[NSRCA-discussion] weight difference

Thu Aug 19 05:29:03 AKDT 2010

An excellent discussion  - especially the "unintended consequences" part.   Thanks for the diatribe Mark ! 

I think we should be particularly sensitive to an increase in AMA weight standard resulting (in a couple of years) in larger designs that take up more room, cost more, and are no longer compatible with F3A. 

Ron Lockhart 

Dist II  CB   

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 9:05:03 AM 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference 

The challenge here is that rules of this nature, limiting rules, be it in Pattern, Sailing, Stock car, whatever, are NOT in place to restrict the average guy, they’re in place to restrict the innovator.  The guys that push the limit. 

In our sport, the “average” guy is stuck pushing the limit because he’s trying to copy and follow the innovators.  We all want the triple volumetric 2 meter bird because that’s what Chip/Andrew/Quique and company have pushed the boundary’s too.  A prophecy still makes weight with nooooo problem.     

So the problem is simple.  IF the rules change, it clearly will help the average guy for a year or two.  But then the innovators will once again push the limits (they wouldn’t BE limits if no one was pushing) and we would see new designs that the average guy can’t easily keep within the rules. 

Bipes have not really caught on because they’re too difficult to make weight with.  Only the very best builders with very few limits on funding for all the best and lightest equipment have made them work.  Add a pound and that will very likely change…to where all the top guys can make them work, which will then push the average guy to try and make them work.   At the end of the day, all it adds is cost as we obsolete a whole generation of viable aircraft to the dumpster.   

All one needs to do for confirmation on that is to review the evolution of aircraft that occurred when we removed the LAST limiter…engine displacement.   Prior to that, weight was only a secondary limiter because displacement restricted how big of a plane you could carry around.  Once removed, we had 10 years of growing aircraft and growing engines.  All costing more, NOT just because the new stuff was more expensive…that’s just natural inflation and evolution, but because the lifespan of a model was shorter.   Designs changed SIGNIFICANTLY every year. 

Finally, we’re back to a semi stable development cycle which has aircraft like the Integral enjoying a 5-6 year run and is still considered competitive even in FAI (I believe that’s what Pete Collinson flew in the finals this year).   

It’s not that we’re not listening…  We’re simply trying to avoid mistakes from the past and make as sure as we can that the rule changes won’t have disastrous unintended consequences.  

The rule change that is currently on the ballot provides a sizeable variance for those in the lower classes to help accommodate aging aircraft (which seem to gain weight magically), repaired used aircraft, and beginning builders….without changing the goal (and therefore the designers goal) of maintaining a 5KG weight limit. 

Ok…off my soapbox.  Sorry for the diatribe. 

-Mark 

CB for Dist 3  

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 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dr Mike 
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:42 AM 
To: 'General pattern discussion' 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference 

Lance, 

Regarding the CB, I agree with you that those generalities are anal comments.  Most of the guys are giving freely of their time and we are lucky to have them.  On the weight issue, the 11 pounds is a bit restricting.  When that rule was made, planes had a 60 inch span, were 48 inches long and weighed 7 lbs.  now they are volumetrically double or triple so the wing loading is the same or lighter.  Needs to go up at least a pound or two. 

Mike 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Patterndude 
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 8:35 PM 
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference 

I have a 10 lb e-symphony, there are low 10 lb Evo's and both these planes are super rigid an tough. There are e planes that I'm afraid to touch because of fragility and they cost more too. Point is, the consumer has choices and don't need to fly a dangerous airframe. They choose to. Remember the glow Impacts that lost their tail in a snap but hundreds were sold AFTER this fact was known on this list?   

As a CB guy I don't like being generalized against. I ask for input all the time. Even call people and tell people where my head is at  all the time without preaching.  

Sent from my iPhone 

On Aug 18, 2010, at 8:11 PM, Tim Taylor < timsautopro at yahoo.com > wrote: 

We can always ignore it, we've done that for years unless you're in the top 3-5 at the Nats. 

In this day and age of instant communication we no longer need a Contest Board to decide what we do or not. With all due respect to the CB we don't need you guys anymore, we can poll the membership directly and set the rules. Far more representative that way. 

The only time I ever tried to talk to a CB member about a rules proposal in person I got the old "I know better than you and I'm going to do what I want so we don't need to discuss it."  He then refused to even talk about anything at that point. Left a very bad taste I tell you. 

Tim 
--- On Wed, 8/18/10, Dave Burton < burtona at atmc.net > wrote: 

From: Dave Burton < burtona at atmc.net > 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference 
To: "'General pattern discussion'" < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org > 
Date: Wednesday, August 18, 2010, 7:53 PM 

The rules proposal to eliminate the weight limit didn't make the first CB 
vote. Too bad IMO! 
Dave 

-----Original Message----- 
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
[mailto: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org ] On Behalf Of Ron Hansen 
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:35 PM 
To: 'General pattern discussion' 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference 

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 
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 

_______________________________________________ 
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/20100819/be44b5f1/attachment.html>