine up today.  Availability is weird.  I got on the store locator
and 4 out or 5 stores 
I called had never heard of it.
It is 2,000watts for $299.  I ran mine for about 5 minutes and it is louder
than I remember the little Honda's.
But like one of the jet guys said it's a heck of a lot cheaper. Another good
thing is it will come in handy during the ice storms here
in Iowa when we lose power.  
JLK
 
> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:18:06 -0700
> From: wemodels at cox.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
> 
> Bill's Email wrote:
> > William C. Harden wrote:
> >> Would someone please again provide the Honeywell generator model for 
> >> $299.95
> >> that everyone is talking about here on the list? 
> >> Thanks.
> >> 
> >
> > Honeywell HW2000i
> >
> > Comes packed in a large mostly red colored box.
> >
> >
> > SKU# 183779
> >
> > http://www.honeywellgenerators.com/products/hw2000i
> 
> 
> Photo Link: 
> http://www.honeywellgenerators.com/images/2009/03/16/pic_615393ca.jpg
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090628/0fcd0e0d/attachment.html>

From d_bodary at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 28 11:50:38 2009
From: d_bodary at yahoo.com (Dennis Bodary)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:50:38 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
Message-ID: <574450.1233.qm@web51701.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

For the Michigan crowd. The Home Depot at Goddard and Telegraph has one left. If the store personnel cannot find it. Look for the overstock in Air Compressors. I wandered the store for 45 minutes looking for it. 
?
The employees could not find it, But i did. One other thing don't climb up the ladder and take it down by yourself. I did and thought i was going to drop it from about 10 feet.

--- On Sun, 6/28/09, Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:


From: Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009, 3:32 PM




I've run mine as well. If you put it in "Efficiency Mode" it is much quieter. In normal it is a bit louder than a Honda. But for the price difference I can buy a lot of extension cords. I walked 25 feet away and it is very quiet and tolerable. With a 50 foot extension cord you will not even notice it. Even at 25 feet it is no big deal.




John Konneker wrote: 


#yiv25401107 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv25401107 {
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

I picked mine up today.? Availability is weird.? I got on the store locator and 4 out or 5 stores 
I called had never heard of it.
It is 2,000watts for $299.??I ran mine for about 5 minutes and it is louder than I remember the little Honda's.
But like one of the jet guys?said it's a heck of a lot cheaper. Another good thing is it?will come in handy during the ice storms here
in Iowa when we lose power.??
JLK


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090628/957ab69f/attachment.html>

From mkmsg at cox.net  Sun Jun 28 13:21:19 2009
From: mkmsg at cox.net (MKMSG)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:21:19 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Carbon F3A Landing Gear
References: <574450.1233.qm@web51701.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CEDB5CE2BE1F4F3AA270C3E0CC5B8786@usera1262bf031>

I'm looking for a straight leg carbon landing gear for an electric PL Partner.  Other than ZN Models, does anyone know of a source (I need about 8 1/4" from the axle to the mounting surface of the gear).  The photo of the gear on the CA Models website looks straight, but when I received it, it was a curved, swept shape.  Thanks.

Mike Moritko
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090628/95013169/attachment.html>

From don.ramsey at suddenlink.net  Sun Jun 28 13:59:35 2009
From: don.ramsey at suddenlink.net (Don Ramsey)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:59:35 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest Results
In-Reply-To: <761066542.9300891246017681499.JavaMail.root@sz0093a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
References: <761066542.9300891246017681499.JavaMail.root@sz0093a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <01a201c9f83b$bce9d610$36bd8230$@ramsey@suddenlink.net>

Results for the Cowboy Nationals, Dunlay, Tx is posted on 
http://pages.suddenlink.net/donramsey/
 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090628/001f0e2e/attachment.html>

From wgalligan at att.net  Sun Jun 28 14:54:40 2009
From: wgalligan at att.net (Wayne Galligan)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:54:40 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Carbon F3A Landing Gear
In-Reply-To: <CEDB5CE2BE1F4F3AA270C3E0CC5B8786@usera1262bf031>
References: <574450.1233.qm@web51701.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<CEDB5CE2BE1F4F3AA270C3E0CC5B8786@usera1262bf031>
Message-ID: <8A4B4FCF9CF54C7B81A0888C34DE9DB8@WaynePC>

Mike,

I have a set of straight gear from a Genesis.   Email me off line

Wayne Galligan
wgalligan at att.net

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: MKMSG 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:21 PM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Carbon F3A Landing Gear


  I'm looking for a straight leg carbon landing gear for an electric PL Partner.  Other than ZN Models, does anyone know of a source (I need about 8 1/4" from the axle to the mounting surface of the gear).  The photo of the gear on the CA Models website looks straight, but when I received it, it was a curved, swept shape.  Thanks.

  Mike Moritko


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090628/18ffd8a2/attachment.html>

From jnhiller at earthlink.net  Sun Jun 28 15:30:19 2009
From: jnhiller at earthlink.net (J N Hiller)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:30:19 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fun In The Sun
In-Reply-To: <BAY119-W1555679B9A12D40B846EB5CC330@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPOEBPEKAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>

Rex, I'll be there Friday afternoon.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Rex
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 6:20 PM
To: NSRCA-discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fun In The Sun

Next weekend is the "Fun In The Sun" contest in Richland, Washinton.
Information on this contest is available on the D8 website


Rex Lesher
D8 VP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090628/968ceaf4/attachment.html>

From BC3662 at aol.com  Sun Jun 28 15:32:44 2009
From: BC3662 at aol.com (BC3662 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:32:44 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fun In The Sun
Message-ID: <c32.57142721.37795791@aol.com>

See you Friday Jim!
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the 
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090628/5fcde672/attachment.html>

From trexlesh at msn.com  Sun Jun 28 15:32:52 2009
From: trexlesh at msn.com (Rex)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:32:52 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fun In The Sun
In-Reply-To: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPOEBPEKAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>
References: <BAY119-W1555679B9A12D40B846EB5CC330@phx.gbl>
	<HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPOEBPEKAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <BAY119-W5260C3B5E9BC075F4E1474CC330@phx.gbl>


That's a coincidence....  so will I!  See ya there Jim!
 


From: jnhiller at earthlink.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:30:33 -0700
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fun In The Sun





Rex, I'll be there Friday afternoon.
Jim Hiller
 
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Rex
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 6:20 PM
To: NSRCA-discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fun In The Sun
 
Next weekend is the "Fun In The Sun" contest in Richland, Washinton.
Information on this contest is available on the D8 website
 
 
Rex Lesher
D8 VP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090628/5c1479e2/attachment.html>

From BC3662 at aol.com  Sun Jun 28 15:34:04 2009
From: BC3662 at aol.com (BC3662 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:34:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fun In The Sun
Message-ID: <bb8.554615b1.377957e2@aol.com>

I may even see you Rex!
 
Bill
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the 
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090628/06cb4aff/attachment.html>

From trexlesh at msn.com  Sun Jun 28 15:54:24 2009
From: trexlesh at msn.com (Rex)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:54:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fun In The Sun
In-Reply-To: <bb8.554615b1.377957e2@aol.com>
References: <bb8.554615b1.377957e2@aol.com>
Message-ID: <BAY119-W52B067A7D0B41001FA001FCC330@phx.gbl>


I'm guessing that's a good possibility!
 


From: BC3662 at aol.com
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:33:54 -0400
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fun In The Sun


I may even see you Rex!
 
Bill



Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090628/4b161eeb/attachment.html>

From edvwhite at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 28 17:45:00 2009
From: edvwhite at yahoo.com (Ed White)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:45:00 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
In-Reply-To: <776902.22695.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <776902.22695.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <87245.55608.qm@web83504.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Many Thanks to the Chicago Mafia, especially Field Marshall Frankie, for a great contest !

It was great watching Andrew Jesky fly.  Best Wishes to Andrew and the rest of the team in Portugal.  

As for the rest of you up there by the big lake - Jimmy is smilin' on ya

Ed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/82a8196c/attachment.html>

From schale at optonline.net  Sun Jun 28 18:22:24 2009
From: schale at optonline.net (Stuart Chale)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 02:22:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Black Dirt Squadron Registration
In-Reply-To: <SNT119-W35997DB095F2593899344FE2370@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT119-W35997DB095F2593899344FE2370@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4A482558.9050702@optonline.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/6ff91fa3/attachment.html>

From deanfunk1 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 28 18:35:43 2009
From: deanfunk1 at yahoo.com (Dean Funk)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 02:35:43 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] The Original Fire Sale - update !!!!
Message-ID: <294579.64394.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


please contact me off list....


Custom Scratch Built and Painted Black Magic V2.2 - Please check this link for details.  http://blackmagicv2.deanfunk.com/

Black Magic V2.2 kit with carbon canopy, and honeycombed wing cores. It's a builders kit with parts. You need to supply the sheeting wood. It also comes with a framed up v2 fuselage. So the hard work of building the box is competed. I am asking $250.00 and would deliever to nats.

YS 160 NIB - 1/2 tank bench run only $475

YS 140L Used Excellent, great runner $325.00

Hyde HCMY4ARISA mount NIB - $225.00

ES Carbon Pipe for YS 160-170 NIB - ESD4C160C7 $125

NIB OS 61 RF Pumper + OS Header $250

NIB Webra LS 61 ABC with Dynamix?+ webra header?and Macs pipe $250


      

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Sun Jun 28 18:38:58 2009
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 02:38:58 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57EB76C@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

I share the sentiment. I think there were 35 pilots which made for a great event.   A lot of good flying and a LOT of great landings today in 30mph winds!!  

Thanks Frankie, and of course the whole Chicago gang for a fun time. 

-Mark
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld


----- Original Message -----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sun Jun 28 21:44:58 2009
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest

Many Thanks to the Chicago Mafia, especially Field Marshall Frankie, for a great contest !

It was great watching Andrew Jesky fly.  Best Wishes to Andrew and the rest of the team in Portugal.  

As for the rest of you up there by the big lake - Jimmy is smilin' on ya

Ed


From Andrew.Jesky at soaringsoftware.com  Sun Jun 28 18:50:39 2009
From: Andrew.Jesky at soaringsoftware.com (Andrew Jesky)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 02:50:39 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
In-Reply-To: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57EB76C@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
References: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57EB76C@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
Message-ID: <5CEB80DF-8419-4363-B176-4AB3CF2B0F13@soaringsoftware.com>

Thanks all for the great time in Chicago. You all are a class act.  
With all the pilots we had everyone did a great job keeping the lines  
rolling.

Also, thanks for all the support for the F3A World Team. You all are  
awesome.

Andrew

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 28, 2009, at 10:31 PM, "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>  
wrote:

> I share the sentiment. I think there were 35 pilots which made for a  
> great event.   A lot of good flying and a LOT of great landings  
> today in 30mph winds!!
>
> Thanks Frankie, and of course the whole Chicago gang for a fun time.
>
> -Mark
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> >
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Sun Jun 28 21:44:58 2009
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
>
> Many Thanks to the Chicago Mafia, especially Field Marshall Frankie,  
> for a great contest !
>
> It was great watching Andrew Jesky fly.  Best Wishes to Andrew and  
> the rest of the team in Portugal.
>
> As for the rest of you up there by the big lake - Jimmy is smilin'  
> on ya
>
> Ed
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

From ahrensw at charter.net  Sun Jun 28 19:32:51 2009
From: ahrensw at charter.net (Bill Ahrens)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:32:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
In-Reply-To: <87245.55608.qm@web83504.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <776902.22695.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<87245.55608.qm@web83504.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <018e01c9f86a$3fbd9260$bf38b720$@net>

Very well said Ed,  Can't agree more.  

Jimmy still has my 2-56 hex driver J

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed White
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 8:45 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest

 

Many Thanks to the Chicago Mafia, especially Field Marshall Frankie, for a
great contest !

It was great watching Andrew Jesky fly.  Best Wishes to Andrew and the rest
of the team in Portugal.  

As for the rest of you up there by the big lake - Jimmy is smilin' on ya

Ed

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/84b83db3/attachment.html>

From glmiller3 at suddenlink.net  Mon Jun 29 04:23:05 2009
From: glmiller3 at suddenlink.net (glmiller3 at suddenlink.net)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:23:05 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Karl Mueller where are you?
Message-ID: <20090629072301.F872J.4023416.root@Web03>

Hi guys, 

Does anyone have a contact number for Karl?  I have ordered a couple of headers from him at:

kgamueller at rogers.com 

In the past I've always had a prompt reply from him, but I broke a header last weekend (9 days ago) and sent him an email and paypal payment and haven't heard back from him.  I flew my backup this weekend but with the nats coming up I'd like to know if I can get a header or not.....so I'd appreciate a contact or update on his status from anyone who knows him.

Thanks,

George

From wilsorc at gmail.com  Mon Jun 29 04:40:21 2009
From: wilsorc at gmail.com (Bob Wilson)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:40:21 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
In-Reply-To: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57EB76C@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
References: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57EB76C@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
Message-ID: <888fdd980906290540m5c8bbbb9h6be85a5adae45fcf@mail.gmail.com>

The Peoria contingent heartily agrees...great time!  Frankie and the rest of
the mafia did a fantastic job.

Hope to see you all at "The Fat Lake Pattern Rendezvous" August 1-2 in
Peoria.

Bob Wilson

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>wrote:

> I share the sentiment. I think there were 35 pilots which made for a great
> event.   A lot of good flying and a LOT of great landings today in 30mph
> winds!!
>
> Thanks Frankie, and of course the whole Chicago gang for a fun time.
>
> -Mark
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Sun Jun 28 21:44:58 2009
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
>
> Many Thanks to the Chicago Mafia, especially Field Marshall Frankie, for a
> great contest !
>
> It was great watching Andrew Jesky fly.  Best Wishes to Andrew and the rest
> of the team in Portugal.
>
> As for the rest of you up there by the big lake - Jimmy is smilin' on ya
>
> Ed
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/44ceba6e/attachment.html>

From ronlock at comcast.net  Mon Jun 29 05:03:41 2009
From: ronlock at comcast.net (ronlock at comcast.net)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:03:41 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator weight?
In-Reply-To: <BLU106-W236CC9B8487705F6820EF4CD330@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <762204901.324441246280616770.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>



Anyone know it's weight compared to Honda 2000? 



Ron Lockhart 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Konneker" <jlkonn at hotmail.com> 
To: "Discussion List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 3:09:23 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator 

I picked mine up today.? Availability is weird.? I got on the store locator and 4 out or 5 stores 
I called had never heard of it. 
It is 2,000watts for $299.??I ran mine for about 5 minutes and it is louder than I remember the little Honda's. 
But like one of the jet guys?said it's a heck of a lot cheaper. Another good thing is it?will come in handy during the ice storms here 
in Iowa when we lose power.?? 
JLK 
? 
> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:18:06 -0700 
> From: wemodels at cox.net 
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator 
> 
> Bill's Email wrote: 
> > William C. Harden wrote: 
> >> Would someone please again provide the Honeywell generator model for 
> >> $299.95 
> >> that everyone is talking about here on the list? 
> >> Thanks. 
> >> 
> > 
> > Honeywell HW2000i 
> > 
> > Comes packed in a large mostly red colored box. 
> > 
> > 
> > SKU# 183779 
> > 
> > http://www.honeywellgenerators.com/products/hw2000i 
> 
> 
> Photo Link: 
> http://www.honeywellgenerators.com/images/2009/03/16/pic_615393ca.jpg 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/f4430e9b/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 29 05:04:39 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:04:39 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
Message-ID: <444051.16585.qm@web51002.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 Hey to everyone who came to the contest. I think I speak for everyone from the "Mob" that it was heartwarming to see the support.
 I checked the weather report and it said we had gusts up to 40 MPH yesterday.Oh really? Felt like more to me. The turbulance was as bad as anything I have ever experienced before. Lots of E. guys were using up their mils. Lots of broken landing gears and wheel pants but nothing terrible. It was so bad landing that people were clapping if you didn't damage your plane.
 We had a huge field in FAI and the skill level was very high. Makes me very proud to see the midwest having viability again. I get the feeling that pattern flying in our area is getting stronger and gaining some much needed momentum despite the sagging economy. I can't wait to see the new blood the Peoria contest will introduce to the sport. It should be interesting. Take care and see you at the Nats soon. Mike

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Bob Wilson <wilsorc at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Bob Wilson <wilsorc at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:40 AM
> The Peoria contingent heartily
> agrees...great time!? Frankie and the rest of the mafia did
> a fantastic job.
> 
> Hope to see you all at "The Fat Lake Pattern
> Rendezvous" August 1-2 in Peoria.
> 
> Bob Wilson
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM,
> Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> wrote:
> 
> I share the sentiment. I think there were 35 pilots which
> made for a great event. ? A lot of good flying and a LOT of
> great landings today in 30mph winds!!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Frankie, and of course the whole Chicago gang for a
> fun time.
> 
> 
> 
> -Mark
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> 
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> Sent: Sun Jun 28 21:44:58 2009
> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial
> Chicago Contest
> 
> 
> 
> Many Thanks to the Chicago Mafia, especially Field Marshall
> Frankie, for a great contest !
> 
> 
> 
> It was great watching Andrew Jesky fly. ?Best Wishes to
> Andrew and the rest of the team in Portugal.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the rest of you up there by the big lake - Jimmy is
> smilin' on ya
> 
> 
> 
> Ed
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> 
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> 
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 29 05:08:06 2009
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:08:06 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator weight?
Message-ID: <38360.788.qm@web51004.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


 One of the flyers from Wisconsin had the Honeywell at the Chicago contest this weekend.
 It's a hefty unit. It's a bit noisier than the honda a bit bigger and heavier. Looked like a great deal to me. He bought so he can use it for other things besides lipo charging. From what I saw of it it's a genuine bargain. Mike

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, ronlock at comcast.net <ronlock at comcast.net> wrote:

> From: ronlock at comcast.net <ronlock at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator weight?
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:03 AM
> #yiv1835071957 p
> {margin:0;}Anyone
> know it's weight compared to Honda 2000?
> ?
> Ron Lockhart
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Konneker" <jlkonn at hotmail.com>
> To: "Discussion List"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 3:09:23 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada
> Eastern
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
> 
> 
> 
> #yiv1835071957 .hmmessage P
> {
> margin:0px;padding:0px;}
> #yiv1835071957 {
> font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
> 
> I picked mine up today.? Availability is weird.?
> I got on the store locator and 4 out or 5 stores 
> I called had never heard of it.
> It is 2,000watts for $299.??I ran mine for about
> 5 minutes and it is louder than I remember the little
> Honda's.
> But like one of the jet guys?said it's a heck of a
> lot cheaper. Another good thing is it?will come in
> handy during the ice storms here
> in Iowa when we lose power.??
> JLK
> ?
> > Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:18:06 -0700
> > From: wemodels at cox.net
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
> > 
> > Bill's Email wrote:
> > > William C. Harden wrote:
> > >> Would someone please again provide the
> Honeywell generator model for 
> > >> $299.95
> > >> that everyone is talking about here on the
> list? 
> > >> Thanks.
> > >> 
> > >
> > > Honeywell HW2000i
> > >
> > > Comes packed in a large mostly red colored box.
> > >
> > >
> > > SKU# 183779
> > >
> > >
> http://www.honeywellgenerators.com/products/hw2000i
> > 
> > 
> > Photo Link: 
> >
> http://www.honeywellgenerators.com/images/2009/03/16/pic_615393ca.jpg
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      

From jlkonn at hotmail.com  Mon Jun 29 05:30:59 2009
From: jlkonn at hotmail.com (John Konneker)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:30:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator weight?
In-Reply-To: <762204901.324441246280616770.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
References: <BLU106-W236CC9B8487705F6820EF4CD330@phx.gbl>
	<762204901.324441246280616770.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <BLU106-W215ED4EEA13DA8C2E409E3CD300@phx.gbl>


Hey Ron,

Honda lists the 2000i at 47 pounds and Honeywell lists there's at 58.  Don't know if both weights are dry or not.

JLK
 


Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:03:36 +0000
From: ronlock at comcast.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator weight?





Anyone know it's weight compared to Honda 2000?

 

Ron Lockhart

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Konneker" <jlkonn at hotmail.com>
To: "Discussion List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 3:09:23 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator



I picked mine up today.  Availability is weird.  I got on the store locator and 4 out or 5 stores 
I called had never heard of it.
It is 2,000watts for $299.  I ran mine for about 5 minutes and it is louder than I remember the little Honda's.
But like one of the jet guys said it's a heck of a lot cheaper. Another good thing is it will come in handy during the ice storms here
in Iowa when we lose power.  
JLK
 
> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:18:06 -0700
> From: wemodels at cox.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
> 
> Bill's Email wrote:
> > William C. Harden wrote:
> >> Would someone please again provide the Honeywell generator model for 
> >> $299.95
> >> that everyone is talking about here on the list? 
> >> Thanks.
> >> 
> >
> > Honeywell HW2000i
> >
> > Comes packed in a large mostly red colored box.
> >
> >
> > SKU# 183779
> >
> > http://www.honeywellgenerators.com/products/hw2000i
> 
> 
> Photo Link: 
> http://www.honeywellgenerators.com/images/2009/03/16/pic_615393ca.jpg
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/d8d7f53e/attachment.html>

From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Mon Jun 29 06:18:08 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:18:08 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
Message-ID: <833000.31566.qm@web82107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dennis,
What are you doing buying a generator, aren't you a die hard Glow guy. I know you didn't all that Powermaster 15/16 fuel for nothing.
?
We missed you and Bob in Chicago this weekend. You would have had fun in that cross wind!

--- On Sun, 6/28/09, Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009, 3:50 PM







For the Michigan crowd. The Home Depot at Goddard and Telegraph has one left. If the store personnel cannot find it. Look for the overstock in Air Compressors. I wandered the store for 45 minutes looking for it. 
?
The employees could not find it, But i did. One other thing don't climb up the ladder and take it down by yourself. I did and thought i was going to drop it from about 10 feet.

--- On Sun, 6/28/09, Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:


From: Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009, 3:32 PM




I've run mine as well. If you put it in "Efficiency Mode" it is much quieter. In normal it is a bit louder than a Honda. But for the price difference I can buy a lot of extension cords. I walked 25 feet away and it is very quiet and tolerable. With a 50 foot extension cord you will not even notice it. Even at 25 feet it is no big deal.




John Konneker wrote: 


#yiv134167377 #yiv25401107 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv134167377 #yiv25401107 {
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

I picked mine up today.? Availability is weird.? I got on the store locator and 4 out or 5 stores 
I called had never heard of it.
It is 2,000watts for $299.??I ran mine for about 5 minutes and it is louder than I remember the little Honda's.
But like one of the jet guys?said it's a heck of a lot cheaper. Another good thing is it?will come in handy during the ice storms here
in Iowa when we lose power.??
JLK


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/1649d4af/attachment.html>

From drmikedds at sbcglobal.net  Mon Jun 29 06:22:26 2009
From: drmikedds at sbcglobal.net (michael s harrison)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:22:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest Results
In-Reply-To: <01a201c9f83b$bce9d610$36bd8230$@ramsey@suddenlink.net>
References: <761066542.9300891246017681499.JavaMail.root@sz0093a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
	<01a201c9f83b$bce9d610$36bd8230$@ramsey@suddenlink.net>
Message-ID: <002201c9f8c5$0d92cca0$28b865e0$@net>

Not posted

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Don Ramsey
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 5:00 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest Results

 

Results for the Cowboy Nationals, Dunlay, Tx is posted on 

http://pages.suddenlink.net/donramsey/

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/2dbda23b/attachment.html>

From d_bodary at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 29 06:23:37 2009
From: d_bodary at yahoo.com (Dennis Bodary)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:23:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
Message-ID: <808436.94761.qm@web51709.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

My electric is almost done. Maybe by August. It is a Aquila. Actually just something to putz with. 

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 10:18 AM







Dennis,
What are you doing buying a generator, aren't you a die hard Glow guy. I know you didn't all that Powermaster 15/16 fuel for nothing.
?
We missed you and Bob in Chicago this weekend. You would have had fun in that cross wind!

--- On Sun, 6/28/09, Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009, 3:50 PM







For the Michigan crowd. The Home Depot at Goddard and Telegraph has one left. If the store personnel cannot find it. Look for the overstock in Air Compressors. I wandered the store for 45 minutes looking for it. 
?
The employees could not find it, But i did. One other thing don't climb up the ladder and take it down by yourself. I did and thought i was going to drop it from about 10 feet.

--- On Sun, 6/28/09, Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:


From: Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009, 3:32 PM




I've run mine as well. If you put it in "Efficiency Mode" it is much quieter. In normal it is a bit louder than a Honda. But for the price difference I can buy a lot of extension cords. I walked 25 feet away and it is very quiet and tolerable. With a 50 foot extension cord you will not even notice it. Even at 25 feet it is no big deal.




John Konneker wrote: 


#yiv1018006902 #yiv134167377 #yiv25401107 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv1018006902 #yiv134167377 #yiv25401107 {
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

I picked mine up today.? Availability is weird.? I got on the store locator and 4 out or 5 stores 
I called had never heard of it.
It is 2,000watts for $299.??I ran mine for about 5 minutes and it is louder than I remember the little Honda's.
But like one of the jet guys?said it's a heck of a lot cheaper. Another good thing is it?will come in handy during the ice storms here
in Iowa when we lose power.??
JLK


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/a70f6021/attachment.html>

From jshulman at cfl.rr.com  Mon Jun 29 06:25:51 2009
From: jshulman at cfl.rr.com (J Shu)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:25:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest Results
In-Reply-To: <002201c9f8c5$0d92cca0$28b865e0$@net>
References: <761066542.9300891246017681499.JavaMail.root@sz0093a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net><01a201c9f83b$bce9d610$36bd8230$@ramsey@suddenlink.net>
	<002201c9f8c5$0d92cca0$28b865e0$@net>
Message-ID: <84F3A2B318124CF5974E90E7CC479E28@UncleJasPC>

Mike,

The link is working on my end. Maybe hit refresh on his page and update yours?

Regards,
Jason
www.shulmanaviation.com
www.composite-arf.com

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: michael s harrison 
  To: 'General pattern discussion' 
  Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 10:22 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest Results


  Not posted

   

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Don Ramsey
  Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 5:00 PM
  To: 'General pattern discussion'
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest Results

   

  Results for the Cowboy Nationals, Dunlay, Tx is posted on 

  http://pages.suddenlink.net/donramsey/

   

   

   

   



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/e5aaf04c/attachment.html>

From homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 29 06:35:47 2009
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com (krishlan fitzsimmons)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:35:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator weight? And Kipor Gen
	info
Message-ID: <111064.73672.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

The Honda 2000 weight is dry Jon. 

Another option:

I run a Kipor 2000 generator. Same quality as the Honda. My second year on it with no problems. The 1000 is $469 on ebay plus $37 shipping. The 2000 is $699 plus $54 shipping. It 2000 a 1 gallon tank, and runs for about 10 hours with 2 guys charging. It usually costs me about $2 - $3? a day at a contest to run it. The 1000 weighs 30.8 lbs, the 2000 weighs 57 lbs. Db ratings are identical to the Honda. 

It runs great, is fuel efficient IMO, is quiet and I highly recommend it. 

Chris   ?  ?  ?

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, John Konneker <jlkonn at hotmail.com> wrote:

From: John Konneker <jlkonn at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator weight?
To: "Discussion List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:30 AM




#yiv1353963280 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv1353963280 {
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

Hey Ron,

Honda lists the 2000i at 47?pounds and Honeywell lists there's at 58.? Don't know if both weights are dry or not.

JLK
?


Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:03:36 +0000
From: ronlock at comcast.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator weight?



#yiv1353963280 .ExternalClass p
{}



Anyone know it's weight compared to Honda 2000?

?

Ron Lockhart

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Konneker" <jlkonn at hotmail.com>
To: "Discussion List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 3:09:23 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator



#yiv1353963280 .ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
#yiv1353963280 .ExternalClass body.EC_hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

I picked mine up today.? Availability is weird.? I got on the store locator and 4 out or 5 stores 
I called had never heard of it.
It is 2,000watts for $299.??I ran mine for about 5 minutes and it is louder than I remember the little Honda's.
But like one of the jet guys?said it's a heck of a lot cheaper. Another good thing is it?will come in handy during the ice storms here
in Iowa when we lose power.??
JLK
?
> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:18:06 -0700
> From: wemodels at cox.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
> 
> Bill's Email wrote:
> > William C. Harden wrote:
> >> Would someone please again provide the Honeywell generator model for 
> >> $299.95
> >> that everyone is talking about here on the list? 
> >> Thanks.
> >> 
> >
> > Honeywell HW2000i
> >
> > Comes packed in a large mostly red colored box.
> >
> >
> > SKU# 183779
> >
> > http://www.honeywellgenerators.com/products/hw2000i
> 
> 
> Photo Link: 
> http://www.honeywellgenerators.com/images/2009/03/16/pic_615393ca.jpg
> _______________________________________________
> 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
 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/f73ee027/attachment.html>

From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Mon Jun 29 06:50:34 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:50:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
Message-ID: <940244.70518.qm@web82101.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I had the honor of the last flight of the weekend and I swear the winds were so high that I almost fell over. Even with the gusts it was a FANTASTIC contest, very well attended and well run. It was my first time there and I will be sure to make it back every year it is held.
?
Thanks for a great time guys!
Anthony

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 9:04 AM



Hey to everyone who came to the contest. I think I speak for everyone from the "Mob" that it was heartwarming to see the support.
I checked the weather report and it said we had gusts up to 40 MPH yesterday.Oh really? Felt like more to me. The turbulance was as bad as anything I have ever experienced before. Lots of E. guys were using up their mils. Lots of broken landing gears and wheel pants but nothing terrible. It was so bad landing that people were clapping if you didn't damage your plane.
We had a huge field in FAI and the skill level was very high. Makes me very proud to see the midwest having viability again. I get the feeling that pattern flying in our area is getting stronger and gaining some much needed momentum despite the sagging economy. I can't wait to see the new blood the Peoria contest will introduce to the sport. It should be interesting. Take care and see you at the Nats soon. Mike

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Bob Wilson <wilsorc at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Bob Wilson <wilsorc at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:40 AM
> The Peoria contingent heartily
> agrees...great time!? Frankie and the rest of the mafia did
> a fantastic job.
> 
> Hope to see you all at "The Fat Lake Pattern
> Rendezvous" August 1-2 in Peoria.
> 
> Bob Wilson
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM,
> Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> wrote:
> 
> I share the sentiment. I think there were 35 pilots which
> made for a great event. ? A lot of good flying and a LOT of
> great landings today in 30mph winds!!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Frankie, and of course the whole Chicago gang for a
> fun time.
> 
> 
> 
> -Mark
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> 
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> Sent: Sun Jun 28 21:44:58 2009
> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial
> Chicago Contest
> 
> 
> 
> Many Thanks to the Chicago Mafia, especially Field Marshall
> Frankie, for a great contest !
> 
> 
> 
> It was great watching Andrew Jesky fly. ?Best Wishes to
> Andrew and the rest of the team in Portugal.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the rest of you up there by the big lake - Jimmy is
> smilin' on ya
> 
> 
> 
> Ed
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> 
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> 
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/5fa57eaf/attachment.html>

From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Mon Jun 29 06:54:23 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:54:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
Message-ID: <298649.66997.qm@web82107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I have heard that those come out a little on the light side, make sure you add lead shot to you epoxy for ballast 
?
You are still going to be flying the yellow beast right? I can share the details of my BM V.3 to electric conversion if you like.
?
Step 1. Take out the glow engine
Step 2. Put in an electric motor
Step 3. Fly
?
So simple even you can do it.

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 10:23 AM






My electric is almost done. Maybe by August. It is a Aquila. Actually just something to putz with. 

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 10:18 AM







Dennis,
What are you doing buying a generator, aren't you a die hard Glow guy. I know you didn't all that Powermaster 15/16 fuel for nothing.
?
We missed you and Bob in Chicago this weekend. You would have had fun in that cross wind!

--- On Sun, 6/28/09, Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009, 3:50 PM







For the Michigan crowd. The Home Depot at Goddard and Telegraph has one left. If the store personnel cannot find it. Look for the overstock in Air Compressors. I wandered the store for 45 minutes looking for it. 
?
The employees could not find it, But i did. One other thing don't climb up the ladder and take it down by yourself. I did and thought i was going to drop it from about 10 feet.

--- On Sun, 6/28/09, Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:


From: Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009, 3:32 PM




I've run mine as well. If you put it in "Efficiency Mode" it is much quieter. In normal it is a bit louder than a Honda. But for the price difference I can buy a lot of extension cords. I walked 25 feet away and it is very quiet and tolerable. With a 50 foot extension cord you will not even notice it. Even at 25 feet it is no big deal.




John Konneker wrote: 


#yiv587001334 #yiv1018006902 #yiv134167377 #yiv25401107 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv587001334 #yiv1018006902 #yiv134167377 #yiv25401107 {
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

I picked mine up today.? Availability is weird.? I got on the store locator and 4 out or 5 stores 
I called had never heard of it.
It is 2,000watts for $299.??I ran mine for about 5 minutes and it is louder than I remember the little Honda's.
But like one of the jet guys?said it's a heck of a lot cheaper. Another good thing is it?will come in handy during the ice storms here
in Iowa when we lose power.??
JLK


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/bdf667a3/attachment.html>

From d_bodary at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 29 06:58:25 2009
From: d_bodary at yahoo.com (Dennis Bodary)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:58:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
Message-ID: <779857.79018.qm@web51705.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Would have loved to be there myself. Just right now my budget is still about zero. Hopefully i'll make some money this weekend at the lawnmower race. I had a bad qualifying run and barely made the race. Starting 32nd this year out of 33. So even that prospect is slim. 
?
Do you still have that ES carbon pipe?

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 10:50 AM







I had the honor of the last flight of the weekend and I swear the winds were so high that I almost fell over. Even with the gusts it was a FANTASTIC contest, very well attended and well run. It was my first time there and I will be sure to make it back every year it is held.
?
Thanks for a great time guys!
Anthony

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 9:04 AM



Hey to everyone who came to the contest. I think I speak for everyone from the "Mob" that it was heartwarming to see the support.
I checked the weather report and it said we had gusts up to 40 MPH yesterday.Oh really? Felt like more to me. The turbulance was as bad as anything I have ever experienced before. Lots of E. guys were using up their mils. Lots of broken landing gears and wheel pants but nothing terrible. It was so bad landing that people were clapping if you didn't damage your plane.
We had a huge field in FAI and the skill level was very high. Makes me very proud to see the midwest having viability again. I get the feeling that pattern flying in our area is getting stronger and gaining some much needed momentum despite the sagging economy. I can't wait to see the new blood the Peoria contest will introduce to the sport. It should be interesting. Take care and see you at the Nats soon. Mike

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Bob Wilson <wilsorc at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Bob Wilson <wilsorc at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:40 AM
> The Peoria contingent heartily
> agrees...great time!? Frankie and the rest of the mafia did
> a fantastic job.
> 
> Hope to see you all at "The Fat Lake Pattern
> Rendezvous" August 1-2 in Peoria.
> 
> Bob Wilson
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM,
> Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> wrote:
> 
> I share the sentiment. I think there were 35 pilots which
> made for a great event. ? A lot of good flying and a LOT of
> great landings today in 30mph winds!!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Frankie, and of course the whole Chicago gang for a
> fun time.
> 
> 
> 
> -Mark
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> 
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> Sent: Sun Jun 28 21:44:58 2009
> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial
> Chicago Contest
> 
> 
> 
> Many Thanks to the Chicago Mafia, especially Field Marshall
> Frankie, for a great contest !
> 
> 
> 
> It was great watching Andrew Jesky fly. ?Best Wishes to
> Andrew and the rest of the team in Portugal.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the rest of you up there by the big lake - Jimmy is
> smilin' on ya
> 
> 
> 
> Ed
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> 
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> 
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/2799640e/attachment.html>

From d_bodary at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 29 07:10:47 2009
From: d_bodary at yahoo.com (Dennis Bodary)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:10:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
Message-ID: <288976.74657.qm@web51711.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

I haven't put it on the scales yet. I will be running a Rimfire 62-63-250 and tru turn 10c 5000 packs. Along with a CC85HV. So yes it may be heavy but i did not want to run any smaller electronics in it. 
Could not stand the forked elevator pushrod so i went with a MK bellcrank. Probably should have put a DEPS system in it. But i already had the bellcrank from my Focus. 

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 10:54 AM







I have heard that those come out a little on the light side, make sure you add lead shot to you epoxy for ballast 
?
You are still going to be flying the yellow beast right? I can share the details of my BM V.3 to electric conversion if you like.
?
Step 1. Take out the glow engine
Step 2. Put in an electric motor
Step 3. Fly
?
So simple even you can do it.

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 10:23 AM






My electric is almost done. Maybe by August. It is a Aquila. Actually just something to putz with. 

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 10:18 AM







Dennis,
What are you doing buying a generator, aren't you a die hard Glow guy. I know you didn't all that Powermaster 15/16 fuel for nothing.
?
We missed you and Bob in Chicago this weekend. You would have had fun in that cross wind!

--- On Sun, 6/28/09, Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009, 3:50 PM







For the Michigan crowd. The Home Depot at Goddard and Telegraph has one left. If the store personnel cannot find it. Look for the overstock in Air Compressors. I wandered the store for 45 minutes looking for it. 
?
The employees could not find it, But i did. One other thing don't climb up the ladder and take it down by yourself. I did and thought i was going to drop it from about 10 feet.

--- On Sun, 6/28/09, Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:


From: Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009, 3:32 PM




I've run mine as well. If you put it in "Efficiency Mode" it is much quieter. In normal it is a bit louder than a Honda. But for the price difference I can buy a lot of extension cords. I walked 25 feet away and it is very quiet and tolerable. With a 50 foot extension cord you will not even notice it. Even at 25 feet it is no big deal.




John Konneker wrote: 


#yiv1352680949 #yiv587001334 #yiv1018006902 #yiv134167377 #yiv25401107 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv1352680949 #yiv587001334 #yiv1018006902 #yiv134167377 #yiv25401107 {
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

I picked mine up today.? Availability is weird.? I got on the store locator and 4 out or 5 stores 
I called had never heard of it.
It is 2,000watts for $299.??I ran mine for about 5 minutes and it is louder than I remember the little Honda's.
But like one of the jet guys?said it's a heck of a lot cheaper. Another good thing is it?will come in handy during the ice storms here
in Iowa when we lose power.??
JLK


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/9444d926/attachment.html>

From AtwoodDon at aol.com  Mon Jun 29 07:11:06 2009
From: AtwoodDon at aol.com (AtwoodDon at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:11:06 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator weight? And Kipor Gen
	info
Message-ID: <d1a.4653aa17.377a343e@aol.com>

Is the Kipor generator the reason your batteries seem to have more 'umph'  
than every one else?  
 
Don
 
 
In a message dated 6/29/2009 7:36:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com writes:

The Honda 2000 weight is dry Jon. 

Another  option:

I run a Kipor 2000 generator. Same quality as the Honda.  My second year on 
it with no problems. The 1000 is $469 on ebay plus $37  shipping. The 2000 
is $699 plus $54 shipping. It 2000 a 1 gallon tank,  and runs for about 10 
hours with 2 guys charging. It usually costs me  about $2 - $3  a day at a 
contest to run it. The 1000 weighs 30.8  lbs, the 2000 weighs 57 lbs. Db 
ratings are identical to the Honda.  

It runs great, is fuel efficient IMO, is quiet and I highly  recommend it. 

Chris  





--- On Mon, 6/29/09, John Konneker  <jlkonn at hotmail.com> wrote:


From:  John Konneker <jlkonn at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re:  [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator weight?
To: "Discussion  List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June  29, 2009, 6:30 AM

 Hey Ron,
Honda lists the 2000i at 47 pounds and Honeywell  lists there's at 58.  
Don't know if both weights are dry or  not.
JLK

 
____________________________________
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:03:36 +0000
From:  ronlock at comcast.net
To:  nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]  Honeywell generator weight?

Anyone  know it's weight compared to Honda 2000?

Ron  Lockhart

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Konneker"  <jlkonn at hotmail.com>
To: "Discussion List"  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 28,  2009 3:09:23 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re:  [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator

I picked mine up today.  Availability is weird.  I got on  the store 
locator and 4 out or 5 stores 
I called had never heard  of it.
It is 2,000watts for $299.  I ran mine for about 5  minutes and it is 
louder than I remember the little Honda's.
But  like one of the jet guys said it's a heck of a lot cheaper.  Another 
good thing is it will come in handy during the ice storms  here
in Iowa when we lose  power.  
JLK

> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009  09:18:06 -0700
> From: wemodels at cox.net
> To:  nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re:  [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
> 
> Bill's Email  wrote:
> > William C. Harden wrote:
> >> Would  someone please again provide the Honeywell generator model for  
> >> $299.95
> >> that everyone is talking  about here on the list? 
> >> Thanks.
> >>  
> >
> > Honeywell HW2000i
> >
> >  Comes packed in a large mostly red colored box.
> >
>  >
> > SKU# 183779
> >
> >  http://www.honeywellgenerators.com/products/hw2000i
> 
>  
> Photo Link: 
>  http://www.honeywellgenerators.com/images/2009/03/16/pic_615393ca.jpg
>  _______________________________________________
>  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



-----Inline  Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion  mailing list
_NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org_ 
(mip://03cf8438/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org) 
_http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion_ 
(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

**************It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place 
where pets rule! (http://www.pawnation.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000008)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/451914cf/attachment.html>

From drmikedds at sbcglobal.net  Mon Jun 29 07:13:17 2009
From: drmikedds at sbcglobal.net (michael s harrison)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:13:17 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest Results
In-Reply-To: <002201c9f8c5$0d92cca0$28b865e0$@net>
References: <761066542.9300891246017681499.JavaMail.root@sz0093a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>	<01a201c9f83b$bce9d610$36bd8230$@ramsey@suddenlink.net>
	<002201c9f8c5$0d92cca0$28b865e0$@net>
Message-ID: <003901c9f8cc$273a0360$75ae0a20$@net>

Got it.

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of michael s harrison
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 9:23 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest Results

 

Not posted

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Don Ramsey
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 5:00 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest Results

 

Results for the Cowboy Nationals, Dunlay, Tx is posted on 

http://pages.suddenlink.net/donramsey/

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/f79e1fc2/attachment.html>

From glmiller3 at suddenlink.net  Mon Jun 29 07:16:07 2009
From: glmiller3 at suddenlink.net (glmiller3 at suddenlink.net)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:16:07 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Karl Mueller where are you?
In-Reply-To: <20090629072301.F872J.4023416.root@Web03>
Message-ID: <20090629101605.PBQS4.1347447.root@Web04>

Just heard from Karl...contact info is correct, he's just been down in the back.

G
---- glmiller3 at suddenlink.net wrote: 

=============
Hi guys, 

Does anyone have a contact number for Karl?  I have ordered a couple of headers from him at:

kgamueller at rogers.com 

In the past I've always had a prompt reply from him, but I broke a header last weekend (9 days ago) and sent him an email and paypal payment and haven't heard back from him.  I flew my backup this weekend but with the nats coming up I'd like to know if I can get a header or not.....so I'd appreciate a contact or update on his status from anyone who knows him.

Thanks,

George
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From glmiller3 at suddenlink.net  Mon Jun 29 07:16:09 2009
From: glmiller3 at suddenlink.net (glmiller3 at suddenlink.net)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:16:09 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Karl Mueller where are you?
In-Reply-To: <20090629072301.F872J.4023416.root@Web03>
Message-ID: <20090629101607.ZW9N5.1347449.root@Web04>

Just heard from Karl...contact info is correct, he's just been down in the back.

G
---- glmiller3 at suddenlink.net wrote: 

=============
Hi guys, 

Does anyone have a contact number for Karl?  I have ordered a couple of headers from him at:

kgamueller at rogers.com 

In the past I've always had a prompt reply from him, but I broke a header last weekend (9 days ago) and sent him an email and paypal payment and haven't heard back from him.  I flew my backup this weekend but with the nats coming up I'd like to know if I can get a header or not.....so I'd appreciate a contact or update on his status from anyone who knows him.

Thanks,

George
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From glmiller3 at suddenlink.net  Mon Jun 29 07:16:44 2009
From: glmiller3 at suddenlink.net (glmiller3 at suddenlink.net)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:16:44 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest Results
In-Reply-To: <003901c9f8cc$273a0360$75ae0a20$@net>
Message-ID: <20090629101642.KM35T.1347472.root@Web04>

Missed you mike!  

G
---- michael s harrison <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net> wrote: 

=============
Got it.

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of michael s harrison
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 9:23 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest Results

 

Not posted

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Don Ramsey
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 5:00 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest Results

 

Results for the Cowboy Nationals, Dunlay, Tx is posted on 

http://pages.suddenlink.net/donramsey/

 

 

 

 



From johnfuqua at embarqmail.com  Mon Jun 29 07:20:16 2009
From: johnfuqua at embarqmail.com (john fuqua)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:20:16 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] contact
Message-ID: <D99AA59A38D2411DAE208EFDB6D3AF72@JohnFuqua>

Jason Shulman please contact me off line at johnfuqua at embarqmail.com.

Thx

John

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/1dd1fa28/attachment.html>

From homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 29 07:20:42 2009
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com (krishlan fitzsimmons)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:20:42 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator weight? And Kipor Gen
	info
Message-ID: <588803.40131.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Aww, Don, now my secret is out. 

Chris   ?  ?  ?

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, AtwoodDon at aol.com <AtwoodDon at aol.com> wrote:

From: AtwoodDon at aol.com <AtwoodDon at aol.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator weight? And Kipor Gen info
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:14 AM



 

Is the Kipor generator the reason your batteries seem to have more 'umph'
than every one else?? 
?
Don
?

In a message dated 6/29/2009 7:36:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com writes:

  
    
    
      The Honda 2000 weight is dry Jon. 

Another
        option:

I run a Kipor 2000 generator. Same quality as the Honda.
        My second year on it with no problems. The 1000 is $469 on ebay plus $37
        shipping. The 2000 is $699 plus $54 shipping. It 2000 a 1 gallon tank,
        and runs for about 10 hours with 2 guys charging. It usually costs me
        about $2 - $3? a day at a contest to run it. The 1000 weighs 30.8
        lbs, the 2000 weighs 57 lbs. Db ratings are identical to the Honda.
        

It runs great, is fuel efficient IMO, is quiet and I highly
        recommend it. 


        Chris
        
        ?
        ?
        ?

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, John Konneker
        <jlkonn at hotmail.com> wrote:

        
From:
          John Konneker <jlkonn at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re:
          [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator weight?
To: "Discussion
          List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June
          29, 2009, 6:30 AM


          
          
#yiv595776277 #yiv1353963280 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv595776277 #yiv1353963280 {
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

          Hey Ron,
Honda lists the 2000i at 47?pounds and Honeywell
          lists there's at 58.? Don't know if both weights are dry or
          not.
JLK
?

          
          Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:03:36 +0000
From:
          ronlock at comcast.net
To:
          nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
          Honeywell generator weight?


          
#yiv595776277 #yiv1353963280 .ExternalClass p
{}


          Anyone
          know it's weight compared to Honda 2000?
?
Ron
          Lockhart

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Konneker"
          <jlkonn at hotmail.com>
To: "Discussion List"
          <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 28,
          2009 3:09:23 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re:
          [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator


          
#yiv595776277 #yiv1353963280 .ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
#yiv595776277 #yiv1353963280 .ExternalClass body.EC_hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

          I picked mine up today.? Availability is weird.? I got on
          the store locator and 4 out or 5 stores 
I called had never heard
          of it.
It is 2,000watts for $299.??I ran mine for about 5
          minutes and it is louder than I remember the little Honda's.
But
          like one of the jet guys?said it's a heck of a lot cheaper.
          Another good thing is it?will come in handy during the ice storms
          here
in Iowa when we lose
          power.??
JLK
?
> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009
          09:18:06 -0700
> From: wemodels at cox.net
> To:
          nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re:
          [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
> 
> Bill's Email
          wrote:
> > William C. Harden wrote:
> >> Would
          someone please again provide the Honeywell generator model for
          
> >> $299.95
> >> that everyone is talking
          about here on the list? 
> >> Thanks.
> >>
          
> >
> > Honeywell HW2000i
> >
> >
          Comes packed in a large mostly red colored box.
> >
>
          >
> > SKU# 183779
> >
> >
          http://www.honeywellgenerators.com/products/hw2000i
> 
>
          
> Photo Link: 
>
          http://www.honeywellgenerators.com/images/2009/03/16/pic_615393ca.jpg
>
          _______________________________________________
>
          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

-----Inline
          Attachment Follows-----


          _______________________________________________
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
 It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place where pets rule!
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/1c08b0df/attachment.html>

From mklein25 at roadrunner.com  Mon Jun 29 09:02:30 2009
From: mklein25 at roadrunner.com (mklein25 at roadrunner.com)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:02:30 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
In-Reply-To: <940244.70518.qm@web82101.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20090629170227.I1QC9.398429.root@hrndva-web12-z01>

I echo everyone's sentiments about the Jimmy Hubbard Memorial contest.  Very well run and great attendance.  Thanks to Frankie, Mickey, Bobby, Mike, John and Dave, Doc, and the rest of the Chicago gang.

Landing on Sunday should've been a k=10 maneuver.  That close to the Nats priority was definitely on being able to put the plane into your car in the same number of pieces as when you brought it to the field (and preferably in the same shapes/configurations).  We definitely saw a lot of skill on display with the landings.  We often take that part for granted, but not on this day.  I saw a lot of people back at the hotel before heading home.....I am guessing there were a lot of shorts that needed to be changed :-)

See y'all at the Nats.

Mike

---- Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote: 
> I had the honor of the last flight of the weekend and I swear the winds were so high that I almost fell over. Even with the gusts it was a FANTASTIC contest, very well attended and well run. It was my first time there and I will be sure to make it back every year it is held.
> ?
> Thanks for a great time guys!
> Anthony
> 
> --- On Mon, 6/29/09, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 9:04 AM
> 
> 
> 
> Hey to everyone who came to the contest. I think I speak for everyone from the "Mob" that it was heartwarming to see the support.
> I checked the weather report and it said we had gusts up to 40 MPH yesterday.Oh really? Felt like more to me. The turbulance was as bad as anything I have ever experienced before. Lots of E. guys were using up their mils. Lots of broken landing gears and wheel pants but nothing terrible. It was so bad landing that people were clapping if you didn't damage your plane.
> We had a huge field in FAI and the skill level was very high. Makes me very proud to see the midwest having viability again. I get the feeling that pattern flying in our area is getting stronger and gaining some much needed momentum despite the sagging economy. I can't wait to see the new blood the Peoria contest will introduce to the sport. It should be interesting. Take care and see you at the Nats soon. Mike
> 
> --- On Mon, 6/29/09, Bob Wilson <wilsorc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Bob Wilson <wilsorc at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:40 AM
> > The Peoria contingent heartily
> > agrees...great time!? Frankie and the rest of the mafia did
> > a fantastic job.
> > 
> > Hope to see you all at "The Fat Lake Pattern
> > Rendezvous" August 1-2 in Peoria.
> > 
> > Bob Wilson
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM,
> > Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > I share the sentiment. I think there were 35 pilots which
> > made for a great event. ? A lot of good flying and a LOT of
> > great landings today in 30mph winds!!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks Frankie, and of course the whole Chicago gang for a
> > fun time.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Mark
> > 
> > --------------------------
> > 
> > Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > 
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> > 
> > 
> > To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > 
> > Sent: Sun Jun 28 21:44:58 2009
> > 
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial
> > Chicago Contest
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Many Thanks to the Chicago Mafia, especially Field Marshall
> > Frankie, for a great contest !
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > It was great watching Andrew Jesky fly. ?Best Wishes to
> > Andrew and the rest of the team in Portugal.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > As for the rest of you up there by the big lake - Jimmy is
> > smilin' on ya
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Ed
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > 
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > 
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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


From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Mon Jun 29 10:40:04 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:40:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
Message-ID: <477373.60941.qm@web82108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I no longer have the ES pipe.
?
How does one have a bad qualifying run in a lawnmower race? Perhaps you should have put the mower deck up!

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 10:58 AM







Would have loved to be there myself. Just right now my budget is still about zero. Hopefully i'll make some money this weekend at the lawnmower race. I had a bad qualifying run and barely made the race. Starting 32nd this year out of 33. So even that prospect is slim. 
?
Do you still have that ES carbon pipe?

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 10:50 AM







I had the honor of the last flight of the weekend and I swear the winds were so high that I almost fell over. Even with the gusts it was a FANTASTIC contest, very well attended and well run. It was my first time there and I will be sure to make it back every year it is held.
?
Thanks for a great time guys!
Anthony

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 9:04 AM



Hey to everyone who came to the contest. I think I speak for everyone from the "Mob" that it was heartwarming to see the support.
I checked the weather report and it said we had gusts up to 40 MPH yesterday.Oh really? Felt like more to me. The turbulance was as bad as anything I have ever experienced before. Lots of E. guys were using up their mils. Lots of broken landing gears and wheel pants but nothing terrible. It was so bad landing that people were clapping if you didn't damage your plane.
We had a huge field in FAI and the skill level was very high. Makes me very proud to see the midwest having viability again. I get the feeling that pattern flying in our area is getting stronger and gaining some much needed momentum despite the sagging economy. I can't wait to see the new blood the Peoria contest will introduce to the sport. It should be interesting. Take care and see you at the Nats soon. Mike

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Bob Wilson <wilsorc at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Bob Wilson <wilsorc at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:40 AM
> The Peoria contingent heartily
> agrees...great time!? Frankie and the rest of the mafia did
> a fantastic job.
> 
> Hope to see you all at "The Fat Lake Pattern
> Rendezvous" August 1-2 in Peoria.
> 
> Bob Wilson
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM,
> Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> wrote:
> 
> I share the sentiment. I think there were 35 pilots which
> made for a great event. ? A lot of good flying and a LOT of
> great landings today in 30mph winds!!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Frankie, and of course the whole Chicago gang for a
> fun time.
> 
> 
> 
> -Mark
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> 
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> Sent: Sun Jun 28 21:44:58 2009
> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial
> Chicago Contest
> 
> 
> 
> Many Thanks to the Chicago Mafia, especially Field Marshall
> Frankie, for a great contest !
> 
> 
> 
> It was great watching Andrew Jesky fly. ?Best Wishes to
> Andrew and the rest of the team in Portugal.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the rest of you up there by the big lake - Jimmy is
> smilin' on ya
> 
> 
> 
> Ed
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> 
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> 
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/c8d372a5/attachment.html>

From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Mon Jun 29 10:41:56 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:41:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
Message-ID: <294929.36739.qm@web82108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Sounds good, then when that plane grows up to a full two meters you can use the True RC packs in the big plane.

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 11:10 AM







I haven't put it on the scales yet. I will be running a Rimfire 62-63-250 and tru turn 10c 5000 packs. Along with a CC85HV. So yes it may be heavy but i did not want to run any smaller electronics in it. 
Could not stand the forked elevator pushrod so i went with a MK bellcrank. Probably should have put a DEPS system in it. But i already had the bellcrank from my Focus. 

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 10:54 AM







I have heard that those come out a little on the light side, make sure you add lead shot to you epoxy for ballast 
?
You are still going to be flying the yellow beast right? I can share the details of my BM V.3 to electric conversion if you like.
?
Step 1. Take out the glow engine
Step 2. Put in an electric motor
Step 3. Fly
?
So simple even you can do it.

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 10:23 AM






My electric is almost done. Maybe by August. It is a Aquila. Actually just something to putz with. 

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 10:18 AM







Dennis,
What are you doing buying a generator, aren't you a die hard Glow guy. I know you didn't all that Powermaster 15/16 fuel for nothing.
?
We missed you and Bob in Chicago this weekend. You would have had fun in that cross wind!

--- On Sun, 6/28/09, Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009, 3:50 PM







For the Michigan crowd. The Home Depot at Goddard and Telegraph has one left. If the store personnel cannot find it. Look for the overstock in Air Compressors. I wandered the store for 45 minutes looking for it. 
?
The employees could not find it, But i did. One other thing don't climb up the ladder and take it down by yourself. I did and thought i was going to drop it from about 10 feet.

--- On Sun, 6/28/09, Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:


From: Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Honeywell generator
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009, 3:32 PM




I've run mine as well. If you put it in "Efficiency Mode" it is much quieter. In normal it is a bit louder than a Honda. But for the price difference I can buy a lot of extension cords. I walked 25 feet away and it is very quiet and tolerable. With a 50 foot extension cord you will not even notice it. Even at 25 feet it is no big deal.




John Konneker wrote: 


#yiv226058852 #yiv1352680949 #yiv587001334 #yiv1018006902 #yiv134167377 #yiv25401107 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv226058852 #yiv1352680949 #yiv587001334 #yiv1018006902 #yiv134167377 #yiv25401107 {
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

I picked mine up today.? Availability is weird.? I got on the store locator and 4 out or 5 stores 
I called had never heard of it.
It is 2,000watts for $299.??I ran mine for about 5 minutes and it is louder than I remember the little Honda's.
But like one of the jet guys?said it's a heck of a lot cheaper. Another good thing is it?will come in handy during the ice storms here
in Iowa when we lose power.??
JLK


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/d6919217/attachment.html>

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Mon Jun 29 10:42:23 2009
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:42:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
In-Reply-To: <477373.60941.qm@web82108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <477373.60941.qm@web82108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E88B6@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

What kind of ES pipe do you need Dennis??  I have 2 ES pipes for the YS 140's.  (or anyone else that's interested!).  Well used, but also in pretty good shape.

-M

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Abdullah
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:40 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest

I no longer have the ES pipe.

How does one have a bad qualifying run in a lawnmower race? Perhaps you should have put the mower deck up!

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 10:58 AM
Would have loved to be there myself. Just right now my budget is still about zero. Hopefully i'll make some money this weekend at the lawnmower race. I had a bad qualifying run and barely made the race. Starting 32nd this year out of 33. So even that prospect is slim.

Do you still have that ES carbon pipe?

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 10:50 AM
I had the honor of the last flight of the weekend and I swear the winds were so high that I almost fell over. Even with the gusts it was a FANTASTIC contest, very well attended and well run. It was my first time there and I will be sure to make it back every year it is held.

Thanks for a great time guys!
Anthony

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 9:04 AM

Hey to everyone who came to the contest. I think I speak for everyone from the "Mob" that it was heartwarming to see the support.
I checked the weather report and it said we had gusts up to 40 MPH yesterday.Oh really? Felt like more to me. The turbulance was as bad as anything I have ever experienced before. Lots of E. guys were using up their mils. Lots of broken landing gears and wheel pants but nothing terrible. It was so bad landing that people were clapping if you didn't damage your plane.
We had a huge field in FAI and the skill level was very high. Makes me very proud to see the midwest having viability again. I get the feeling that pattern flying in our area is getting stronger and gaining some much needed momentum despite the sagging economy. I can't wait to see the new blood the Peoria contest will introduce to the sport. It should be interesting. Take care and see you at the Nats soon. Mike

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Bob Wilson <wilsorc at gmail.com<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wilsorc at gmail.com>> wrote:

> From: Bob Wilson <wilsorc at gmail.com<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wilsorc at gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:40 AM
> The Peoria contingent heartily
> agrees...great time!  Frankie and the rest of the mafia did
> a fantastic job.
>
> Hope to see you all at "The Fat Lake Pattern
> Rendezvous" August 1-2 in Peoria.
>
> Bob Wilson
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM,
> Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>>
> wrote:
>
> I share the sentiment. I think there were 35 pilots which
> made for a great event.   A lot of good flying and a LOT of
> great landings today in 30mph winds!!
>
>
>
> Thanks Frankie, and of course the whole Chicago gang for a
> fun time.
>
>
>
> -Mark
>
> --------------------------
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>>
>
>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>
> Sent: Sun Jun 28 21:44:58 2009
>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial
> Chicago Contest
>
>
>
> Many Thanks to the Chicago Mafia, especially Field Marshall
> Frankie, for a great contest !
>
>
>
> It was great watching Andrew Jesky fly.  Best Wishes to
> Andrew and the rest of the team in Portugal.
>
>
>
> As for the rest of you up there by the big lake - Jimmy is
> smilin' on ya
>
>
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc517.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc821.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.94/2208 - Release Date: 06/29/09 05:54:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090629/17fc241b/attachment.html>

From mkmsg at cox.net  Mon Jun 29 19:44:26 2009
From: mkmsg at cox.net (MKMSG)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:44:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Graph Tech Carbon F3A Landing Gear
References: <574450.1233.qm@web51701.mail.re2.yahoo.com><CEDB5CE2BE1F4F3AA270C3E0CC5B8786@usera1262bf031>
	<8A4B4FCF9CF54C7B81A0888C34DE9DB8@WaynePC>
Message-ID: <1C4834FF2A5F42B09983D36B80041CFC@usera1262bf031>

I happened to look at the Graph Tech website this evening and noticed they are now making an airfoiled F3A carbon landing gear for electric F3A aircraft.  The weight is 4.9 oz, height 9", spread 17", cost $59.95.  The gear is swept back by 1.5".  

Mike Moritko
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090630/4d20065e/attachment.html>

From vanputte at cox.net  Mon Jun 29 20:25:17 2009
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:25:17 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Servo Brackets
Message-ID: <241D7D7D-FA05-4D1A-92E0-0CB280B45E9A@cox.net>

Does anyone know who distributes the servo brackets shown at the  
following url:

http://www.lynxmotion.com/Product.aspx?productID=286&CategoryID=87

Ron VP




From d_bodary at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 30 08:44:12 2009
From: d_bodary at yahoo.com (Dennis Bodary)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:44:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
Message-ID: <780199.5265.qm@web51707.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Dirt road course 23.43MPH average i should have been in the 24 or 25 mph range. 

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 2:40 PM







I no longer have the ES pipe.
?
How does one have a bad qualifying run in a lawnmower race? Perhaps you should have put the mower deck up!

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 10:58 AM







Would have loved to be there myself. Just right now my budget is still about zero. Hopefully i'll make some money this weekend at the lawnmower race. I had a bad qualifying run and barely made the race. Starting 32nd this year out of 33. So even that prospect is slim. 
?
Do you still have that ES carbon pipe?

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 10:50 AM







I had the honor of the last flight of the weekend and I swear the winds were so high that I almost fell over. Even with the gusts it was a FANTASTIC contest, very well attended and well run. It was my first time there and I will be sure to make it back every year it is held.
?
Thanks for a great time guys!
Anthony

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 9:04 AM



Hey to everyone who came to the contest. I think I speak for everyone from the "Mob" that it was heartwarming to see the support.
I checked the weather report and it said we had gusts up to 40 MPH yesterday.Oh really? Felt like more to me. The turbulance was as bad as anything I have ever experienced before. Lots of E. guys were using up their mils. Lots of broken landing gears and wheel pants but nothing terrible. It was so bad landing that people were clapping if you didn't damage your plane.
We had a huge field in FAI and the skill level was very high. Makes me very proud to see the midwest having viability again. I get the feeling that pattern flying in our area is getting stronger and gaining some much needed momentum despite the sagging economy. I can't wait to see the new blood the Peoria contest will introduce to the sport. It should be interesting. Take care and see you at the Nats soon. Mike

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Bob Wilson <wilsorc at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Bob Wilson <wilsorc at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:40 AM
> The Peoria contingent heartily
> agrees...great time!? Frankie and the rest of the mafia did
> a fantastic job.
> 
> Hope to see you all at "The Fat Lake Pattern
> Rendezvous" August 1-2 in Peoria.
> 
> Bob Wilson
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM,
> Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> wrote:
> 
> I share the sentiment. I think there were 35 pilots which
> made for a great event. ? A lot of good flying and a LOT of
> great landings today in 30mph winds!!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Frankie, and of course the whole Chicago gang for a
> fun time.
> 
> 
> 
> -Mark
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> 
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> Sent: Sun Jun 28 21:44:58 2009
> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial
> Chicago Contest
> 
> 
> 
> Many Thanks to the Chicago Mafia, especially Field Marshall
> Frankie, for a great contest !
> 
> 
> 
> It was great watching Andrew Jesky fly. ?Best Wishes to
> Andrew and the rest of the team in Portugal.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the rest of you up there by the big lake - Jimmy is
> smilin' on ya
> 
> 
> 
> Ed
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> 
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> 
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090630/18110d65/attachment.html>

From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun 30 09:45:55 2009
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:45:55 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
Message-ID: <926888.63492.qm@web82107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

That is very fast for a lawnmower!
?
Apparently you are no better at driving a lawnmower than you are at flying the masters sequence :o)

--- On Tue, 6/30/09, Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 12:44 PM






Dirt road course 23.43MPH average i should have been in the 24 or 25 mph range. 

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 2:40 PM







I no longer have the ES pipe.
?
How does one have a bad qualifying run in a lawnmower race? Perhaps you should have put the mower deck up!

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 10:58 AM







Would have loved to be there myself. Just right now my budget is still about zero. Hopefully i'll make some money this weekend at the lawnmower race. I had a bad qualifying run and barely made the race. Starting 32nd this year out of 33. So even that prospect is slim. 
?
Do you still have that ES carbon pipe?

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


From: Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 10:50 AM







I had the honor of the last flight of the weekend and I swear the winds were so high that I almost fell over. Even with the gusts it was a FANTASTIC contest, very well attended and well run. It was my first time there and I will be sure to make it back every year it is held.
?
Thanks for a great time guys!
Anthony

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 9:04 AM



Hey to everyone who came to the contest. I think I speak for everyone from the "Mob" that it was heartwarming to see the support.
I checked the weather report and it said we had gusts up to 40 MPH yesterday.Oh really? Felt like more to me. The turbulance was as bad as anything I have ever experienced before. Lots of E. guys were using up their mils. Lots of broken landing gears and wheel pants but nothing terrible. It was so bad landing that people were clapping if you didn't damage your plane.
We had a huge field in FAI and the skill level was very high. Makes me very proud to see the midwest having viability again. I get the feeling that pattern flying in our area is getting stronger and gaining some much needed momentum despite the sagging economy. I can't wait to see the new blood the Peoria contest will introduce to the sport. It should be interesting. Take care and see you at the Nats soon. Mike

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Bob Wilson <wilsorc at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Bob Wilson <wilsorc at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial Chicago Contest
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:40 AM
> The Peoria contingent heartily
> agrees...great time!? Frankie and the rest of the mafia did
> a fantastic job.
> 
> Hope to see you all at "The Fat Lake Pattern
> Rendezvous" August 1-2 in Peoria.
> 
> Bob Wilson
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM,
> Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> wrote:
> 
> I share the sentiment. I think there were 35 pilots which
> made for a great event. ? A lot of good flying and a LOT of
> great landings today in 30mph winds!!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Frankie, and of course the whole Chicago gang for a
> fun time.
> 
> 
> 
> -Mark
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> 
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> Sent: Sun Jun 28 21:44:58 2009
> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Jim Hubbard Memorial
> Chicago Contest
> 
> 
> 
> Many Thanks to the Chicago Mafia, especially Field Marshall
> Frankie, for a great contest !
> 
> 
> 
> It was great watching Andrew Jesky fly. ?Best Wishes to
> Andrew and the rest of the team in Portugal.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the rest of you up there by the big lake - Jimmy is
> smilin' on ya
> 
> 
> 
> Ed
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> 
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> 
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090630/94f4ecb1/attachment.html>

From troy at troynewman.net  Tue Jun 30 13:18:27 2009
From: troy at troynewman.net (Troy Newman)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:18:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Your Meet the Baby invite!
In-Reply-To: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAD@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
References: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AA7@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AA8@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAA@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAD@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
Message-ID: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAE@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>

I tried to get everybody but my email list is pretty scattered. Huge
amount of undeliverable and too many recipients'. So I figured I would
post here.

 

We have the new pattern flyer in the group. Please go check it out. Alex
and Jenny are both doing well. We had some struggles over the past
weekend but things are going great now.

 

Just got home today. Click on the button below to meet  Alex

 

Thanks for everybody's prayers, we have received such great support from
our pattern family. Thank you

 

Troy

From: Our365 [mailto:our365 at our365mail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:10 AM
To: Troy Newman
Subject: Your Meet the Baby invite!

 

Our365 <http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/home>


 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/spacer.gif> 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE NEW PARENTS: 

Forward this e-mail to friends and family so they can see your baby's
Newborn Portrait and sign your Guest Book. Before forwarding, you can
delete this section of the e-mail. 

This e-mail may contain a Visitor Password. If you've changed yours or
created a new one, please enter it below. 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/spacer.gif> 

 

 Meet the New
Baby!<http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_top.jpg> 

 There's a Baby welcome party on Our365, and you're on the guest list!
Head right over for a first look at the sleepy
newborn.<http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_txt.jpg> 

 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt1.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt2.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt3.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt4.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt5.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt6.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt7.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt8.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt9.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt10.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt11.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt12.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/spacer.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt13.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt14.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/spacer.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/spacer.gif> 

Here's your Visitor Password: 06431270332403 

You might also be asked to enter the first four letters of Mom's last
name. (Parents can change their Visitor Password; contact this baby's
parents if you can't log in.) 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br1.jpg> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br2.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br3.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br4.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br5.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br6.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br7.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br8.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br9.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br10.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br11.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br12.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br13.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br14.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br15.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br16.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br17.gif> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br18.gif> 

 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_mtb_top.jpg> 

 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_mtb_lt.jpg> 

Meet the Baby!
<http://www.our365.com/NewbornPortraits/BabyDetail.aspx?birthid=65c25a2f
-de85-4011-ac47-96feb46738cd> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_mtb_rt.jpg> 

 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_mtb_bot.jpg> 

 A visitor tip from the Our365
WebNursery<http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_snd_top.gif> 

 

 Want to send a baby gift? Check out our experts' picks. (And don't
forget to sign the Guest
Book!)<http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_snd_lt.gif> 

Send the Perfect Baby Gift
<http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/babygift> 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_snd_rt.gif> 

 

 <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_bot.gif> 



Our365.com:
<http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/home>
Life's more fun when you share it! We're committed to respecting your
privacy. 
Here's our privacy policy
<http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/privacy>
and where to contact customer service
<http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/contact>  if
you need us. 

Our365 | 3613 Mueller Road | St. Charles, MO 63301
Please note: This email is automated, please do not reply to this
message. 

Copyright (c) 2009 Our365, Inc. 

 <http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/home> 

 <http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/column.gif>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090630/bd3b044d/attachment.html>

From vicenterc at comcast.net  Tue Jun 30 13:41:27 2009
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:41:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Your Meet the Baby invite!
In-Reply-To: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAE@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
Message-ID: <39829892.982801246398086241.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>



Congratulations.? Yes, he looks like you. 



Vicente "Vince" Bortone 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Troy Newman" <troy at troynewman.net> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:18:25 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Your Meet the Baby invite! 




I tried to get everybody but my email list is pretty scattered. Huge amount of undeliverable and too many recipients?. So I figured I would post here. 



We have the new pattern flyer in the group. Please go check it out. Alex and Jenny are both doing well. We had some struggles over the past weekend but things are going great now. 



Just got home today. Click on the button below to meet ?Alex 



Thanks for everybody?s prayers , we have received such great support from our pattern family. Thank you 



Troy 



From: Our365 [mailto:our365 at our365mail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:10 AM 
To: Troy Newman 
Subject: Your Meet the Baby invite! 




Our365	

	

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE NEW PARENTS: 

Forward this e-mail to friends and family so they can see your baby's Newborn Portrait and sign your Guest Book. Before forwarding, you can delete this section of the e-mail. 

This e-mail may contain a Visitor Password. If you've changed yours or created a new one, please enter it below. 	






Meet the New Baby!


There's a Baby welcome party on Our365, and you're on the guest list! Head right over for a first look at the sleepy newborn.




	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

Here's your Visitor Password: 06431270332403 

You might also be asked to enter the first four letters of Mom's last name. (Parents can change their Visitor Password; contact this baby's parents if you can't log in.) 	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	











	

Meet the Baby!	









A visitor tip from the Our365 WebNursery




Want to send a baby gift? Check out our experts' picks. (And don't forget to sign the Guest Book!)	

Send the Perfect Baby Gift	











Our365.com: Life's more fun when you share it! We're committed to respecting your privacy. 
Here's our privacy policy and where to contact customer service if you need us. 

Our365 | 3613 Mueller Road | St. Charles, MO 63301 
Please note: This email is automated, please do not reply to this message. 

Copyright ? 2009 Our365, Inc. 




_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090630/ea063d5f/attachment.html>

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Tue Jun 30 13:54:14 2009
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:54:14 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Your Meet the Baby invite!
In-Reply-To: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAE@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
References: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AA7@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AA8@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAA@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAD@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAE@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D87216D57E8918@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

Congrats!   Where's the Red shirt and diaper???

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Troy Newman
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:18 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Your Meet the Baby invite!

I tried to get everybody but my email list is pretty scattered. Huge amount of undeliverable and too many recipients'. So I figured I would post here.

We have the new pattern flyer in the group. Please go check it out. Alex and Jenny are both doing well. We had some struggles over the past weekend but things are going great now.

Just got home today. Click on the button below to meet  Alex

Thanks for everybody's prayers, we have received such great support from our pattern family. Thank you

Troy
From: Our365 [mailto:our365 at our365mail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:10 AM
To: Troy Newman
Subject: Your Meet the Baby invite!

[http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_logo.gif]<http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/home>



INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE NEW PARENTS:

Forward this e-mail to friends and family so they can see your baby's Newborn Portrait and sign your Guest Book. Before forwarding, you can delete this section of the e-mail.

This e-mail may contain a Visitor Password. If you've changed yours or created a new one, please enter it below.




[http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_top.jpg]

[http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_txt.jpg]




































Here's your Visitor Password: 06431270332403

You might also be asked to enter the first four letters of Mom's last name. (Parents can change their Visitor Password; contact this baby's parents if you can't log in.)

[http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br1.jpg]







[http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br5.gif]

























[http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br18.gif]


[http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_mtb_top.jpg]


[http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_mtb_lt.jpg]

[http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_mtb.gif]<http://www.our365.com/NewbornPortraits/BabyDetail.aspx?birthid=65c25a2f-de85-4011-ac47-96feb46738cd>

[http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_mtb_rt.jpg]


[http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_mtb_bot.jpg]

[http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_snd_top.gif]


[http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_snd_lt.gif]

[http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_send.gif]<http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/babygift>

[http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_snd_rt.gif]


[http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_bot.gif]



Our365.com:<http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/home> Life's more fun when you share it! We're committed to respecting your privacy.
Here's our privacy policy<http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/privacy> and where to contact customer service<http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/contact> if you need us.

Our365 | 3613 Mueller Road | St. Charles, MO 63301
Please note: This email is automated, please do not reply to this message.

Copyright (c) 2009 Our365, Inc.

[http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031309_snp_b_logo.gif]<http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/home>

[http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/column.gif]

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.94/2208 - Release Date: 06/30/09 11:37:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090630/0f6c72a7/attachment.html>

From jlkonn at hotmail.com  Tue Jun 30 13:59:57 2009
From: jlkonn at hotmail.com (John Konneker)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:59:57 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Your Meet the Baby invite!
In-Reply-To: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAE@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
References: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AA7@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AA8@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAA@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAD@mail2.koolsoftmail.com> 
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAE@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
Message-ID: <BLU106-W91BC14D862A7065BA3439CD310@phx.gbl>


Hey Troy,

Good lookin' little guy!

Congratulations!!!!!!!

JLK
 


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:18:25 -0700
From: troy at troynewman.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Your Meet the Baby invite!







I tried to get everybody but my email list is pretty scattered. Huge amount of undeliverable and too many recipients?. So I figured I would post here.
 
We have the new pattern flyer in the group. Please go check it out. Alex and Jenny are both doing well. We had some struggles over the past weekend but things are going great now.
 
Just got home today. Click on the button below to meet  Alex
 
Thanks for everybody?s prayers, we have received such great support from our pattern family. Thank you
 
Troy


From: Our365 [mailto:our365 at our365mail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:10 AM
To: Troy Newman
Subject: Your Meet the Baby invite!
 









INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE NEW PARENTS: 

Forward this e-mail to friends and family so they can see your baby's Newborn Portrait and sign your Guest Book. Before forwarding, you can delete this section of the e-mail. 

This e-mail may contain a Visitor Password. If you've changed yours or created a new one, please enter it below. 


 









 







































Here's your Visitor Password: 06431270332403 

You might also be asked to enter the first four letters of Mom's last name. (Parents can change their Visitor Password; contact this baby's parents if you can't log in.) 




































 






 










 









 










 










Our365.com: Life's more fun when you share it! We're committed to respecting your privacy. 
Here's our privacy policy and where to contact customer service if you need us. 

Our365 | 3613 Mueller Road | St. Charles, MO 63301
Please note: This email is automated, please do not reply to this message. 

Copyright ? 2009 Our365, Inc. 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090630/5bc0d4cc/attachment.html>

From flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net  Tue Jun 30 14:00:52 2009
From: flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net (William C. Harden)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:00:52 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Is this for real?
Message-ID: <CA6DA34F9B7E429A99B975B337179DF4@bill>

There is a post on the list titled "Your Meet the Baby Invite!".  A title
like this screams "Virus" to me.  So I did not open any of these posts. 

So in this post and all replies a Virus or is it a real post???

Thanks in advance.

Bill


From derekkoopowitz at gmail.com  Tue Jun 30 14:02:12 2009
From: derekkoopowitz at gmail.com (Derek Koopowitz)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:02:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Is this for real?
In-Reply-To: <CA6DA34F9B7E429A99B975B337179DF4@bill>
References: <CA6DA34F9B7E429A99B975B337179DF4@bill>
Message-ID: <3454543c0906301502g2eebb857u4262cef88746346f@mail.gmail.com>

Isreel.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 3:00 PM, William C. Harden <flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net
> wrote:

> There is a post on the list titled "Your Meet the Baby Invite!".  A title
> like this screams "Virus" to me.  So I did not open any of these posts.
>
> So in this post and all replies a Virus or is it a real post???
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Bill
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090630/e9499ad7/attachment.html>

From rob at koolsoft.com  Tue Jun 30 14:10:07 2009
From: rob at koolsoft.com (Robert L. Beaubien)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:10:07 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Is this for real?
In-Reply-To: <CA6DA34F9B7E429A99B975B337179DF4@bill>
References: <CA6DA34F9B7E429A99B975B337179DF4@bill>
Message-ID: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AB3@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>

Bill,

No viruses.  Troy Newman had a new baby this past weekend and was just
providing a link for all interested parties to see.  He, of course, is a
very proud papa at the moment.

- Robert Beaubien
- NSRCA, District 7 Webmaster
-
"No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, however a large
number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced."

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of William
C. Harden
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:01 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Is this for real?

There is a post on the list titled "Your Meet the Baby Invite!".  A
title
like this screams "Virus" to me.  So I did not open any of these posts. 

So in this post and all replies a Virus or is it a real post???

Thanks in advance.

Bill

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

From THERUPMAN at aol.com  Tue Jun 30 14:24:59 2009
From: THERUPMAN at aol.com (THERUPMAN at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:24:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Your Meet the Baby invite!
Message-ID: <c0c.614bc786.377beaab@aol.com>

Congratulations to Jennifer and Troy.
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the 
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090630/99bdc05c/attachment.html>

From flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net  Tue Jun 30 15:05:09 2009
From: flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net (William C. Harden)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:05:09 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Your Meet the Baby invite!
In-Reply-To: <39829892.982801246398086241.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAE@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<39829892.982801246398086241.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <DDEEB2004288468A9D1C5BE3902E1C53@bill>

Congratulations Troy. And welcome Alex!!  

 

Hey Troy, you may as well buy him a plane now, you know you will anyway.  Ha
Ha.  Oh yeah!!

 

Bill

 

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Troy Newman" <troy at troynewman.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:18:25 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Your Meet the Baby invite!

I tried to get everybody but my email list is pretty scattered. Huge amount
of undeliverable and too many recipients'. So I figured I would post here.

 

We have the new pattern flyer in the group. Please go check it out. Alex and
Jenny are both doing well. We had some struggles over the past weekend but
things are going great now.

 

Just got home today. Click on the button below to meet  Alex

 

Thanks for everybody's prayers, we have received such great support from our
pattern family. Thank you

 

Troy

From: Our365 [mailto:our365 at our365mail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:10 AM
To: Troy Newman
Subject: Your Meet the Baby invite!

 


 <http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/home> Our365

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/spacer.gif> 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE NEW PARENTS: 

Forward this e-mail to friends and family so they can see your baby's
Newborn Portrait and sign your Guest Book. Before forwarding, you can delete
this section of the e-mail. 

This e-mail may contain a Visitor Password. If you've changed yours or
created a new one, please enter it below. 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/spacer.gif> 

 


 Meet the New Baby! <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_top.jpg> 


 There's a Baby welcome party on Our365, and you're on the guest list! Head
right over for a first look at the sleepy newborn.
<http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_txt.jpg> 

 


  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt1.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt2.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt3.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt4.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt5.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt6.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt7.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt8.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt9.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt10.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt11.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt12.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/spacer.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt13.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_lt14.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/spacer.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/spacer.gif> 

Here's your Visitor Password: 06431270332403 

You might also be asked to enter the first four letters of Mom's last name.
(Parents can change their Visitor Password; contact this baby's parents if
you can't log in.) 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br1.jpg> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br2.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br3.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br4.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br5.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br6.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br7.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br8.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br9.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br10.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br11.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br12.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br13.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br14.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br15.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br16.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br17.gif> 

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_br18.gif> 

 


  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_mtb_top.jpg> 

 


  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_mtb_lt.jpg> 

 
<http://www.our365.com/NewbornPortraits/BabyDetail.aspx?birthid=65c25a2f-de8
5-4011-ac47-96feb46738cd> Meet the Baby!

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_mtb_rt.jpg> 

 


  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_mtb_bot.jpg> 


 A visitor tip from the Our365 WebNursery
<http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_snd_top.gif> 

 


 Want to send a baby gift? Check out our experts' picks. (And don't forget
to sign the Guest Book!)
<http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_snd_lt.gif> 

 <http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/babygift> Send
the Perfect Baby Gift

  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_snd_rt.gif> 

 


  <http://f.chtah.com/i/42/1982386390/031709_wns_bot.gif> 




 <http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/home>
Our365.com: Life's more fun when you share it! We're committed to respecting
your privacy. 
Here's our
<http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/privacy> privacy
policy and where to contact
<http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/contact>
customer service if you need us. 

Our365 | 3613 Mueller Road | St. Charles, MO 63301
Please note: This email is automated, please do not reply to this message. 

Copyright C 2009 Our365, Inc. 

 <http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/home> 

  <http://our365mail.com/a/hBKI1JAB2KNDWB7REYcDgJMe1.B2KNDWvP/column.gif> 


_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing
list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090630/4c37b7f6/attachment.html>

From Andrew.Jesky at soaringsoftware.com  Tue Jun 30 15:07:05 2009
From: Andrew.Jesky at soaringsoftware.com (Andrew Jesky)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:07:05 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Is this for real?
Message-ID: <B3177277-6098-4295-9D55-5D4367CD8B55@soaringsoftware.com>

Troy,

Congrats to you and Jenny.

The Jesky's

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 30, 2009, at 6:02 PM, "Robert L. Beaubien" <rob at koolsoft.com>  
wrote:

> Bill,
>
> No viruses.  Troy Newman had a new baby this past weekend and was just
> providing a link for all interested parties to see.  He, of course,  
> is a
> very proud papa at the moment.
>
> - Robert Beaubien
> - NSRCA, District 7 Webmaster
> -
> "No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, however a large
> number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced."
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of William
> C. Harden
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:01 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Is this for real?
>
> There is a post on the list titled "Your Meet the Baby Invite!".  A
> title
> like this screams "Virus" to me.  So I did not open any of these  
> posts.
>
> So in this post and all replies a Virus or is it a real post???
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Bill
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From jtkeiser at comcast.net  Tue Jun 30 15:31:21 2009
From: jtkeiser at comcast.net (Jack Keiser)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:31:21 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Your Meet the Baby invite!
References: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AA7@mail2.koolsoftmail.com><F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AA8@mail2.koolsoftmail.com><F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAA@mail2.koolsoftmail.com><F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAD@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAE@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
Message-ID: <4609CB4DB66F4649AA2A62C45BEFE760@SAFSTUDY>

Troy and Jenny,

Congratulations !!!

Jack K
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Troy Newman 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Your Meet the Baby invite!


  I tried to get everybody but my email list is pretty scattered. Huge amount of undeliverable and too many recipients'. So I figured I would post here.

   

  We have the new pattern flyer in the group. Please go check it out. Alex and Jenny are both doing well. We had some struggles over the past weekend but things are going great now.

   

  Just got home today. Click on the button below to meet  Alex

   

  Thanks for everybody's prayers, we have received such great support from our pattern family. Thank you

   

  Troy

  From: Our365 [mailto:our365 at our365mail.com] 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:10 AM
  To: Troy Newman
  Subject: Your Meet the Baby invite!

   


       
       INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE NEW PARENTS: 

        Forward this e-mail to friends and family so they can see your baby's Newborn Portrait and sign your Guest Book. Before forwarding, you can delete this section of the e-mail. 

        This e-mail may contain a Visitor Password. If you've changed yours or created a new one, please enter it below. 
       
       

   


       

       

   


       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       Here's your Visitor Password: 06431270332403 

        You might also be asked to enter the first four letters of Mom's last name. (Parents can change their Visitor Password; contact this baby's parents if you can't log in.) 
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

   


       

   


       
       
       

   


       

       

   


       
       
       

   


       


        Our365.com: Life's more fun when you share it! We're committed to respecting your privacy. 
        Here's our privacy policy and where to contact customer service if you need us. 

        Our365 | 3613 Mueller Road | St. Charles, MO 63301
        Please note: This email is automated, please do not reply to this message. 

        Copyright ? 2009 Our365, Inc. 


       





------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090630/4404cdd4/attachment.html>

From simestd at netexpress.com  Tue Jun 30 16:23:41 2009
From: simestd at netexpress.com (Tom Simes)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:23:41 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Is this for real?
In-Reply-To: <CA6DA34F9B7E429A99B975B337179DF4@bill>
References: <CA6DA34F9B7E429A99B975B337179DF4@bill>
Message-ID: <20090630162338.17151760.simestd@netexpress.com>

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:00:51 -0500
"William C. Harden" <flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> There is a post on the list titled "Your Meet the Baby Invite!".  A
> title like this screams "Virus" to me.  So I did not open any of these
> posts. 
> 
> So in this post and all replies a Virus or is it a real post???

First order of business, Congrats Troy & Jenny!  Welcome Alex - take it
easy on your parents, they are working overtime on the OJT!

Second, the list server does scan for viruses and auto updates it's
signature file so it should be pretty difficult for them to slip
through.  Poor puns, terrible jokes, good natured ribbing, off-topic
adventures and even the occasional pattern information yes, but viruses
should be pretty unlikely ;)

-- 
Tom
 
======================================================================
   "Z-80 system stack overflow.  Shut 'er down Scotty, the system's
         sucking mud" - Error message on TRS 80 Model-16B

Tom Simes                                       simestd at netexpress.com 
======================================================================

From jaqfly at prodigy.net  Tue Jun 30 16:54:48 2009
From: jaqfly at prodigy.net (Jim Quinn)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:54:48 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Your Meet the Baby invite!
In-Reply-To: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAE@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
References: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AA7@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AA8@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAA@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAD@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAE@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
Message-ID: <620760.4863.qm@web83303.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Superb!?I hope I can do an article on Alexander for the NatsNews this year?
?Jim Quinn 




________________________________
From: Troy Newman <troy at troynewman.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:18:25 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Your Meet the Baby invite!


I tried to get everybody but my email list is pretty scattered.Huge amount of undeliverable and too many recipients?. So I figured I would post here.
?
We have the new pattern flyer in the group. Please go check it out. Alex and Jenny are both doing well. We had some struggles over the past weekend but things are going great now.
?
Just got home today. Click on the button below to meet ?Alex
?
Thanks for everybody?s prayers, we have received such great support from our pattern family. Thank you
?
Troy
From:Our365 [mailto:our365 at our365mail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:10 AM
To: Troy Newman
Subject: Your Meet the Baby invite!
?
  INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE NEW PARENTS:

Forward this e-mail to friends and family so they can see your baby's Newborn Portrait and sign your Guest Book. Before forwarding, you can delete this section of the e-mail. 

This e-mail may contain a Visitor Password. If you've changed yours or created a new one, please enter it below.   
?  
?
                 Here's your Visitor Password: 06431270332403 

You might also be asked to enter the first four letters of Mom's last name. (Parents can change their Visitor Password; contact this baby's parents if you can't log in.)                    
? 
?   
?  
?   
?
 


Our365.com: Life's more fun when you share it! We're committed to respecting your privacy. 
Here's our privacy policy and where to contact customer service if you need us. 

Our365 | 3613 Mueller Road | St. Charles, MO 63301
Please note: This email is automated, please do not reply to this message. 

Copyright ? 2009 Our365, Inc. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090701/b11ea1b5/attachment.html>

From jlachow at hotmail.com  Tue Jun 30 17:14:22 2009
From: jlachow at hotmail.com (Joe Lachowski)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:14:22 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Phenolic tubing
Message-ID: <SNT104-W24E83CFD5EE9B52BEC9FBFBB2E0@phx.gbl>


I have a half dozen old Gator Wing adjusters in the drawer, but no phenolic tubing. Anyone have a source/part number etc for some phenolic tubing that'll work. I have not come across anything in my search on the net.
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. 
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090701/dd0807b7/attachment.html>

From jlachow at hotmail.com  Tue Jun 30 17:17:28 2009
From: jlachow at hotmail.com (Joe Lachowski)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:17:28 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Integral Wings and Beryll
Message-ID: <SNT104-W474B90086D74874E5992CCBB2E0@phx.gbl>


I have three sets of white Integral wings laying around. Anyone interested contact me off list. Any reasonable offer will be taken. I can deliver to the Nats.

 

I also have a Beryll for sale that can be delivered to Muncie.

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. 
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090701/b0e0b55c/attachment.html>

From pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun 30 18:09:59 2009
From: pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net (Ihncheol Park)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:09:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Phenolic tubing
In-Reply-To: <SNT104-W24E83CFD5EE9B52BEC9FBFBB2E0@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT104-W24E83CFD5EE9B52BEC9FBFBB2E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <000001c9f9f1$06509a30$12f1ce90$@net>

Joe,

 

Not sure if you can find one, but here are the past postings on phenolic
tube related posts.  All in Red.

You can find the tube size at the bottom also.

I have two sets of Gator adjusters hidden and have a couple sets of
WorldModels sets at the store also.

Hope this helps,

 

Ihncheol

-------------

Scott,

 

Try this approcah to create a set. Apply 2 layers of wax paper to the tube
and lock ends down with masking tape. VERY lightly spray the wax paper with
3M77. Lay up some 4 ozs glass cloth of appropriate length on the tube. The
contact glue will stick the glass well enough for easy lay-up. You will need
2-3 layers. Then either use thin ca for instant gratification or finishing
epoxy if you can wait overnite.

 

After the glue has kicked, heat the glass with aheat gun lightly to melt the
wax, and pull the glass tubes off. Very snug fit

 

Matt

------------

I have a pair if no one else comes up w/ some for ya, I also recall that one
of the bic pens tube size fits the gator pins. 

 

Brian
---------------

I have found certain fiberglass arrow shafts fit.  I have even used c.fiber
tube.

 

Wayne G.

----- Original Message ----- 

From:  <mailto:rickrosinski at hotmail.com> Rick Rosinski 

To:  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> NSRCA Mailing List 

Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 1:18 PM

Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Phenolic tubes for gator wing adjusters

 

I'm getting close to having four new airplanes in the bones and found that I
have enough of the gator style wing adjusters but I can't seem to find any
of the phenolic tubes that go with them.  

 

Since I can't just call gator and order them does anyone know is a good
source for phenolic tubes?  

 

Thanks for the help

Rick

  _____  

I went to the hobby store and found some hollow carbon tube that was a
perfect fit, can't remember the size but it was common size in the
assortment rack



Rick,

 

Look on the internet for phenolic tubes....you will get 100K responses so
only take the first two or three. Also look in McMaster Carr's catalog
online. You will probably have to buy a 3' length. The paper type is the
least expensive and works great for this application (there are a bunch of
different types for all kinds of applications). You will likely pay more for
the stamps

 

MattK

 

----------------------

 

Dan I opened a package and the Gator adjuster phenolic tubes are 7/32 x 9/32
x 3/4.

Jim Hiller

 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dan
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 1:39 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Phenolic tubes for gator wing adjusters

 

If anyone has puchased the phenolic tubes for the sockets for Gator wing
adjusters, could they post the size that they used.

 

Thanks

 

Dan 

------------------

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Joe Lachowski
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:14 PM
To: NSRCA Discussion List
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Phenolic tubing

 

I have a half dozen old Gator Wing adjusters in the drawer, but no phenolic
tubing. Anyone have a source/part number etc for some phenolic tubing
that'll work. I have not come across anything in my search on the net.

  _____  

Windows LiveT: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
<http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090701/1afa22bd/attachment.html>

From wgalligan at att.net  Tue Jun 30 19:44:08 2009
From: wgalligan at att.net (Wayne Galligan)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:44:08 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Phenolic tubing
In-Reply-To: <SNT104-W24E83CFD5EE9B52BEC9FBFBB2E0@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT104-W24E83CFD5EE9B52BEC9FBFBB2E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <1DB00DCABFE9451ABD71320084319FD0@WaynePC>

Joe,

Try different size c.f. tubing.  I found some old arrow shafts I had laying around fit just right.  

Wayne Galligan

From: Joe Lachowski 
  To: NSRCA Discussion List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:14 PM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Phenolic tubing


  I have a half dozen old Gator Wing adjusters in the drawer, but no phenolic tubing. Anyone have a source/part number etc for some phenolic tubing that'll work. I have not come across anything in my search on the net.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. Check it out. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090701/bceeda60/attachment.html>

From jgghome at comcast.net  Tue Jun 30 20:29:49 2009
From: jgghome at comcast.net (John Gayer)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:29:49 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Phenolic tubing
In-Reply-To: <1DB00DCABFE9451ABD71320084319FD0@WaynePC>
References: <SNT104-W24E83CFD5EE9B52BEC9FBFBB2E0@phx.gbl>
	<1DB00DCABFE9451ABD71320084319FD0@WaynePC>
Message-ID: <4A4AE62C.9080809@comcast.net>

Some archery shops have bins of broken arrows in a variety of sizes that 
they will give away.

John Gayer

Wayne Galligan wrote:
> Joe,
>  
> Try different size c.f. tubing.  I found some old arrow shafts I had 
> laying around fit just right. 
>  
> Wayne Galligan
> *From:* Joe Lachowski <mailto:jlachow at hotmail.com>
>
>     *To:* NSRCA Discussion List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:14 PM
>     *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] Phenolic tubing
>
>     I have a half dozen old Gator Wing adjusters in the drawer, but no
>     phenolic tubing. Anyone have a source/part number etc for some
>     phenolic tubing that'll work. I have not come across anything in
>     my search on the net.
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
>     <http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009>
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     _______________________________________________
>     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

From adriancwong at earthlink.net  Tue Jun 30 21:00:12 2009
From: adriancwong at earthlink.net (adriancwong at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:00:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Your Meet the Baby invite!
Message-ID: <30583361.1246424410040.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090701/f311521a/attachment.html>

From dunnaway at hbcomm.net  Tue Jun 30 21:18:55 2009
From: dunnaway at hbcomm.net (Joe Dunnaway)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:18:55 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Your Meet the Baby invite!
In-Reply-To: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAE@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
References: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AA7@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AA8@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAA@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAD@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201939AAE@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A4AF0F3.9040901@hbcomm.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090701/001bc717/attachment.html>