[NSRCA-discussion] Weight

Wed Jun 3 13:25:53 AKDT 2009

As has been noted many times previously, no one is going to get disqualified
at a local contest because their current day design and equipped plane is
slightly overweight.  And has been discussed previously, the NATs is a
different animal - if you go to the NATs and will be in contention, you
ought to be in compliance with the rules.  Ergo, my following discussion
assumes planes of legal weight.

So what is the average weight of a glow plane now at takeoff?  I think 12
lbs (5.5 kg previously quoted) is probably close to right - and that is some
guys that are carrying enough fuel to practice 2 sequences (tho that has
always eluded me, I don't see the point of practicing while carrying around
an extra pound of dead weight).  And there are some glow planes that will
run out of fuel if they took off at 12 lbs (either because they weigh more
than 11 lbs dry, or they need more than 16 oz of fuel by weight to complete
the sequence).  And the lightest stuff is down around 9.25 - 9.5 lbs dry and
only needs 10 oz for a full Masters schedule.

Electrics weigh anywhere from 9.75 lbs to 11 pounds, and the average is
probably 10.75 lbs.

So....you put in a rule change that allows weight (12 lbs) to be measured at
takeoff, and you have just given the electrics a 1.25 lb advantage (nothing
fair about that if you are a glow flyer and can't afford to convert to
electric).  The electrics do not now, and certainly not in the future, need
an advantage.  Giving electrics another 1.25 lbs to work with WILL ESCALATE
the size, cost, and complexity of the average pattern plane.  Trying to
legislate different takeoff weights for glow and electric (and let's add
gas, and distinguish between 2C and 4C while we are at it) would be an
administrative nightmare, would always be contentious, and always be in a
state of flux as technology changes.

Verne - How/when/who/why it was decided electrics should be weighed with
batteries is mute at this point - it is done and established.  It could have
gone either way, and if it had gone the other way, I suspect there would be
very few glow flyers left in pattern.  With the performance electrics
already have (arguably superior), giving them an additional advantage will
accelerate the death of glow (which is imminent as electrics improve).
Trying to legislate room for heavy electric motors and heavy electric
batteries will only allow the top end electric stuff to increase in
performance (and cost) and the cheaper heavier electric stuff will still be
uncompetitive (and further bury glow).  In competitive events, competitors
push and exploit the rules.  The history in pattern is very clear......"we"
eliminated engine displacement rules to allow larger, cheaper sport glow and
gas engines to compete......it didn't work because the performance bar was
raised as the rules were exploited by YS and OS.  The same thing will happen
with electric if the rules are changed to allow it.

Mike, not picking on you.....but what has fairness got to do with
competition?  Competition has rules, and if everyone plays by the rules, and
the cheaters are disqualified, it is a level playing field and it is fair.
Back in the day, my first pattern motor was a Super Tigre S-61 with the
heavy finned ST header and heavy ST pipe because I couldn't afford the
latest Rossi at 3 times the cost, and probably a couple month wait.  I beat
the crap out of a lot of Rossi flyers because I practiced more.  Current
day, electrics and the YS CDI are the latest and greatest, and there is
nothing fair about some people not being able to afford them, but that is
the nature of open competition.  The rules should no more be changed to help
the cheaper heavier True RC / Rhino lipo than they should be changed to
allow everyone to run a CDI.

Regards,

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of mike mueller
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:06 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight

 I think Verne is right on this. We need some form of fairness here and the
current system is not fair or logical. Mike

--- 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, 12:53 PM
> Derek,
> We've discussed raising the weight before and it's always
> been voted down. I believe for good reason. Dave Lockhart
> has steadfastly argued that raising the weight limit will
> inevitably increase the size of our planes, obsoleting
> anything that preceded it. I agree with him. 
> 
> What I'm trying to do is make it more feasible for someone
> wanting to try electric to be able to do so without having
> to buy the most expensive equipment available. For example,
> at a contest last weekend, a friend and fellow pattern pilot
> had a set of Zippy packs that weighed roughly 5.5 ounces
> more than my FlightPower packs. Pretty much the same
> difference when compared to Andrew's TP packs. The Zippy's
> as we all know, were less than half the cost. I know for
> sure that my friend would have made weight with my FP's or
> Andrew's TP's, but he couldn't afford that after all the
> other "electric" purchases. 
> 
> What I'm going to propose once I have it all worked out, is
> that electric airplanes weigh LESS than glow planes and be
> weighed without their "fuel", just like glow. The Rx battery
> will have to be in the plane, just like glow. Yes, I realize
> that there are UBEC's out there but I don't know of anyone
> who trusts them with the kind of current we're running. In
> any event, my preliminary research indicates that roughly
> 8.7 pounds should be just about right, but I want to make
> sure before I submit the proposal.
> 
> Verne
> 
>   
> ---- Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
> wrote: 
> > Verne,
> > 
> > When I was at the CIAM meeting in March one of the
> proposals which was
> > passed by the helicopter guys (F3C) was to modify the
> weight limit for their
> > helicopters effective 1/1/2010.  Here is the new
> wording:
> > 
> > a) WEIGHT: The weight of the model aircraft (*with
> *fuel *or *batteries)
> > must not exceed *6.5 *kg.
> > 
> > Unanimously approved by the Plenary Meeting. Effective
> 01/01/10.
> > 
> > I'm going to feel out the rest of the F3A
> sub-committee members to see if
> > there is interest in raising the F3A weight limit to
> 5.5kg.  What does
> > everyone think about this?
> > 
> > -Derek
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > > Bill,
> > > I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to
> address that very issue.
> > > Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the
> contest board anytime soon. In
> > > the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention
> in the glow to electric
> > > comparison and that's that an electric plane
> doesn't need as much internal
> > > reinforcement because there's virtually no
> vibrational effects to contend
> > > with that you do with glow. That equates to
> lighter airframes being
> > > acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to
> power the Rx and servos.
> > > An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah.
> The same flight in glow is
> > > typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric
> pilots will tell you that
> > > making weight in electric is generally a pretty
> expensive proposition with a
> > > limited number of 2 meter planes available that
> are usually vacuum-bagged
> > > composite affairs. In addition, your best chances
> for making weight will
> > > also necessitate the lightest and generally most
> expensive motors and
> > > batteries. There are exceptio
> > >  ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about
> most of them, but I'll be able
> > > to point to just as many examples of guys that
> fly overweight at local
> > > contests where they know they won't be weighed
> and the only thing they're
> > > really guilty of is not spending the extra money
> that the lightest batteries
> > > and motors cost. In every other way, the planes
> they're flying are the same
> > > as the ones they're competing against. The
> proposal I'm working on is not
> > > self-serving because my planes make weight, but
> getting there is both too
> > > expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My
> proposal won't be to allow
> > > electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that
> they weigh less, but
> > > without the "fuel". The proposal will take into
> account that electric motors
> > > are inherently lighter than their glow
> counterparts as well as the reduced
> > > structural requirements. It will limit the mah of
> permissible packs to
> > > control that end of the equation and there's
> already a voltage limit on the
> > > books which is fine as it
> > >  stands. I'm currently doing survey work at
> the contests I go to to see
> > > where everybody is at weight-wise and will post
> my proposal on this list
> > > soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to
> voice their opinions to their
> > > respective Contest Board reps.
> > >
> > > Verne Koester
> > > AMA District 7
> > > Contest Board
> > >  ---- Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
> wrote:
> > > >  I am certain this has been beaten to
> death while I was off doing other
> > > > things, but can anyone explain this:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may
> weigh more than five (5)
> > > > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding
> fuel, ready for takeoff.
> > > > Electric models are weighed with batteries.
> > > >
> > > > Why can't an electric "deduct" the
> equivalent of 16 ounces of fuel??  Is
> > > > a plane without fuel rally "ready for
> takeoff"??
> > > >
> > > > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI
> rule, but it makes no
> > > > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed
> without fuel and can weigh
> > > > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could
> add another 10 to 12 ounces of
> > > > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with
> batteries weight
> > > > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight
> by the rules.
> > > >
> > > > Put another way, what does a YS and full
> fuel weigh compared to a
> > > > motor+ESC+batteries?
> > > >
> > > > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces
> > > > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces
> > > > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces
> > > >
> > > > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9
> > > > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces
> > > >
> > > > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)
> > > > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-
> > > >
> > > >  So I can see an argument that the
> electrics have a weight advantage
> > > > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But
> with "fuel" electric is at
> > > > a 20 ounce disadvantage.
> > > >
> > > > So if I build a plane for electric I need to
> build it 20 plus ounces
> > > > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro
> motor in it. How does that
> > > > make sense. I know I am missing something
> important here, so educate me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > 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