[NSRCA-discussion] weight difference

Thu Aug 19 06:30:37 AKDT 2010

One current officer is on the board - me.  I also suspect that several of
the current board members are NOT NSRCA members.

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net> wrote:

>  In theory, but if you look at the CB make up, it’s heavily NSRCA officers
> and members.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Tony
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 19, 2010 9:47 AM
>
> *To:* 'General pattern discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
>
>
>
> One thing many NSRCA members don’t realize is that the rules for pattern in
> the USA are not NSRCA’s rules.  They are AMA’s rules.  AMA selects and uses
> the contest board to monitor rules from all AMA members, not just NSRCA
> members.
>
>
>
> Tony Stillman, President
>
> Radio South, Inc.
>
> 139 Altama Connector, Box 322
>
> Brunswick, GA  31525
>
> 1-800-962-7802
>
> www.radiosouthrc.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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100819/769169e3/attachment.html>