[NSRCA-discussion] weight difference

[Pete Cosky]

Well stated....I have seen limiting rules changed in other hobbies of mine over the years to help make it easier for people to competehave the exact opposite effect.

I am one of those lower class guys who whould like to see pattern become less expensive and eliminating a limiting rule IMO is not the way.

Just my $1.98 (2 cents inflation adjusted)

Pete Cosky
sent from my mobile device

-----Original Message-----
From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 9:05 AM
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
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<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>  |  www.paragon-inc.com<http://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<mailto: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<mailto:burtona at atmc.net>> wrote:

From: Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net<mailto:burtona at atmc.net>>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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>
[mailto: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>
[mailto: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>
[mailto: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>
[mailto: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<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>  |  www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com>


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
[mailto: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>
> [mailto: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.
>


[The entire original message is not included]