[NSRCA-discussion] weight difference

Thu Aug 19 15:05:16 AKDT 2010

Actually, larger fuselage volumes lend themselves very well to good structutal integrity.  The inverse applies for skinny stuff.  Provided that correct design principles are followed, and that there is good quality control over manufacturing processes, there is no reason for concern with large volume fuselages being strong enough.  However, as soon as you raise the weight limit, you then need a beefier structure to carry it.  So who wants that?

From: rcpilot at wowway.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:53:00 -0400
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference

I agree Mike.  I have a hard time
believing that the volume of the planes can get much bigger before they start
exploding in the air.  Eliminate the weight limit.  If the overseas
manufacturers keep making planes to meet the 11 lb limit so be it.  Some
manufacturers in the US may make kits that are better suited for NSRCA and some will
not.  Either way the selection increases.  I’m concerned these
planes are getting more and more fragile.  This is defeating one of the
benefits of going electric (air frame longevity).

-----Original Message-----

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
10:53 AM

To: 'General pattern discussion'

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
weight difference

IMO,
the weight limit restriction has driven up the cost of aircraft and made
construction more difficult for even an accomplished builder.  It also
creates a potentially unsafe vessel because of trying to make weight. 
What is wrong with being innovative?  The weight rule is obsolete and
restrictive.  The planes are becoming cookie-cutter, boring, expensive
look alikes that have minute differences.  My voice is to make the
change.  Seems like in all endeavors those that are the loudest are the
ones saying NO CHANGE!!!.  

My
2 cents.

Mike

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
9:18 AM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
weight difference

I
actually feel that you’re making my point in a way.  When we were
restricted by engine displacement the size and weight were not in contention as
a limiting factor (though they were, just that without more power, they
didn’t come into play).

The
argument at the time of removing the engine displacement was EXACTLY  the
one being made today (only internationally instead of just domestically). 
Which was that engine displacement rule was increasing costs because engine
manufacturers were trying to get the last 1% of power out of the existing
displacement.  Thus the $300 OS Hanno Special which was an outrageous
price for a .61 engine.  YS was doing the same on the 4 stroke side
(another dubious rule change to provide equity between 4 stroke and 2 stroke
power plants).   

So
the goal was to allow any engine…thus letting the “average”
guy fly a cheaper, but larger displacement engine.  Did that work? 
Is anyone successfully running the ST 2300??  Or did we just get bigger
planes that require bigger engines…up until we hit the size/weight limit
and now we get back to expensive Engines with more expensive CDI units?

What
I don’t understand is that people don’t think the planes can get
any bigger because of the 2m rule.  My Arch Nemesis was a FULL 2m airplane
in 1997… at 9lbs.   We didn’t think they could get any
bigger then either.   

All
of that said, Contrary to Tim’s experience, I do try hard to listen to
members of my district. ALL of them…NOT just the vocal ones that post
prolifically on RCU or this list.  And there are far more in favor of
maintaining the weight rule than eliminating it, or substantially raising
it.  MOST…and I do mean MOST, really don’t care.  
“tell me the rules, and I’ll play by them”.   That
group, and it’s by far the largest group, wants consistency year to year
to year.  That saves them the most money as they get a much longer
lifespan from their investment.

-M

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 Dave Burton

Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010
9:49 AM

To: 'General pattern discussion'

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
weight difference

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

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/20100819/434ff33b/attachment.html>