[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

mike mueller mups1953 at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 3 12:20:16 AKDT 2009 

 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

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list