[NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight

[mike mueller]

 OK Uncle!!!!!

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

> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE:  Weight
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 3:51 PM
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>