[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Wed Jun 3 10:47:25 AKDT 2009

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