[NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight

[mike mueller]

 Dave there are cheaper higher C light weight Lipo's on the market now so no need for the expensive stuff if one so chooses.
 I make weight with both my planes but the choices I made in airframes and equipment made it close. The planes both feel light in the air. My newest one was harder and more expensive to make legal than what I would have liked but it flys very nicely.
 Say whatever you guys like and all the points are well taken but I still like Verne's proposal. That's called an opinion and we all have one as you know.
 I hope we never get to the point where Electric planes are the only thing we fly. I love to see a screaming YS plane flying and who knows if I wouldn't want to some day do another one just to do something different. It'll just be expensive. Plus if were all flying the same power plant who am I going to argue with?????? 
 Great debate and I'm taking in all the thoughts. You guys are pretty smart dudes!!!                    Mike

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:

> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 11:17 AM
> Honestly, I understand (and agree)
> with the intention to allow the "cheap
> electric", but it is no different than trying to tweak the
> rules for the
> "cheap gas engine" and won't (my opinion, with substantial
> history to back
> it) work- 
> - why should the rules be tweaked to essentially allow
> someone the latest
> greatest (electric) without paying for it (either with
> time, or $$$, or
> experience)?  The latest greatest always cost more -
> that is the nature of
> competition.
> - I truly believe the time spent researching, designing,
> crafting,
> submitting, and implementing such a proposal will largely
> be wasted because
> the process is relatively slow and can not possibly keep up
> with the rate of
> change in electrics as technology advances.
> - Anyone who wants to try electric - go right ahead - and
> fly a current day
> design at a slight weight disadvantage at local comps (most
> guys don't go to
> the NATs anyway) - no one is going to ask or care about a
> couple ounces over
> 11 lbs.  And if they do decide to go to the NATs, they
> can suck it up and
> buy 1 expensive pack for official flights and the scale.
> 
> With the understanding of the intent to allow cheap
> electrics, the
> unintended consequences of any rule change needs to be
> carefully evaluated
> prior to submitting a proposal.  In this case, the
> unintended consequence
> will be the opportunity for the TOP LEVEL electric designs
> to grow
> substantially in size and weight, which will drive the cost
> up for all
> competitors (glow and electric) to compete with the new
> performance
> standard.  The average plane is influenced by whatever
> the TOP LEVEL stuff
> is - that is why both electric and glow TOP LEVEL stuff has
> always been
> right on the limit of whatever the rules are at the time,
> and that is the
> way it will always be - again, it is the nature of
> competition.
> 
> The top level electrics right now weigh well under 11
> lbs......10 lbs is
> quite possible with electric monoplanes, which is why some
> are able to sneak
> biplanes in under 11 lbs - of course this is by shaving
> every ounce off the
> airframe (reducing it's lifespan and making it relatively
> fragile) and
> pushing the lipos harder (also reducing it's
> lifespan).  So when you look at
> 8.7 lbs considering the weight of the electrics that are
> marginally
> overweight (with the Zippy packs and AXI), the unintended
> consequence is the
> guys that have 7.5 lb airframes now have 1.2 lbs of
> additional weight to add
> to make the plane bigger - and you know it will be used,
> and probably along
> the lines of - 
> - 6-8 oz for structure
> - 3-4 oz for more motor (more power)
> - 4-5 oz for more lipo (which would still be rated the same
> 5300 mah, but be
> heavier to allow more voltage under load, thus delivering
> more watts through
> the course of the flight - and it will be called a "High
> Power Prolite", or
> "High Power AEON", whatever.)
> - 1-2 oz more for bigger servos and more RX battery
> 
> And 2 years after the 8.7 lb rule is introduced, there will
> be a cheap copy
> of the "High Power Prolite" will be available and it will
> weigh 5 oz more,
> and the desire will be to raise the 8.7 lbs to 9.2 lbs.
> 
> Allow 5.5 kg (12 lb) or 6 kg (14.3 kg) airframes, and yes,
> you will have
> DA50 powered stuff that is competitive with current day
> designs, but it will
> not be competitive with the YS built for 6 kg airframes for
> the same reason
> gas is not competitive with glow now.
> 
> Allow 5.5 kg weight limit, and you instantly solve the
> problem of all the
> guys that are a couple oz over the current 5 kg weight
> limit.  And the new
> designs will grow, and in 1-2 years, the new designs will
> be showing up a
> couple oz over the 5.5 kg limit.
> 
> It may be true that for the TOP LEVELs of competition that
> any airframe is
> obsolete in 3 years......BUT.......changing the rules to
> allow 15 lbs
> airframes will obsolete (immediately) not only the
> airframes, but the
> powerplants and servos.....and up the horsepower
> requirements substantially
> which will increase the noise (only measured at the NATs)
> and require
> substantially more cost to reduce the noise (to achieve
> 94/96 db at the
> NATs).
> 
> All of the above is escalation no different than what we've
> seen in the past
> -
> - "we" started with .61 cubic inch (10 CC) limit and 5
> kg......the only
> practical limit was the displacement.
> - "we" allowed 120 4C (big mistake, short sighted, or
> should have been
> continually adjusted as competition 4Cs developed). 
> Airframes grew and cost
> went up....some airplanes actually exceeded 2M (which was
> not yet a limit).
> - "we" allowed unlimited engines to, in part, cover up the
> mistake of the
> 120 4C, and, in part, to allow cheap gas engines (another
> big mistake, again
> short sighted).  The 2M rule went into place because
> that was essentially
> the "largest" plane in existence at the time.  The
> airframes got bigger
> again (fuse volume), and cost went up again, and the
> practical limit to
> airframe size became the 5 kg weight limit.
> 
> Of course we also have the noise limit - that is really a
> separate issue -
> but - it is worth noting that larger airplanes require more
> power, and more
> power is more noise (or more expense to keep the noise from
> increasing).
> 
> "Wouldn't it be nice if"........is a dangerous lead in to
> rule changes with
> unintended consequences.  The gas engine, the heavier
> lipo, the heavier
> motor, the heavier airframe, etc.....will all forever be
> less competitive
> because the limits will always be pushed by the
> airframe/powerplant that has
> the best power to weight ratio, and that will always cost
> more, and always
> be more sensitive to weight conscious building
> techniques.  No change in the
> rules will ever allow parity for equipment that does not
> have the best power
> to weight ratio.
> 
> Someone else made the point that they perceived the less
> the rules change,
> the more available airframes and equipment are (2nd hand) -
> I couldn't agree
> more.  Stop changing the rules to allow (intended or
> not) higher performance
> airframes, and the "old" ones won't be obsolete so
> quickly.
> 
> Personally, after a lot of research and planning, I
> switched to electric in
> 2006....and the expense was big.....especially because I
> had perfectly good
> glow stuff, and maintained glow and electric for about 1
> year.  To date,
> I've built 3 electric airframes (1 Abbra, 2 Prestige), and
> between them I
> have run 12 different motors of different brands, weights,
> in/out runners,
> and just about every mounting configuration you can think
> of.  The majority
> of the motors have been < $300, and I've always used the
> Castle 85HV (which
> I think has always been and still is the least expensive
> ESC available for
> the job).  My planes have weighed anywhere between 9
> lbs 13 oz and 10 lbs 14
> depending on the configuration.  If I had the time,
> $$$, resources, etc, I'd
> design and build my own stuff right up to the limit,
> whatever that limit
> might be.  As I do have limits (as most of us do),
> I'll get as close to what
> I think optimum performance is, and it may or may not be
> pushing the limits
> (for whatever reasons). 
> 
> In the past 3 years, I've spent a huge amount of time on
> email, phone,
> forums, in my shop, in others shops, etc....working with
> people on how to
> assemble electric pattern stuff....and most are not using
> the most expensive
> airframes or equipment, and all are under 11 lbs. 
> Bottom line is that you
> can not take the largest, cheapest, and heaviest of each
> respective
> component and have a sub 11 lb electric OR glow
> plane.  Nor do you need to
> have the most expensive and lightest example of each
> component to be
> competitive.  You do need to research, plan, and make
> educated decisions.
> No offense to anyone with an 10 lb 18 oz plane....they do
> exist....and most
> are being happily flown, and most can make weight for the
> NATs if the time
> is spent in advanced.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of
> verne at twmi.rr.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:53 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight
> 
> 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
>