[NSRCA-discussion] weight difference

[Derek Koopowitz]

Judging committee head is not an officer position - (elected).  Yes, some of
the current contest board members were NSRCA officers but unfortunately, due
to the nature of the beast, that will tend to be the case.  Tony's point was
that the AMA owns the rules but the SIGs are generally responsible for
coming up with changes etc. for their rules but we still need to be mindful
of potential overriding rules that may be in conflict with SIG specific
rules.

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net> wrote:

>  Dale was an NSRCA officer until just recently - Judging Committee head.
>
> Other CB member are past NSRCA officers too.
>
> It’s  a good thing that NSRCA has  a lot influence on the CB, but in
> reality it’s not just an AMA position as Tony implied.
>
>
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Bill Glaze
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 19, 2010 10:53 AM
>
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
>
>
>
> How about Dale Arnold?  Isn't he a sitting member of the Board now?  Or is
> he not a NSRCA member?  Just curious.
>
> Bill glaze
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 19, 2010 10:30 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100819/9b5c80d3/attachment.html>