[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Wed Jun 3 11:54:25 AKDT 2009

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