[NSRCA-discussion] weight difference

Thu Aug 19 05:48:50 AKDT 2010

I couldn't disagree more.

Two meter rule restricts the size of pattern planes.

Noise rule restricts the impact pattern planes have on neighbors.

Both of these are good rules IMO.

The present  weight limit only drives up the cost and compromises safety.

It's one of the reasons people are spending $4,000+ on airframes and driving
away people who might fly pattern but aren't willing/able to due to the
cost.

>From the 1930's rules,  we increased the size of planes and engines
tremendously and kept a weight rule the same as when we flew .45 - 61 glow
engines.

Then we weigh electric planes with fuel, glow planes empty.

Makes no sense!

Dave Burton

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 9:05 AM
To: General pattern discussion
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
<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> 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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3080 - Release Date: 08/19/10
02:35:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100819/957db10c/attachment.html>