[NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
Ron Hansen
rcpilot at wowway.com
Thu Aug 19 15:19:31 AKDT 2010
Ed, I'm not sure I agree but lets assume you are correct. You can't build a
balsa 2m any bigger than the black magic and make weight. If the volumes
get any bigger everyone will be forced to buy high dollar composites built
most likely overseas. Not sure that is healthy for the hobby.
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 7:05 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
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 The weight rule is obsolete and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
<http://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
<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
_______________________________________________ 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/20100819/683a742f/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list