[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

J Shu jshulman at cfl.rr.com
Wed Jun 3 12:27:57 AKDT 2009 

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

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list