[NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
Dave Burton
burtona at atmc.net
Thu Aug 19 09:36:07 AKDT 2010
Ah ha, the 5's place person flying with the huge advantage of an overweight
airplane wins!
Why weigh anyone if it's not a team selection contest? Or even if it is?
There's no requirement to fly the same plane at the WC. We already run every
contest in the US except the Nats with unlimited weight, Why not that one
too? Wonder if there just may be a couple of flyers who would come to the
Nats if they knew no planes would be weighed?
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Chad
Northeast
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 1:14 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
"And at the
> Nats, the only planes that should be weighed are the top 4 F3A
> places. Let's forget about weighing any of the others. Just do a
> size check and that's all."
Not really acceptable, in the FAI finals its a new contest, the top 4 going
into the finals, could be the bottom 4 after the finals. You need to
process everyone that is in the finals to ensure they are all legal, as
there is no way to predict the results.
It would be sad if you processed the top 4 from the semi's, and during the
finals a 5th person made the team who was not processed, and was found to be
flying an illegal model.
Chad
----- Original Message -----
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com
Date: Thursday, August 19, 2010 10:25 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Yes Mike I can carry an extra pound or two in the van. I don't
> want to. So I do everything I can to make my planes less than 5
> kilos. Easier on my joints too.
>
> As far as local contest weigh in is concerned....I agree.
> Therefore it seems to me that at least 50% of the folks that
> don't attend the Nats may be flying heavier than max airplanes
> and none's the wiser. Fine with me. It also seems to me the main
> point for increasing the weight limit is so that people can be
> "legal" at the US Nats.
>
> Truth is that there are only 4 people that truly have use 5 kilo
> of less airplanes: the team that will represent us at the WC.
> The rest of us can have a variable weight and it's not a big
> deal, except, if the rule was relaxed, it will open the can of
> worms of escalating cost once again. Dave Lockhart had a good
> review of how that process works a couple years ago, so it makes
> no sense to rehash old stuff
>
> In my view, I would prefer that the rule remain in an effort to
> control cost to the current (admitedly high) level. And at the
> Nats, the only planes that should be weighed are the top 4 F3A
> places. Let's forget about weighing any of the others. Just do a
> size check and that's all.
>
> Finally, if we were to relax the weight limit to say 12 lbs give
> or take, okay fine, make sure planes were made from balsa and
> ply. Fiberglass to be used only to finish not to build composite
> strength. In fact about the only composite parts allowed should
> be wing and stab joiners and gear/pants. In other words, make a
> good attempt to control cost.
>
> We have got to get cost under control in my view or the sport
> will become too expensive for most. It may be too expensive for
> most right now
>
> My 2 1/2 cents
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr Mike <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net>
> To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-
> discussion at lists.nsrca.org>Sent: Thu, Aug 19, 2010 10:58 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
>
> Matt, I agree with the size restriction, but I think you and
> your van could carry another 2 pounds>heck we have guys
> flying 12+pound planes at local contests all the time. When is
> the last time someone weighed an airplane at a local contest?
> When is the last time anyone enforced that rule? Practically
> speaking the weight limit is academic.
> Mike
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:46 AM
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
>
>
> A 2 meter, 5 kilo plane is about my physical max. I physically
> have a difficult time getting something larger in the minivan.
> At one time I dabbled in 1/3 scale IMAC but that proved too big
> and too heavy to haul around....just a plain pain in tuchous
> (can I say 'tuchous' in this forum?)
>
>
>
> Besides, I find it great fun to figure out how to make a 2meter,
> 5 kilo plane come out at 4.5 kilos....don't you?
>
> MattK
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ronlock at comcast.net
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-
> discussion at lists.nsrca.org>Sent: Thu, Aug 19, 2010 9:29 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> 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
> intermediateor 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:
> 08/18/1014:35:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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/20100819/018791c9/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list