[NSRCA-discussion] Weight
Richard Strickland
pamrich47 at hotmail.com
Wed Jun 3 13:19:25 AKDT 2009
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>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list