[NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight

[Dave]

Mike,

"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."

Whoooaaa!!!!  So if the cheap lightweight lipo is available now, why is it
that the current rules need to be tweaked??

If you like Verne's proposal, vote for it (if/when submitted).  And know
that doing so probably won't bring us to the point where electrics are the
only planes flying, just the point at which glow are seriously outclassed.

I'm not opposed to the spirit of Verne's idea, but the nature of competition
is to push the limits whatever they are, and pushing the limits costs
time/money/resources - always has and always will.  Raising the limits
simply raises the costs for all of us.

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: Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:08 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight


 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
> 


      
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion