[NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight

John Pavlick jpavlick at idseng.com
Fri Jun 5 04:59:05 AKDT 2009 

Did you expect anythng less from this group? LOL
 
John Pavlick

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Verne Koester <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:


From: Verne Koester <verne at twmi.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 11:52 PM


This discussion reminds me of the old law school example that teaches the
unreliability of hearsay or second-hand information. You start by whispering
something into the ear of the first person in the first row and then have
him repeat the message to the person sitting next to him. You continue on in
this fashion until it works its way to the last person in the last row and
have that person repeat the message. The difference between my original
message and the final version is astounding. I give the award here to Dave
for twisting my message the most. Somehow or other my proposal has turned
from decreasing the allowable weight of an electric plane without batteries
into increasing the weight of all pattern planes, strapping gas engines on
for good measure, rendering all current designs obsolete while totally
ignoring the fact that easily 99% of the designs come from the FAI ranks
which aren't impacted in any way by this proposal, and completely ignoring
the fact that currently available 5300 mah batteries haven't gotten lighter,
they've gotten heavier. Most of us started with TP 5300 5S4P batteries
including Dave. They aren't made anymore and everything available in that
power/mah range from any manufacturer is anywhere from 2 to 10 ounces
heavier going from most expensive to cheapest. But you knew that, right?

Verne

-----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 7:44 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Long - RE: Weight


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
> 


      
_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090605/c9232743/attachment.html>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list