[NSRCA-discussion] weight difference

[Dave Burton]

It's probably the weakest part of the GP planes too.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:43 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference

Valid concern.  My experience is that the landing gear support system  
is the weakest part of electric-powered airplanes.

Ron

On Aug 18, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Ron Hansen wrote:

> I'm concerned that these new electric only planes that are designed  
> to make
> weight won't hold up to the normal wear and tear of an average  
> intermediate
> or advanced pilot or flying off of a rough grass runway.  Is this a  
> valid
> concern?  I think so but maybe I'm over reacting.  That is why I'm  
> in favor
> of eliminating the weight limit altogether.  The proposal to  
> slightly raise
> the weight limit won't allow someone to fly an electric Focus II for
> example.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N  
> Hiller
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:17 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
>
> I've been following this with interest. E-power is looking better  
> all the
> time and I probably will make the change. I like to build prefer a  
> wood
> airplane. About how much total weight is in a suitable E-power  
> system or
> empty airframe ready for radio etc? Any numbers readily available  
> would be
> helpful in understanding the distribution of weight.
> Thanks
> Jim Hiller
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 9:02 AM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
>
> And to recall.....that is the Spark with custom wings and stabs,  
> which saves
> substantial weight?  There are very few unmodified kits available  
> that are
> RTF electric at 10.25.  There are some airframe examples for which  
> glow /
> electric are similar weight, but that is not the norm - not yet  
> anyway - my
> opinion.
>
> My electric Bravo was 10 lbs even at the 2009 NATs (only 4 oz more  
> than the
> Vivat I flew in 2005) and I would be scared of the structure if it  
> were any
> lighter.  Of course it could be lighter still IF I went from 5000  
> to 4350
> lipos (~6 oz) and ditched the dual RX batts and Vregs (~2 oz) and used
> lighter ESC and wiring (~ 2 oz).
>
> Point being....even tho 10 lb electrics are possible, and becoming  
> more
> common, it is still pretty easy to build electrics at 11+ lbs without
> careful planning and attention to detail.  I think it will become a
> non-issue soon enough.....even in Europe and Asia electrics are  
> coming on
> strong.....so the glow kits will become increasingly scarce.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of  
> Atwood, Mark
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 10:06 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
>
> I would argue that you can't "disregard" the airframe given that an  
> all
> electric airframe is much lighter.
>
> My answer to the question?  There is almost no difference.   I'm  
> flying a
> full 2M plane that weighs 10lbs 4oz with light batteries, 10lbs,  
> 8oz with
> very heavy batteries.   My two Black Magics with glow weighed 10lbs  
> 6oz and
> 10lbs 8oz RTF minus CDI (add approx 4oz for that).
>
> I believe we're just now seeing full electric designs that are  
> optimized for
> weight and are coming in light.   Prior to that, many of the  
> designs still
> had unnecessary structure as a legacy from Glow.  I'm pretty sure that
> evolution is not complete yet either.
>
>
>
> Mark Atwood
> Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
> 5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
> Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
> mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com  |  www.paragon-inc.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron  
> Van Putte
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 9:58 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
>
> Tough question.  Will you insist on using 30C lipos, when 20C lipos
> are much lighter?  Do you plan on using a particular motor?  Motor
> weights vary substantially.  Some ESCs are a lot heavier than others.
>
> My guess would be that the weight difference between a complete
> electric-power system and a complete glow-power system, disregarding
> the airplane, would be 10-16 ounces.
>
> Ron
>
> On Aug 17, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Dr Mike wrote:
>
>> Ok so I am going to ask the question again... in your estimation
>> what is the
>> difference in weight between the complete electric power system and
>> the
>> complete glow system-disregarding the airplane?
>> Mike
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron
>> Van Putte
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 8:30 AM
>> To: General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
>>
>> Dave WAS trying to show the difference between glow and electric.
>>
>> Generally, airplanes that started out as glow-powered are heavier
>> than one for electric power, because of the vibration.  The
>> difference between the two packages gets complicated.  For glow, you
>> include spinner, prop, engine, motor mount, ignition system, fuel
>> tubing (and fittings), fuel tank and anything else which is
>> exclusively for glow.  For electric, you include spinner, prop,
>> motor, motor mount, ESC, wiring, lipo batteries and anything else
>> which is exclusively for electric.  When you add it up, the weight
>> differences can be pretty dramatic.  If you don't carefully select
>> all the components, you can easily add an unneeded 4 ounces to an
>> electric-powered airplane.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> On Aug 17, 2010, at 7:49 AM, Dr Mike wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Dave, I am referring only to the power packages,not the
>>> planes. Those are what I am looking for, the difference between
>>> glow and electric.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-
>>> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 7:41 AM
>>> To: 'General pattern discussion'
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 12 oz +/-4 oz.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Exact number depends on a bunch of things -
>>>
>>> - on the electric side, which motor, motor mounting, ESC, lipo, RX
>>> power system?
>>>
>>> - was the plane originally built lighter for electric, or with more
>>> beef for glow?
>>>
>>> - CDI / non CDI, type of mount, and what type of ignition and RX
>>> power?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I can tell you that a number of Prestige planes have been built
>>> with various glow and electric power plants.  For the most part,
>>> the glow airframes are +4 oz to start with (the added beef for glow
>>> vibration).  Most of the glow setups ended up at 9.5 lbs, +/- 4
>>> oz.  Most of the electrics ended up at 10.25 lbs, +/- 4 oz.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-
>>> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dr Mike
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 8:33 AM
>>> To: 'General pattern discussion'
>>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Could someone tell me the difference in weight between say a YS 1.7
>>> with muffler/tank,etc vs electric?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus  
> signature
> database 5374 (20100817) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3079 - Release Date: 08/18/10
14:35:00