From rjlavey at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  1 03:16:41 2010
From: rjlavey at hotmail.com (Bob Lavey)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:16:41 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
Message-ID: <52FA9DD7B4764BACB8F52B65846C1049@LAVEYFAMILYXP>

Greetings,

I have a question about the YS 160 in my Abbra.  I've got about two dozen
flights on the plane/engine, since I bought it (used).  It's run great up
until yesterday, when I barely got one flight on it.  I got as far as the
square loop in the intermediate sequence (yeah, first maneuver), and it
sputtered and choked at the top of the vertical line and across the inverted
horizontal top line.  I rolled it over, and it seemed okay, so I tried
again.  Same result.  I got it back down without incident and ran the engine
on the bench, and it was lean in the mid-range and top end.  It got very hot
during the short time I ran it on the bench, and it seemed to get leaner the
longer it ran.  I tried the high-end needle and small rich adjustment on the
pump, but neither helped.  It ran great last weekend, so I don't think it
was a mixture setting.  I then started checking the fuel lines and vent
lines, but they seemed okay.  Then I noticed the check valve on the head
would rotate.  The one on my other 160 doesn't rotate, and since I thought
those were a press-fit, it doesn't seem like it ought to rotate.  I gave it
a gentle tug, and it didn't come out of the head, but it rotates pretty
freely.

Is that a bad thing?  Or should I continue looking for an air leak in other
places?  Any other suggestions?

Does that check valve just pull off, and I can I replace it by just pushing
another one on?  Can it be that easy? :)

Thanks!
Bob

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/88aa604a/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 04:48:05 2010
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:48:05 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey
In-Reply-To: <728705.97405.qm@web113903.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <702420.23550.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

 I had a hard time being upset with Canada beating the US. As Ryan Miller said the US team was an afterthought in the scheme of things. I think it's safe to say that all of Hockey benefited from the Olympic games.
 It's also hard to dislike the Canadian team when 3 players from my beloved Blackhawks were on the team. I can't help but to be excited about the learning experience a Patrick Kane, Duncan Keith. Brent Seabrook and Jonathon Toews received from this competition. 
 It's a lot different mindset than when the Amateur North American players used to have to go up against the Professional Eastern blockers. Where's the Russians now??? Remeber that the Canadians boycotted the Olypics in hockey for 8 years.
 Go Canada our greatest friends Go USA you made us very proud. Mike Mueller

--- On Sun, 2/28/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey
> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Sunday, February 28, 2010, 9:19 PM
> 
> I'm really happy for Canada.. Sure I wish the US
> woulda won, but?Canada wanted it worse. They came out
> fierce. Got me in Stanley cup mood. GO WINGS!
> ?
> Heck, I was even?going for?the Canadian
> (womens of course) curling team! I like the strategy
> to?it! I'm a fan of it now!
> ?
> Chris 
> ?
> ?
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Chad
> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> To: General
> pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Sun,
> February 28, 2010 2:39:11 PM
> Subject: Re:
> [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey
> 
> This is more nerve wracking than flying pattern!
> 
> C
> 
> On 10-02-28 3:33 PM, Ken Thompson wrote:
> > Great Olympics all around...GO OVERTIME!!
> > ;-)
> >
> >? ? ----- Original Message -----
> >? ? *From:* Chad Northeast <mailto:chadnortheast at shaw.ca>
> >? ? *To:* General pattern discussion
> >? ? <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >? ? *Sent:* Sunday, February 28, 2010 3:03
> PM
> >? ? *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey
> >
> >? ? Just want to say GO CANADA
> >
> >? ? :)
> >
> >? ? Chad
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >? ?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >? ?
> _______________________________________________
> >? ? NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >? ? NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >? ? <mailto: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
> 
> 
> 
>       
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      

From deanfunk1 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 04:59:45 2010
From: deanfunk1 at yahoo.com (Dean Funk)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:59:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey
In-Reply-To: <702420.23550.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <702420.23550.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <307257.74734.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



being from pittsburgh, all I can say is GO SID GO !!!!!!!!!!!!!





----- Original Message ----
From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, March 1, 2010 8:47:56 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey

I had a hard time being upset with Canada beating the US. As Ryan Miller said the US team was an afterthought in the scheme of things. I think it's safe to say that all of Hockey benefited from the Olympic games.
It's also hard to dislike the Canadian team when 3 players from my beloved Blackhawks were on the team. I can't help but to be excited about the learning experience a Patrick Kane, Duncan Keith. Brent Seabrook and Jonathon Toews received from this competition. 
It's a lot different mindset than when the Amateur North American players used to have to go up against the Professional Eastern blockers. Where's the Russians now??? Remeber that the Canadians boycotted the Olypics in hockey for 8 years.
Go Canada our greatest friends Go USA you made us very proud. Mike Mueller

--- On Sun, 2/28/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey
> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Sunday, February 28, 2010, 9:19 PM
> 
> I'm really happy for Canada.. Sure I wish the US
> woulda won, but Canada wanted it worse. They came out
> fierce. Got me in Stanley cup mood. GO WINGS!
>  
> Heck, I was even going for the Canadian
> (womens of course) curling team! I like the strategy
> to it! I'm a fan of it now!
>  
> Chris 
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Chad
> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> To: General
> pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Sun,
> February 28, 2010 2:39:11 PM
> Subject: Re:
> [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey
> 
> This is more nerve wracking than flying pattern!
> 
> C
> 
> On 10-02-28 3:33 PM, Ken Thompson wrote:
> > Great Olympics all around...GO OVERTIME!!
> > ;-)
> >
> >    ----- Original Message -----
> >    *From:* Chad Northeast <mailto:chadnortheast at shaw.ca>
> >    *To:* General pattern discussion
> >    <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >    *Sent:* Sunday, February 28, 2010 3:03
> PM
> >    *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey
> >
> >    Just want to say GO CANADA
> >
> >    :)
> >
> >    Chad
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >   
> _______________________________________________
> >    NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >    NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >    <mailto: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
> 
> 
> 
>      
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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



      

From chuenkan at comcast.net  Mon Mar  1 05:07:56 2010
From: chuenkan at comcast.net (Phil Spelt)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:07:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey
In-Reply-To: <307257.74734.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <702420.23550.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<307257.74734.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20100301140755.1CE0A11668@bridi.netexpress.com>

Yup, GO PENGs!!!!!!!

At 08:59 AM 3/1/2010, you wrote:


>being from pittsburgh, all I can say is GO SID GO !!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
>To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Sent: Mon, March 1, 2010 8:47:56 AM
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey
>
>I had a hard time being upset with Canada beating the US. As Ryan 
>Miller said the US team was an afterthought in the scheme of things. 
>I think it's safe to say that all of Hockey benefited from the Olympic games.
>It's also hard to dislike the Canadian team when 3 players from my 
>beloved Blackhawks were on the team. I can't help but to be excited 
>about the learning experience a Patrick Kane, Duncan Keith. Brent 
>Seabrook and Jonathon Toews received from this competition.
>It's a lot different mindset than when the Amateur North American 
>players used to have to go up against the Professional Eastern 
>blockers. Where's the Russians now??? Remeber that the Canadians 
>boycotted the Olypics in hockey for 8 years.
>Go Canada our greatest friends Go USA you made us very proud. Mike Mueller
>
>--- On Sun, 2/28/10, krishlan fitzsimmons 
><homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey
> > To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion" 
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Sunday, February 28, 2010, 9:19 PM
> >
> > I'm really happy for Canada.. Sure I wish the US
> > woulda won, but Canada wanted it worse. They came out
> > fierce. Got me in Stanley cup mood. GO WINGS!
> >
> > Heck, I was even going for the Canadian
> > (womens of course) curling team! I like the strategy
> > to it! I'm a fan of it now!
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Chad
> > Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> > To: General
> > pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Sun,
> > February 28, 2010 2:39:11 PM
> > Subject: Re:
> > [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey
> >
> > This is more nerve wracking than flying pattern!
> >
> > C
> >
> > On 10-02-28 3:33 PM, Ken Thompson wrote:
> > > Great Olympics all around...GO OVERTIME!!
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > >    ----- Original Message -----
> > >    *From:* Chad Northeast <mailto:chadnortheast at shaw.ca>
> > >    *To:* General pattern discussion
> > >    <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >    *Sent:* Sunday, February 28, 2010 3:03
> > PM
> > >    *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey
> > >
> > >    Just want to say GO CANADA
> > >
> > >    :)
> > >
> > >    Chad
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > >    NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >    NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >    <mailto: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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member, SPA--177
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/fe1caf77/attachment.html>

From pcosky at comcast.net  Mon Mar  1 05:13:13 2010
From: pcosky at comcast.net (Pete Cosky)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:13:13 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey
References: <702420.23550.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<307257.74734.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C0387575DD2546E88994FD7DCA12F820@usa.ccu.clearchannel.com>

It was cool to see the Captain of my beloved snow pigeons make that final 
goal....Crosby and Fluery on the Canadian team...how can I be upset.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean Funk" <deanfunk1 at yahoo.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey


>
>
> being from pittsburgh, all I can say is GO SID GO !!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Mon, March 1, 2010 8:47:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey
>
> I had a hard time being upset with Canada beating the US. As Ryan Miller 
> said the US team was an afterthought in the scheme of things. I think it's 
> safe to say that all of Hockey benefited from the Olympic games.
> It's also hard to dislike the Canadian team when 3 players from my beloved 
> Blackhawks were on the team. I can't help but to be excited about the 
> learning experience a Patrick Kane, Duncan Keith. Brent Seabrook and 
> Jonathon Toews received from this competition.
> It's a lot different mindset than when the Amateur North American players 
> used to have to go up against the Professional Eastern blockers. Where's 
> the Russians now??? Remeber that the Canadians boycotted the Olypics in 
> hockey for 8 years.
> Go Canada our greatest friends Go USA you made us very proud. Mike Mueller
>
> --- On Sun, 2/28/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey
>> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion" 
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: Sunday, February 28, 2010, 9:19 PM
>>
>> I'm really happy for Canada.. Sure I wish the US
>> woulda won, but Canada wanted it worse. They came out
>> fierce. Got me in Stanley cup mood. GO WINGS!
>>
>> Heck, I was even going for the Canadian
>> (womens of course) curling team! I like the strategy
>> to it! I'm a fan of it now!
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Chad
>> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>> To: General
>> pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Sun,
>> February 28, 2010 2:39:11 PM
>> Subject: Re:
>> [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey
>>
>> This is more nerve wracking than flying pattern!
>>
>> C
>>
>> On 10-02-28 3:33 PM, Ken Thompson wrote:
>> > Great Olympics all around...GO OVERTIME!!
>> > ;-)
>> >
>> >    ----- Original Message -----
>> >    *From:* Chad Northeast <mailto:chadnortheast at shaw.ca>
>> >    *To:* General pattern discussion
>> >    <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> >    *Sent:* Sunday, February 28, 2010 3:03
>> PM
>> >    *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] Hockey
>> >
>> >    Just want to say GO CANADA
>> >
>> >    :)
>> >
>> >    Chad
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> >    NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> >    NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> >    <mailto: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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 



From homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 05:55:52 2010
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com (krishlan fitzsimmons)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:55:52 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <4B8B4730.2080509@f3acanada.org>
References: <003c01cab7c2$918e21f0$b4aa65d0$@com>
	<236CA410-D17E-4EB1-9723-5C27FD37E9DF@cox.net>
	<6792ef121002270822m417e1621x71d21dd6e53ec0a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<C83AAA2576604C18967B8F1F69498109@glazecstp32xp>
	<005401cab89d$5fa781f0$1ef685d0$@com>
	<76A9A3B70B44460299522B42DCF0665E@glazecstp32xp>
	<f322fb172686b.4b8a77a2@shaw.ca>
	<B2472A7E08AE4A8B985B6C3908BFE7EE@kenpc>
	<352441.87541.qm@web83301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<713CC2F7-B3D9-4B10-9F24-1A4FA742B390@cox.net>
	<009f01cab8dd$7cd186f0$767494d0$@com>
	<86A4070F-91F5-417E-9CE0-CCD697AB8C3A@socal.rr.com>
	<8EF2BC42-FD23-4FA7-94F6-739DF8F8CB5D@cox.net>
	<4B8B4730.2080509@f3acanada.org>
Message-ID: <32651.70164.qm@web113914.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Couldn't we go to a higher?voltage and regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
?
Chris 







________________________________
From: Chad Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Sun, February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you will have a pretty restricted flight time.

Chad

On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.? Fully charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very long.? On the other hand, once the initial charge voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss curve "flattens out".? What if you put fully charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56 volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for use.? Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical flight?? If the end-of-flight voltage might be significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it would be worth investigating, even considering the extra weight of the additional cell.? Come on you electronic gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> 
> Ron Van Putte
> 
> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> 
>> What comes after ...?? Does it specify a load or any other conditions?? Is it measured during the noise test and have a minimum value?
>> 
>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>> 
>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC Aerobatics).? Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>>> which states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are limited to a maximum
>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>>> 
>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> 
>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C section.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Where can I find the rule for max volts?
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/f3098f58/attachment.html>

From vanputte at cox.net  Mon Mar  1 06:16:45 2010
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:16:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <4B8B4730.2080509@f3acanada.org>
References: <003c01cab7c2$918e21f0$b4aa65d0$@com>
	<236CA410-D17E-4EB1-9723-5C27FD37E9DF@cox.net>
	<6792ef121002270822m417e1621x71d21dd6e53ec0a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<C83AAA2576604C18967B8F1F69498109@glazecstp32xp>
	<005401cab89d$5fa781f0$1ef685d0$@com>
	<76A9A3B70B44460299522B42DCF0665E@glazecstp32xp>
	<f322fb172686b.4b8a77a2@shaw.ca>
	<B2472A7E08AE4A8B985B6C3908BFE7EE@kenpc>
	<352441.87541.qm@web83301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<713CC2F7-B3D9-4B10-9F24-1A4FA742B390@cox.net>
	<009f01cab8dd$7cd186f0$767494d0$@com>
	<86A4070F-91F5-417E-9CE0-CCD697AB8C3A@socal.rr.com>
	<8EF2BC42-FD23-4FA7-94F6-739DF8F8CB5D@cox.net>
	<4B8B4730.2080509@f3acanada.org>
Message-ID: <D9B22CF6-A572-4A07-A666-47C59467D5E4@cox.net>

I keep looking at the voltage curve for 10S vs 11S and see that the  
voltage would be higher at every point, until the 11S pack's voltage  
drops below the 10S pack's voltage out at the end of the flight and,  
because the voltage was higher, the current to develop the same  
wattage would be less, prolonging the 11S's flight time.

Ron

On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:48 PM, Chad Northeast wrote:

> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell (resting  
> open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you will have a pretty  
> restricted flight time.
>
> Chad
>
> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.  Fully charged packs don't  
>> stay at 4.2 volts per cell very long.  On the other hand, once the  
>> initial charge voltage is burned off by a constant load, the  
>> voltage loss curve "flattens out".  What if you put fully charged  
>> 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them down" to 3.869 volts  
>> per cell (a total of 42.56 volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were  
>> legal for use.  Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be  
>> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical  
>> flight?  If the end-of-flight voltage might be significantly  
>> higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it would be worth  
>> investigating, even considering the extra weight of the additional  
>> cell.  Come on you electronic gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>>
>> Ron Van Putte
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
>>
>>> What comes after ...?  Does it specify a load or any other  
>>> conditions?  Is it measured during the noise test and have a  
>>> minimum value?
>>>
>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>>>
>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC Aerobatics).  Try page  
>>>> RCA-2 para 4.1
>>>> which states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are limited to  
>>>> a maximum
>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>>>>
>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>
>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C section.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Where can I find the rule for max volts?
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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


From deanfunk1 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 06:22:32 2010
From: deanfunk1 at yahoo.com (Dean Funk)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:22:32 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] STILL FOR SALE
In-Reply-To: <307257.74734.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <702420.23550.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<307257.74734.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <259395.27090.qm@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

For Sale:



Black Magic V2.2 (ARF)

Custom built and painted, concours quality, super clean and super nice. Fuse painted in 6 DCC colors and double stage clear.

Super lite - 5 lbs 7 oz with bolly gear and carbon wing/stab tubes

Could be converted to electric, set up for a YS

Wings - rudder and elevator need covered - I can do that for an additional $300.00

Listed on RCU here - 

http://www.rcuniverse.com/market/item.cfm?itemID=606790

$1500.00




Black Magic Vf3 Sheeted Kit

Partially assembled with super lite 8 /14 oz wing panels. 

Listed on RCU here - 

http://www.rcuniverse.com/market/item.cfm?itemid=606768&electric=0

$1400.00



Defiant MK II Kit

Last one Todd made super lite fuse and very well made. Include cores as I recieved from Todd. 

Listed on RCU here - http://www.rcuniverse.com/market/item.cfm?itemId=606756

$600.00



Like New Tru-Turn 3" 4 blade spinner with 2 15.5 x 12 apc props

http://www.rcuniverse.com/market/item.cfm?itemId=606753

$70.00


Hyde Mount For YS 170 HCMY16RISA

New in Bag - $250.00






if interested please contact me off list...

thanks, Dean


      

From vanputte at cox.net  Mon Mar  1 06:26:34 2010
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:26:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <32651.70164.qm@web113914.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <003c01cab7c2$918e21f0$b4aa65d0$@com>
	<236CA410-D17E-4EB1-9723-5C27FD37E9DF@cox.net>
	<6792ef121002270822m417e1621x71d21dd6e53ec0a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<C83AAA2576604C18967B8F1F69498109@glazecstp32xp>
	<005401cab89d$5fa781f0$1ef685d0$@com>
	<76A9A3B70B44460299522B42DCF0665E@glazecstp32xp>
	<f322fb172686b.4b8a77a2@shaw.ca>
	<B2472A7E08AE4A8B985B6C3908BFE7EE@kenpc>
	<352441.87541.qm@web83301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<713CC2F7-B3D9-4B10-9F24-1A4FA742B390@cox.net>
	<009f01cab8dd$7cd186f0$767494d0$@com>
	<86A4070F-91F5-417E-9CE0-CCD697AB8C3A@socal.rr.com>
	<8EF2BC42-FD23-4FA7-94F6-739DF8F8CB5D@cox.net>
	<4B8B4730.2080509@f3acanada.org>
	<32651.70164.qm@web113914.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <26967838-4FE3-4B01-91D5-1EC3AB9E3997@cox.net>

Never thought of that, but wouldn't the energy to regulate down the  
42.56 volts just be dumped as heat?

Ron

On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:54 AM, krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:

> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and regulate it back down? A  
> contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Chad Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Sent: Sun, February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell (resting  
> open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you will have a pretty  
> restricted flight time.
>
> Chad
>
> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> > That stirs a wild thought in my brain.  Fully charged packs don't  
> stay at 4.2 volts per cell very long.  On the other hand, once the  
> initial charge voltage is burned off by a constant load, the  
> voltage loss curve "flattens out".  What if you put fully charged  
> 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them down" to 3.869 volts per  
> cell (a total of 42.56 volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were  
> legal for use.  Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be  
> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical  
> flight?  If the end-of-flight voltage might be significantly higher  
> for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it would be worth investigating,  
> even considering the extra weight of the additional cell.  Come on  
> you electronic gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >
> > Ron Van Putte
> >
> > On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >
> >> What comes after ...?  Does it specify a load or any other  
> conditions?  Is it measured during the noise test and have a  
> minimum value?
> >>
> >> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>
> >>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC Aerobatics).  Try page  
> RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>> which states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are limited  
> to a maximum
> >>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>
> >>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>
> >>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C section.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Where can I find the rule for max volts?
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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


From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Mon Mar  1 06:33:34 2010
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:33:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <26967838-4FE3-4B01-91D5-1EC3AB9E3997@cox.net>
Message-ID: <7A08C877AEF7474D940DE7CDB437475A@jaysdesktop>

The motor current x voltage drop in the regulator = wasted heat

Jay Marshall

-----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: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:30 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Never thought of that, but wouldn't the energy to regulate down the  
42.56 volts just be dumped as heat?

Ron

On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:54 AM, krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:

> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and regulate it back down? A  
> contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Chad Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Sent: Sun, February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell (resting  
> open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you will have a pretty  
> restricted flight time.
>
> Chad
>
> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> > That stirs a wild thought in my brain.  Fully charged packs don't  
> stay at 4.2 volts per cell very long.  On the other hand, once the  
> initial charge voltage is burned off by a constant load, the  
> voltage loss curve "flattens out".  What if you put fully charged  
> 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them down" to 3.869 volts per  
> cell (a total of 42.56 volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were  
> legal for use.  Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be  
> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical  
> flight?  If the end-of-flight voltage might be significantly higher  
> for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it would be worth investigating,  
> even considering the extra weight of the additional cell.  Come on  
> you electronic gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >
> > Ron Van Putte
> >
> > On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >
> >> What comes after ...?  Does it specify a load or any other  
> conditions?  Is it measured during the noise test and have a  
> minimum value?
> >>
> >> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>
> >>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC Aerobatics).  Try page  
> RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>> which states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are limited  
> to a maximum
> >>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>
> >>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>
> >>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C section.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Where can I find the rule for max volts?
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From jpavlick at idseng.com  Mon Mar  1 06:50:47 2010
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:50:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <7A08C877AEF7474D940DE7CDB437475A@jaysdesktop>
Message-ID: <877894.61187.qm@web80501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Not if it was a switching regulator. 
?
John Pavlick

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:


From: Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 10:33 AM


The motor current x voltage drop in the regulator = wasted heat

Jay Marshall

-----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: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:30 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Never thought of that, but wouldn't the energy to regulate down the? 
42.56 volts just be dumped as heat?

Ron

On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:54 AM, krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:

> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and regulate it back down? A? 
> contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Chad Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Sent: Sun, February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell (resting? 
> open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you will have a pretty? 
> restricted flight time.
>
> Chad
>
> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> > That stirs a wild thought in my brain.? Fully charged packs don't? 
> stay at 4.2 volts per cell very long.? On the other hand, once the? 
> initial charge voltage is burned off by a constant load, the? 
> voltage loss curve "flattens out".? What if you put fully charged? 
> 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them down" to 3.869 volts per? 
> cell (a total of 42.56 volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were? 
> legal for use.? Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be? 
> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical? 
> flight?? If the end-of-flight voltage might be significantly higher? 
> for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it would be worth investigating,? 
> even considering the extra weight of the additional cell.? Come on? 
> you electronic gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >
> > Ron Van Putte
> >
> > On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >
> >> What comes after ...?? Does it specify a load or any other? 
> conditions?? Is it measured during the noise test and have a? 
> minimum value?
> >>
> >> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>
> >>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC Aerobatics).? Try page? 
> RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>> which states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are limited? 
> to a maximum
> >>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>
> >>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>
> >>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C section.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Where can I find the rule for max volts?
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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

_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/64fa71d2/attachment.html>

From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Mon Mar  1 06:53:58 2010
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:53:58 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <877894.61187.qm@web80501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <44AD31FB1A3942E6B3C37280B4216387@jaysdesktop>

Not even a switcher is 100% efficient!

 

Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Pavlick
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:51 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 


Not if it was a switching regulator. 

 

John Pavlick

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:


From: Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 10:33 AM

The motor current x voltage drop in the regulator = wasted heat

Jay Marshall

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists
.nsrca.org> 
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists
.nsrca.org> ] On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:30 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Never thought of that, but wouldn't the energy to regulate down the  
42.56 volts just be dumped as heat?

Ron

On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:54 AM, krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:

> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and regulate it back down? A  
> contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Chad Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=chad at f3acanada.org> >
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
> Sent: Sun, February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell (resting  
> open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you will have a pretty  
> restricted flight time.
>
> Chad
>
> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> > That stirs a wild thought in my brain.  Fully charged packs don't  
> stay at 4.2 volts per cell very long.  On the other hand, once the  
> initial charge voltage is burned off by a constant load, the  
> voltage loss curve "flattens out".  What if you put fully charged  
> 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them down" to 3.869 volts per  
> cell (a total of 42.56 volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were  
> legal for use.  Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be  
> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical  
> flight?  If the end-of-flight voltage might be significantly higher  
> for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it would be worth investigating,  
> even considering the extra weight of the additional cell.  Come on  
> you electronic gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >
> > Ron Van Putte
> >
> > On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >
> >> What comes after ...?  Does it specify a load or any other  
> conditions?  Is it measured during the noise test and have a  
> minimum value?
> >>
> >> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>
> >>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC Aerobatics).  Try page  
> RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>> which states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are limited  
> to a maximum
> >>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists
.nsrca.org> 
> >>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists
.nsrca.org> ] On Behalf Of  
> Ron Van Putte
> >>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>
> >>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C section.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Where can I find the rule for max volts?
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
> >>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
> >>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
> >>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg> 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/4f1485df/attachment.html>

From jpavlick at idseng.com  Mon Mar  1 07:07:23 2010
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:07:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <44AD31FB1A3942E6B3C37280B4216387@jaysdesktop>
Message-ID: <214351.74503.qm@web80501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I?know,?but they're pretty good - especially the high-frequency ones. Not much heat would be generated and you'd get the effect of having a slightly higher capacity battery as compared to a non-regulated pack with the same capacity and one less cell running at nearly the same output voltage. It would be a neat experiment.?
?
John Pavlick

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:


From: Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 10:53 AM








Not even a switcher is 100% efficient!
?

Jay Marshall 
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Pavlick
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:51 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
?





Not if it was a switching regulator. 

?

John Pavlick

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:


From: Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 10:33 AM

The motor current x voltage drop in the regulator = wasted heat

Jay Marshall

-----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: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:30 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Never thought of that, but wouldn't the energy to regulate down the? 
42.56 volts just be dumped as heat?

Ron

On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:54 AM, krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:

> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and regulate it back down? A? 
> contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Chad Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Sent: Sun, February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell (resting? 
> open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you will have a pretty? 
> restricted flight time.
>
> Chad
>
> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> > That stirs a wild thought in my brain.? Fully charged packs don't? 
> stay at 4.2 volts per cell very long.? On the other hand, once the? 
> initial charge voltage is burned off by a constant load, the? 
> voltage loss curve "flattens out".? What if you put fully charged? 
> 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them down" to 3.869 volts per? 
> cell (a total of 42.56 volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were? 
> legal for use.? Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be? 
> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical? 
> flight?? If the end-of-flight voltage might be significantly higher? 
> for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it would be worth investigating,? 
> even considering the extra weight of the additional cell.? Come on? 
> you electronic gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >
> > Ron Van Putte
> >
> > On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >
> >> What comes after ...?? Does it specify a load or any other? 
> conditions?? Is it measured during the noise test and have a? 
> minimum value?
> >>
> >> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>
> >>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC Aerobatics).? Try page? 
> RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>> which states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are limited? 
> to a maximum
> >>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>
> >>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>
> >>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C section.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Where can I find the rule for max volts?
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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

_______________________________________________
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
?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/bb0bc5b0/attachment.html>

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 07:41:26 2010
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:41:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
In-Reply-To: <52FA9DD7B4764BACB8F52B65846C1049@LAVEYFAMILYXP>
Message-ID: <587941.29582.qm@web113312.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

The check valve should not rotate easily, that sounds suspect.


Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com


--- On Mon, 3/1/10, Bob Lavey <rjlavey at hotmail.com> wrote:

> From: Bob Lavey <rjlavey at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 7:16 AM
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> YS 160 question
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> 
> I have a question about the
> YS 160 in my Abbra.? I've got about two dozen
> flights on the plane/engine, since I bought it (used).?
> It's run great up until yesterday, when I barely got one
> flight on it.? I got as far as the square loop in the
> intermediate sequence (yeah, first maneuver), and it
> sputtered and choked at the top of the vertical line and
> across the inverted horizontal top line.? I rolled it
> over, and it seemed okay, so I tried again.? Same
> result.? I got it back down without incident and ran
> the engine on the bench, and it was lean in the mid-range
> and top end.? It got very hot during the short time I
> ran it on the bench, and it seemed to get leaner the longer
> it ran.? I tried the high-end needle and small rich
> adjustment on the pump, but neither helped.? It ran
> great last weekend, so I don't think it was a mixture
> setting.? I then started checking the fuel lines and
> vent lines, but they seemed okay.? Then I noticed the
> check valve on the head would rotate.? The one on my
> other 160 doesn't rotate, and since I thought those were
> a press-fit, it doesn't seem like it ought to
> rotate.? I gave it a gentle tug, and it didn't come
> out of the head, but it rotates pretty freely.
> 
> Is that a bad thing??
> Or should I continue looking for an air leak in other
> places?? Any other suggestions?
> 
> 
> Does that check valve just
> pull off, and I can I replace it by just pushing another one
> on?? Can it be that easy? :)
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      

From chadnortheast at shaw.ca  Mon Mar  1 07:43:28 2010
From: chadnortheast at shaw.ca (Chad Northeast)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:43:28 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <D9B22CF6-A572-4A07-A666-47C59467D5E4@cox.net>
References: <003c01cab7c2$918e21f0$b4aa65d0$@com>
	<236CA410-D17E-4EB1-9723-5C27FD37E9DF@cox.net>
	<6792ef121002270822m417e1621x71d21dd6e53ec0a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<C83AAA2576604C18967B8F1F69498109@glazecstp32xp>
	<005401cab89d$5fa781f0$1ef685d0$@com>
	<76A9A3B70B44460299522B42DCF0665E@glazecstp32xp>
	<f322fb172686b.4b8a77a2@shaw.ca>
	<B2472A7E08AE4A8B985B6C3908BFE7EE@kenpc>
	<352441.87541.qm@web83301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<713CC2F7-B3D9-4B10-9F24-1A4FA742B390@cox.net>
	<009f01cab8dd$7cd186f0$767494d0$@com>
	<86A4070F-91F5-417E-9CE0-CCD697AB8C3A@socal.rr.com>
	<8EF2BC42-FD23-4FA7-94F6-739DF8F8CB5D@cox.net>
	<4B8B4730.2080509@f3acanada.org>
	<D9B22CF6-A572-4A07-A666-47C59467D5E4@cox.net>
Message-ID: <cf90ab2d26a69.4b8b8c39@shaw.ca>

Ok I will bite, you get a 10% increase in voltage, so a 10% reduction in amps for same watts, but you have a 50% reduction in capacity to pass the voltage check.? Flight time still reduced!

In reality it won't happen like this....as you will love the extra power, and actually use it, so you watts will be higher, amp draw will be the same, and you will still have only 1/2 your pack charged because you have to pass the voltage check.

Now if you try this on the same motor that you normally use 10s without propping down it actually will make things much worse since your amps will end up being higher than with the 10s setup :)

FYI, open circuit resting voltage of a lipo is directly proportional to remaining capacity.? If you search around you should be able to find a chart for it.

Chad

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
Date: Monday, March 1, 2010 8:17 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

> I keep looking at the voltage curve for 10S vs 11S and see that 
> the? 
> voltage would be higher at every point, until the 11S pack's 
> voltage? 
> drops below the 10S pack's voltage out at the end of the flight 
> and,? 
> because the voltage was higher, the current to develop the 
> same? 
> wattage would be less, prolonging the 11S's flight time.
> 
> Ron
> 
> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:48 PM, Chad Northeast wrote:
> 
> > You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell 
> (resting? 
> > open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you will have a 
> pretty? 
> > restricted flight time.
> >
> > Chad
> >
> > On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.? Fully charged 
> packs don't? 
> >> stay at 4.2 volts per cell very long.? On the other 
> hand, once the? 
> >> initial charge voltage is burned off by a constant load, 
> the? 
> >> voltage loss curve "flattens out".? What if you put 
> fully charged? 
> >> 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them down" to 3.869 
> volts? 
> >> per cell (a total of 42.56 volts for an 11-cell pack) so they 
> were? 
> >> legal for use.? Would the voltage of this depleted 11S 
> pack be? 
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a 
> typical? 
> >> flight?? If the end-of-flight voltage might be 
> significantly? 
> >> higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it would be 
> worth? 
> >> investigating, even considering the extra weight of the 
> additional? 
> >> cell.? Come on you electronic gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>
> >> Ron Van Putte
> >>
> >> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>
> >>> What comes after ...?? Does it specify a load or any 
> other? 
> >>> conditions?? Is it measured during the noise test and 
> have a? 
> >>> minimum value?
> >>>
> >>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC Aerobatics).? 
> Try page? 
> >>>> RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>> which states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are 
> limited to? 
> >>>> a maximum
> >>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>
> >>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>
> >>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C section.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Where can I find the rule for max volts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> 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
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/ec774b03/attachment.html>

From jferrell13 at triad.rr.com  Mon Mar  1 07:43:31 2010
From: jferrell13 at triad.rr.com (John Ferrell)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:43:31 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Learning to Airbrush
References: <001601cab88d$a33b6a40$e9b23ec0$@net>
Message-ID: <3F31C998A19744F682D2010E28243846@xppro2>

Painting with an airbrush is very easy. The secret is in the paint! Any airbrush including the $5 Harbor Freight tool works. Art work is another subject, some of us don't have it and cannot get it!

I would start with a cheap external mix unit and simply paint outside on a reasonable day, the main hazard being dust on the subject and overspray on the surroundings. I test materials and setup on stuff out of the recycles can, mainly plastics. 

20 psi is plenty of pressure for the airbrush, regulate down from there. Again, the Harbor freight filters & regulators work very well. The real advantage of base coat-clear coat is that it is easy to remove and redo! When something don't come out right, remove the paint & do it until it is right. 

The Art Work is out of my reach, but the process is just not that hard!

BTW, I use an inexpensive Sears diaphragm compressor for everything from painting to impact wrenches. Harbor sells long air hose cheap!

BTW#2- The motorcycle guys pay big bucks for their paint work and it is a lot easier than Pattern Airplanes...
John Ferrell  W8CCW
 
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."
-Edward R. Murrow
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lisa n Larry 
  To: NSRCA 
  Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 10:49 AM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Learning to Airbrush


  I'm going to learn how to use an airbrush. I will start with water based paint (Createx) to learn the techniques of using an airbrush.

  Once I have learned how to use and control the airbrush, I will be using Pactra paint for the lexan canopy.

  Where do you paint using a small paint booth (width -30" or less)? Is there a paint booth that will allow safely airbrush painting indoors with the Createx paint (water based)? I'm going to assume that airbrushing Pactra indoors even w/ carbon filters is not wise. If you have a set up that allows for it, I would be curious but I will probably wait till the weather warms up and airbrush in my garage with the Pactra due to Lisa's trips in and out of the hospital.

  Airbrush is a Paasche VLSTPRO with #3 and #5 needles (had it for about 10 years now). I plan on using the #5 as there isn't any fine detail I'm looking at. I have a compressor and a portable air tank w/ regulator and water separator (??? not sure if that is the correct name).

  My plan is to mask off the bottom of the canopy with 1/8" masking tap. Blend in from the tape working up a 1/2 inch or so with Pactra Metallic Red (RC64). The next step would be to fill in the rest of the canopy with Metallic Flake Silver (RC69). To finish the scheme I plan to use black as a backing to the metallic colors. Remove the masking and paint the bottom edge using Pactra Sprint White...Trim the edges off the canopy and attach to plane.

  Does this seem like the right path? I don't mind if there is some lightly blended in red throughout the canopy resulting from overspray as this would be the effect I'm looking for. I'll practice this on white paper first (opposite order) with Createx paint. Then switch to lexan sheets to ensure the desired effect. Then hit the canopy...

  If you have a Paint Booth and can send me pics off line I would appreciate it. Please let me know if I'm on the right path..

  Larry Diamond

  PS - The canopy is for my wife's plane Tower Hobbies Kaos 40, I want to get it right and jazz it up a bit...Ohhh and don't tell anybody, but this will let me practice airbrushing before I start on any Pattern plane.VBG.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20100301/d9bca2f4/attachment.html>

From chadnortheast at shaw.ca  Mon Mar  1 07:45:15 2010
From: chadnortheast at shaw.ca (Chad Northeast)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:45:15 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <32651.70164.qm@web113914.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <003c01cab7c2$918e21f0$b4aa65d0$@com>
	<236CA410-D17E-4EB1-9723-5C27FD37E9DF@cox.net>
	<6792ef121002270822m417e1621x71d21dd6e53ec0a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<C83AAA2576604C18967B8F1F69498109@glazecstp32xp>
	<005401cab89d$5fa781f0$1ef685d0$@com>
	<76A9A3B70B44460299522B42DCF0665E@glazecstp32xp>
	<f322fb172686b.4b8a77a2@shaw.ca>
	<B2472A7E08AE4A8B985B6C3908BFE7EE@kenpc>
	<352441.87541.qm@web83301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<713CC2F7-B3D9-4B10-9F24-1A4FA742B390@cox.net>
	<009f01cab8dd$7cd186f0$767494d0$@com>
	<86A4070F-91F5-417E-9CE0-CCD697AB8C3A@socal.rr.com>
	<8EF2BC42-FD23-4FA7-94F6-739DF8F8CB5D@cox.net>
	<4B8B4730.2080509@f3acanada.org>
	<32651.70164.qm@web113914.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <d2a5e78e2725d.4b8b8ca5@shaw.ca>

They always check the battery voltage, I am not sure you could convince them to check a regulated voltage :)

If so then I think you could build this into an ESC directly to only feed the motor 42.56 volts.

Chad

----- Original Message -----
From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, March 1, 2010 7:55 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
To: chad at f3acanada.org, General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

> Couldn't we go to a higher?voltage and regulate it back down? A 
> contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> ?
> Chris 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Chad Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Sent: Sun, February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell 
> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you will 
> have a pretty restricted flight time.
> 
> Chad
> 
> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> > That stirs a wild thought in my brain.? Fully charged packs 
> don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very long.? On the other hand, 
> once the initial charge voltage is burned off by a constant 
> load, the voltage loss curve "flattens out".? What if you put 
> fully charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them down" 
> to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56 volts for an 11-cell 
> pack) so they were legal for use.? Would the voltage of this 
> depleted 11S pack be higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the 
> end of a typical flight?? If the end-of-flight voltage might be 
> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it would 
> be worth investigating, even considering the extra weight of the 
> additional cell.? Come on you electronic gurus, show me where 
> I'm wrong.
> > 
> > Ron Van Putte
> > 
> > On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> > 
> >> What comes after ...?? Does it specify a load or any other 
> conditions?? Is it measured during the noise test and have a 
> minimum value?
> >> 
> >> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >> 
> >>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC Aerobatics).? Try 
> page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>> which states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are 
> limited to a maximum
> >>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>> 
> >>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>> 
> >>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C section.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> Where can I find the rule for max volts?
> >>>> 
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ????? 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/dc7814ca/attachment.html>

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Mon Mar  1 07:47:23 2010
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:47:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D8721833861C2A@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

Biggest problem with raising the voltage is that 40v is generally considered the max non lethal voltage.    You'll be hard pressed to get a voltage increase for general safety reasons. 

I'm sure that's why the current limitation  is in the general guidelines in the first place. 
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld


----- Original Message -----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon Mar 01 11:43:21 2010
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Ok I will bite, you get a 10% increase in voltage, so a 10% reduction in amps for same watts, but you have a 50% reduction in capacity to pass the voltage check.  Flight time still reduced!

In reality it won't happen like this....as you will love the extra power, and actually use it, so you watts will be higher, amp draw will be the same, and you will still have only 1/2 your pack charged because you have to pass the voltage check.

Now if you try this on the same motor that you normally use 10s without propping down it actually will make things much worse since your amps will end up being higher than with the 10s setup :)

FYI, open circuit resting voltage of a lipo is directly proportional to remaining capacity.  If you search around you should be able to find a chart for it.

Chad

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
Date: Monday, March 1, 2010 8:17 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

> I keep looking at the voltage curve for 10S vs 11S and see that 
> the  
> voltage would be higher at every point, until the 11S pack's 
> voltage  
> drops below the 10S pack's voltage out at the end of the flight 
> and,  
> because the voltage was higher, the current to develop the 
> same  
> wattage would be less, prolonging the 11S's flight time.
> 
> Ron
> 
> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:48 PM, Chad Northeast wrote:
> 
> > You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell 
> (resting  
> > open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you will have a 
> pretty  
> > restricted flight time.
> >
> > Chad
> >
> > On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.  Fully charged 
> packs don't  
> >> stay at 4.2 volts per cell very long.  On the other 
> hand, once the  
> >> initial charge voltage is burned off by a constant load, 
> the  
> >> voltage loss curve "flattens out".  What if you put 
> fully charged  
> >> 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them down" to 3.869 
> volts  
> >> per cell (a total of 42.56 volts for an 11-cell pack) so they 
> were  
> >> legal for use.  Would the voltage of this depleted 11S 
> pack be  
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a 
> typical  
> >> flight?  If the end-of-flight voltage might be 
> significantly  
> >> higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it would be 
> worth  
> >> investigating, even considering the extra weight of the 
> additional  
> >> cell.  Come on you electronic gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>
> >> Ron Van Putte
> >>
> >> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>
> >>> What comes after ...?  Does it specify a load or any 
> other  
> >>> conditions?  Is it measured during the noise test and 
> have a  
> >>> minimum value?
> >>>
> >>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC Aerobatics).  
> Try page  
> >>>> RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>> which states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are 
> limited to  
> >>>> a maximum
> >>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>
> >>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>
> >>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C section.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Where can I find the rule for max volts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> 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
> 

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 07:59:31 2010
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:59:31 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <32651.70164.qm@web113914.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7690.2365.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts is still limited to 42.56. 

Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com


--- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> 
> Couldn't we go to a higher?voltage and
> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> ?
> Chris 
> ?
> ?
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Chad
> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> To:
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Sent: Sun,
> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> Subject: Re:
> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> 
> Chad
> 
> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> > That stirs a wild thought in my brain.? Fully
> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> long.? On the other hand, once the initial charge
> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> curve "flattens out".? What if you put fully
> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
>  volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> use.? Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> flight?? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> weight of the additional cell.? Come on you electronic
> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> > 
> > Ron Van Putte
> > 
> > On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> > 
> >> What comes after ...?? Does it specify a load
> or any other conditions?? Is it measured during the
> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >> 
> >> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >> 
> >>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> Aerobatics).? Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>> which
>  states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> limited to a maximum
> >>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>> 
> >>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>> 
> >>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> section.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> Where can I find the rule
>  for max volts?
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
>       
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      

From bob.lavey at cox.net  Mon Mar  1 08:01:43 2010
From: bob.lavey at cox.net (Bob Lavey)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:01:43 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
In-Reply-To: <587941.29582.qm@web113312.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <52FA9DD7B4764BACB8F52B65846C1049@LAVEYFAMILYXP>
	<587941.29582.qm@web113312.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9F48C2102DE44D5CB93F7070AD73F276@LAVEYFAMILYXP>

Thanks, Bob.  I'll replace that and see if it helps. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf 
> Of Bob Kane
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:41 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
> 
> The check valve should not rotate easily, that sounds suspect.
> 
> 
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, Bob Lavey <rjlavey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Bob Lavey <rjlavey at hotmail.com>
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
> > To: "'General pattern discussion'" 
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 7:16 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> >  
> > YS 160 question
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > 
> > 
> > I have a question about the
> > YS 160 in my Abbra.? I've got about two dozen flights on the 
> > plane/engine, since I bought it (used).
> > It's run great up until yesterday, when I barely got one 
> flight on it.? 
> > I got as far as the square loop in the intermediate sequence (yeah, 
> > first maneuver), and it sputtered and choked at the top of the 
> > vertical line and across the inverted horizontal top line.? 
> I rolled 
> > it over, and it seemed okay, so I tried again.? Same 
> result.? I got it 
> > back down without incident and ran the engine on the bench, 
> and it was 
> > lean in the mid-range and top end.? It got very hot during 
> the short 
> > time I ran it on the bench, and it seemed to get leaner the 
> longer it 
> > ran.? I tried the high-end needle and small rich adjustment on the 
> > pump, but neither helped.? It ran great last weekend, so I 
> don't think 
> > it was a mixture setting.? I then started checking the fuel 
> lines and 
> > vent lines, but they seemed okay.? Then I noticed the check 
> valve on 
> > the head would rotate.? The one on my other 160 doesn't rotate, and 
> > since I thought those were a press-fit, it doesn't seem 
> like it ought 
> > to rotate.? I gave it a gentle tug, and it didn't come out of the 
> > head, but it rotates pretty freely.
> > 
> > Is that a bad thing?
> > Or should I continue looking for an air leak in other places?? Any 
> > other suggestions?
> > 
> > 
> > Does that check valve just
> > pull off, and I can I replace it by just pushing another 
> one on?? Can 
> > it be that easy? :)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Bob
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 


From frankjuliei at comcast.net  Mon Mar  1 08:02:07 2010
From: frankjuliei at comcast.net (frank)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:02:07 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Watt's Up Meter
Message-ID: <C8ABE3EB91B14688A8EE6779D6CEC9CA@FMILaptop>

Anyone out there using this product ?  It was reviewed in this months Model
Aviation (Bob Aberle)and is available from rc-cars-planes.com. Ron Lockhart
advised me to get a Watt Meter while  discussing going electric at the
recent WRAM Show. Your thoughts and comments appreciated.

Frank

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/005281a7/attachment.html>

From ghwatson at comcast.net  Mon Mar  1 08:30:52 2010
From: ghwatson at comcast.net (Glen Watson)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:30:52 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
In-Reply-To: <9F48C2102DE44D5CB93F7070AD73F276@LAVEYFAMILYXP>
References: <52FA9DD7B4764BACB8F52B65846C1049@LAVEYFAMILYXP><587941.29582.qm@web113312.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<9F48C2102DE44D5CB93F7070AD73F276@LAVEYFAMILYXP>
Message-ID: <AD066D0C0BE84AA3B3DCA1115AAC91E0@GWPersonal>

Hello Bob,

Agree the check valve being able to rotate is suspect.  However why not call
Richard Verano at YS Parts and Service (775) 267-9252 before replacing parts
to validate your running symptoms are relative to this part being able to
rotate.

~Glen



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Lavey
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 11:02 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question

Thanks, Bob.  I'll replace that and see if it helps. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf 
> Of Bob Kane
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:41 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
> 
> The check valve should not rotate easily, that sounds suspect.
> 
> 
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, Bob Lavey <rjlavey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Bob Lavey <rjlavey at hotmail.com>
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
> > To: "'General pattern discussion'" 
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 7:16 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> >  
> > YS 160 question
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > 
> > 
> > I have a question about the
> > YS 160 in my Abbra.? I've got about two dozen flights on the 
> > plane/engine, since I bought it (used).
> > It's run great up until yesterday, when I barely got one 
> flight on it.? 
> > I got as far as the square loop in the intermediate sequence (yeah, 
> > first maneuver), and it sputtered and choked at the top of the 
> > vertical line and across the inverted horizontal top line.? 
> I rolled 
> > it over, and it seemed okay, so I tried again.? Same 
> result.? I got it 
> > back down without incident and ran the engine on the bench, 
> and it was 
> > lean in the mid-range and top end.? It got very hot during 
> the short 
> > time I ran it on the bench, and it seemed to get leaner the 
> longer it 
> > ran.? I tried the high-end needle and small rich adjustment on the 
> > pump, but neither helped.? It ran great last weekend, so I 
> don't think 
> > it was a mixture setting.? I then started checking the fuel 
> lines and 
> > vent lines, but they seemed okay.? Then I noticed the check 
> valve on 
> > the head would rotate.? The one on my other 160 doesn't rotate, and 
> > since I thought those were a press-fit, it doesn't seem 
> like it ought 
> > to rotate.? I gave it a gentle tug, and it didn't come out of the 
> > head, but it rotates pretty freely.
> > 
> > Is that a bad thing?
> > Or should I continue looking for an air leak in other places?? Any 
> > other suggestions?
> > 
> > 
> > Does that check valve just
> > pull off, and I can I replace it by just pushing another 
> one on?? Can 
> > it be that easy? :)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Bob
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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


From anthonyr105 at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  1 09:02:13 2010
From: anthonyr105 at hotmail.com (Anthony Romano)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:02:13 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Watt's Up Meter
In-Reply-To: <C8ABE3EB91B14688A8EE6779D6CEC9CA@FMILaptop>
References: <C8ABE3EB91B14688A8EE6779D6CEC9CA@FMILaptop>
Message-ID: <SNT138-w270C7AF7E219BD02C7A16EE23C0@phx.gbl>


Hi Frank,

Can't remember which one I have. Very useful tool just make sure it can read in the range you need. A number of them won't read above 70 amps. If you are getting serious about e power look into an Eagle tree data logger with the panel. Then you can do ground checks as well as flight testing.

 

Anthony
 


From: frankjuliei at comcast.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:02:06 -0500
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Watt's Up Meter





Anyone out there using this product ?  It was reviewed in this months Model Aviation (Bob Aberle)and is available from rc-cars-planes.com. Ron Lockhart  advised me to get a Watt Meter while  discussing going electric at the recent WRAM Show. Your thoughts and comments appreciated.
Frank 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469230/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/2b8baa31/attachment.html>

From bob.lavey at cox.net  Mon Mar  1 09:07:03 2010
From: bob.lavey at cox.net (Bob Lavey)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:07:03 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
In-Reply-To: <AD066D0C0BE84AA3B3DCA1115AAC91E0@GWPersonal>
References: <52FA9DD7B4764BACB8F52B65846C1049@LAVEYFAMILYXP><587941.29582.qm@web113312.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><9F48C2102DE44D5CB93F7070AD73F276@LAVEYFAMILYXP>
	<AD066D0C0BE84AA3B3DCA1115AAC91E0@GWPersonal>
Message-ID: <D5ED7D8F133B4084BB92F822D2E95101@LAVEYFAMILYXP>

That?s a great idea, Glen.  Thanks. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf 
> Of Glen Watson
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 11:31 AM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
> 
> Hello Bob,
> 
> Agree the check valve being able to rotate is suspect.  
> However why not call Richard Verano at YS Parts and Service 
> (775) 267-9252 before replacing parts to validate your 
> running symptoms are relative to this part being able to rotate.
> 
> ~Glen
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf 
> Of Bob Lavey
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 11:02 AM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
> 
> Thanks, Bob.  I'll replace that and see if it helps. 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob 
> > Kane
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:41 AM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
> > 
> > The check valve should not rotate easily, that sounds suspect.
> > 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, Bob Lavey <rjlavey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Bob Lavey <rjlavey at hotmail.com>
> > > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
> > > To: "'General pattern discussion'" 
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 7:16 AM
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > >  
> > > YS 160 question
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Greetings,
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I have a question about the
> > > YS 160 in my Abbra.? I've got about two dozen flights on the 
> > > plane/engine, since I bought it (used).
> > > It's run great up until yesterday, when I barely got one
> > flight on it.
> > > I got as far as the square loop in the intermediate 
> sequence (yeah, 
> > > first maneuver), and it sputtered and choked at the top of the 
> > > vertical line and across the inverted horizontal top line.
> > I rolled
> > > it over, and it seemed okay, so I tried again.? Same
> > result.? I got it
> > > back down without incident and ran the engine on the bench,
> > and it was
> > > lean in the mid-range and top end.? It got very hot during
> > the short
> > > time I ran it on the bench, and it seemed to get leaner the
> > longer it
> > > ran.? I tried the high-end needle and small rich 
> adjustment on the 
> > > pump, but neither helped.? It ran great last weekend, so I
> > don't think
> > > it was a mixture setting.? I then started checking the fuel
> > lines and
> > > vent lines, but they seemed okay.? Then I noticed the check
> > valve on
> > > the head would rotate.? The one on my other 160 doesn't 
> rotate, and 
> > > since I thought those were a press-fit, it doesn't seem
> > like it ought
> > > to rotate.? I gave it a gentle tug, and it didn't come out of the 
> > > head, but it rotates pretty freely.
> > > 
> > > Is that a bad thing?
> > > Or should I continue looking for an air leak in other 
> places?? Any 
> > > other suggestions?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Does that check valve just
> > > pull off, and I can I replace it by just pushing another
> > one on?? Can
> > > it be that easy? :)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks!
> > > 
> > > Bob
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> 


From duane.e.beck at comcast.net  Mon Mar  1 09:17:27 2010
From: duane.e.beck at comcast.net (Duane Beck)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:17:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Watt's Up Meter
In-Reply-To: <SNT138-w270C7AF7E219BD02C7A16EE23C0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <83615452.3898741267467446549.JavaMail.root@sz0056a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>

The new CC ICE HV 80 will also log in-flight data.

Duane

> From: "Anthony Romano" <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
> 
> If you are getting serious about e power look into an Eagle tree
> data logger with the panel. Then you?can?do ground checks as well as
> flight testing.
> ?
> Anthony

From vanputte at cox.net  Mon Mar  1 09:21:43 2010
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:21:43 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <214351.74503.qm@web80501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <214351.74503.qm@web80501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <A4BBE7C5-96E9-4310-8B49-D44254A12B7D@cox.net>

I like this idea.

If you can run at the maximum voltage using a switching regulator,  
the potential power would be WAY up, but you wouldn't have to use  
it.  Say you used a 10S pack driving a 2500 watt motor at an average  
of  39 volts,.  Your current would be about 64 amps.  With an 11S  
pack regulated to 42,56 volts, the current driving the same 2500 watt  
motor would be about 59 amps.  The flight time for the same capacity  
battery packs would be up.  Alternately, the lower mah consumed would  
allow somewhat smaller capacity packs and you could make up for the  
extra weight of the extra cell.

Are there switching voltage regulators capable of handling the  
amperage?  If so, how heavy are they?

Ron


On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:07 AM, John Pavlick wrote:

> I know, but they're pretty good - especially the high-frequency  
> ones. Not much heat would be generated and you'd get the effect of  
> having a slightly higher capacity battery as compared to a non- 
> regulated pack with the same capacity and one less cell running at  
> nearly the same output voltage. It would be a neat experiment.
>
> John Pavlick
>
> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> From: Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
> Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca- 
> discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 10:53 AM
>
> <!-- #yiv1351849579 _filtered #yiv1351849579 {font- 
> family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered  
> #yiv1351849579 {font-family:"Brush Script MT";panose-1:3 6 8 2 4 4  
> 6 7 3 4;} #yiv1351849579 #yiv1351849579 p.MsoNormal, #yiv1351849579  
> li.MsoNormal, #yiv1351849579 div.MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin- 
> bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";}  
> #yiv1351849579 a:link, #yiv1351849579 span.MsoHyperlink  
> {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv1351849579 a:visited,  
> #yiv1351849579 span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:blue;text- 
> decoration:underline;} #yiv1351849579 p {margin-right:0in;margin- 
> left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";}  
> #yiv1351849579 span.EmailStyle17 {font-family:Arial;color:navy;}  
> _filtered #yiv1351849579 {margin:.2in .25in 33.1pt .25in;}  
> #yiv1351849579 div.Section1 {} -->
> Not even a switcher is 100% efficient!
>
>
> Jay Marshall
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Pavlick
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:51 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
>
> Not if it was a switching regulator.
>
>
>
> John Pavlick
>
> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 10:33 AM
>
> The motor current x voltage drop in the regulator = wasted heat
>
> Jay Marshall
>
> -----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: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:30 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> Never thought of that, but wouldn't the energy to regulate down the
> 42.56 volts just be dumped as heat?
>
> Ron
>
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:54 AM, krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:
>
> > Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and regulate it back down? A
> > contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Chad Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Sent: Sun, February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >
> > You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell (resting
> > open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you will have a pretty
> > restricted flight time.
> >
> > Chad
> >
> > On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> > > That stirs a wild thought in my brain.  Fully charged packs don't
> > stay at 4.2 volts per cell very long.  On the other hand, once the
> > initial charge voltage is burned off by a constant load, the
> > voltage loss curve "flattens out".  What if you put fully charged
> > 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them down" to 3.869 volts per
> > cell (a total of 42.56 volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were
> > legal for use.  Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> > higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> > flight?  If the end-of-flight voltage might be significantly higher
> > for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it would be worth investigating,
> > even considering the extra weight of the additional cell.  Come on
> > you electronic gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> > >
> > > Ron Van Putte
> > >
> > > On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> > >
> > >> What comes after ...?  Does it specify a load or any other
> > conditions?  Is it measured during the noise test and have a
> > minimum value?
> > >>
> > >> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC Aerobatics).  Try page
> > RCA-2 para 4.1
> > >>> which states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are limited
> > to a maximum
> > >>> of 42.56 volts.."
> > >>>
> > >>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> > >>> To: General pattern discussion
> > >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >>>
> > >>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C section.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Where can I find the rule for max volts?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From frankjuliei at comcast.net  Mon Mar  1 09:22:20 2010
From: frankjuliei at comcast.net (frank)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:22:20 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Watt's Up Meter
In-Reply-To: <SNT138-w270C7AF7E219BD02C7A16EE23C0@phx.gbl>
References: <C8ABE3EB91B14688A8EE6779D6CEC9CA@FMILaptop>
	<SNT138-w270C7AF7E219BD02C7A16EE23C0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <92238302F46E41A29D9BD2974C7B4C7A@FMILaptop>

Hi Anthony:

It will read up to 100amps. Please check out the web site. It appears as
soon as you open it. Go to rc-cars-planes.com

Frank

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Romano
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:02 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Watt's Up Meter

 

Hi Frank,
Can't remember which one I have. Very useful tool just make sure it can read
in the range you need. A number of them won't read above 70 amps. If you are
getting serious about e power look into an Eagle tree data logger with the
panel. Then you can do ground checks as well as flight testing.
 
Anthony
 

  _____  

From: frankjuliei at comcast.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:02:06 -0500
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Watt's Up Meter

Anyone out there using this product ?  It was reviewed in this months Model
Aviation (Bob Aberle)and is available from rc-cars-planes.com. Ron Lockhart
advised me to get a Watt Meter while  discussing going electric at the
recent WRAM Show. Your thoughts and comments appreciated.

Frank

 

  _____  

Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469230/direct/01/>  now.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/629963d4/attachment.html>

From vanputte at cox.net  Mon Mar  1 09:26:31 2010
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:26:31 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Watt's Up Meter
In-Reply-To: <C8ABE3EB91B14688A8EE6779D6CEC9CA@FMILaptop>
References: <C8ABE3EB91B14688A8EE6779D6CEC9CA@FMILaptop>
Message-ID: <01C4B944-8ED7-49E5-9950-F5BBC2DB2775@cox.net>

I use mine all the time to keep me from over driving the ESC or motor  
with too big diameter/too high pitch props.

Ron

On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:02 AM, frank wrote:

> Anyone out there using this product ?  It was reviewed in this  
> months Model Aviation (Bob Aberle)and is available from rc-cars- 
> planes.com. Ron Lockhart  advised me to get a Watt Meter while   
> discussing going electric at the recent WRAM Show. Your thoughts  
> and comments appreciated.
>
> Frank
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From bob at toprudder.com  Mon Mar  1 09:39:46 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:39:46 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <6792ef121002282044k39a71beahb82cd57cbda70a71@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <25936.14312.qm@web1107.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

No, but in the southern hemisphere you would have to reverse polarity.

--- On Sun, 2/28/10, Keith Hoard <khoard at gmail.com> wrote:




What if you were flying in Europe?? Would you have to convert to metric volts?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/0c3162b5/attachment.html>

From anthonyr105 at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  1 09:58:45 2010
From: anthonyr105 at hotmail.com (Anthony Romano)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:58:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Watt's Up Meter
In-Reply-To: <92238302F46E41A29D9BD2974C7B4C7A@FMILaptop>
References: <C8ABE3EB91B14688A8EE6779D6CEC9CA@FMILaptop>,
	<SNT138-w270C7AF7E219BD02C7A16EE23C0@phx.gbl>,
	<92238302F46E41A29D9BD2974C7B4C7A@FMILaptop>
Message-ID: <SNT138-w14801E5FDF84AB5B6FC937E23C0@phx.gbl>


That should do it. 60v too! Solder on your connectors and have at it.

 

Anthony
 


From: frankjuliei at comcast.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:22:20 -0500
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Watt's Up Meter









Hi Anthony:
It will read up to 100amps. Please check out the web site. It appears as soon as you open it. Go to rc-cars-planes.com
Frank




From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Romano
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:02 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Watt's Up Meter
 
Hi Frank,
Can't remember which one I have. Very useful tool just make sure it can read in the range you need. A number of them won't read above 70 amps. If you are getting serious about e power look into an Eagle tree data logger with the panel. Then you can do ground checks as well as flight testing.
 
Anthony
 



From: frankjuliei at comcast.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:02:06 -0500
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Watt's Up Meter

Anyone out there using this product ?  It was reviewed in this months Model Aviation (Bob Aberle)and is available from rc-cars-planes.com. Ron Lockhart  advised me to get a Watt Meter while  discussing going electric at the recent WRAM Show. Your thoughts and comments appreciated.
Frank
 



Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now. 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/8643f619/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Mon Mar  1 10:00:55 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:00:55 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D8721833861C2A@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
Message-ID: <551265.36076.qm@web1110.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

But everyone knows it is current, not voltage, that kills. :-)
?
(I am just joking,?BTW.)
?
Bob R.

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:




Biggest problem with raising the voltage is that 40v is generally considered the max non lethal voltage.? ? You'll be hard pressed to get a voltage increase for general safety reasons. 

I'm sure that's why the current limitation? is in the general guidelines in the first place. 
--------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/f4d6cdfa/attachment.html>

From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Mon Mar  1 10:10:08 2010
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:10:08 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <551265.36076.qm@web1110.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <13FFF8049D284A28B901F38B958EEC1C@jaysdesktop>

I once was told that DC wouldn't go through a transformer so I got a 100:1
transformer and told the person to "hold these wires" and then connected a
battery to it.

His mind is still messed up...

 

Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:00 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 


But everyone knows it is current, not voltage, that kills. :-)

 

(I am just joking, BTW.)

 

Bob R.

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

 

Biggest problem with raising the voltage is that 40v is generally considered
the max non lethal voltage.    You'll be hard pressed to get a voltage
increase for general safety reasons. 

I'm sure that's why the current limitation  is in the general guidelines in
the first place. 
--------------------------

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/14d9f263/attachment.html>

From jerry at buddengineering.com  Mon Mar  1 10:20:24 2010
From: jerry at buddengineering.com (Budd Engineering)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:20:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Watt's Up Meter
In-Reply-To: <01C4B944-8ED7-49E5-9950-F5BBC2DB2775@cox.net>
References: <C8ABE3EB91B14688A8EE6779D6CEC9CA@FMILaptop>
	<01C4B944-8ED7-49E5-9950-F5BBC2DB2775@cox.net>
Message-ID: <00A7579E-0E51-499E-833E-1F3B49F50F9D@buddengineering.com>

I leave mine in the Leviosa to record flight data, it's velcro'd in  
place, works great!

Jerry

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:

> I use mine all the time to keep me from over driving the ESC or  
> motor with too big diameter/too high pitch props.
>
> Ron
>
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:02 AM, frank wrote:
>
>> Anyone out there using this product ?  It was reviewed in this  
>> months Model Aviation (Bob Aberle)and is available from rc-cars-planes.com 
>> . Ron Lockhart  advised me to get a Watt Meter while  discussing  
>> going electric at the recent WRAM Show. Your thoughts and comments  
>> appreciated.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

From billglaze at bellsouth.net  Mon Mar  1 10:33:46 2010
From: billglaze at bellsouth.net (Bill Glaze)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:33:46 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
References: <13FFF8049D284A28B901F38B958EEC1C@jaysdesktop>
Message-ID: <C6A2FAA59B414E6CBBF2729EFCD18635@glazecstp32xp>

Seems to me I recall an ignition coil works on DC--but it doesn't work until the primary circuit is broken, I believe.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jay Marshall 
  To: 'General pattern discussion' 
  Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:10 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


  I once was told that DC wouldn't go through a transformer so I got a 100:1 transformer and told the person to "hold these wires" and then connected a battery to it.

  His mind is still messed up...



  Jay Marshall 

  -----Original Message-----
  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
  Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:00 PM
  To: General pattern discussion
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts



        But everyone knows it is current, not voltage, that kills. :-)



        (I am just joking, BTW.)



        Bob R.

        --- On Mon, 3/1/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:



          Biggest problem with raising the voltage is that 40v is generally considered the max non lethal voltage.    You'll be hard pressed to get a voltage increase for general safety reasons. 

          I'm sure that's why the current limitation  is in the general guidelines in the first place. 
          --------------------------
       





------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20100301/352bc583/attachment.html>

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Mon Mar  1 10:35:50 2010
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:35:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <551265.36076.qm@web1110.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
References: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D8721833861C2A@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<551265.36076.qm@web1110.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A296@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

Actually very true.  But picture someone trying to save weight and combining two 6s packs to one connector and accidently "touching" something in the process.  That will pull a 200amps peak @ 50V...enough to get crispy.



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<mailto: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 Bob Richards
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:00 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

But everyone knows it is current, not voltage, that kills. :-)

(I am just joking, BTW.)

Bob R.

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

Biggest problem with raising the voltage is that 40v is generally considered the max non lethal voltage.    You'll be hard pressed to get a voltage increase for general safety reasons.

I'm sure that's why the current limitation  is in the general guidelines in the first place.
--------------------------


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/505278ae/attachment.html>

From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Mon Mar  1 10:36:14 2010
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:36:14 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <C6A2FAA59B414E6CBBF2729EFCD18635@glazecstp32xp>
Message-ID: <45E4DC5EDCF146B0821C985C3388BB68@jaysdesktop>

When you make-brake-make-break., then it is AC.

 

Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill Glaze
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:34 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

Seems to me I recall an ignition coil works on DC--but it doesn't work until
the primary circuit is broken, I believe.

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

From: Jay Marshall <mailto:lightfoot at sc.rr.com>  

To: 'General pattern discussion' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:10 PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

I once was told that DC wouldn't go through a transformer so I got a 100:1
transformer and told the person to "hold these wires" and then connected a
battery to it.

His mind is still messed up...

 

Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:00 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 


But everyone knows it is current, not voltage, that kills. :-)

 

(I am just joking, BTW.)

 

Bob R.

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

 

Biggest problem with raising the voltage is that 40v is generally considered
the max non lethal voltage.    You'll be hard pressed to get a voltage
increase for general safety reasons. 

I'm sure that's why the current limitation  is in the general guidelines in
the first place. 
--------------------------

 


  _____  


_______________________________________________
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/20100301/6829f812/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Mon Mar  1 10:36:18 2010
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:36:18 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Mostly Sold...RE: More motors....RE: (2) Hacker
	A60-24S OutrunnersFor Sale (SOLD!)
In-Reply-To: <D7E591603ED0417694EC6461E6C3AA09@davedesktop>
References: <458F19FE-5C41-4710-AD55-937887AFFADF@buddengineering.com><1F171C29-427B-4F98-8803-60DEAA431206@buddengineering.com>
	<D7E591603ED0417694EC6461E6C3AA09@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <5C4DA58E02F342AE82AD87511FAC6D94@davedesktop>

All sold except for the Cyclon 160.

Thanks!

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 12:41 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] More motors....RE: (2) Hacker A60-24S
OutrunnersFor Sale (SOLD!)

Following Jerry's post, I also have an A60-24S (and some other motors) for
sale -

Hacker A60-24S V2, ~25 runs, never crashed, minor cosmetic scratches on
exterior.  $60 plus shipping.

Hacker A60-22S V2, ~25 runs, never crashed, minor cosmetic scratches on
exterior.  $60 plus shipping.

Hacker A60-22S V1, ~25 runs, never crashed, minor cosmetic scratches on
exterior.  $50 plus shipping.

Cyclon 160.  This is NOT the F3A version of the motor.  This motor is 289
KV, and suitable for 16-17" props (10-13" pitch) on 10S (~8500-9000 RPM),
and 18-19" props on 8S (~7,000 RPM).  20 oz, backplate mount.  Very smooth
and quiet.  $100 plus shipping. 

Plettenberg 30-10 "P20".  This is a higher KV (255) version of the original
30-10.  I ran it around 60-70 amps on 10S with 17" props ~8000 RPM.  KV is
high enough that 8S setups would also likely work well.  19 oz, backplate
mount.  Very smooth and quiet.  $125 plus shipping.

Please let me know if any questions.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart
DaveL322 at comcast.net



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Budd
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 9:33 AM
To: CA, AZ, HI, NV, UT
Cc: NSRCA-list List
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] (2) Hacker A60-24S Outrunners For Sale (SOLD!)

The Hacker A60's have been sold.

Thx, Jerry

Jerry Budd
jerry at buddengineering.com


On Feb 19, 2010, at 8:23 AM, Budd Engineering wrote:

> I have (2) used Hacker A60-24S outrunners for sale.
>
> #1 has a full season on it with no problems and is in great  
> operating condition with minor cosmetic scratches on the exterior of  
> the can body.
>
> #2 is low time but was crashed and repaired to new operating  
> condition at the factory.  It also has some minor cosmetic scratches  
> on the can body.
>
> The motors have performed flawlessly and run very cool when provided  
> a proper amount of cooling air.
>
> The motors run extremely smooth, and turn an APC 20.5-14 at around  
> 6k rpm with a decent battery.  They would make a great entry level  
> setup for someone getting into electric in the lower classes, or  
> would provide scary performance for a 110-sized plane.
>
> $75 each + shipping, or $135 for both, shipped.
>
> Budd Engineering
> jerry at buddengineering.com
> http://www.buddengineering.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-dist7 mailing list
> NSRCA-dist7 at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist7

_______________________________________________
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


From ed_alt at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  1 10:39:39 2010
From: ed_alt at hotmail.com (Ed Alt)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:39:39 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <C6A2FAA59B414E6CBBF2729EFCD18635@glazecstp32xp>
References: <13FFF8049D284A28B901F38B958EEC1C@jaysdesktop>
	<C6A2FAA59B414E6CBBF2729EFCD18635@glazecstp32xp>
Message-ID: <SNT138-ds4A13C57DFC149D20FAF58E83C0@phx.gbl>

Yeah, it's the change in the current in the primary winding that cause a change in the magnetic flux density.  As that happens, a voltage is induced in the secondary winding due to the wire in that winding cutting through the varying lines of magnetic force as they collapse (in Bill's example). Works the same whether it's increasing or decreasing, just the polarity of the induced voltage varies.  There's more to it than that, but that's the general idea.


From: Bill Glaze 
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:33 PM
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


Seems to me I recall an ignition coil works on DC--but it doesn't work until the primary circuit is broken, I believe.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jay Marshall 
  To: 'General pattern discussion' 
  Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:10 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


  I once was told that DC wouldn't go through a transformer so I got a 100:1 transformer and told the person to "hold these wires" and then connected a battery to it.

  His mind is still messed up...



  Jay Marshall 

  -----Original Message-----
  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
  Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:00 PM
  To: General pattern discussion
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts



        But everyone knows it is current, not voltage, that kills. :-)



        (I am just joking, BTW.)



        Bob R.

        --- On Mon, 3/1/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:



          Biggest problem with raising the voltage is that 40v is generally considered the max non lethal voltage.    You'll be hard pressed to get a voltage increase for general safety reasons. 

          I'm sure that's why the current limitation  is in the general guidelines in the first place. 
          --------------------------
       





------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/6175293a/attachment.html>

From billglaze at bellsouth.net  Mon Mar  1 11:05:47 2010
From: billglaze at bellsouth.net (Bill Glaze)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:05:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
References: <45E4DC5EDCF146B0821C985C3388BB68@jaysdesktop>
Message-ID: <86BACEE4F7AB4F389C79F66780FE83A2@glazecstp32xp>

Actually, that is described as pulsating DC.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jay Marshall 
  To: 'General pattern discussion' 
  Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:36 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


  When you make-brake-make-break., then it is AC.



  Jay Marshall 

  -----Original Message-----
  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill Glaze
  Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:34 PM
  To: General pattern discussion
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts



  Seems to me I recall an ignition coil works on DC--but it doesn't work until the primary circuit is broken, I believe.

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

    From: Jay Marshall 

    To: 'General pattern discussion' 

    Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:10 PM

    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts



    I once was told that DC wouldn't go through a transformer so I got a 100:1 transformer and told the person to "hold these wires" and then connected a battery to it.

    His mind is still messed up...



    Jay Marshall 

    -----Original Message-----
    From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
    Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:00 PM
    To: General pattern discussion
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts



          But everyone knows it is current, not voltage, that kills. :-)



          (I am just joking, BTW.)



          Bob R.

          --- On Mon, 3/1/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:



            Biggest problem with raising the voltage is that 40v is generally considered the max non lethal voltage.    You'll be hard pressed to get a voltage increase for general safety reasons. 

            I'm sure that's why the current limitation  is in the general guidelines in the first place. 
            --------------------------
         




----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    _______________________________________________
    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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/c2e68802/attachment.html>

From bob.lavey at cox.net  Mon Mar  1 11:52:37 2010
From: bob.lavey at cox.net (Bob Lavey)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:52:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Solved:  YS 160 question
In-Reply-To: <D5ED7D8F133B4084BB92F822D2E95101@LAVEYFAMILYXP>
References: <52FA9DD7B4764BACB8F52B65846C1049@LAVEYFAMILYXP><587941.29582.qm@web113312.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><9F48C2102DE44D5CB93F7070AD73F276@LAVEYFAMILYXP><AD066D0C0BE84AA3B3DCA1115AAC91E0@GWPersonal>
	<D5ED7D8F133B4084BB92F822D2E95101@LAVEYFAMILYXP>
Message-ID: <E4248A36A1614968A16905BD2678B25F@LAVEYFAMILYXP>

It was the check valve, I'm nearly 100$ certain.  I pulled all the fuel
lines from around the engine: case-to-pump, fuel dot-to-pump, pump-to-carb,
carb-to-injector.  They all looked fine and passed the blow and suck test,
but I replaced them anyhow.  I pulled the check valve and ran a new piece of
line from the carb to the injector.  I also checked the plug while I was
under the hood, and it looked fine.  So, since it's 45 degrees, overcast,
and there's a 12mph north wind, I went out to the field to see if it was
better.  It was going to bug me until I could check it out :)  I reset the
needle and regulator to their previous settings and gave it a go.  It
started right up, idled fine, transitioned fine, ran good in the mid-range
and top end, and seemed to have more power.  So it put it in the air.  I
pulled into the square loop, and at 1/2-2/3 throttle it pulled up and up
like it always has.  Yay!

I found a post from Troy Newman on RCU saying you could run without the
check valve, or I'd have never tried that on my own.  It's good to know, in
case this happens again and I don't have a spare handy.

Thanks to everybody for their suggestions and assistance.

Bob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf 
> Of Bob Lavey
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 12:07 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
> 
> That?s a great idea, Glen.  Thanks. 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Glen 
> > Watson
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 11:31 AM
> > To: 'General pattern discussion'
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
> > 
> > Hello Bob,
> > 
> > Agree the check valve being able to rotate is suspect.  
> > However why not call Richard Verano at YS Parts and Service
> > (775) 267-9252 before replacing parts to validate your running 
> > symptoms are relative to this part being able to rotate.
> > 
> > ~Glen
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob 
> > Lavey
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 11:02 AM
> > To: 'General pattern discussion'
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
> > 
> > Thanks, Bob.  I'll replace that and see if it helps. 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On 
> Behalf Of Bob 
> > > Kane
> > > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:41 AM
> > > To: General pattern discussion
> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
> > > 
> > > The check valve should not rotate easily, that sounds suspect.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Bob Kane
> > > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, Bob Lavey <rjlavey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > From: Bob Lavey <rjlavey at hotmail.com>
> > > > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
> > > > To: "'General pattern discussion'" 
> > > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > > Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 7:16 AM
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > YS 160 question
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Greetings,
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I have a question about the
> > > > YS 160 in my Abbra.? I've got about two dozen flights on the 
> > > > plane/engine, since I bought it (used).
> > > > It's run great up until yesterday, when I barely got one
> > > flight on it.
> > > > I got as far as the square loop in the intermediate
> > sequence (yeah,
> > > > first maneuver), and it sputtered and choked at the top of the 
> > > > vertical line and across the inverted horizontal top line.
> > > I rolled
> > > > it over, and it seemed okay, so I tried again.? Same
> > > result.? I got it
> > > > back down without incident and ran the engine on the bench,
> > > and it was
> > > > lean in the mid-range and top end.? It got very hot during
> > > the short
> > > > time I ran it on the bench, and it seemed to get leaner the
> > > longer it
> > > > ran.? I tried the high-end needle and small rich
> > adjustment on the
> > > > pump, but neither helped.? It ran great last weekend, so I
> > > don't think
> > > > it was a mixture setting.? I then started checking the fuel
> > > lines and
> > > > vent lines, but they seemed okay.? Then I noticed the check
> > > valve on
> > > > the head would rotate.? The one on my other 160 doesn't
> > rotate, and
> > > > since I thought those were a press-fit, it doesn't seem
> > > like it ought
> > > > to rotate.? I gave it a gentle tug, and it didn't come 
> out of the 
> > > > head, but it rotates pretty freely.
> > > > 
> > > > Is that a bad thing?
> > > > Or should I continue looking for an air leak in other
> > places?? Any
> > > > other suggestions?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Does that check valve just
> > > > pull off, and I can I replace it by just pushing another
> > > one on?? Can
> > > > it be that easy? :)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > 
> > > > Bob
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> 


From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  1 12:02:47 2010
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:02:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Solved:  YS 160 question
In-Reply-To: <E4248A36A1614968A16905BD2678B25F@LAVEYFAMILYXP>
References: <52FA9DD7B4764BACB8F52B65846C1049@LAVEYFAMILYXP><587941.29582.qm@web113312.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><9F48C2102DE44D5CB93F7070AD73F276@LAVEYFAMILYXP><AD066D0C0BE84AA3B3DCA1115AAC91E0@GWPersonal>,
	<D5ED7D8F133B4084BB92F822D2E95101@LAVEYFAMILYXP>,
	<E4248A36A1614968A16905BD2678B25F@LAVEYFAMILYXP>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W343ED0ACA919A5781727AA03C0@phx.gbl>


I can identify with: "I'm gonna go out and fly this thing no matter how bad it sucks out there.....!" to check something out..  Nothing like a little addictive/compulsive behavior to get something done....:0)

 

RS

 
> From: bob.lavey at cox.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:52:34 -0600
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Solved: YS 160 question
> 
> It was the check valve, I'm nearly 100$ certain. I pulled all the fuel
> lines from around the engine: case-to-pump, fuel dot-to-pump, pump-to-carb,
> carb-to-injector. They all looked fine and passed the blow and suck test,
> but I replaced them anyhow. I pulled the check valve and ran a new piece of
> line from the carb to the injector. I also checked the plug while I was
> under the hood, and it looked fine. So, since it's 45 degrees, overcast,
> and there's a 12mph north wind, I went out to the field to see if it was
> better. It was going to bug me until I could check it out :) I reset the
> needle and regulator to their previous settings and gave it a go. It
> started right up, idled fine, transitioned fine, ran good in the mid-range
> and top end, and seemed to have more power. So it put it in the air. I
> pulled into the square loop, and at 1/2-2/3 throttle it pulled up and up
> like it always has. Yay!
> 
> I found a post from Troy Newman on RCU saying you could run without the
> check valve, or I'd have never tried that on my own. It's good to know, in
> case this happens again and I don't have a spare handy.
> 
> Thanks to everybody for their suggestions and assistance.
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf 
> > Of Bob Lavey
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 12:07 PM
> > To: 'General pattern discussion'
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
> > 
> > That?s a great idea, Glen. Thanks. 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Glen 
> > > Watson
> > > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 11:31 AM
> > > To: 'General pattern discussion'
> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
> > > 
> > > Hello Bob,
> > > 
> > > Agree the check valve being able to rotate is suspect. 
> > > However why not call Richard Verano at YS Parts and Service
> > > (775) 267-9252 before replacing parts to validate your running 
> > > symptoms are relative to this part being able to rotate.
> > > 
> > > ~Glen
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob 
> > > Lavey
> > > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 11:02 AM
> > > To: 'General pattern discussion'
> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
> > > 
> > > Thanks, Bob. I'll replace that and see if it helps. 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > > > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On 
> > Behalf Of Bob 
> > > > Kane
> > > > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:41 AM
> > > > To: General pattern discussion
> > > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
> > > > 
> > > > The check valve should not rotate easily, that sounds suspect.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Bob Kane
> > > > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, Bob Lavey <rjlavey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > From: Bob Lavey <rjlavey at hotmail.com>
> > > > > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YS 160 question
> > > > > To: "'General pattern discussion'" 
> > > > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > > > Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 7:16 AM
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > YS 160 question
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Greetings,
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I have a question about the
> > > > > YS 160 in my Abbra.  I've got about two dozen flights on the 
> > > > > plane/engine, since I bought it (used).
> > > > > It's run great up until yesterday, when I barely got one
> > > > flight on it.
> > > > > I got as far as the square loop in the intermediate
> > > sequence (yeah,
> > > > > first maneuver), and it sputtered and choked at the top of the 
> > > > > vertical line and across the inverted horizontal top line.
> > > > I rolled
> > > > > it over, and it seemed okay, so I tried again.  Same
> > > > result.  I got it
> > > > > back down without incident and ran the engine on the bench,
> > > > and it was
> > > > > lean in the mid-range and top end.  It got very hot during
> > > > the short
> > > > > time I ran it on the bench, and it seemed to get leaner the
> > > > longer it
> > > > > ran.  I tried the high-end needle and small rich
> > > adjustment on the
> > > > > pump, but neither helped.  It ran great last weekend, so I
> > > > don't think
> > > > > it was a mixture setting.  I then started checking the fuel
> > > > lines and
> > > > > vent lines, but they seemed okay.  Then I noticed the check
> > > > valve on
> > > > > the head would rotate.  The one on my other 160 doesn't
> > > rotate, and
> > > > > since I thought those were a press-fit, it doesn't seem
> > > > like it ought
> > > > > to rotate.  I gave it a gentle tug, and it didn't come 
> > out of the 
> > > > > head, but it rotates pretty freely.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Is that a bad thing?
> > > > > Or should I continue looking for an air leak in other
> > > places?  Any
> > > > > other suggestions?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does that check valve just
> > > > > pull off, and I can I replace it by just pushing another
> > > > one on?  Can
> > > > > it be that easy? :)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Bob
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > > > > 
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/d7cba2dd/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Mon Mar  1 12:46:27 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:46:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Watt's Up Meter
In-Reply-To: <SNT138-w270C7AF7E219BD02C7A16EE23C0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <852206.70629.qm@web1114.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

x2 on the Eagle Tree. I have one, and use it not only to check battery/motor/prop combos when setting up, but also to test while flying. So far I have not looked at the logged data, only the max watts, max amps, min voltage during a flight, which I have programmed to display on the LCD panel. To me it is more versatile?than a Watt Meter.
?
Bob R.

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com> wrote:





Hi Frank,
Can't remember which one I have. Very useful?tool just make sure it can read in the range?you need. A number of them won't read above 70 amps.?If you are getting serious about e power look into an Eagle tree data logger with the panel. Then you?can?do ground checks as well as flight testing.
?
Anthony
?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/d53751f4/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Mon Mar  1 12:51:18 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:51:18 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <13FFF8049D284A28B901F38B958EEC1C@jaysdesktop>
Message-ID: <210383.52304.qm@web1108.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

LOL.? My electronics teacher did something like that to me. Gave me a "mystery" device and told me to ohm it out. It ended up being a coil that was probably rated in Henrys (not mH). Tested it with an old?VTVOM. Held the leads together with my fingers, got my resistance reading, and when I disconnected the meter leads the flyback effect shocked the snot out of me. I looked up at the teacher and he was laughing. :-)
?
Bob R.

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:









I once was told that DC wouldn?t go through a transformer so I got a 100:1 transformer and told the person to ?hold these wires? and then connected a battery to it.
His mind is still messed up?..
?
?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/5c6d8546/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Mon Mar  1 12:53:12 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:53:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A296@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
Message-ID: <777084.29433.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

Well, the body is not a perfect conductor. It would take way more than 40v to cause any appreciable current to flow,?IMHO. 

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:










Actually very true.? But picture someone trying to save weight and combining two 6s packs to one connector and accidently ?touching? something in the process.? That will pull a 200amps peak @ 50V?enough to get crispy.?? 
?
?
?
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 Bob Richards
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:00 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
?





But everyone knows it is current, not voltage, that kills. :-)

?

(I am just joking,?BTW.)

?

Bob R.

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

?

Biggest problem with raising the voltage is that 40v is generally considered the max non lethal voltage.? ? You'll be hard pressed to get a voltage increase for general safety reasons. 

I'm sure that's why the current limitation? is in the general guidelines in the first place. 
--------------------------
?
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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/20100301/f04c1f0b/attachment.html>

From chuenkan at comcast.net  Mon Mar  1 13:02:27 2010
From: chuenkan at comcast.net (Phil Spelt)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:02:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <777084.29433.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
References: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A296@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<777084.29433.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20100301220227.1315B11675@bridi.netexpress.com>

Turns out, that biological (living) has a fairly 
high internal resistance at initial voltage 
application, but it drops rapidly (resistance 
does) as current flows, such that the longer the 
current flows the lower the internal resistance, 
thus the more current flows for a given 
voltage.  How do I know?  My graduate work 
involved live laboratory animals, and we had to 
know these things for our research.  At one point 
I was rewiring my mentor's laboratory apparatus, 
in when we used capacitive discharge timers.  I 
unplugged everything and was getting shocked 
frequently late one night.  I finally even 
unplugged the radio and wall clock...I learned 
about capacitive discharge from that!! lol (but not at the time!)

At 04:53 PM 3/1/2010, you wrote:
>Well, the body is not a perfect conductor. It 
>would take way more than 40v to cause any appreciable current to flow, IMHO.
>
>--- On Mon, 3/1/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
>
>
>Actually very true.  But picture someone trying 
>to save weight and combining two 6s packs to one 
>connector and accidently ???touching??? 
>something in the process.  That will pull a 
>200amps peak @ 50V
enough to get crispy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Mark Atwood
>
>Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
>
>5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
>
>Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
>
><http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>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 Bob Richards
>Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:00 PM
>To: General pattern discussion
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
>
>
>But everyone knows it is current, not voltage, that kills. :-)
>
>
>
>(I am just joking, BTW.)
>
>
>
>Bob R.
>
>--- On Mon, 3/1/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>Biggest problem with raising the voltage is that 
>40v is generally considered the max non lethal 
>voltage.    You'll be hard pressed to get a 
>voltage increase for general safety reasons.
>
>I'm sure that's why the current limitation  is 
>in the general guidelines in the first place.
>--------------------------
>
>
>
>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
><http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>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

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member, SPA--177
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100301/ef1ad06f/attachment.html>

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Mon Mar  1 13:10:53 2010
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:10:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <777084.29433.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
References: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A296@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<777084.29433.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A2AA@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

From a high voltage safety document?

?Voltages of greater than 50 V applied across dry unbroken human skin are capable of producing heart fibrillation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibrillation> if they produce electric currents<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current> in body tissues which happen to pass through the chest<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chest> area.[citation needed<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed>] The electrocution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_shock> danger is mostly determined by the low electrical conductivity<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_conductivity> of dry human skin. If skin is wet, or if there are wounds, or if the voltage is applied to electrodes<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrode> which penetrate the skin, then even voltage sources below 40 V can be lethal if contacted. ?

The reality won?t likely be  a lethal issue, but burn factor is already pretty high even at 42v with these big packs.  40C  packs discharge extremely rapidly.


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<mailto: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 Bob Richards
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 4:53 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Well, the body is not a perfect conductor. It would take way more than 40v to cause any appreciable current to flow, IMHO.

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

Actually very true.  But picture someone trying to save weight and combining two 6s packs to one connector and accidently ?touching? something in the process.  That will pull a 200amps peak @ 50V?enough to get crispy.



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<http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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 Bob Richards
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:00 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

But everyone knows it is current, not voltage, that kills. :-)

(I am just joking, BTW.)

Bob R.

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

Biggest problem with raising the voltage is that 40v is generally considered the max non lethal voltage.    You'll be hard pressed to get a voltage increase for general safety reasons.

I'm sure that's why the current limitation  is in the general guidelines in the first place.
--------------------------



-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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/20100301/47fab31e/attachment.html>

From joddino at socal.rr.com  Mon Mar  1 15:15:47 2010
From: joddino at socal.rr.com (James Oddino)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:15:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <7690.2365.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <7690.2365.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <B0493872-0C38-4C9A-A14D-CD75DBE9153B@socal.rr.com>

I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem.  Picture a 10S pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with its common connected to the ESC.  Between the other two poles we place our 11th cell.  When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7 volts.  At no time is the voltage over the spec.

Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.

Jim


On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:

> Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts is still limited to 42.56. 
> 
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>> 
>> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>>  
>> Chris 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Chad
>> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>> To:
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> Sent: Sun,
>> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>> Subject: Re:
>> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>> 
>> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
>> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
>> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>> 
>> Chad
>> 
>> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.  Fully
>> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
>> long.  On the other hand, once the initial charge
>> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
>> curve "flattens out".  What if you put fully
>> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
>> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
>> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
>> use.  Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
>> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
>> flight?  If the end-of-flight voltage might be
>> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
>> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
>> weight of the additional cell.  Come on you electronic
>> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>>> 
>>> Ron Van Putte
>>> 
>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
>>> 
>>>> What comes after ...?  Does it specify a load
>> or any other conditions?  Is it measured during the
>> noise test and have a minimum value?
>>>> 
>>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
>> Aerobatics).  Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>>>>> which
>> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
>> limited to a maximum
>>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
>>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
>> section.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>> for max volts?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


From khoard at gmail.com  Mon Mar  1 15:19:28 2010
From: khoard at gmail.com (Keith Hoard)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:19:28 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <B0493872-0C38-4C9A-A14D-CD75DBE9153B@socal.rr.com>
References: <7690.2365.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<B0493872-0C38-4C9A-A14D-CD75DBE9153B@socal.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6792ef121003011619g233f61efx2c7fde74d551c23b@mail.gmail.com>

Kinda like a "Nitro Boost". . .  You could even add a big red button on top
of your throttle stick like in the "Fast & the Furious" movies. . .

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:15 PM, James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com> wrote:

> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem.  Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC.  Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell.  When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts.  At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max
> volts is still limited to 42.56.
> >
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion" <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >>
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >>
> >> Chad
> >>
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.  Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long.  On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out".  What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use.  Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight?  If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell.  Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> What comes after ...?  Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions?  Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>>
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics).  Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>



-- 

Keith Hoard
Collierville, TN
khoard at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100302/79225da8/attachment.html>

From ed_alt at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  1 15:34:22 2010
From: ed_alt at hotmail.com (Ed Alt)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:34:22 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <B0493872-0C38-4C9A-A14D-CD75DBE9153B@socal.rr.com>
References: <7690.2365.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<B0493872-0C38-4C9A-A14D-CD75DBE9153B@socal.rr.com>
Message-ID: <SNT138-ds169D32852A92E810226DCEE83B0@phx.gbl>

That's a good idea.  I imagine it would take a little modification to the 
rule to specify how a system like this could be applied.  This could be put 
together external to the speed controller and function automatically through 
active voltage sensing.  Eventually the ESC mfgs could go a step further an 
just integrate this right into the controller.  Slick, simple concept Jim!

Ed

--------------------------------------------------
From: "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:15 PM
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem.  Picture a 
> 10S pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a 
> piece of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole 
> switch with its common connected to the ESC.  Between the other two poles 
> we place our 11th cell.  When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th 
> cell is bypassed and when it is below, like it will be during vertical 
> maneuvers late in flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the 
> voltage to up to 41.7 volts.  At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with 
> the right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 
> volts.
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>
>> Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max 
>> volts is still limited to 42.56.
>>
>> Bob Kane
>> getterflash at yahoo.com
>>
>>
>> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion" 
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>>>
>>> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>>> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Chad
>>> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>>> To:
>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> Sent: Sun,
>>> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>>> Subject: Re:
>>> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>
>>> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
>>> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
>>> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>>>
>>> Chad
>>>
>>> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>>>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.  Fully
>>> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
>>> long.  On the other hand, once the initial charge
>>> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
>>> curve "flattens out".  What if you put fully
>>> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
>>> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
>>> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
>>> use.  Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
>>> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
>>> flight?  If the end-of-flight voltage might be
>>> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
>>> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
>>> weight of the additional cell.  Come on you electronic
>>> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Ron Van Putte
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What comes after ...?  Does it specify a load
>>> or any other conditions?  Is it measured during the
>>> noise test and have a minimum value?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
>>> Aerobatics).  Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>>>>>> which
>>> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
>>> limited to a maximum
>>>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
>>>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
>>> section.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>>> for max volts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 

From AtwoodDon at aol.com  Mon Mar  1 16:01:33 2010
From: AtwoodDon at aol.com (AtwoodDon at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 01:01:33 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
Message-ID: <396a7.6e466b6f.38bdbd5d@aol.com>

This approach could also function as a backup RX battery.  No rules  ag
ainst having redundant RX power.  The BEC could be programmed to 'divert'  power 
to the flight batteries to maintain the near max voltage when  needed.
 
However, I agree with Jim, I don't see the need for this.  Battery  
technology has/is progressing fast enough to provide us with enough power for  our 
sequences.  I prefer the simpler approach.
 
Don
 
 
In a message dated 3/1/2010 4:34:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
ed_alt at hotmail.com writes:

That's a  good idea.  I imagine it would take a little modification to the 
rule  to specify how a system like this could be applied.  This could be 
put  
together external to the speed controller and function automatically  
through 
active voltage sensing.  Eventually the ESC mfgs could go a  step further 
an 
just integrate this right into the controller.   Slick, simple concept  Jim!

Ed

--------------------------------------------------
From:  "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010  7:15 PM
To: "General pattern discussion"  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]  Max volts

> I have the functional concept that solves the rules  problem.  Picture a 
> 10S pack positive lead wired to the common  of a switch with two poles, a 
> piece of wire connected from one pole  to a pole on a second two pole 
> switch with its common connected to  the ESC.  Between the other two 
poles 
> we place our 11th  cell.  When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th 
> cell is  bypassed and when it is below, like it will be during vertical 
>  maneuvers late in flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the 
>  voltage to up to 41.7 volts.  At no time is the voltage over the  spec.
>
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides  adequate power with 
> the right motor at all times of flight even if  the voltage drops to 35 
> volts.
>
>  Jim
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane  wrote:
>
>> Going higher and regulating down would be against  the rules, the max 
>> volts is still limited to  42.56.
>>
>> Bob Kane
>>  getterflash at yahoo.com
>>
>>
>> --- On Mon, 3/1/10,  krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> 
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> From: krishlan fitzsimmons  <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>> Subject: Re:  [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General  pattern discussion" 
>>>  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Date: Monday, March  1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>>>
>>> Couldn't we go to a higher  voltage and
>>> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be  nice!
>>>
>>>  Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  From: Chad
>>> Northeast  <chad at f3acanada.org>
>>> To:
>>>  nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> Sent: Sun,
>>>  February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>>> Subject: Re:
>>>  [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>
>>> You would be at  about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
>>> (resting open  circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
>>> will have a pretty  restricted flight time.
>>>
>>>  Chad
>>>
>>> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte  wrote:
>>>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.   Fully
>>> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell  very
>>> long.  On the other hand, once the initial  charge
>>> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage  loss
>>> curve "flattens out".  What if you put  fully
>>> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn  them
>>> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of  42.56
>>> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal  for
>>> use.  Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack  be
>>> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a  typical
>>> flight?  If the end-of-flight voltage might  be
>>> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack,  it
>>> would be worth investigating, even considering the  extra
>>> weight of the additional cell.  Come on you  electronic
>>> gurus, show me where I'm  wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Ron Van  Putte
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM,  James Oddino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What comes  after ...?  Does it specify a load
>>> or any other  conditions?  Is it measured during the
>>> noise test and  have a minimum value?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just  stirring the pot, Jim  O
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On  Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No its not  (assuming we are talking RC
>>> Aerobatics).  Try page RCA-2  para 4.1
>>>>>> which
>>> states  "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
>>> limited to a  maximum
>>>>>> of 42.56  volts.."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07  PM
>>>>>> To: General pattern  discussion
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max  volts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's in the  general rules, not in the R/C
>>>  section.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where can I  find the rule
>>> for max  volts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>  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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100302/ff01c3f1/attachment.html>

From ed_alt at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  1 16:10:23 2010
From: ed_alt at hotmail.com (Ed Alt)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 01:10:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <396a7.6e466b6f.38bdbd5d@aol.com>
References: <396a7.6e466b6f.38bdbd5d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <SNT138-ds20C054A0D8491BFFC13AF5E83B0@phx.gbl>

Along the lines of taking advantage of better batteries, ESC's could compensate for packs as they flatten out.  Essentially, an ESC could be designed to automatically de-rate the battery when it is above a prescribed level of charge.  I don't really keep up with what the various ESCs have feature-wise, but I haven't heard of this being done yet.  I don't think it would be hard either.  Effectively, it's like a built-in ATV that simply limits the pulse width at full power when the battery is above a certain level, just as it already does in response to throttle inputs.  There's an advantage to this in that the battery pack & wiring arrangement stays simple and that all cells in the pack get used simultaneously.  I still like Jim's original idea, especially because it got some more thinking on the topic going.

Ed


From: AtwoodDon at aol.com 
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:01 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


This approach could also function as a backup RX battery.  No rules against having redundant RX power.  The BEC could be programmed to 'divert' power to the flight batteries to maintain the near max voltage when needed.

However, I agree with Jim, I don't see the need for this.  Battery technology has/is progressing fast enough to provide us with enough power for our sequences.  I prefer the simpler approach.

Don

In a message dated 3/1/2010 4:34:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, ed_alt at hotmail.com writes:
  That's a good idea.  I imagine it would take a little modification to the 
  rule to specify how a system like this could be applied.  This could be put 
  together external to the speed controller and function automatically through 
  active voltage sensing.  Eventually the ESC mfgs could go a step further an 
  just integrate this right into the controller.  Slick, simple concept Jim!

  Ed

  --------------------------------------------------
  From: "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com>
  Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:15 PM
  To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

  > I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem.  Picture a 
  > 10S pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a 
  > piece of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole 
  > switch with its common connected to the ESC.  Between the other two poles 
  > we place our 11th cell.  When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th 
  > cell is bypassed and when it is below, like it will be during vertical 
  > maneuvers late in flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the 
  > voltage to up to 41.7 volts.  At no time is the voltage over the spec.
  >
  > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with 
  > the right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 
  > volts.
  >
  > Jim
  >
  >
  > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
  >
  >> Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max 
  >> volts is still limited to 42.56.
  >>
  >> Bob Kane
  >> getterflash at yahoo.com
  >>
  >>
  >> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> 
  >> wrote:
  >>
  >>> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
  >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
  >>> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion" 
  >>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  >>> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
  >>>
  >>> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
  >>> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
  >>>
  >>> Chris
  >>>
  >>>
  >>>
  >>>
  >>>
  >>>
  >>>
  >>>
  >>>
  >>> From: Chad
  >>> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
  >>> To:
  >>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  >>> Sent: Sun,
  >>> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
  >>> Subject: Re:
  >>> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
  >>>
  >>> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
  >>> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
  >>> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
  >>>
  >>> Chad
  >>>
  >>> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
  >>>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.  Fully
  >>> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
  >>> long.  On the other hand, once the initial charge
  >>> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
  >>> curve "flattens out".  What if you put fully
  >>> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
  >>> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
  >>> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
  >>> use.  Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
  >>> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
  >>> flight?  If the end-of-flight voltage might be
  >>> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
  >>> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
  >>> weight of the additional cell.  Come on you electronic
  >>> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
  >>>>
  >>>> Ron Van Putte
  >>>>
  >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
  >>>>
  >>>>> What comes after ...?  Does it specify a load
  >>> or any other conditions?  Is it measured during the
  >>> noise test and have a minimum value?
  >>>>>
  >>>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
  >>>>>
  >>>>>
  >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
  >>>>>
  >>>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
  >>> Aerobatics).  Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
  >>>>>> which
  >>> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
  >>> limited to a maximum
  >>>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
  >>>>>>
  >>>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
  >>>>>> To: General pattern discussion
  >>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
  >>>>>>
  >>>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
  >>> section.
  >>>>>>
  >>>>>>
  >>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
  >>>>>>
  >>>>>>> Where can I find the rule
  >>> for max volts?
  >>>>>>>
  >>>>>>>
  >>> _______________________________________________
  >>>>>>> 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
  >>>
  >>>
  >>>
  >>>
  >>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
  >>>
  >>> _______________________________________________
  >>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100302/4f44bb24/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Mon Mar  1 16:19:12 2010
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 01:19:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <SNT138-ds20C054A0D8491BFFC13AF5E83B0@phx.gbl>
References: <396a7.6e466b6f.38bdbd5d@aol.com>
	<SNT138-ds20C054A0D8491BFFC13AF5E83B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <27A443C72F47434F8D681EB3240358B9@davedesktop>

Essentially a governor for the peak power only.with constant "re-mapping" of
the throttle curve to keep the power the same across the throttle range.
SOME people have been asking for this basic concept as an additional
programming parameter for a LONG time (I won't admit to when I first asked
for this).  It would be very nice to program max RPM (essentially a function
of voltage available, which reflects power available from the lipo) and set
it for something close to what is seen at the end of a flight on a cool day
on a "middle of the road" lipo (assuming it is performing well enough for
competition flights).  THEN.all competition grade lipos would run
essentially identically for the duration of the flight.  If more people
asked for this feature.the "squeaky" wheel might get greased sooner....

 

Regards,

 

Dave

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:10 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

Along the lines of taking advantage of better batteries, ESC's could
compensate for packs as they flatten out.  Essentially, an ESC could be
designed to automatically de-rate the battery when it is above a prescribed
level of charge.  I don't really keep up with what the various ESCs have
feature-wise, but I haven't heard of this being done yet.  I don't think it
would be hard either.  Effectively, it's like a built-in ATV that simply
limits the pulse width at full power when the battery is above a certain
level, just as it already does in response to throttle inputs.  There's an
advantage to this in that the battery pack & wiring arrangement stays simple
and that all cells in the pack get used simultaneously.  I still like Jim's
original idea, especially because it got some more thinking on the topic
going.

 

Ed

 

From: AtwoodDon at aol.com 

Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:01 PM

To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

This approach could also function as a backup RX battery.  No rules against
having redundant RX power.  The BEC could be programmed to 'divert' power to
the flight batteries to maintain the near max voltage when needed.

 

However, I agree with Jim, I don't see the need for this.  Battery
technology has/is progressing fast enough to provide us with enough power
for our sequences.  I prefer the simpler approach.

 

Don

 

In a message dated 3/1/2010 4:34:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
ed_alt at hotmail.com writes:

That's a good idea.  I imagine it would take a little modification to the 
rule to specify how a system like this could be applied.  This could be put 
together external to the speed controller and function automatically through

active voltage sensing.  Eventually the ESC mfgs could go a step further an 
just integrate this right into the controller.  Slick, simple concept Jim!

Ed

--------------------------------------------------
From: "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:15 PM
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem.  Picture a 
> 10S pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a 
> piece of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole 
> switch with its common connected to the ESC.  Between the other two poles 
> we place our 11th cell.  When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th 
> cell is bypassed and when it is below, like it will be during vertical 
> maneuvers late in flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the 
> voltage to up to 41.7 volts.  At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with 
> the right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 
> volts.
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>
>> Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max 
>> volts is still limited to 42.56.
>>
>> Bob Kane
>> getterflash at yahoo.com
>>
>>
>> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion" 
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>>>
>>> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>>> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Chad
>>> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>>> To:
>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> Sent: Sun,
>>> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>>> Subject: Re:
>>> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>
>>> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
>>> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
>>> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>>>
>>> Chad
>>>
>>> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>>>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.  Fully
>>> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
>>> long.  On the other hand, once the initial charge
>>> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
>>> curve "flattens out".  What if you put fully
>>> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
>>> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
>>> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
>>> use.  Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
>>> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
>>> flight?  If the end-of-flight voltage might be
>>> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
>>> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
>>> weight of the additional cell.  Come on you electronic
>>> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Ron Van Putte
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What comes after ...?  Does it specify a load
>>> or any other conditions?  Is it measured during the
>>> noise test and have a minimum value?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
>>> Aerobatics).  Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>>>>>> which
>>> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
>>> limited to a maximum
>>>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
>>>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
>>> section.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>>> for max volts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100302/36f1ea65/attachment.html>

From chad at f3acanada.org  Mon Mar  1 16:26:17 2010
From: chad at f3acanada.org (Chad Northeast)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 01:26:17 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <27A443C72F47434F8D681EB3240358B9@davedesktop>
References: <396a7.6e466b6f.38bdbd5d@aol.com>
	<SNT138-ds20C054A0D8491BFFC13AF5E83B0@phx.gbl>
	<27A443C72F47434F8D681EB3240358B9@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <4B8C6936.4050901@f3acanada.org>

This wheel should be greased on the new Schulze F3A controller :) Its 
already on the big airplane ones.

Chad

On 10-03-01 6:14 PM, Dave wrote:
>
> Essentially a governor for the peak power only?with constant 
> ?re-mapping? of the throttle curve to keep the power the same across 
> the throttle range. SOME people have been asking for this basic 
> concept as an additional programming parameter for a LONG time (I 
> won?t admit to when I first asked for this). It would be very nice to 
> program max RPM (essentially a function of voltage available, which 
> reflects power available from the lipo) and set it for something close 
> to what is seen at the end of a flight on a cool day on a ?middle of 
> the road? lipo (assuming it is performing well enough for competition 
> flights). THEN?all competition grade lipos would run essentially 
> identically for the duration of the flight. If more people asked for 
> this feature?the ?squeaky? wheel might get greased sooner??..
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Ed Alt
> *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:10 PM
> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> Along the lines of taking advantage of better batteries, ESC's could 
> compensate for packs as they flatten out. Essentially, an ESC could be 
> designed to automatically de-rate the battery when it is above a 
> prescribed level of charge. I don't really keep up with what the 
> various ESCs have feature-wise, but I haven't heard of this being done 
> yet. I don't think it would be hard either. Effectively, it's like a 
> built-in ATV that simply limits the pulse width at full power when the 
> battery is above a certain level, just as it already does in response 
> to throttle inputs. There's an advantage to this in that the battery 
> pack & wiring arrangement stays simple and that all cells in the pack 
> get used simultaneously. I still like Jim's original idea, especially 
> because it got some more thinking on the topic going.
>
> Ed
>
> *From:* AtwoodDon at aol.com <mailto:AtwoodDon at aol.com>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:01 PM
>
> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> This approach could also function as a backup RX battery. No rules 
> against having redundant RX power. The BEC could be programmed to 
> 'divert' power to the flight batteries to maintain the near max 
> voltage when needed.
>
> However, I agree with Jim, I don't see the need for this. Battery 
> technology has/is progressing fast enough to provide us with enough 
> power for our sequences. I prefer the simpler approach.
>
> Don
>
> In a message dated 3/1/2010 4:34:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
> ed_alt at hotmail.com writes:
>
>     That's a good idea. I imagine it would take a little modification
>     to the
>     rule to specify how a system like this could be applied. This
>     could be put
>     together external to the speed controller and function
>     automatically through
>     active voltage sensing. Eventually the ESC mfgs could go a step
>     further an
>     just integrate this right into the controller. Slick, simple
>     concept Jim!
>
>     Ed
>
>     --------------------------------------------------
>     From: "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com>
>     Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:15 PM
>     To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>     Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
>     > I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem.
>     Picture a
>     > 10S pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two
>     poles, a
>     > piece of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole
>     > switch with its common connected to the ESC. Between the other
>     two poles
>     > we place our 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the
>     11th
>     > cell is bypassed and when it is below, like it will be during
>     vertical
>     > maneuvers late in flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost
>     the
>     > voltage to up to 41.7 volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>     >
>     > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate
>     power with
>     > the right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops
>     to 35
>     > volts.
>     >
>     > Jim
>     >
>     >
>     > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>     >
>     >> Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the
>     max
>     >> volts is still limited to 42.56.
>     >>
>     >> Bob Kane
>     >> getterflash at yahoo.com
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons
>     <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>     >> wrote:
>     >>
>     >>> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>     >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>     >>> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
>     >>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>     >>> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>     >>>
>     >>> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>     >>> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>     >>>
>     >>> Chris
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> From: Chad
>     >>> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>     >>> To:
>     >>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>     >>> Sent: Sun,
>     >>> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>     >>> Subject: Re:
>     >>> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>     >>>
>     >>> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
>     >>> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
>     >>> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>     >>>
>     >>> Chad
>     >>>
>     >>> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>     >>>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
>     >>> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
>     >>> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
>     >>> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
>     >>> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
>     >>> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
>     >>> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
>     >>> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
>     >>> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
>     >>> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
>     >>> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
>     >>> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
>     >>> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
>     >>> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
>     >>> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Ron Van Putte
>     >>>>
>     >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
>     >>>>
>     >>>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
>     >>> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
>     >>> noise test and have a minimum value?
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
>     >>> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>     >>>>>> which
>     >>> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
>     >>> limited to a maximum
>     >>>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
>     >>>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>     >>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
>     >>> section.
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>     >>> for max volts?
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>>>>>> 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
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>     >>>
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> 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

From cjm767driver at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  1 16:26:34 2010
From: cjm767driver at hotmail.com (Chris)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 01:26:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <27A443C72F47434F8D681EB3240358B9@davedesktop>
References: <396a7.6e466b6f.38bdbd5d@aol.com>	<SNT138-ds20C054A0D8491BFFC13AF5E83B0@phx.gbl>
	<27A443C72F47434F8D681EB3240358B9@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP92A3CE9A297D3FECA22AA8833B0@phx.gbl>

I think one of the big German companies has something like this feature 
in some of their controllers now and purportedly will have it in their 
next F3A controller this Spring.  A certain guy in Calgary may know more 
details about it than I do and hopefully he will chime in. I just send 
them vast sums of money but am last to get any details... (ok not really 
vast sums)

Chris

Dave wrote:
>
> Essentially a governor for the peak power only...with constant 
> "re-mapping" of the throttle curve to keep the power the same across 
> the throttle range.  SOME people have been asking for this basic 
> concept as an additional programming parameter for a LONG time (I 
> won't admit to when I first asked for this).  It would be very nice to 
> program max RPM (essentially a function of voltage available, which 
> reflects power available from the lipo) and set it for something close 
> to what is seen at the end of a flight on a cool day on a "middle of 
> the road" lipo (assuming it is performing well enough for competition 
> flights).  THEN...all competition grade lipos would run essentially 
> identically for the duration of the flight.  If more people asked for 
> this feature...the "squeaky" wheel might get greased sooner........
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
>  
>
> Dave
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Ed Alt
> *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:10 PM
> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
>  
>
> Along the lines of taking advantage of better batteries, ESC's could 
> compensate for packs as they flatten out.  Essentially, an ESC could 
> be designed to automatically de-rate the battery when it is above a 
> prescribed level of charge.  I don't really keep up with what the 
> various ESCs have feature-wise, but I haven't heard of this being done 
> yet.  I don't think it would be hard either.  Effectively, it's like a 
> built-in ATV that simply limits the pulse width at full power when the 
> battery is above a certain level, just as it already does in response 
> to throttle inputs.  There's an advantage to this in that the battery 
> pack & wiring arrangement stays simple and that all cells in the pack 
> get used simultaneously.  I still like Jim's original idea, especially 
> because it got some more thinking on the topic going.
>
>  
>
> Ed
>
>  
>
> *From:* AtwoodDon at aol.com <mailto:AtwoodDon at aol.com>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:01 PM
>
> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
>  
>
> This approach could also function as a backup RX battery.  No rules 
> against having redundant RX power.  The BEC could be programmed to 
> 'divert' power to the flight batteries to maintain the near max 
> voltage when needed.
>
>  
>
> However, I agree with Jim, I don't see the need for this.  Battery 
> technology has/is progressing fast enough to provide us with enough 
> power for our sequences.  I prefer the simpler approach.
>
>  
>
> Don
>
>  
>
> In a message dated 3/1/2010 4:34:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
> ed_alt at hotmail.com writes:
>
>     That's a good idea.  I imagine it would take a little modification
>     to the
>     rule to specify how a system like this could be applied.  This
>     could be put
>     together external to the speed controller and function
>     automatically through
>     active voltage sensing.  Eventually the ESC mfgs could go a step
>     further an
>     just integrate this right into the controller.  Slick, simple
>     concept Jim!
>
>     Ed
>
>     --------------------------------------------------
>     From: "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com>
>     Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:15 PM
>     To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>     Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
>     > I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. 
>     Picture a
>     > 10S pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two
>     poles, a
>     > piece of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole
>     > switch with its common connected to the ESC.  Between the other
>     two poles
>     > we place our 11th cell.  When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts
>     the 11th
>     > cell is bypassed and when it is below, like it will be during
>     vertical
>     > maneuvers late in flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost
>     the
>     > voltage to up to 41.7 volts.  At no time is the voltage over the
>     spec.
>     >
>     > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate
>     power with
>     > the right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops
>     to 35
>     > volts.
>     >
>     > Jim
>     >
>     >
>     > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>     >
>     >> Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the
>     max
>     >> volts is still limited to 42.56.
>     >>
>     >> Bob Kane
>     >> getterflash at yahoo.com
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons
>     <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>     >> wrote:
>     >>
>     >>> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>     >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>     >>> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
>     >>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>     >>> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>     >>>
>     >>> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>     >>> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>     >>>
>     >>> Chris
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> From: Chad
>     >>> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>     >>> To:
>     >>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>     >>> Sent: Sun,
>     >>> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>     >>> Subject: Re:
>     >>> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>     >>>
>     >>> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
>     >>> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
>     >>> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>     >>>
>     >>> Chad
>     >>>
>     >>> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>     >>>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.  Fully
>     >>> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
>     >>> long.  On the other hand, once the initial charge
>     >>> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
>     >>> curve "flattens out".  What if you put fully
>     >>> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
>     >>> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
>     >>> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
>     >>> use.  Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
>     >>> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
>     >>> flight?  If the end-of-flight voltage might be
>     >>> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
>     >>> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
>     >>> weight of the additional cell.  Come on you electronic
>     >>> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Ron Van Putte
>     >>>>
>     >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
>     >>>>
>     >>>>> What comes after ...?  Does it specify a load
>     >>> or any other conditions?  Is it measured during the
>     >>> noise test and have a minimum value?
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
>     >>> Aerobatics).  Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>     >>>>>> which
>     >>> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
>     >>> limited to a maximum
>     >>>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
>     >>>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>     >>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
>     >>> section.
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>     >>> for max volts?
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>>>>>> 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
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>     >>>
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100302/8125cced/attachment.html>

From chuenkan at comcast.net  Mon Mar  1 16:42:10 2010
From: chuenkan at comcast.net (Phil Spelt)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 01:42:10 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <SNT138-ds169D32852A92E810226DCEE83B0@phx.gbl>
References: <7690.2365.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<B0493872-0C38-4C9A-A14D-CD75DBE9153B@socal.rr.com>
	<SNT138-ds169D32852A92E810226DCEE83B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20100302014209.955D911668@bridi.netexpress.com>

And about 6 more things to break or go awry in the middle of a 
flight.  So long, KISS!!

At 07:34 PM 3/1/2010, you wrote:
>That's a good idea.  I imagine it would take a little modification 
>to the rule to specify how a system like this could be 
>applied.  This could be put together external to the speed 
>controller and function automatically through active voltage 
>sensing.  Eventually the ESC mfgs could go a step further an just 
>integrate this right into the controller.  Slick, simple concept Jim!
>
>Ed
>
>--------------------------------------------------
>From: "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com>
>Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:15 PM
>To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
>>I have the functional concept that solves the rules 
>>problem.  Picture a 10S pack positive lead wired to the common of a 
>>switch with two poles, a piece of wire connected from one pole to a 
>>pole on a second two pole switch with its common connected to the 
>>ESC.  Between the other two poles we place our 11th cell.  When the 
>>10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed and when it 
>>is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in flight, 
>>the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7 
>>volts.  At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>>
>>Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power 
>>with the right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage 
>>drops to 35 volts.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
>>On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>>
>>>Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the 
>>>max volts is still limited to 42.56.
>>>
>>>Bob Kane
>>>getterflash at yahoo.com
>>>
>>>
>>>--- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons 
>>><homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion" 
>>>><nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>>>>
>>>>Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>>>>regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>>>>
>>>>Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>From: Chad
>>>>Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>>>>To:
>>>>nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>Sent: Sun,
>>>>February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>>>>Subject: Re:
>>>>[NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>
>>>>You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
>>>>(resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
>>>>will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>>>>
>>>>Chad
>>>>
>>>>On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>>>>>That stirs a wild thought in my brain.  Fully
>>>>charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
>>>>long.  On the other hand, once the initial charge
>>>>voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
>>>>curve "flattens out".  What if you put fully
>>>>charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
>>>>down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
>>>>volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
>>>>use.  Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
>>>>higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
>>>>flight?  If the end-of-flight voltage might be
>>>>significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
>>>>would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
>>>>weight of the additional cell.  Come on you electronic
>>>>gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ron Van Putte
>>>>>
>>>>>On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>What comes after ...?  Does it specify a load
>>>>or any other conditions?  Is it measured during the
>>>>noise test and have a minimum value?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No its not (assuming we are talking RC
>>>>Aerobatics).  Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>>>>>>>which
>>>>states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
>>>>limited to a maximum
>>>>>>>of 42.56 volts.."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
>>>>>>>To: General pattern discussion
>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
>>>>section.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Where can I find the rule
>>>>for max volts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>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

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member, SPA--177
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100302/7981004e/attachment.html>

From cjm767driver at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  1 16:45:01 2010
From: cjm767driver at hotmail.com (Chris)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 01:45:01 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <4B8C6936.4050901@f3acanada.org>
References: <396a7.6e466b6f.38bdbd5d@aol.com>	<SNT138-ds20C054A0D8491BFFC13AF5E83B0@phx.gbl>	<27A443C72F47434F8D681EB3240358B9@davedesktop>
	<4B8C6936.4050901@f3acanada.org>
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP58523C2D64D537B0188EC833B0@phx.gbl>

Thanks Chad.  That was fast!

I raise a Molson (actually I like Labatts Blue better) to Canada for an 
excellent Olympics.

Chris Moon

Chad Northeast wrote:
> This wheel should be greased on the new Schulze F3A controller :) Its 
> already on the big airplane ones.
>
> Chad
>
> On 10-03-01 6:14 PM, Dave wrote:
>>
>> Essentially a governor for the peak power only?with constant 
>> ?re-mapping? of the throttle curve to keep the power the same across 
>> the throttle range. SOME people have been asking for this basic 
>> concept as an additional programming parameter for a LONG time (I 
>> won?t admit to when I first asked for this). It would be very nice to 
>> program max RPM (essentially a function of voltage available, which 
>> reflects power available from the lipo) and set it for something 
>> close to what is seen at the end of a flight on a cool day on a 
>> ?middle of the road? lipo (assuming it is performing well enough for 
>> competition flights). THEN?all competition grade lipos would run 
>> essentially identically for the duration of the flight. If more 
>> people asked for this feature?the ?squeaky? wheel might get greased 
>> sooner??..
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Ed Alt
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:10 PM
>> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>
>> Along the lines of taking advantage of better batteries, ESC's could 
>> compensate for packs as they flatten out. Essentially, an ESC could 
>> be designed to automatically de-rate the battery when it is above a 
>> prescribed level of charge. I don't really keep up with what the 
>> various ESCs have feature-wise, but I haven't heard of this being 
>> done yet. I don't think it would be hard either. Effectively, it's 
>> like a built-in ATV that simply limits the pulse width at full power 
>> when the battery is above a certain level, just as it already does in 
>> response to throttle inputs. There's an advantage to this in that the 
>> battery pack & wiring arrangement stays simple and that all cells in 
>> the pack get used simultaneously. I still like Jim's original idea, 
>> especially because it got some more thinking on the topic going.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> *From:* AtwoodDon at aol.com <mailto:AtwoodDon at aol.com>
>>
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:01 PM
>>
>> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>
>> This approach could also function as a backup RX battery. No rules 
>> against having redundant RX power. The BEC could be programmed to 
>> 'divert' power to the flight batteries to maintain the near max 
>> voltage when needed.
>>
>> However, I agree with Jim, I don't see the need for this. Battery 
>> technology has/is progressing fast enough to provide us with enough 
>> power for our sequences. I prefer the simpler approach.
>>
>> Don
>>
>> In a message dated 3/1/2010 4:34:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
>> ed_alt at hotmail.com writes:
>>
>>     That's a good idea. I imagine it would take a little modification
>>     to the
>>     rule to specify how a system like this could be applied. This
>>     could be put
>>     together external to the speed controller and function
>>     automatically through
>>     active voltage sensing. Eventually the ESC mfgs could go a step
>>     further an
>>     just integrate this right into the controller. Slick, simple
>>     concept Jim!
>>
>>     Ed
>>
>>     --------------------------------------------------
>>     From: "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com>
>>     Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:15 PM
>>     To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>     Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>
>>     > I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem.
>>     Picture a
>>     > 10S pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two
>>     poles, a
>>     > piece of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two 
>> pole
>>     > switch with its common connected to the ESC. Between the other
>>     two poles
>>     > we place our 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the
>>     11th
>>     > cell is bypassed and when it is below, like it will be during
>>     vertical
>>     > maneuvers late in flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost
>>     the
>>     > voltage to up to 41.7 volts. At no time is the voltage over the 
>> spec.
>>     >
>>     > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate
>>     power with
>>     > the right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops
>>     to 35
>>     > volts.
>>     >
>>     > Jim
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>>     >
>>     >> Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the
>>     max
>>     >> volts is still limited to 42.56.
>>     >>
>>     >> Bob Kane
>>     >> getterflash at yahoo.com
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons
>>     <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>     >> wrote:
>>     >>
>>     >>> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>     >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>     >>> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
>>     >>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>     >>> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>>     >>>
>>     >>> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>>     >>> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>>     >>>
>>     >>> Chris
>>     >>>
>>     >>>
>>     >>>
>>     >>>
>>     >>>
>>     >>>
>>     >>>
>>     >>>
>>     >>>
>>     >>> From: Chad
>>     >>> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>>     >>> To:
>>     >>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>     >>> Sent: Sun,
>>     >>> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>>     >>> Subject: Re:
>>     >>> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>     >>>
>>     >>> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
>>     >>> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
>>     >>> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>>     >>>
>>     >>> Chad
>>     >>>
>>     >>> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>>     >>>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
>>     >>> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
>>     >>> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
>>     >>> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
>>     >>> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
>>     >>> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
>>     >>> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
>>     >>> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
>>     >>> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
>>     >>> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
>>     >>> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
>>     >>> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
>>     >>> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
>>     >>> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
>>     >>> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>> Ron Van Putte
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
>>     >>> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
>>     >>> noise test and have a minimum value?
>>     >>>>>
>>     >>>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>>     >>>>>
>>     >>>>>
>>     >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>>     >>>>>
>>     >>>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
>>     >>> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>>     >>>>>> which
>>     >>> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
>>     >>> limited to a maximum
>>     >>>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>>     >>>>>>
>>     >>>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
>>     >>>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>     >>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>     >>>>>>
>>     >>>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
>>     >>> section.
>>     >>>>>>
>>     >>>>>>
>>     >>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>>     >>>>>>
>>     >>>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>>     >>> for max volts?
>>     >>>>>>>
>>     >>>>>>>
>>     >>> _______________________________________________
>>     >>>>>>> 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
>>     >>>
>>     >>>
>>     >>>
>>     >>>
>>     >>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>     >>>
>>     >>> _______________________________________________
>>     >>> 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
>
>

From chad at f3acanada.org  Mon Mar  1 17:33:49 2010
From: chad at f3acanada.org (Chad Northeast)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 02:33:49 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP58523C2D64D537B0188EC833B0@phx.gbl>
References: <396a7.6e466b6f.38bdbd5d@aol.com>
	<SNT138-ds20C054A0D8491BFFC13AF5E83B0@phx.gbl>
	<27A443C72F47434F8D681EB3240358B9@davedesktop>
	<4B8C6936.4050901@f3acanada.org>
	<BLU0-SMTP58523C2D64D537B0188EC833B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4B8C790A.9000402@f3acanada.org>

No problem :)  Both of those beer are good :)  Or next time you are in 
Calgary you can try something from Big Rock like grasshopper or trad :)

The feature on the Schulze is called voltcontrol, and its intent is to 
do just what Dave pointed out.  However its setup through the TX as I 
understand it, but I have not experimented with it yet.  I have one of 
the ESC's (40.160 xl) with voltcontrol on my big Sukhoi (30%, no I am 
not flying IMAC lol) and a pletty terminator, but until I can get out to 
the field I can't test it, and running the big 24" prop in the garage 
makes way too much wind :)  I ran it on 4s just to see that everything 
was hook up correctly though lol.

If the weather holds up maybe I will get lucky and be able to try it out 
in a couple weeks.

Chad

On 10-03-01 6:43 PM, Chris wrote:
> Thanks Chad.  That was fast!
>
> I raise a Molson (actually I like Labatts Blue better) to Canada for 
> an excellent Olympics.
>
> Chris Moon
>
> Chad Northeast wrote:
>> This wheel should be greased on the new Schulze F3A controller :) Its 
>> already on the big airplane ones.
>>
>> Chad
>>
>> On 10-03-01 6:14 PM, Dave wrote:
>>>
>>> Essentially a governor for the peak power only?with constant 
>>> ?re-mapping? of the throttle curve to keep the power the same across 
>>> the throttle range. SOME people have been asking for this basic 
>>> concept as an additional programming parameter for a LONG time (I 
>>> won?t admit to when I first asked for this). It would be very nice 
>>> to program max RPM (essentially a function of voltage available, 
>>> which reflects power available from the lipo) and set it for 
>>> something close to what is seen at the end of a flight on a cool day 
>>> on a ?middle of the road? lipo (assuming it is performing well 
>>> enough for competition flights). THEN?all competition grade lipos 
>>> would run essentially identically for the duration of the flight. If 
>>> more people asked for this feature?the ?squeaky? wheel might get 
>>> greased sooner??..
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Ed Alt
>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:10 PM
>>> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>
>>> Along the lines of taking advantage of better batteries, ESC's could 
>>> compensate for packs as they flatten out. Essentially, an ESC could 
>>> be designed to automatically de-rate the battery when it is above a 
>>> prescribed level of charge. I don't really keep up with what the 
>>> various ESCs have feature-wise, but I haven't heard of this being 
>>> done yet. I don't think it would be hard either. Effectively, it's 
>>> like a built-in ATV that simply limits the pulse width at full power 
>>> when the battery is above a certain level, just as it already does 
>>> in response to throttle inputs. There's an advantage to this in that 
>>> the battery pack & wiring arrangement stays simple and that all 
>>> cells in the pack get used simultaneously. I still like Jim's 
>>> original idea, especially because it got some more thinking on the 
>>> topic going.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> *From:* AtwoodDon at aol.com <mailto:AtwoodDon at aol.com>
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:01 PM
>>>
>>> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>
>>> This approach could also function as a backup RX battery. No rules 
>>> against having redundant RX power. The BEC could be programmed to 
>>> 'divert' power to the flight batteries to maintain the near max 
>>> voltage when needed.
>>>
>>> However, I agree with Jim, I don't see the need for this. Battery 
>>> technology has/is progressing fast enough to provide us with enough 
>>> power for our sequences. I prefer the simpler approach.
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>> In a message dated 3/1/2010 4:34:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
>>> ed_alt at hotmail.com writes:
>>>
>>>     That's a good idea. I imagine it would take a little modification
>>>     to the
>>>     rule to specify how a system like this could be applied. This
>>>     could be put
>>>     together external to the speed controller and function
>>>     automatically through
>>>     active voltage sensing. Eventually the ESC mfgs could go a step
>>>     further an
>>>     just integrate this right into the controller. Slick, simple
>>>     concept Jim!
>>>
>>>     Ed
>>>
>>>     --------------------------------------------------
>>>     From: "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com>
>>>     Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:15 PM
>>>     To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>     Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>
>>> > I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem.
>>>     Picture a
>>> > 10S pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two
>>>     poles, a
>>> > piece of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole
>>> > switch with its common connected to the ESC. Between the other
>>>     two poles
>>> > we place our 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the
>>>     11th
>>> > cell is bypassed and when it is below, like it will be during
>>>     vertical
>>> > maneuvers late in flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost
>>>     the
>>> > voltage to up to 41.7 volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>>> >
>>> > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate
>>>     power with
>>> > the right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops
>>>     to 35
>>> > volts.
>>> >
>>> > Jim
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the
>>>     max
>>> >> volts is still limited to 42.56.
>>> >>
>>> >> Bob Kane
>>> >> getterflash at yahoo.com
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons
>>> <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> >>> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
>>> >>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> >>> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>>> >>> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Chris
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> From: Chad
>>> >>> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>>> >>> To:
>>> >>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> >>> Sent: Sun,
>>> >>> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>>> >>> Subject: Re:
>>> >>> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> >>>
>>> >>> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
>>> >>> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
>>> >>> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Chad
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>>> >>>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
>>> >>> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
>>> >>> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
>>> >>> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
>>> >>> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
>>> >>> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
>>> >>> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
>>> >>> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
>>> >>> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
>>> >>> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
>>> >>> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
>>> >>> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
>>> >>> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
>>> >>> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
>>> >>> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Ron Van Putte
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
>>> >>> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
>>> >>> noise test and have a minimum value?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
>>> >>> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>>> >>>>>> which
>>> >>> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
>>> >>> limited to a maximum
>>> >>>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
>>> >>>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
>>> >>> section.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>>> >>> for max volts?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>> 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
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> 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
>>
>>
>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Mon Mar  1 17:46:24 2010
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 02:46:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <4B8C790A.9000402@f3acanada.org>
References: <396a7.6e466b6f.38bdbd5d@aol.com><SNT138-ds20C054A0D8491BFFC13AF5E83B0@phx.gbl><27A443C72F47434F8D681EB3240358B9@davedesktop><4B8C6936.4050901@f3acanada.org><BLU0-SMTP58523C2D64D537B0188EC833B0@phx.gbl>
	<4B8C790A.9000402@f3acanada.org>
Message-ID: <57C6486EFD3D4E8B92B922CC1273BA99@davedesktop>

Kootenay?  Kokanee??  I think I spelled them correctly.....seem to be the
beer(s) of choice for the locals when I've been skiing at Whistler in years
past.

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Chad
Northeast
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:34 PM
Cc: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

No problem :)  Both of those beer are good :)  Or next time you are in 
Calgary you can try something from Big Rock like grasshopper or trad :)

The feature on the Schulze is called voltcontrol, and its intent is to 
do just what Dave pointed out.  However its setup through the TX as I 
understand it, but I have not experimented with it yet.  I have one of 
the ESC's (40.160 xl) with voltcontrol on my big Sukhoi (30%, no I am 
not flying IMAC lol) and a pletty terminator, but until I can get out to 
the field I can't test it, and running the big 24" prop in the garage 
makes way too much wind :)  I ran it on 4s just to see that everything 
was hook up correctly though lol.

If the weather holds up maybe I will get lucky and be able to try it out 
in a couple weeks.

Chad

On 10-03-01 6:43 PM, Chris wrote:
> Thanks Chad.  That was fast!
>
> I raise a Molson (actually I like Labatts Blue better) to Canada for 
> an excellent Olympics.
>
> Chris Moon
>
> Chad Northeast wrote:
>> This wheel should be greased on the new Schulze F3A controller :) Its 
>> already on the big airplane ones.
>>
>> Chad
>>
>> On 10-03-01 6:14 PM, Dave wrote:
>>>
>>> Essentially a governor for the peak power only.with constant 
>>> "re-mapping" of the throttle curve to keep the power the same across 
>>> the throttle range. SOME people have been asking for this basic 
>>> concept as an additional programming parameter for a LONG time (I 
>>> won't admit to when I first asked for this). It would be very nice 
>>> to program max RPM (essentially a function of voltage available, 
>>> which reflects power available from the lipo) and set it for 
>>> something close to what is seen at the end of a flight on a cool day 
>>> on a "middle of the road" lipo (assuming it is performing well 
>>> enough for competition flights). THEN.all competition grade lipos 
>>> would run essentially identically for the duration of the flight. If 
>>> more people asked for this feature.the "squeaky" wheel might get 
>>> greased sooner....
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Ed Alt
>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:10 PM
>>> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>
>>> Along the lines of taking advantage of better batteries, ESC's could 
>>> compensate for packs as they flatten out. Essentially, an ESC could 
>>> be designed to automatically de-rate the battery when it is above a 
>>> prescribed level of charge. I don't really keep up with what the 
>>> various ESCs have feature-wise, but I haven't heard of this being 
>>> done yet. I don't think it would be hard either. Effectively, it's 
>>> like a built-in ATV that simply limits the pulse width at full power 
>>> when the battery is above a certain level, just as it already does 
>>> in response to throttle inputs. There's an advantage to this in that 
>>> the battery pack & wiring arrangement stays simple and that all 
>>> cells in the pack get used simultaneously. I still like Jim's 
>>> original idea, especially because it got some more thinking on the 
>>> topic going.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> *From:* AtwoodDon at aol.com <mailto:AtwoodDon at aol.com>
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:01 PM
>>>
>>> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>
>>> This approach could also function as a backup RX battery. No rules 
>>> against having redundant RX power. The BEC could be programmed to 
>>> 'divert' power to the flight batteries to maintain the near max 
>>> voltage when needed.
>>>
>>> However, I agree with Jim, I don't see the need for this. Battery 
>>> technology has/is progressing fast enough to provide us with enough 
>>> power for our sequences. I prefer the simpler approach.
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>> In a message dated 3/1/2010 4:34:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
>>> ed_alt at hotmail.com writes:
>>>
>>>     That's a good idea. I imagine it would take a little modification
>>>     to the
>>>     rule to specify how a system like this could be applied. This
>>>     could be put
>>>     together external to the speed controller and function
>>>     automatically through
>>>     active voltage sensing. Eventually the ESC mfgs could go a step
>>>     further an
>>>     just integrate this right into the controller. Slick, simple
>>>     concept Jim!
>>>
>>>     Ed
>>>
>>>     --------------------------------------------------
>>>     From: "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com>
>>>     Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:15 PM
>>>     To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>     Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>
>>> > I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem.
>>>     Picture a
>>> > 10S pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two
>>>     poles, a
>>> > piece of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole
>>> > switch with its common connected to the ESC. Between the other
>>>     two poles
>>> > we place our 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the
>>>     11th
>>> > cell is bypassed and when it is below, like it will be during
>>>     vertical
>>> > maneuvers late in flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost
>>>     the
>>> > voltage to up to 41.7 volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>>> >
>>> > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate
>>>     power with
>>> > the right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops
>>>     to 35
>>> > volts.
>>> >
>>> > Jim
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the
>>>     max
>>> >> volts is still limited to 42.56.
>>> >>
>>> >> Bob Kane
>>> >> getterflash at yahoo.com
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons
>>> <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> >>> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
>>> >>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> >>> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>>> >>> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Chris
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> From: Chad
>>> >>> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>>> >>> To:
>>> >>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> >>> Sent: Sun,
>>> >>> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>>> >>> Subject: Re:
>>> >>> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> >>>
>>> >>> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
>>> >>> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
>>> >>> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Chad
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>>> >>>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
>>> >>> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
>>> >>> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
>>> >>> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
>>> >>> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
>>> >>> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
>>> >>> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
>>> >>> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
>>> >>> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
>>> >>> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
>>> >>> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
>>> >>> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
>>> >>> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
>>> >>> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
>>> >>> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Ron Van Putte
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
>>> >>> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
>>> >>> noise test and have a minimum value?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
>>> >>> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>>> >>>>>> which
>>> >>> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
>>> >>> limited to a maximum
>>> >>>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
>>> >>>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
>>> >>> section.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>>> >>> for max volts?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>> 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
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> 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
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From chad at f3acanada.org  Mon Mar  1 18:10:17 2010
From: chad at f3acanada.org (Chad Northeast)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:10:17 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] beer
In-Reply-To: <57C6486EFD3D4E8B92B922CC1273BA99@davedesktop>
References: <396a7.6e466b6f.38bdbd5d@aol.com>
	<SNT138-ds20C054A0D8491BFFC13AF5E83B0@phx.gbl>
	<27A443C72F47434F8D681EB3240358B9@davedesktop>
	<4B8C6936.4050901@f3acanada.org>
	<BLU0-SMTP58523C2D64D537B0188EC833B0@phx.gbl>
	<4B8C790A.9000402@f3acanada.org>
	<57C6486EFD3D4E8B92B922CC1273BA99@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <4B8C8198.9040303@f3acanada.org>

Yep Kokanee is pretty good too, we went through a lot of that in university!

If you look close there is a sasquatch or something like that on the box 
in the mountains :) lol....drink a few and you can find it easier lol :)

I think any beer is good lol
Chad

On 10-03-01 7:41 PM, Dave wrote:
> Kootenay?  Kokanee??  I think I spelled them correctly.....seem to be the
> beer(s) of choice for the locals when I've been skiing at Whistler in years
> past.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Chad
> Northeast
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:34 PM
> Cc: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> No problem :)  Both of those beer are good :)  Or next time you are in
> Calgary you can try something from Big Rock like grasshopper or trad :)
>
> The feature on the Schulze is called voltcontrol, and its intent is to
> do just what Dave pointed out.  However its setup through the TX as I
> understand it, but I have not experimented with it yet.  I have one of
> the ESC's (40.160 xl) with voltcontrol on my big Sukhoi (30%, no I am
> not flying IMAC lol) and a pletty terminator, but until I can get out to
> the field I can't test it, and running the big 24" prop in the garage
> makes way too much wind :)  I ran it on 4s just to see that everything
> was hook up correctly though lol.
>
> If the weather holds up maybe I will get lucky and be able to try it out
> in a couple weeks.
>
> Chad
>
> On 10-03-01 6:43 PM, Chris wrote:
>    
>> Thanks Chad.  That was fast!
>>
>> I raise a Molson (actually I like Labatts Blue better) to Canada for
>> an excellent Olympics.
>>
>> Chris Moon
>>
>> Chad Northeast wrote:
>>      
>>> This wheel should be greased on the new Schulze F3A controller :) Its
>>> already on the big airplane ones.
>>>
>>> Chad
>>>
>>> On 10-03-01 6:14 PM, Dave wrote:
>>>        
>>>> Essentially a governor for the peak power only.with constant
>>>> "re-mapping" of the throttle curve to keep the power the same across
>>>> the throttle range. SOME people have been asking for this basic
>>>> concept as an additional programming parameter for a LONG time (I
>>>> won't admit to when I first asked for this). It would be very nice
>>>> to program max RPM (essentially a function of voltage available,
>>>> which reflects power available from the lipo) and set it for
>>>> something close to what is seen at the end of a flight on a cool day
>>>> on a "middle of the road" lipo (assuming it is performing well
>>>> enough for competition flights). THEN.all competition grade lipos
>>>> would run essentially identically for the duration of the flight. If
>>>> more people asked for this feature.the "squeaky" wheel might get
>>>> greased sooner....
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>          
>    
>>>>
>>>> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Ed Alt
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:10 PM
>>>> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>
>>>> Along the lines of taking advantage of better batteries, ESC's could
>>>> compensate for packs as they flatten out. Essentially, an ESC could
>>>> be designed to automatically de-rate the battery when it is above a
>>>> prescribed level of charge. I don't really keep up with what the
>>>> various ESCs have feature-wise, but I haven't heard of this being
>>>> done yet. I don't think it would be hard either. Effectively, it's
>>>> like a built-in ATV that simply limits the pulse width at full power
>>>> when the battery is above a certain level, just as it already does
>>>> in response to throttle inputs. There's an advantage to this in that
>>>> the battery pack&  wiring arrangement stays simple and that all
>>>> cells in the pack get used simultaneously. I still like Jim's
>>>> original idea, especially because it got some more thinking on the
>>>> topic going.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>> *From:* AtwoodDon at aol.com<mailto:AtwoodDon at aol.com>
>>>>
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:01 PM
>>>>
>>>> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>
>>>> This approach could also function as a backup RX battery. No rules
>>>> against having redundant RX power. The BEC could be programmed to
>>>> 'divert' power to the flight batteries to maintain the near max
>>>> voltage when needed.
>>>>
>>>> However, I agree with Jim, I don't see the need for this. Battery
>>>> technology has/is progressing fast enough to provide us with enough
>>>> power for our sequences. I prefer the simpler approach.
>>>>
>>>> Don
>>>>
>>>> In a message dated 3/1/2010 4:34:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>>>> ed_alt at hotmail.com writes:
>>>>
>>>>      That's a good idea. I imagine it would take a little modification
>>>>      to the
>>>>      rule to specify how a system like this could be applied. This
>>>>      could be put
>>>>      together external to the speed controller and function
>>>>      automatically through
>>>>      active voltage sensing. Eventually the ESC mfgs could go a step
>>>>      further an
>>>>      just integrate this right into the controller. Slick, simple
>>>>      concept Jim!
>>>>
>>>>      Ed
>>>>
>>>>      --------------------------------------------------
>>>>      From: "James Oddino"<joddino at socal.rr.com>
>>>>      Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:15 PM
>>>>      To: "General pattern discussion"<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>      Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem.
>>>>>            
>>>>      Picture a
>>>>          
>>>>> 10S pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two
>>>>>            
>>>>      poles, a
>>>>          
>>>>> piece of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole
>>>>> switch with its common connected to the ESC. Between the other
>>>>>            
>>>>      two poles
>>>>          
>>>>> we place our 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the
>>>>>            
>>>>      11th
>>>>          
>>>>> cell is bypassed and when it is below, like it will be during
>>>>>            
>>>>      vertical
>>>>          
>>>>> maneuvers late in flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost
>>>>>            
>>>>      the
>>>>          
>>>>> voltage to up to 41.7 volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate
>>>>>            
>>>>      power with
>>>>          
>>>>> the right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops
>>>>>            
>>>>      to 35
>>>>          
>>>>> volts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>>>> Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the
>>>>>>              
>>>>      max
>>>>          
>>>>>> volts is still limited to 42.56.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Kane
>>>>>> getterflash at yahoo.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons
>>>>>>              
>>>> <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>>>          
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              
>>>>>>> From: krishlan fitzsimmons<homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>>>> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
>>>>>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>>>> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>>>>>>> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Chad
>>>>>>> Northeast<chad at f3acanada.org>
>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>>> Sent: Sun,
>>>>>>> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re:
>>>>>>> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
>>>>>>> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
>>>>>>> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chad
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
>>>>>>> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
>>>>>>> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
>>>>>>> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
>>>>>>> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
>>>>>>> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
>>>>>>> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
>>>>>>> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
>>>>>>> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
>>>>>>> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
>>>>>>> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
>>>>>>> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
>>>>>>> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
>>>>>>> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>> Ron Van Putte
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
>>>>>>> noise test and have a minimum value?
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
>>>>>>> limited to a maximum
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
>>>>>>>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>> section.
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>> for max volts?
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>      
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>    

From burtona at atmc.net  Mon Mar  1 18:45:48 2010
From: burtona at atmc.net (Dave Burton)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:45:48 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <B0493872-0C38-4C9A-A14D-CD75DBE9153B@socal.rr.com>
References: <7690.2365.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<B0493872-0C38-4C9A-A14D-CD75DBE9153B@socal.rr.com>
Message-ID: <018401cab9ba$ded99ee0$9c8cdca0$@net>

OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
....... Just asking!
Dave Burton

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem.  Picture a 10S
pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
its common connected to the ESC.  Between the other two poles we place our
11th cell.  When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
volts.  At no time is the voltage over the spec.

Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.

Jim


On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:

> Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
is still limited to 42.56. 
> 
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> 
>> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>> 
>> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>>  
>> Chris 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Chad
>> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>> To:
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> Sent: Sun,
>> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>> Subject: Re:
>> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>> 
>> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
>> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
>> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>> 
>> Chad
>> 
>> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.  Fully
>> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
>> long.  On the other hand, once the initial charge
>> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
>> curve "flattens out".  What if you put fully
>> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
>> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
>> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
>> use.  Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
>> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
>> flight?  If the end-of-flight voltage might be
>> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
>> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
>> weight of the additional cell.  Come on you electronic
>> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>>> 
>>> Ron Van Putte
>>> 
>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
>>> 
>>>> What comes after ...?  Does it specify a load
>> or any other conditions?  Is it measured during the
>> noise test and have a minimum value?
>>>> 
>>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
>> Aerobatics).  Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>>>>> which
>> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
>> limited to a maximum
>>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
>>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
>> section.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>> for max volts?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
14:34:00


From joddino at socal.rr.com  Mon Mar  1 20:35:17 2010
From: joddino at socal.rr.com (James Oddino)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 05:35:17 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <018401cab9ba$ded99ee0$9c8cdca0$@net>
References: <7690.2365.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<B0493872-0C38-4C9A-A14D-CD75DBE9153B@socal.rr.com>
	<018401cab9ba$ded99ee0$9c8cdca0$@net>
Message-ID: <EC961EAD-A312-4A16-8EE1-2380196E3510@socal.rr.com>

Penske and Donohue called it "taking unfair advantage of the rules".

Jim O


On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:45 PM, Dave Burton wrote:

> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem.  Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC.  Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell.  When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts.  At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
>> Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
>> 
>> Bob Kane
>> getterflash at yahoo.com
>> 
>> 
>> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> 
>>> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>>> 
>>> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>>> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>>> 
>>> Chris 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Chad
>>> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>>> To:
>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> Sent: Sun,
>>> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>>> Subject: Re:
>>> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> 
>>> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
>>> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
>>> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>>> 
>>> Chad
>>> 
>>> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>>>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.  Fully
>>> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
>>> long.  On the other hand, once the initial charge
>>> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
>>> curve "flattens out".  What if you put fully
>>> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
>>> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
>>> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
>>> use.  Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
>>> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
>>> flight?  If the end-of-flight voltage might be
>>> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
>>> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
>>> weight of the additional cell.  Come on you electronic
>>> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>>>> 
>>>> Ron Van Putte
>>>> 
>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> What comes after ...?  Does it specify a load
>>> or any other conditions?  Is it measured during the
>>> noise test and have a minimum value?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
>>> Aerobatics).  Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>>>>>> which
>>> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
>>> limited to a maximum
>>>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
>>>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
>>> section.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>>> for max volts?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From chuenkan at comcast.net  Mon Mar  1 22:05:02 2010
From: chuenkan at comcast.net (Phil Spelt)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:05:02 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <EC961EAD-A312-4A16-8EE1-2380196E3510@socal.rr.com>
References: <7690.2365.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<B0493872-0C38-4C9A-A14D-CD75DBE9153B@socal.rr.com>
	<018401cab9ba$ded99ee0$9c8cdca0$@net>
	<EC961EAD-A312-4A16-8EE1-2380196E3510@socal.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20100302070502.5AF7A11668@bridi.netexpress.com>

Boy, Jim, does that date us who remember Donohue!!!

At 12:35 AM 3/2/2010, you wrote:
>Penske and Donohue called it "taking unfair advantage of the rules".
>
>Jim O
>
>
>On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:45 PM, Dave Burton wrote:
>
> > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating 
> the intent
> > and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> > ....... Just asking!
> > Dave Burton
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >
> > I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem.  Picture a 10S
> > pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> > of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> > its common connected to the ESC.  Between the other two poles we place our
> > 11th cell.  When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> > and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> > flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> > volts.  At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> >
> > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> > right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> >
> >> Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> > is still limited to 42.56.
> >>
> >> Bob Kane
> >> getterflash at yahoo.com
> >>
> >>
> >> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >>>
> >>> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >>> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >>>
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Chad
> >>> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >>> To:
> >>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >>> Sent: Sun,
> >>> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >>> Subject: Re:
> >>> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>
> >>> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >>> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >>> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >>>
> >>> Chad
> >>>
> >>> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.  Fully
> >>> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >>> long.  On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >>> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >>> curve "flattens out".  What if you put fully
> >>> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >>> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >>> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >>> use.  Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >>> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >>> flight?  If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >>> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >>> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >>> weight of the additional cell.  Come on you electronic
> >>> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ron Van Putte
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> What comes after ...?  Does it specify a load
> >>> or any other conditions?  Is it measured during the
> >>> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >>> Aerobatics).  Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>>> which
> >>> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >>> limited to a maximum
> >>>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >>> section.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >>> for max volts?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> > 14:34:00
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member, SPA--177
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100302/39f076ba/attachment.html>

From jerry at buddengineering.com  Tue Mar  2 00:53:13 2010
From: jerry at buddengineering.com (Budd Engineering)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:53:13 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Watt's Up Meter
In-Reply-To: <852206.70629.qm@web1114.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
References: <852206.70629.qm@web1114.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <E72E05DE-50C8-4828-B670-2D35129F266C@buddengineering.com>

Bob,

The way you describe how you are using the Eagle Tree system is  
essentially the same as how I use the Watts Up meter as it records,  
stores, and displays the max values of the same parameters you  
reference.  Granted the Eagle Tree system is a much more capable  
system with its ability to record and store data as a function of  
time, but if one isn't inclined to download such data to a laptop for  
review, there isn't much practical difference.

I purchased an Eagle Tree data logger last year at the same time as  
the Watts Up meter and haven't bothered to hook it up (yet!).

Thx, Jerry

Budd Engineering
jerry at buddengineering.com
http://www.buddengineering.com

On Mar 1, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Bob Richards wrote:

> x2 on the Eagle Tree. I have one, and use it not only to check  
> battery/motor/prop combos when setting up, but also to test while  
> flying. So far I have not looked at the logged data, only the max  
> watts, max amps, min voltage during a flight, which I have  
> programmed to display on the LCD panel. To me it is more versatile  
> than a Watt Meter.
>
> Bob R.
>
> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Frank,
> Can't remember which one I have. Very useful tool just make sure it  
> can read in the range you need. A number of them won't read above 70  
> amps. If you are getting serious about e power look into an Eagle  
> tree data logger with the panel. Then you can do ground checks as  
> well as flight testing.
>
> Anthony
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100302/4b7f2bf8/attachment.html>

From anthonyr105 at hotmail.com  Tue Mar  2 04:29:44 2010
From: anthonyr105 at hotmail.com (Anthony Romano)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:29:44 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <018401cab9ba$ded99ee0$9c8cdca0$@net>
References: <7690.2365.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>,
	<B0493872-0C38-4C9A-A14D-CD75DBE9153B@socal.rr.com>,
	<018401cab9ba$ded99ee0$9c8cdca0$@net>
Message-ID: <SNT138-w2704D14916BC34FAF7EA1FE23B0@phx.gbl>


Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.

 

Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100302/5219c721/attachment.html>

From jnhiller at earthlink.net  Tue Mar  2 07:06:20 2010
From: jnhiller at earthlink.net (J N Hiller)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:06:20 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <SNT138-w2704D14916BC34FAF7EA1FE23B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPIEGGFCAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>

I've been following this discussion and have some questions.
Why was a voltage limit written into the rules? Is it international or AMA
only? What was the thinking behind it?
Thanks
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Anthony Romano
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 5:30 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or
any other rules proposal.

Anthony

> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the
intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James
Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with
the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max
volts
> is still limited to 42.56.
> >
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >>
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >>
> >> Chad
> >>
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>>
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
  _____

Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
now. <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100302/3a89d444/attachment.html>

From rcmaster199 at aol.com  Tue Mar  2 07:16:07 2010
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com (rcmaster199 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:16:07 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <SNT138-w2704D14916BC34FAF7EA1FE23B0@phx.gbl>
References: <7690.2365.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>,
	<B0493872-0C38-4C9A-A14D-CD75DBE9153B@socal.rr.com>,
	<018401cab9ba$ded99ee0$9c8cdca0$@net>
	<SNT138-w2704D14916BC34FAF7EA1FE23B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <8CC883AB3B27807-33A4-129C@webmail-m039.sysops.aol.com>


I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument

MattK







-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
 
Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 

_______________________________________________
SRCA-discussion mailing list
SRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
ttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100302/af7e36ee/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Tue Mar  2 07:48:03 2010
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:48:03 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <8CC883AB3B27807-33A4-129C@webmail-m039.sysops.aol.com>
References: <7690.2365.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>,
	<B0493872-0C38-4C9A-A14D-CD75DBE9153B@socal.rr.com>,
	<018401cab9ba$ded99ee0$9c8cdca0$@net><SNT138-w2704D14916BC34FAF7EA1FE23B0@phx.gbl>
	<8CC883AB3B27807-33A4-129C@webmail-m039.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <6BD57E622D884034B9DF08F02E6722EE@davedesktop>

Matt,

 

Interesting discussion/topic so far as the legality aspect within the
current rules.

 

When I first started with electrics, I showed the FAI and AMA rules to one
of my early electric mentors..he wasn't convinced the ESCs and software used
back then (7 years ago) would be deemed "legal" in a "court of law".

 

A simple example..the timing ESCs use is dynamic.it adjusts based on the RPM
and load on the motor.  So the timing on the ground is likely different than
the timing they use in the air - ie, the motor just might turn more RPM in
the air (louder).  Is this cheating the noise rule?  Or is it simply a well
engineered system designed to make the most power the most efficiently?

 

The optimal IC setups rarely make peak RPM/power/noise on the ground.  They
make more RPM/power/noise  in the air.  Is this "cheating" the noise rule?
Or is it simply a well engineered system designed to make the most power the
most efficiently?

 

I'd suggest a switch on the TX that allowed the pilot to retard the timing
(and thus reduce RPM, power, and noise) of the electric or IC system to pass
the noise test and then make more power in the air would be cheating.

 

Dual rates are legal.  Are "auto" dual rates or "auto" snap conditions that
change the airplane setup legal?  The TX is pre-programmed to react a
specific way to a specific set of conditions.  This is exactly what the ESC
is doing, and just what the OS EFI does.

 

Just my initial thoughts.

 

Regards,

 

Dave

 

 

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 11:15 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean
explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do
some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how
easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something
similar in this thread.

 

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see
this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned
about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with
the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable
rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does
not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today.


 

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO
pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue
that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of
today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down
and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a
good argument

 

MattK



 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or
any other rules proposal.
 
Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the
intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ] On Behalf Of James
Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with
the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max
volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ]
> >> On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 <http://www.avg.com/>  
> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

  _____  

Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/>  now. = 

_______________________________________________
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/20100302/412b433d/attachment.html>

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 08:05:25 2010
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:05:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPIEGGFCAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <386739.50177.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Mark Atwood touched on this earlier, it is likely tied to what is considered a potentially lethal voltage level of 42 volts. 


Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com


--- On Tue, 3/2/10, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

> From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 11:07 AM
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> I've been
> following this discussion and have some
> questions. 
> 
> Why was a
> voltage limit written into the rules? Is it international
> or AMA only? What was
> the thinking behind it?  
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> Jim
> Hiller 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> -----Original
> Message-----
> 
> From:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Anthony Romano
> 
> Sent:
> Tuesday, March 02, 2010 5:30
> AM
> 
> To:
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> 
> Subject: Re:
> [NSRCA-discussion]
> Max volts
> 
> ? 
> 
> Keep
> this line of
> thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or
> any other rules
> proposal.
> 
> ?
> 
> Anthony
> 
> ?
> 
> > From: burtona at atmc.net
> 
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> 
> > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> 
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> > 
> 
> > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and
> purposefully violating the
> intent
> 
> > and letter of the rules to gain a performance
> advantage called cheating?
> 
> > ....... Just asking!
> 
> > Dave Burton
> 
> > 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> 
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> 
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
> Behalf Of James
> Oddino
> 
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> 
> > To: General pattern discussion
> 
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> > 
> 
> > I have the functional concept that solves the rules
> problem. Picture a 10S
> 
> > pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch
> with two poles, a piece
> 
> > of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second
> two pole switch with
> 
> > its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two
> poles we place our
> 
> > 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the
> 11th cell is bypassed
> 
> > and when it is below, like it will be during vertical
> maneuvers late in
> 
> > flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the
> voltage to up to 41.7
> 
> > volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides
> adequate power with
> the
> 
> > right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage
> drops to 35 volts.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Jim
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Going higher and regulating down would be against
> the rules, the max
> volts
> 
> > is still limited to 42.56. 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > Bob Kane
> 
> > > getterflash at yahoo.com
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons
> <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> 
> > wrote:
> 
> > > 
> 
> > >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons
> <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> 
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> > >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern
> discussion"
> 
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> > >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> 
> > >> 
> 
> > >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> 
> > >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v
> would be nice!
> 
> > >> 
> 
> > >> Chris 
> 
> > >> 
> 
> > >> 
> 
> > >> 
> 
> > >> 
> 
> > >> 
> 
> > >> 
> 
> > >> 
> 
> > >> 
> 
> > >> 
> 
> > >> From: Chad
> 
> > >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> 
> > >> To:
> 
> > >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> 
> > >> Sent: Sun,
> 
> > >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> 
> > >> Subject: Re:
> 
> > >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> > >> 
> 
> > >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85
> ish volts/cell
> 
> > >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the
> capacity you
> 
> > >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> 
> > >> 
> 
> > >> Chad
> 
> > >> 
> 
> > >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> 
> > >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.
> Fully
> 
> > >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per
> cell very
> 
> > >> long. On the other hand, once the initial
> charge
> 
> > >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the
> voltage loss
> 
> > >> curve "flattens out". What if you
> put fully
> 
> > >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and
> "burn them
> 
> > >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total
> of 42.56
> 
> > >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal
> for
> 
> > >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S
> pack be
> 
> > >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the
> end of a typical
> 
> > >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might
> be
> 
> > >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a
> 10S pack, it
> 
> > >> would be worth investigating, even
> considering the extra
> 
> > >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you
> electronic
> 
> > >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> 
> > >>> 
> 
> > >>> Ron Van Putte
> 
> > >>> 
> 
> > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James
> Oddino wrote:
> 
> > >>> 
> 
> > >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify
> a load
> 
> > >> or any other conditions? Is it measured
> during the
> 
> > >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> 
> > >>>> 
> 
> > >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> 
> > >>>> 
> 
> > >>>> 
> 
> > >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John
> Fuqua wrote:
> 
> > >>>> 
> 
> > >>>>> No its not (assuming we are
> talking RC
> 
> > >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> 
> > >>>>> which
> 
> > >> states "Electrically-powered model
> aircraft are
> 
> > >> limited to a maximum
> 
> > >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> 
> > >>>>> 
> 
> > >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010
> 7:07 PM
> 
> > >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> 
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
> Max volts
> 
> > >>>>> 
> 
> > >>>>> It's in the general rules,
> not in the R/C
> 
> > >> section.
> 
> > >>>>> 
> 
> > >>>>> 
> 
> > >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim
> Quinn wrote:
> 
> > >>>>> 
> 
> > >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> 
> > >> for max volts?
> 
> > >>>>>> 
> 
> > >>>>>> 
> 
> > >>
> _______________________________________________
> 
> > >>>>>> 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
> 
> > >> 
> 
> > >> 
> 
> > >> 
> 
> > >> 
> 
> > >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> > >> 
> 
> > >>
> _______________________________________________
> 
> > >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 -
> Release Date: 03/01/10
> 
> > 14:34:00
> 
> > 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> 
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> 
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> 
> >
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hotmail:
> Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection.
> Sign
> up
> now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      

From jlkonn at hotmail.com  Tue Mar  2 08:20:36 2010
From: jlkonn at hotmail.com (John Konneker)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:20:36 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <386739.50177.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPIEGGFCAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>,
	<386739.50177.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BLU106-W26C6C6F5C070302C579504CD3B0@phx.gbl>


First paragraph of this write up of F3C on the FAI website.

http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/f3c/synopsis

51 volts is legal now for FAI helicopter.
JLK






 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100302/2cdad5ea/attachment.html>

From jnhiller at earthlink.net  Tue Mar  2 08:26:53 2010
From: jnhiller at earthlink.net (J N Hiller)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:26:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <386739.50177.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPKEGIFCAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>

Yes I saw that. I also remember seeing that less voltage could also be lethal. We've been exposed to higher voltages since we could crawl to a wall outlet. Higher voltages could probably be used safely. If the maximum voltage is originating in Europe I withdraw my original questions. 
Thanks
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bob Kane
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 9:05 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Mark Atwood touched on this earlier, it is likely tied to what is considered a potentially lethal voltage level of 42 volts.


Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com


--- On Tue, 3/2/10, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

> From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 11:07 AM
>
>
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> I've been
> following this discussion and have some
> questions.
>
> Why was a
> voltage limit written into the rules? Is it international
> or AMA only? What was
> the thinking behind it? 
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Jim
> Hiller
>
>  
>
>
> -----Original
> Message-----
>
> From:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Anthony Romano
>
> Sent:
> Tuesday, March 02, 2010 5:30
> AM
>
> To:
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> Subject: Re:
> [NSRCA-discussion]
> Max volts
>
>  
>
> Keep
> this line of
> thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or
> any other rules
> proposal.
>
>  
>
> Anthony
>
>  
>
> > From: burtona at atmc.net
>
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> >
>
> > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and
> purposefully violating the
> intent
>
> > and letter of the rules to gain a performance
> advantage called cheating?
>
> > ....... Just asking!
>
> > Dave Burton
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
> Behalf Of James
> Oddino
>
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
>
> > To: General pattern discussion
>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> >
>
> > I have the functional concept that solves the rules
> problem. Picture a 10S
>
> > pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch
> with two poles, a piece
>
> > of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second
> two pole switch with
>
> > its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two
> poles we place our
>
> > 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the
> 11th cell is bypassed
>
> > and when it is below, like it will be during vertical
> maneuvers late in
>
> > flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the
> voltage to up to 41.7
>
> > volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>
> >
>
> > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides
> adequate power with
> the
>
> > right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage
> drops to 35 volts.
>
> >
>
> > Jim
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Going higher and regulating down would be against
> the rules, the max
> volts
>
> > is still limited to 42.56.
>
> > >
>
> > > Bob Kane
>
> > > getterflash at yahoo.com
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons
> <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons
> <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> > >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern
> discussion"
>
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> > >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>
> > >>
>
> > >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>
> > >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v
> would be nice!
>
> > >>
>
> > >> Chris
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >> From: Chad
>
> > >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>
> > >> To:
>
> > >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> > >> Sent: Sun,
>
> > >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>
> > >> Subject: Re:
>
> > >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> > >>
>
> > >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85
> ish volts/cell
>
> > >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the
> capacity you
>
> > >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>
> > >>
>
> > >> Chad
>
> > >>
>
> > >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>
> > >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.
> Fully
>
> > >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per
> cell very
>
> > >> long. On the other hand, once the initial
> charge
>
> > >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the
> voltage loss
>
> > >> curve "flattens out". What if you
> put fully
>
> > >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and
> "burn them
>
> > >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total
> of 42.56
>
> > >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal
> for
>
> > >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S
> pack be
>
> > >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the
> end of a typical
>
> > >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might
> be
>
> > >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a
> 10S pack, it
>
> > >> would be worth investigating, even
> considering the extra
>
> > >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you
> electronic
>
> > >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>
> > >>>
>
> > >>> Ron Van Putte
>
> > >>>
>
> > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James
> Oddino wrote:
>
> > >>>
>
> > >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify
> a load
>
> > >> or any other conditions? Is it measured
> during the
>
> > >> noise test and have a minimum value?
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John
> Fuqua wrote:
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>>> No its not (assuming we are
> talking RC
>
> > >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>
> > >>>>> which
>
> > >> states "Electrically-powered model
> aircraft are
>
> > >> limited to a maximum
>
> > >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>
> > >>>>>
>
> > >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010
> 7:07 PM
>
> > >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
> Max volts
>
> > >>>>>
>
> > >>>>> It's in the general rules,
> not in the R/C
>
> > >> section.
>
> > >>>>>
>
> > >>>>>
>
> > >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim
> Quinn wrote:
>
> > >>>>>
>
> > >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>
> > >> for max volts?
>
> > >>>>>>
>
> > >>>>>>
>
> > >>
> _______________________________________________
>
> > >>>>>> 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
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
> _______________________________________________
>
> > >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 -
> Release Date: 03/01/10
>
> > 14:34:00
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> >
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hotmail:
> Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
> Sign
> up
> now.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From rcmaster199 at aol.com  Tue Mar  2 08:50:31 2010
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com (rcmaster199 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:50:31 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <6BD57E622D884034B9DF08F02E6722EE@davedesktop>
References: <7690.2365.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>,
	<B0493872-0C38-4C9A-A14D-CD75DBE9153B@socal.rr.com>,
	<018401cab9ba$ded99ee0$9c8cdca0$@net><SNT138-w2704D14916BC34FAF7EA1FE23B0@phx.gbl><8CC883AB3B27807-33A4-129C@webmail-m039.sysops.aol.com>
	<6BD57E622D884034B9DF08F02E6722EE@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <8CC8847F015C5CA-3294-4D71@webmail-d032.sysops.aol.com>







-----Original Message-----
From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 11:43 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts



Matt,
 
Interesting discussion/topic so far as the legality aspect within the current rules.
 
When I first started with electrics, I showed the FAI and AMA rules to one of my early electric mentors??he wasn?t convinced the ESCs and software used back then (7 years ago) would be deemed ?legal? in a ?court of law?.
 
A simple example?.the timing ESCs use is dynamic?it adjusts based on the RPM and load on the motor.  So the timing on the ground is likely different than the timing they use in the air ? ie, the motor just might turn more RPM in the air (louder).  Is this cheating the noise rule?  (I am not sure whether it does or doesn't. To me, it depends on how the motor achieves this rpm increase. Noise alone, I say no way is it a violation--It seems similar to a wet set-up in the air which typically will turn more rpm due to unloading of the prop, except, it's electric and I don't think that is what happens in an electric set-up. The ESC needs to intervene to make the rpm adjustment and THAT, methinks, could be construed as a violation--MK)Or is it simply a well engineered system designed to make the most power the most efficiently?
 
The optimal IC setups rarely make peak RPM/power/noise on the ground.  They make more RPM/power/noise  in the air.  Is this ?cheating? the noise rule?  (NO!!--MK ) Or is it simply a well engineered system designed to make the most power the most efficiently?
 
I?d suggest a switch on the TX that allowed the pilot to retard the timing (and thus reduce RPM, power, and noise) of the electric or IC system to pass the noise test and then make more power in the air would be cheating. (Not so sure about this being a violation within the current rules...to me it wouldn't be much different than a flight mode which is allowed--Point is it takes pilot intervention to make this happen. Pundits will argue that so does flipping a preprogrammed switch that adjust rates of function but I don't see it that way--MK)
 
Dual rates are legal.  Are ?auto? dual rates or ?auto? snap conditions that change the airplane setup legal? (Well, we allow flight modes which are preprogrammed to set control authority at specific levels; what is not set is auto-variability in these rates once the switch is thrown, depending on where or how the plane is flown--MK) The TX is pre-programmed to react a specific way to a specific set of conditions.  This is exactly what the ESC is doing, and just what the OS EFI does. (I don't think so...I THINK (but not sure) that ESCs are changing the amount of power they feed the motor based on load. If that's what the EFI did, we were wrong to allow it. To me, if true, it gave auto-authority to something beyond operator control and an advantage to those users on power management with no input from them whatever...except with their pocketbooks---MK)
 
Just my initial thoughts. (Mine Too --regards, Matt)
 
Regards,
 
Dave
 
 
 


From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 11:15 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.

 

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 

 

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument

 

MattK



 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
 
Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



_______________________________________________
SRCA-discussion mailing list
SRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
ttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100302/988551f2/attachment.html>

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Tue Mar  2 10:04:00 2010
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:04:00 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D8721833861C39@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

The difference with the wall outlet is the 15amp breaker in the fuse box. Not to mention you're typically not soldering connectors to a live outlet like we do partially charged batteries. 

My understanding is that F3C Heli has changed the rules to allow 12S packs, so maybe its not a concern. 


--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld


----- Original Message -----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tue Mar 02 12:27:58 2010
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Yes I saw that. I also remember seeing that less voltage could also be lethal. We've been exposed to higher voltages since we could crawl to a wall outlet. Higher voltages could probably be used safely. If the maximum voltage is originating in Europe I withdraw my original questions. 
Thanks
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bob Kane
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 9:05 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Mark Atwood touched on this earlier, it is likely tied to what is considered a potentially lethal voltage level of 42 volts.


Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com


--- On Tue, 3/2/10, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

> From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 11:07 AM
>
>
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> I've been
> following this discussion and have some
> questions.
>
> Why was a
> voltage limit written into the rules? Is it international
> or AMA only? What was
> the thinking behind it? 
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Jim
> Hiller
>
>  
>
>
> -----Original
> Message-----
>
> From:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Anthony Romano
>
> Sent:
> Tuesday, March 02, 2010 5:30
> AM
>
> To:
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> Subject: Re:
> [NSRCA-discussion]
> Max volts
>
>  
>
> Keep
> this line of
> thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or
> any other rules
> proposal.
>
>  
>
> Anthony
>
>  
>
> > From: burtona at atmc.net
>
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> >
>
> > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and
> purposefully violating the
> intent
>
> > and letter of the rules to gain a performance
> advantage called cheating?
>
> > ....... Just asking!
>
> > Dave Burton
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
> Behalf Of James
> Oddino
>
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
>
> > To: General pattern discussion
>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> >
>
> > I have the functional concept that solves the rules
> problem. Picture a 10S
>
> > pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch
> with two poles, a piece
>
> > of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second
> two pole switch with
>
> > its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two
> poles we place our
>
> > 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the
> 11th cell is bypassed
>
> > and when it is below, like it will be during vertical
> maneuvers late in
>
> > flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the
> voltage to up to 41.7
>
> > volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>
> >
>
> > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides
> adequate power with
> the
>
> > right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage
> drops to 35 volts.
>
> >
>
> > Jim
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Going higher and regulating down would be against
> the rules, the max
> volts
>
> > is still limited to 42.56.
>
> > >
>
> > > Bob Kane
>
> > > getterflash at yahoo.com
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons
> <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons
> <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> > >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern
> discussion"
>
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> > >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>
> > >>
>
> > >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>
> > >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v
> would be nice!
>
> > >>
>
> > >> Chris
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >> From: Chad
>
> > >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>
> > >> To:
>
> > >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> > >> Sent: Sun,
>
> > >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>
> > >> Subject: Re:
>
> > >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> > >>
>
> > >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85
> ish volts/cell
>
> > >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the
> capacity you
>
> > >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>
> > >>
>
> > >> Chad
>
> > >>
>
> > >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>
> > >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.
> Fully
>
> > >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per
> cell very
>
> > >> long. On the other hand, once the initial
> charge
>
> > >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the
> voltage loss
>
> > >> curve "flattens out". What if you
> put fully
>
> > >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and
> "burn them
>
> > >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total
> of 42.56
>
> > >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal
> for
>
> > >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S
> pack be
>
> > >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the
> end of a typical
>
> > >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might
> be
>
> > >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a
> 10S pack, it
>
> > >> would be worth investigating, even
> considering the extra
>
> > >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you
> electronic
>
> > >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>
> > >>>
>
> > >>> Ron Van Putte
>
> > >>>
>
> > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James
> Oddino wrote:
>
> > >>>
>
> > >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify
> a load
>
> > >> or any other conditions? Is it measured
> during the
>
> > >> noise test and have a minimum value?
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John
> Fuqua wrote:
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>>> No its not (assuming we are
> talking RC
>
> > >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>
> > >>>>> which
>
> > >> states "Electrically-powered model
> aircraft are
>
> > >> limited to a maximum
>
> > >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>
> > >>>>>
>
> > >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010
> 7:07 PM
>
> > >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
> Max volts
>
> > >>>>>
>
> > >>>>> It's in the general rules,
> not in the R/C
>
> > >> section.
>
> > >>>>>
>
> > >>>>>
>
> > >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim
> Quinn wrote:
>
> > >>>>>
>
> > >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>
> > >> for max volts?
>
> > >>>>>>
>
> > >>>>>>
>
> > >>
> _______________________________________________
>
> > >>>>>> 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
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
> _______________________________________________
>
> > >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 -
> Release Date: 03/01/10
>
> > 14:34:00
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> >
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hotmail:
> Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
> Sign
> up
> now.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

From d_bodary at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 10:12:26 2010
From: d_bodary at yahoo.com (Dennis Bodary)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:12:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D8721833861C39@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
Message-ID: <898310.27376.qm@web56406.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

And to the person that stuck a screwdriver in a light socket in the sixth grade. Wow that may explain why my hair is still so wild

--- On Tue, 3/2/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:


From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 2:03 PM


The difference with the wall outlet is the 15amp breaker in the fuse box. Not to mention you're typically not soldering connectors to a live outlet like we do partially charged batteries. 

My understanding is that F3C Heli has changed the rules to allow 12S packs, so maybe its not a concern. 


--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld


----- Original Message -----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tue Mar 02 12:27:58 2010
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Yes I saw that. I also remember seeing that less voltage could also be lethal. We've been exposed to higher voltages since we could crawl to a wall outlet. Higher voltages could probably be used safely. If the maximum voltage is originating in Europe I withdraw my original questions. 
Thanks
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bob Kane
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 9:05 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Mark Atwood touched on this earlier, it is likely tied to what is considered a potentially lethal voltage level of 42 volts.


Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com


--- On Tue, 3/2/10, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

> From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 11:07 AM
>
>
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> I've been
> following this discussion and have some
> questions.
>
> Why was a
> voltage limit written into the rules? Is it international
> or AMA only? What was
> the thinking behind it? 
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Jim
> Hiller
>
>? 
>
>
> -----Original
> Message-----
>
> From:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Anthony Romano
>
> Sent:
> Tuesday, March 02, 2010 5:30
> AM
>
> To:
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> Subject: Re:
> [NSRCA-discussion]
> Max volts
>
>? 
>
> Keep
> this line of
> thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or
> any other rules
> proposal.
>
>? 
>
> Anthony
>
>? 
>
> > From: burtona at atmc.net
>
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> >
>
> > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and
> purposefully violating the
> intent
>
> > and letter of the rules to gain a performance
> advantage called cheating?
>
> > ....... Just asking!
>
> > Dave Burton
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
> Behalf Of James
> Oddino
>
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
>
> > To: General pattern discussion
>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> >
>
> > I have the functional concept that solves the rules
> problem. Picture a 10S
>
> > pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch
> with two poles, a piece
>
> > of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second
> two pole switch with
>
> > its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two
> poles we place our
>
> > 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the
> 11th cell is bypassed
>
> > and when it is below, like it will be during vertical
> maneuvers late in
>
> > flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the
> voltage to up to 41.7
>
> > volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>
> >
>
> > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides
> adequate power with
> the
>
> > right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage
> drops to 35 volts.
>
> >
>
> > Jim
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Going higher and regulating down would be against
> the rules, the max
> volts
>
> > is still limited to 42.56.
>
> > >
>
> > > Bob Kane
>
> > > getterflash at yahoo.com
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons
> <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons
> <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> > >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern
> discussion"
>
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> > >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>
> > >>
>
> > >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>
> > >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v
> would be nice!
>
> > >>
>
> > >> Chris
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >> From: Chad
>
> > >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>
> > >> To:
>
> > >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> > >> Sent: Sun,
>
> > >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>
> > >> Subject: Re:
>
> > >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> > >>
>
> > >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85
> ish volts/cell
>
> > >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the
> capacity you
>
> > >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>
> > >>
>
> > >> Chad
>
> > >>
>
> > >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>
> > >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.
> Fully
>
> > >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per
> cell very
>
> > >> long. On the other hand, once the initial
> charge
>
> > >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the
> voltage loss
>
> > >> curve "flattens out". What if you
> put fully
>
> > >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and
> "burn them
>
> > >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total
> of 42.56
>
> > >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal
> for
>
> > >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S
> pack be
>
> > >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the
> end of a typical
>
> > >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might
> be
>
> > >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a
> 10S pack, it
>
> > >> would be worth investigating, even
> considering the extra
>
> > >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you
> electronic
>
> > >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>
> > >>>
>
> > >>> Ron Van Putte
>
> > >>>
>
> > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James
> Oddino wrote:
>
> > >>>
>
> > >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify
> a load
>
> > >> or any other conditions? Is it measured
> during the
>
> > >> noise test and have a minimum value?
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John
> Fuqua wrote:
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>>> No its not (assuming we are
> talking RC
>
> > >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>
> > >>>>> which
>
> > >> states "Electrically-powered model
> aircraft are
>
> > >> limited to a maximum
>
> > >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>
> > >>>>>
>
> > >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010
> 7:07 PM
>
> > >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
> Max volts
>
> > >>>>>
>
> > >>>>> It's in the general rules,
> not in the R/C
>
> > >> section.
>
> > >>>>>
>
> > >>>>>
>
> > >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim
> Quinn wrote:
>
> > >>>>>
>
> > >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>
> > >> for max volts?
>
> > >>>>>>
>
> > >>>>>>
>
> > >>
> _______________________________________________
>
> > >>>>>> 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
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
>
> > >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> > >>
>
> > >>
> _______________________________________________
>
> > >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 -
> Release Date: 03/01/10
>
> > 14:34:00
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> >
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hotmail:
> Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
> Sign
> up
> now.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100302/32ead6a2/attachment.html>

From pcosky at comcast.net  Tue Mar  2 10:15:57 2010
From: pcosky at comcast.net (Pete Cosky)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:15:57 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
References: <898310.27376.qm@web56406.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4D8DE7DC48CF47CA8063C87AE50E0C72@usa.ccu.clearchannel.com>

It explains so much more than that my friend.....
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dennis Bodary 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 2:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


        And to the person that stuck a screwdriver in a light socket in the sixth grade. Wow that may explain why my hair is still so wild

        --- On Tue, 3/2/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:


          From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
          Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
          To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
          Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 2:03 PM


          The difference with the wall outlet is the 15amp breaker in the fuse box. Not to mention you're typically not soldering connectors to a live outlet like we do partially charged batteries. 

          My understanding is that F3C Heli has changed the rules to allow 12S packs, so maybe its not a concern. 


          --------------------------
          Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
          To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
          Sent: Tue Mar 02 12:27:58 2010
          Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

          Yes I saw that. I also remember seeing that less voltage could also be lethal. We've been exposed to higher voltages since we could crawl to a wall outlet. Higher voltages could probably be used safely. If the maximum voltage is originating in Europe I withdraw my original questions. 
          Thanks
          Jim

          -----Original Message-----
          From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bob Kane
          Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 9:05 AM
          To: General pattern discussion
          Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

          Mark Atwood touched on this earlier, it is likely tied to what is considered a potentially lethal voltage level of 42 volts.


          Bob Kane
          getterflash at yahoo.com


          --- On Tue, 3/2/10, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

          > From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
          > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
          > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
          > Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 11:07 AM
          >
          >
          >
          > 
          > 
          > 
          > 
          > 
          > 
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > 
          >
          >
          >
          > I've been
          > following this discussion and have some
          > questions.
          >
          > Why was a
          > voltage limit written into the rules? Is it international
          > or AMA only? What was
          > the thinking behind it? 
          >
          > Thanks
          >
          >
          > Jim
          > Hiller
          >
          >  
          >
          >
          > -----Original
          > Message-----
          >
          > From:
          > nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
          > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Anthony Romano
          >
          > Sent:
          > Tuesday, March 02, 2010 5:30
          > AM
          >
          > To:
          > nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
          >
          > Subject: Re:
          > [NSRCA-discussion]
          > Max volts
          >
          >  
          >
          > Keep
          > this line of
          > thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or
          > any other rules
          > proposal.
          >
          >  
          >
          > Anthony
          >
          >  
          >
          > > From: burtona at atmc.net
          >
          > > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
          >
          > > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
          >
          > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
          >
          > >
          >
          > > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and
          > purposefully violating the
          > intent
          >
          > > and letter of the rules to gain a performance
          > advantage called cheating?
          >
          > > ....... Just asking!
          >
          > > Dave Burton
          >
          > >
          >
          > > -----Original Message-----
          >
          > > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
          >
          > > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
          > Behalf Of James
          > Oddino
          >
          > > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
          >
          > > To: General pattern discussion
          >
          > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
          >
          > >
          >
          > > I have the functional concept that solves the rules
          > problem. Picture a 10S
          >
          > > pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch
          > with two poles, a piece
          >
          > > of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second
          > two pole switch with
          >
          > > its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two
          > poles we place our
          >
          > > 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the
          > 11th cell is bypassed
          >
          > > and when it is below, like it will be during vertical
          > maneuvers late in
          >
          > > flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the
          > voltage to up to 41.7
          >
          > > volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
          >
          > >
          >
          > > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides
          > adequate power with
          > the
          >
          > > right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage
          > drops to 35 volts.
          >
          > >
          >
          > > Jim
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
          >
          > >
          >
          > > > Going higher and regulating down would be against
          > the rules, the max
          > volts
          >
          > > is still limited to 42.56.
          >
          > > >
          >
          > > > Bob Kane
          >
          > > > getterflash at yahoo.com
          >
          > > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons
          > <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
          >
          > > wrote:
          >
          > > >
          >
          > > >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons
          > <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
          >
          > > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
          >
          > > >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern
          > discussion"
          >
          > > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
          >
          > > >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
          >
          > > >>
          >
          > > >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
          >
          > > >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v
          > would be nice!
          >
          > > >>
          >
          > > >> Chris
          >
          > > >>
          >
          > > >>
          >
          > > >>
          >
          > > >>
          >
          > > >>
          >
          > > >>
          >
          > > >>
          >
          > > >>
          >
          > > >>
          >
          > > >> From: Chad
          >
          > > >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
          >
          > > >> To:
          >
          > > >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
          >
          > > >> Sent: Sun,
          >
          > > >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
          >
          > > >> Subject: Re:
          >
          > > >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
          >
          > > >>
          >
          > > >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85
          > ish volts/cell
          >
          > > >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the
          > capacity you
          >
          > > >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
          >
          > > >>
          >
          > > >> Chad
          >
          > > >>
          >
          > > >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
          >
          > > >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.
          > Fully
          >
          > > >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per
          > cell very
          >
          > > >> long. On the other hand, once the initial
          > charge
          >
          > > >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the
          > voltage loss
          >
          > > >> curve "flattens out". What if you
          > put fully
          >
          > > >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and
          > "burn them
          >
          > > >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total
          > of 42.56
          >
          > > >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal
          > for
          >
          > > >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S
          > pack be
          >
          > > >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the
          > end of a typical
          >
          > > >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might
          > be
          >
          > > >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a
          > 10S pack, it
          >
          > > >> would be worth investigating, even
          > considering the extra
          >
          > > >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you
          > electronic
          >
          > > >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
          >
          > > >>>
          >
          > > >>> Ron Van Putte
          >
          > > >>>
          >
          > > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James
          > Oddino wrote:
          >
          > > >>>
          >
          > > >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify
          > a load
          >
          > > >> or any other conditions? Is it measured
          > during the
          >
          > > >> noise test and have a minimum value?
          >
          > > >>>>
          >
          > > >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
          >
          > > >>>>
          >
          > > >>>>
          >
          > > >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John
          > Fuqua wrote:
          >
          > > >>>>
          >
          > > >>>>> No its not (assuming we are
          > talking RC
          >
          > > >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
          >
          > > >>>>> which
          >
          > > >> states "Electrically-powered model
          > aircraft are
          >
          > > >> limited to a maximum
          >
          > > >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
          >
          > > >>>>>
          >
          > > >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010
          > 7:07 PM
          >
          > > >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
          >
          > > >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
          > Max volts
          >
          > > >>>>>
          >
          > > >>>>> It's in the general rules,
          > not in the R/C
          >
          > > >> section.
          >
          > > >>>>>
          >
          > > >>>>>
          >
          > > >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim
          > Quinn wrote:
          >
          > > >>>>>
          >
          > > >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
          >
          > > >> for max volts?
          >
          > > >>>>>>
          >
          > > >>>>>>
          >
          > > >>
          > _______________________________________________
          >
          > > >>>>>> 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
          >
          > > >>
          >
          > > >>
          >
          > > >>
          >
          > > >>
          >
          > > >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
          >
          > > >>
          >
          > > >>
          > _______________________________________________
          >
          > > >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 -
          > Release Date: 03/01/10
          >
          > > 14:34:00
          >
          > >
          >
          > > _______________________________________________
          >
          > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
          >
          > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
          >
          > >
          > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Hotmail:
          > Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
          > Sign
          > up
          > now.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > 
          >
          >
          >
          > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
          >
          > _______________________________________________
          > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100302/9d8c45e3/attachment.html>

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Tue Mar  2 10:16:04 2010
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:16:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D8721833861C3B@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

That explains more than the hair ...
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld


----- Original Message -----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tue Mar 02 14:12:23 2010
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

And to the person that stuck a screwdriver in a light socket in the sixth grade. Wow that may explain why my hair is still so wild

--- On Tue, 3/2/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:



        From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
        Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
        To: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
        Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 2:03 PM


        The difference with the wall outlet is the 15amp breaker in the fuse box. Not to mention you're typically not soldering connectors to a live outlet like we do partially charged batteries.

        My understanding is that F3C Heli has changed the rules to allow 12S packs, so maybe its not a concern.


        --------------------------
        Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>  <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> >
        To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
        Sent: Tue Mar 02 12:27:58 2010
        Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

        Yes I saw that. I also remember seeing that less voltage could also be lethal. We've been exposed to higher voltages since we could crawl to a wall outlet. Higher voltages could probably be used safely. If the maximum voltage is originating in Europe I withdraw my original questions.
        Thanks
        Jim

        -----Original Message-----
        From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> ]On Behalf Of Bob Kane
        Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 9:05 AM
        To: General pattern discussion
        Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

        Mark Atwood touched on this earlier, it is likely tied to what is considered a potentially lethal voltage level of 42 volts.


        Bob Kane
        getterflash at yahoo.com <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=getterflash at yahoo.com>


        --- On Tue, 3/2/10, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jnhiller at earthlink.net> > wrote:

        > From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jnhiller at earthlink.net> >
        > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
        > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
        > Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 11:07 AM
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > I've been
        > following this discussion and have some
        > questions.
        >
        > Why was a
        > voltage limit written into the rules? Is it international
        > or AMA only? What was
        > the thinking behind it?
        >
        > Thanks
        >
        >
        > Jim
        > Hiller
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > -----Original
        > Message-----
        >
        > From:
        > nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
        > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> ]On Behalf Of Anthony Romano
        >
        > Sent:
        > Tuesday, March 02, 2010 5:30
        > AM
        >
        > To:
        > nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
        >
        > Subject: Re:
        > [NSRCA-discussion]
        > Max volts
        >
        >
        >
        > Keep
        > this line of
        > thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or
        > any other rules
        > proposal.
        >
        >
        >
        > Anthony
        >
        >
        >
        > > From: burtona at atmc.net <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=burtona at atmc.net>
        >
        > > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
        >
        > > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
        >
        > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
        >
        > >
        >
        > > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and
        > purposefully violating the
        > intent
        >
        > > and letter of the rules to gain a performance
        > advantage called cheating?
        >
        > > ....... Just asking!
        >
        > > Dave Burton
        >
        > >
        >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        >
        > > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
        >
        > > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> ] On
        > Behalf Of James
        > Oddino
        >
        > > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
        >
        > > To: General pattern discussion
        >
        > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
        >
        > >
        >
        > > I have the functional concept that solves the rules
        > problem. Picture a 10S
        >
        > > pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch
        > with two poles, a piece
        >
        > > of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second
        > two pole switch with
        >
        > > its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two
        > poles we place our
        >
        > > 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the
        > 11th cell is bypassed
        >
        > > and when it is below, like it will be during vertical
        > maneuvers late in
        >
        > > flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the
        > voltage to up to 41.7
        >
        > > volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides
        > adequate power with
        > the
        >
        > > right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage
        > drops to 35 volts.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Jim
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > Going higher and regulating down would be against
        > the rules, the max
        > volts
        >
        > > is still limited to 42.56.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > Bob Kane
        >
        > > > getterflash at yahoo.com <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=getterflash at yahoo.com>
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons
        > <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> >
        >
        > > wrote:
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons
        > <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> >
        >
        > > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
        >
        > > >> To: chad at f3acanada.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=chad at f3acanada.org> , "General pattern
        > discussion"
        >
        > > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
        >
        > > >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
        >
        > > >>
        >
        > > >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
        >
        > > >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v
        > would be nice!
        >
        > > >>
        >
        > > >> Chris
        >
        > > >>
        >
        > > >>
        >
        > > >>
        >
        > > >>
        >
        > > >>
        >
        > > >>
        >
        > > >>
        >
        > > >>
        >
        > > >>
        >
        > > >> From: Chad
        >
        > > >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=chad at f3acanada.org> >
        >
        > > >> To:
        >
        > > >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
        >
        > > >> Sent: Sun,
        >
        > > >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
        >
        > > >> Subject: Re:
        >
        > > >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
        >
        > > >>
        >
        > > >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85
        > ish volts/cell
        >
        > > >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the
        > capacity you
        >
        > > >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
        >
        > > >>
        >
        > > >> Chad
        >
        > > >>
        >
        > > >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
        >
        > > >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.
        > Fully
        >
        > > >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per
        > cell very
        >
        > > >> long. On the other hand, once the initial
        > charge
        >
        > > >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the
        > voltage loss
        >
        > > >> curve "flattens out". What if you
        > put fully
        >
        > > >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and
        > "burn them
        >
        > > >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total
        > of 42.56
        >
        > > >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal
        > for
        >
        > > >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S
        > pack be
        >
        > > >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the
        > end of a typical
        >
        > > >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might
        > be
        >
        > > >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a
        > 10S pack, it
        >
        > > >> would be worth investigating, even
        > considering the extra
        >
        > > >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you
        > electronic
        >
        > > >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
        >
        > > >>>
        >
        > > >>> Ron Van Putte
        >
        > > >>>
        >
        > > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James
        > Oddino wrote:
        >
        > > >>>
        >
        > > >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify
        > a load
        >
        > > >> or any other conditions? Is it measured
        > during the
        >
        > > >> noise test and have a minimum value?
        >
        > > >>>>
        >
        > > >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
        >
        > > >>>>
        >
        > > >>>>
        >
        > > >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John
        > Fuqua wrote:
        >
        > > >>>>
        >
        > > >>>>> No its not (assuming we are
        > talking RC
        >
        > > >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
        >
        > > >>>>> which
        >
        > > >> states "Electrically-powered model
        > aircraft are
        >
        > > >> limited to a maximum
        >
        > > >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
        >
        > > >>>>>
        >
        > > >>>>> -----Original Message-----
        >
        > > >>>>> From:
        > nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
        >
        > > >>>>>
        > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> ]
        >
        > > >> On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
        >
        > > >>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010
        > 7:07 PM
        >
        > > >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
        >
        > > >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
        > Max volts
        >
        > > >>>>>
        >
        > > >>>>> It's in the general rules,
        > not in the R/C
        >
        > > >> section.
        >
        > > >>>>>
        >
        > > >>>>>
        >
        > > >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim
        > Quinn wrote:
        >
        > > >>>>>
        >
        > > >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
        >
        > > >> for max volts?
        >
        > > >>>>>>
        >
        > > >>>>>>
        >
        > > >>
        > _______________________________________________
        >
        > > >>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing
        > list
        >
        > > >>>>>>
        > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
        >
        > > >>
        > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
        >
        > > >>
        >
        > > >>
        >
        > > >>
        >
        > > >>
        >
        > > >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
        >
        > > >>
        >
        > > >>
        > _______________________________________________
        >
        > > >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
        >
        > > >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 -
        > Release Date: 03/01/10
        >
        > > 14:34:00
        >
        > >
        >
        > > _______________________________________________
        >
        > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
        >
        > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
        >
        > >
        > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Hotmail:
        > Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
        > Sign
        > up
        > now.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
        >
        > _______________________________________________
        > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
        > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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://us.mc564.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
        http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion





From vanputte at cox.net  Tue Mar  2 10:55:46 2010
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:55:46 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max Volts
In-Reply-To: <898310.27376.qm@web56406.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <898310.27376.qm@web56406.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <29377E99-6398-40DE-A73F-F9C2B6C7873A@cox.net>

Think back.  When you first saw the subject - Max Volts, did you  
think it might be the name of the superhero in a new action comic book?

He'd have lightning bolts flashing off his head, kinda like Dennis  
Bodary when he was young.

Ron

On Mar 2, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Dennis Bodary wrote:

> And to the person that stuck a screwdriver in a light socket in the  
> sixth grade. Wow that may explain why my hair is still so wild

From bob at toprudder.com  Tue Mar  2 11:59:17 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:59:17 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max Volts
In-Reply-To: <29377E99-6398-40DE-A73F-F9C2B6C7873A@cox.net>
Message-ID: <915515.88899.qm@web1109.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

Yeah, made me think about "Max Headroom", remember him? :-)

--- On Tue, 3/2/10, Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:



Think back.? When you first saw the subject - Max Volts, did you think it might be the name of the superhero in a new action comic book?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100302/fe8444ab/attachment.html>

From pcosky at comcast.net  Tue Mar  2 12:03:56 2010
From: pcosky at comcast.net (Pete Cosky)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:03:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max Volts
References: <915515.88899.qm@web1109.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3231867197EF4D3A8D8DC8E062F1B395@usa.ccu.clearchannel.com>

Why did I just get an image of Dennis in a hot pink sport coat with a thin leather tie stuck in my head? Thanks Bob.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Richards 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 3:59 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max Volts


        Yeah, made me think about "Max Headroom", remember him? :-)

        --- On Tue, 3/2/10, Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:



          Think back.  When you first saw the subject - Max Volts, did you think it might be the name of the superhero in a new action comic book?

       



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20100302/b36ca32f/attachment.html>

From joddino at socal.rr.com  Tue Mar  2 14:30:00 2010
From: joddino at socal.rr.com (James Oddino)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:30:00 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <8CC883AB3B27807-33A4-129C@webmail-m039.sysops.aol.com>
References: <7690.2365.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>,
	<B0493872-0C38-4C9A-A14D-CD75DBE9153B@socal.rr.com>,
	<018401cab9ba$ded99ee0$9c8cdca0$@net>
	<SNT138-w2704D14916BC34FAF7EA1FE23B0@phx.gbl>
	<8CC883AB3B27807-33A4-129C@webmail-m039.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <2AFDD8AA-A960-4E24-B222-D2B39CBE3567@socal.rr.com>

What the guys are talking about is designing an ESC that compensates for varying input voltages.  To make a rule against something so obviously good is crazy.  It would be like prohibiting voltage regulators on our airborne RC system packs.  Or prohibiting the use of circuits that compensate for temperature changes in our systems.  I'm for simplifying the rules and regs.  The fewer the better.  Define the size of the plane and the maneuvers to be performed and anything you can do to make it fly better is okay.  We want liberty not equality.

Jim


On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

> I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.
>  
> I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today.
>  
> When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument
>  
> MattK
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
>  
> Anthony
>  
> > From: burtona at atmc.net
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > 
> > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> > and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> > ....... Just asking!
> > Dave Burton
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > 
> > I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> > pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> > of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> > its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> > 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> > and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> > flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> > volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> > 
> > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> > right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> > 
> > Jim
> > 
> > 
> > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> > 
> > > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> > is still limited to 42.56. 
> > > 
> > > Bob Kane
> > > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> > >> 
> > >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> > >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> > >> 
> > >> Chris 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> From: Chad
> > >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> > >> To:
> > >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >> Sent: Sun,
> > >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> > >> Subject: Re:
> > >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >> 
> > >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> > >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> > >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> > >> 
> > >> Chad
> > >> 
> > >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> > >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> > >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> > >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> > >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> > >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> > >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> > >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> > >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> > >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> > >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> > >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> > >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> > >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> > >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> > >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> > >>> 
> > >>> Ron Van Putte
> > >>> 
> > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> > >>> 
> > >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> > >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> > >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> > >>>> 
> > >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> > >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> > >>>>> which
> > >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> > >> limited to a maximum
> > >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> > >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> > >> section.
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> > >> for max volts?
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> 
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> 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
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > >> 
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> > 14:34:00
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. =
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100302/be189e58/attachment.html>

From khoard at gmail.com  Tue Mar  2 14:45:19 2010
From: khoard at gmail.com (Keith Hoard)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:45:19 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <2AFDD8AA-A960-4E24-B222-D2B39CBE3567@socal.rr.com>
References: <7690.2365.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>,
	<B0493872-0C38-4C9A-A14D-CD75DBE9153B@socal.rr.com>,
	<018401cab9ba$ded99ee0$9c8cdca0$@net>
	<SNT138-w2704D14916BC34FAF7EA1FE23B0@phx.gbl>
	<8CC883AB3B27807-33A4-129C@webmail-m039.sysops.aol.com>
	<2AFDD8AA-A960-4E24-B222-D2B39CBE3567@socal.rr.com>
Message-ID: <D0BEF081-E0EC-4961-92BD-7431F1E2E4F8@gmail.com>

Who'd a thunk the NSRCA would have a Tea Party faction?

Sent from my iPhone

>   We want liberty not equality.
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:
>
>> I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject  
>> recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of  
>> programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of  
>> battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do  
>> physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this  
>> thread.
>>
>> I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as  
>> I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more  
>> concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like  
>> for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me  
>> how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making  
>> these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming  
>> violation within the rules as they exist today.
>>
>> When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre- 
>> programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would  
>> argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with  
>> the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules.  
>> Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be  
>> convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument
>>
>> MattK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>
>> Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight  
>> limits! Or any other rules proposal.
>>
>> Anthony
>>
>> > From: burtona at atmc.net
>> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>> >
>> > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating  
>> the intent
>> > and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called  
>> cheating?
>> > ....... Just asking!
>> > Dave Burton
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of  
>> James Oddino
>> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
>> > To: General pattern discussion
>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>> >
>> > I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem.  
>> Picture a 10S
>> > pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two  
>> poles, a piece
>> > of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole  
>> switch with
>> > its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we  
>> place our
>> > 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is  
>> bypassed
>> > and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers  
>> late in
>> > flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up  
>> to 41.7
>> > volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>> >
>> > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate  
>> power with the
>> > right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to  
>> 35 volts.
>> >
>> > Jim
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>> >
>> > > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules,  
>> the max volts
>> > is still limited to 42.56.
>> > >
>> > > Bob Kane
>> > > getterflash at yahoo.com
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com 
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>> > >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
>> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> > >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>> > >>
>> > >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>> > >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>> > >>
>> > >> Chris
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> From: Chad
>> > >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>> > >> To:
>> > >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> > >> Sent: Sun,
>> > >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>> > >> Subject: Re:
>> > >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>> > >>
>> > >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
>> > >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
>> > >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>> > >>
>> > >> Chad
>> > >>
>> > >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>> > >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
>> > >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
>> > >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
>> > >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
>> > >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
>> > >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
>> > >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
>> > >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
>> > >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
>> > >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
>> > >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
>> > >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
>> > >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
>> > >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
>> > >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Ron Van Putte
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
>> > >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
>> > >> noise test and have a minimum value?
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
>> > >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>> > >>>>> which
>> > >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
>> > >> limited to a maximum
>> > >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
>> > >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
>> > >> section.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>> > >> for max volts?
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >>>>>> 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
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>> > >>
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date:  
>> 03/01/10
>> > 14:34:00
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection.  
>> Sign up now. =
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100302/2ae7e964/attachment.html>

From schale at optonline.net  Tue Mar  2 14:54:50 2010
From: schale at optonline.net (Stuart Chale)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:54:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPKEGIFCAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>
References: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPKEGIFCAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <4B8DA521.8060208@optonline.net>

Someone already mentioned it, current does damage (or kills) not 
voltage.  Static electricity is 10,000 to 100,000 volts.  But the 
current is so small that no damage is done.  Has anyone actually dared 
to touch the positive lead of our 10 cell packs with one hand and the 
negative lead with the other?  42 volts 80 amps?  Well not quite in fact 
not even a shock.  The resistance in our body is so high that virtually 
no current will flow and you certainly will not feel it.  If it were AC 
and not DC then you probably would.
My favorite example of how current does damage is the old Ronco hot dog 
cooker.  Remember those old Ronco commercials.  (You might have to be 
old to remember) You put a hot dog between two metal spikes in the 
cooker and plugged it in.  Current flowing through the hot dog cooked it.

Here is a modern example on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehHo_P4O3FA

Stuart

On 3/2/2010 12:27 PM, J N Hiller wrote:
> Yes I saw that. I also remember seeing that less voltage could also be lethal. We've been exposed to higher voltages since we could crawl to a wall outlet. Higher voltages could probably be used safely. If the maximum voltage is originating in Europe I withdraw my original questions.
> Thanks
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bob Kane
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 9:05 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> Mark Atwood touched on this earlier, it is likely tied to what is considered a potentially lethal voltage level of 42 volts.
>
>
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
>
>
> --- On Tue, 3/2/10, J N Hiller<jnhiller at earthlink.net>  wrote:
>
>    
>> From: J N Hiller<jnhiller at earthlink.net>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>> To: "General pattern discussion"<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 11:07 AM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I've been
>> following this discussion and have some
>> questions.
>>
>> Why was a
>> voltage limit written into the rules? Is it international
>> or AMA only? What was
>> the thinking behind it?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> Jim
>> Hiller
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original
>> Message-----
>>
>> From:
>> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Anthony Romano
>>
>> Sent:
>> Tuesday, March 02, 2010 5:30
>> AM
>>
>> To:
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>
>> Subject: Re:
>> [NSRCA-discussion]
>> Max volts
>>
>>
>>
>> Keep
>> this line of
>> thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or
>> any other rules
>> proposal.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anthony
>>
>>
>>
>>      
>>> From: burtona at atmc.net
>>>        
>>      
>>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>        
>>      
>>> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
>>>        
>>      
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>        
>>      
>>>        
>>      
>>> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and
>>>        
>> purposefully violating the
>> intent
>>
>>      
>>> and letter of the rules to gain a performance
>>>        
>> advantage called cheating?
>>
>>      
>>> ....... Just asking!
>>>        
>>      
>>> Dave Burton
>>>        
>>      
>>>        
>>      
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>        
>>      
>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>>        
>>      
>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
>>>        
>> Behalf Of James
>> Oddino
>>
>>      
>>> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
>>>        
>>      
>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>>        
>>      
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>        
>>      
>>>        
>>      
>>> I have the functional concept that solves the rules
>>>        
>> problem. Picture a 10S
>>
>>      
>>> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch
>>>        
>> with two poles, a piece
>>
>>      
>>> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second
>>>        
>> two pole switch with
>>
>>      
>>> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two
>>>        
>> poles we place our
>>
>>      
>>> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the
>>>        
>> 11th cell is bypassed
>>
>>      
>>> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical
>>>        
>> maneuvers late in
>>
>>      
>>> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the
>>>        
>> voltage to up to 41.7
>>
>>      
>>> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>>>        
>>      
>>>        
>>      
>>> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides
>>>        
>> adequate power with
>> the
>>
>>      
>>> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage
>>>        
>> drops to 35 volts.
>>
>>      
>>>        
>>      
>>> Jim
>>>        
>>      
>>>        
>>      
>>>        
>>      
>>> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>>>        
>>      
>>>        
>>      
>>>> Going higher and regulating down would be against
>>>>          
>> the rules, the max
>> volts
>>
>>      
>>> is still limited to 42.56.
>>>        
>>      
>>>>          
>>      
>>>> Bob Kane
>>>>          
>>      
>>>> getterflash at yahoo.com
>>>>          
>>      
>>>>          
>>      
>>>>          
>>      
>>>> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons
>>>>          
>> <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>
>>      
>>> wrote:
>>>        
>>      
>>>>          
>>      
>>>>> From: krishlan fitzsimmons
>>>>>            
>> <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>
>>      
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern
>>>>>            
>> discussion"
>>
>>      
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>        
>>      
>>>>> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v
>>>>>            
>> would be nice!
>>
>>      
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>> From: Chad
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>> Northeast<chad at f3acanada.org>
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>> To:
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>> Sent: Sun,
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>> Subject: Re:
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85
>>>>>            
>> ish volts/cell
>>
>>      
>>>>> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the
>>>>>            
>> capacity you
>>
>>      
>>>>> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>> Chad
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.
>>>>>>              
>> Fully
>>
>>      
>>>>> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per
>>>>>            
>> cell very
>>
>>      
>>>>> long. On the other hand, once the initial
>>>>>            
>> charge
>>
>>      
>>>>> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the
>>>>>            
>> voltage loss
>>
>>      
>>>>> curve "flattens out". What if you
>>>>>            
>> put fully
>>
>>      
>>>>> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and
>>>>>            
>> "burn them
>>
>>      
>>>>> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total
>>>>>            
>> of 42.56
>>
>>      
>>>>> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal
>>>>>            
>> for
>>
>>      
>>>>> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S
>>>>>            
>> pack be
>>
>>      
>>>>> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the
>>>>>            
>> end of a typical
>>
>>      
>>>>> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might
>>>>>            
>> be
>>
>>      
>>>>> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a
>>>>>            
>> 10S pack, it
>>
>>      
>>>>> would be worth investigating, even
>>>>>            
>> considering the extra
>>
>>      
>>>>> weight of the additional cell. Come on you
>>>>>            
>> electronic
>>
>>      
>>>>> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>>              
>>      
>>>>>> Ron Van Putte
>>>>>>              
>>      
>>>>>>              
>>      
>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James
>>>>>>              
>> Oddino wrote:
>>
>>      
>>>>>>              
>>      
>>>>>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify
>>>>>>>                
>> a load
>>
>>      
>>>>> or any other conditions? Is it measured
>>>>>            
>> during the
>>
>>      
>>>>> noise test and have a minimum value?
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>>>                
>>      
>>>>>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>>>>>>>                
>>      
>>>>>>>                
>>      
>>>>>>>                
>>      
>>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John
>>>>>>>                
>> Fuqua wrote:
>>
>>      
>>>>>>>                
>>      
>>>>>>>> No its not (assuming we are
>>>>>>>>                  
>> talking RC
>>
>>      
>>>>> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>                  
>>      
>>>>> states "Electrically-powered model
>>>>>            
>> aircraft are
>>
>>      
>>>>> limited to a maximum
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>>>>>>>>                  
>>      
>>>>>>>>                  
>>      
>>>>>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010
>>>>>>>>                  
>> 7:07 PM
>>
>>      
>>>>>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>>>>>>>                  
>>      
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
>>>>>>>>                  
>> Max volts
>>
>>      
>>>>>>>>                  
>>      
>>>>>>>> It's in the general rules,
>>>>>>>>                  
>> not in the R/C
>>
>>      
>>>>> section.
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>>>>                  
>>      
>>>>>>>>                  
>>      
>>>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim
>>>>>>>>                  
>> Quinn wrote:
>>
>>      
>>>>>>>>                  
>>      
>>>>>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>>>>>>>>>                    
>>      
>>>>> for max volts?
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>>>>>                    
>>      
>>>>>>>>>                    
>>      
>>>>>            
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>      
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>
>>      
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>            
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>      
>>>>> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 -
>>>        
>> Release Date: 03/01/10
>>
>>      
>>> 14:34:00
>>>        
>>      
>>>        
>>      
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>        
>>      
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>        
>>      
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>        
>>      
>>>        
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hotmail:
>> Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
>> Sign
>> up
>> now.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>    


From joddino at socal.rr.com  Tue Mar  2 15:17:44 2010
From: joddino at socal.rr.com (James Oddino)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:17:44 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <D0BEF081-E0EC-4961-92BD-7431F1E2E4F8@gmail.com>
References: <7690.2365.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>,
	<B0493872-0C38-4C9A-A14D-CD75DBE9153B@socal.rr.com>,
	<018401cab9ba$ded99ee0$9c8cdca0$@net>
	<SNT138-w2704D14916BC34FAF7EA1FE23B0@phx.gbl>
	<8CC883AB3B27807-33A4-129C@webmail-m039.sysops.aol.com>
	<2AFDD8AA-A960-4E24-B222-D2B39CBE3567@socal.rr.com>
	<D0BEF081-E0EC-4961-92BD-7431F1E2E4F8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3F1C6FC0-933B-4EE8-8B8F-01220565E9A8@socal.rr.com>

You got me laughing out load.  I must be a Libertarian.  

Jim


On Mar 2, 2010, at 3:44 PM, Keith Hoard wrote:

> Who'd a thunk the NSRCA would have a Tea Party faction?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>>   We want liberty not equality.
>> 
>> Jim
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:
>> 
>>> I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.
>>>  
>>> I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today.
>>>  
>>> When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument
>>>  
>>> MattK
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
>>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> 
>>> Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
>>>  
>>> Anthony
>>>  
>>> > From: burtona at atmc.net
>>> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
>>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> > 
>>> > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
>>> > and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
>>> > ....... Just asking!
>>> > Dave Burton
>>> > 
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
>>> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
>>> > To: General pattern discussion
>>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> > 
>>> > I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
>>> > pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
>>> > of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
>>> > its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
>>> > 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
>>> > and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
>>> > flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
>>> > volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>>> > 
>>> > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
>>> > right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
>>> > 
>>> > Jim
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
>>> > is still limited to 42.56. 
>>> > > 
>>> > > Bob Kane
>>> > > getterflash at yahoo.com
>>> > > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > 
>>> > >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> > >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
>>> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> > >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>>> > >> 
>>> > >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>>> > >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>>> > >> 
>>> > >> Chris 
>>> > >> 
>>> > >> 
>>> > >> 
>>> > >> 
>>> > >> 
>>> > >> 
>>> > >> 
>>> > >> 
>>> > >> 
>>> > >> From: Chad
>>> > >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>>> > >> To:
>>> > >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> > >> Sent: Sun,
>>> > >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>>> > >> Subject: Re:
>>> > >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> > >> 
>>> > >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
>>> > >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
>>> > >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>>> > >> 
>>> > >> Chad
>>> > >> 
>>> > >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>>> > >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
>>> > >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
>>> > >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
>>> > >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
>>> > >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
>>> > >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
>>> > >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
>>> > >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
>>> > >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
>>> > >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
>>> > >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
>>> > >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
>>> > >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
>>> > >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
>>> > >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>>> > >>> 
>>> > >>> Ron Van Putte
>>> > >>> 
>>> > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
>>> > >>> 
>>> > >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
>>> > >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
>>> > >> noise test and have a minimum value?
>>> > >>>> 
>>> > >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>>> > >>>> 
>>> > >>>> 
>>> > >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>>> > >>>> 
>>> > >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
>>> > >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>>> > >>>>> which
>>> > >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
>>> > >> limited to a maximum
>>> > >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>>> > >>>>> 
>>> > >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
>>> > >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> > >>>>> 
>>> > >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
>>> > >> section.
>>> > >>>>> 
>>> > >>>>> 
>>> > >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>>> > >>>>> 
>>> > >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>>> > >> for max volts?
>>> > >>>>>> 
>>> > >>>>>> 
>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > >>>>>> 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
>>> > >> 
>>> > >> 
>>> > >> 
>>> > >> 
>>> > >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>> > >> 
>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
>>> > 14:34:00
>>> > 
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> 
>>> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. =
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100303/722a445a/attachment.html>

From vanputte at cox.net  Tue Mar  2 15:41:03 2010
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:41:03 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <D0BEF081-E0EC-4961-92BD-7431F1E2E4F8@gmail.com>
References: <7690.2365.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>,
	<B0493872-0C38-4C9A-A14D-CD75DBE9153B@socal.rr.com>,
	<018401cab9ba$ded99ee0$9c8cdca0$@net>
	<SNT138-w2704D14916BC34FAF7EA1FE23B0@phx.gbl>
	<8CC883AB3B27807-33A4-129C@webmail-m039.sysops.aol.com>
	<2AFDD8AA-A960-4E24-B222-D2B39CBE3567@socal.rr.com>
	<D0BEF081-E0EC-4961-92BD-7431F1E2E4F8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A39CC074-51B7-42B0-828F-F3CEE0E73567@cox.net>

Did somebody say PARTY?


On Mar 2, 2010, at 5:44 PM, Keith Hoard wrote:

> Who'd a thunk the NSRCA would have a Tea Party faction?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>>   We want liberty not equality.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject  
>>> recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of  
>>> programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of  
>>> battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do  
>>> physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in  
>>> this thread.
>>>
>>> I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery  
>>> as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am  
>>> more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I  
>>> would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to  
>>> explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage  
>>> potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not  
>>> constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist  
>>> today.
>>>
>>> When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO  
>>> pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I  
>>> would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely  
>>> possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of  
>>> said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I  
>>> could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument
>>>
>>> MattK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
>>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>
>>> #AOLMsgPart_3_a1464e77-3c63-4f8d-b134-28eaec9f2cea td{color:  
>>> black;} #AOLMsgPart_3_a1464e77-3c63-4f8d- 
>>> b134-28eaec9f2cea .hmmessage P{margin:0px;padding:0px} 
>>> #AOLMsgPart_3_a1464e77-3c63-4f8d-b134-28eaec9f2cea body.hmmessage 
>>> {font-size: 10pt;font-family:Verdana} Keep this line of thinking  
>>> in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules  
>>> proposal.
>>>
>>> Anthony
>>>
>>> > From: burtona at atmc.net
>>> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
>>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> >
>>> > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully  
>>> violating the intent
>>> > and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called  
>>> cheating?
>>> > ....... Just asking!
>>> > Dave Burton
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of  
>>> James Oddino
>>> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
>>> > To: General pattern discussion
>>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> >
>>> > I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem.  
>>> Picture a 10S
>>> > pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two  
>>> poles, a piece
>>> > of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole  
>>> switch with
>>> > its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we  
>>> place our
>>> > 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell  
>>> is bypassed
>>> > and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers  
>>> late in
>>> > flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to  
>>> up to 41.7
>>> > volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>>> >
>>> > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate  
>>> power with the
>>> > right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to  
>>> 35 volts.
>>> >
>>> > Jim
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules,  
>>> the max volts
>>> > is still limited to 42.56.
>>> > >
>>> > > Bob Kane
>>> > > getterflash at yahoo.com
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons  
>>> <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> > >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
>>> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> > >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>>> > >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Chris
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> From: Chad
>>> > >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>>> > >> To:
>>> > >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> > >> Sent: Sun,
>>> > >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>>> > >> Subject: Re:
>>> > >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> > >>
>>> > >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
>>> > >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
>>> > >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Chad
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>>> > >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
>>> > >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
>>> > >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
>>> > >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
>>> > >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
>>> > >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
>>> > >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
>>> > >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
>>> > >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
>>> > >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
>>> > >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
>>> > >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
>>> > >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
>>> > >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
>>> > >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Ron Van Putte
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
>>> > >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
>>> > >> noise test and have a minimum value?
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
>>> > >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>>> > >>>>> which
>>> > >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
>>> > >> limited to a maximum
>>> > >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
>>> > >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
>>> > >> section.
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>>> > >> for max volts?
>>> > >>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>
>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > >>>>>> 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
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>> > >>
>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date:  
>>> 03/01/10
>>> > 14:34:00
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection.  
>>> Sign up now. =
>>> _______________________________________________ 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


From billglaze at bellsouth.net  Tue Mar  2 15:47:32 2010
From: billglaze at bellsouth.net (Bill Glaze)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:47:32 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] [Bulk] Re:  Max volts
References: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPKEGIFCAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>
	<4B8DA521.8060208@optonline.net>
Message-ID: <1CEA72FA932D4B8B91F8FDBE98C13FA5@glazecstp32xp>

Another great example is the Tesla coil, as exhibited at Griffith Park in 
Los Angeles.  A demonstrator would get in the Faraday Cage with the coil, 
(Invented, of course, by Nicholas Tesla) and it would appear as if long, 
blue, extremely high voltage lines of lightning were clinging to him, and 
jumping all about.
Very awesome demonstration--particularly to an 8 year old kid.
Bill glaze
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stuart Chale" <schale at optonline.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 6:54 PM
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


> Someone already mentioned it, current does damage (or kills) not voltage. 
> Static electricity is 10,000 to 100,000 volts.  But the current is so 
> small that no damage is done.  Has anyone actually dared to touch the 
> positive lead of our 10 cell packs with one hand and the negative lead 
> with the other?  42 volts 80 amps?  Well not quite in fact not even a 
> shock.  The resistance in our body is so high that virtually no current 
> will flow and you certainly will not feel it.  If it were AC and not DC 
> then you probably would.
> My favorite example of how current does damage is the old Ronco hot dog 
> cooker.  Remember those old Ronco commercials.  (You might have to be old 
> to remember) You put a hot dog between two metal spikes in the cooker and 
> plugged it in.  Current flowing through the hot dog cooked it.
>
> Here is a modern example on youtube.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehHo_P4O3FA
>
> Stuart
>
> On 3/2/2010 12:27 PM, J N Hiller wrote:
>> Yes I saw that. I also remember seeing that less voltage could also be 
>> lethal. We've been exposed to higher voltages since we could crawl to a 
>> wall outlet. Higher voltages could probably be used safely. If the 
>> maximum voltage is originating in Europe I withdraw my original 
>> questions.
>> Thanks
>> Jim
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bob Kane
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 9:05 AM
>> To: General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>
>> Mark Atwood touched on this earlier, it is likely tied to what is 
>> considered a potentially lethal voltage level of 42 volts.
>>
>>
>> Bob Kane
>> getterflash at yahoo.com
>>
>>
>> --- On Tue, 3/2/10, J N Hiller<jnhiller at earthlink.net>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> From: J N Hiller<jnhiller at earthlink.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> To: "General pattern discussion"<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 11:07 AM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've been
>>> following this discussion and have some
>>> questions.
>>>
>>> Why was a
>>> voltage limit written into the rules? Is it international
>>> or AMA only? What was
>>> the thinking behind it?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> Jim
>>> Hiller
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original
>>> Message-----
>>>
>>> From:
>>> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Anthony 
>>> Romano
>>>
>>> Sent:
>>> Tuesday, March 02, 2010 5:30
>>> AM
>>>
>>> To:
>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>
>>> Subject: Re:
>>> [NSRCA-discussion]
>>> Max volts
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Keep
>>> this line of
>>> thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or
>>> any other rules
>>> proposal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anthony
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: burtona at atmc.net
>>>>
>>>
>>>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and
>>>>
>>> purposefully violating the
>>> intent
>>>
>>>
>>>> and letter of the rules to gain a performance
>>>>
>>> advantage called cheating?
>>>
>>>
>>>> ....... Just asking!
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Dave Burton
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>
>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
>>>>
>>> Behalf Of James
>>> Oddino
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
>>>>
>>>
>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I have the functional concept that solves the rules
>>>>
>>> problem. Picture a 10S
>>>
>>>
>>>> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch
>>>>
>>> with two poles, a piece
>>>
>>>
>>>> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second
>>>>
>>> two pole switch with
>>>
>>>
>>>> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two
>>>>
>>> poles we place our
>>>
>>>
>>>> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the
>>>>
>>> 11th cell is bypassed
>>>
>>>
>>>> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical
>>>>
>>> maneuvers late in
>>>
>>>
>>>> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the
>>>>
>>> voltage to up to 41.7
>>>
>>>
>>>> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides
>>>>
>>> adequate power with
>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage
>>>>
>>> drops to 35 volts.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Going higher and regulating down would be against
>>>>>
>>> the rules, the max
>>> volts
>>>
>>>
>>>> is still limited to 42.56.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Bob Kane
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> getterflash at yahoo.com
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons
>>>>>
>>> <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> From: krishlan fitzsimmons
>>>>>>
>>> <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern
>>>>>>
>>> discussion"
>>>
>>>
>>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v
>>>>>>
>>> would be nice!
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> From: Chad
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Northeast<chad at f3acanada.org>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Sent: Sun,
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Subject: Re:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85
>>>>>>
>>> ish volts/cell
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the
>>>>>>
>>> capacity you
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Chad
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain.
>>>>>>>
>>> Fully
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per
>>>>>>
>>> cell very
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> long. On the other hand, once the initial
>>>>>>
>>> charge
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the
>>>>>>
>>> voltage loss
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> curve "flattens out". What if you
>>>>>>
>>> put fully
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and
>>>>>>
>>> "burn them
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total
>>>>>>
>>> of 42.56
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal
>>>>>>
>>> for
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S
>>>>>>
>>> pack be
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the
>>>>>>
>>> end of a typical
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might
>>>>>>
>>> be
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a
>>>>>>
>>> 10S pack, it
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> would be worth investigating, even
>>>>>>
>>> considering the extra
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> weight of the additional cell. Come on you
>>>>>>
>>> electronic
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Ron Van Putte
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James
>>>>>>>
>>> Oddino wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify
>>>>>>>>
>>> a load
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> or any other conditions? Is it measured
>>>>>>
>>> during the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> noise test and have a minimum value?
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John
>>>>>>>>
>>> Fuqua wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> No its not (assuming we are
>>>>>>>>>
>>> talking RC
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> states "Electrically-powered model
>>>>>>
>>> aircraft are
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> limited to a maximum
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010
>>>>>>>>>
>>> 7:07 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
>>>>>>>>>
>>> Max volts
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's in the general rules,
>>>>>>>>>
>>> not in the R/C
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> section.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim
>>>>>>>>>
>>> Quinn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> for max volts?
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 -
>>>>
>>> Release Date: 03/01/10
>>>
>>>
>>>> 14:34:00
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>
>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>
>>>
>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hotmail:
>>> Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
>>> Sign
>>> up
>>> now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 


From ed_alt at hotmail.com  Tue Mar  2 16:41:48 2010
From: ed_alt at hotmail.com (Ed Alt)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 01:41:48 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <2AFDD8AA-A960-4E24-B222-D2B39CBE3567@socal.rr.com>
References: <7690.2365.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>, ,
	<B0493872-0C38-4C9A-A14D-CD75DBE9153B@socal.rr.com>, ,
	<018401cab9ba$ded99ee0$9c8cdca0$@net>,
	<SNT138-w2704D14916BC34FAF7EA1FE23B0@phx.gbl>,
	<8CC883AB3B27807-33A4-129C@webmail-m039.sysops.aol.com>,
	<2AFDD8AA-A960-4E24-B222-D2B39CBE3567@socal.rr.com>
Message-ID: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>

Outlaw the regulators on every YS!!!

From: joddino at socal.rr.com
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:29:56 -0800
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts



What the guys are talking about is designing an ESC that compensates for varying input voltages.  To make a rule against something so obviously good is crazy.  It would be like prohibiting voltage regulators on our airborne RC system packs.  Or prohibiting the use of circuits that compensate for temperature changes in our systems.  I'm for simplifying the rules and regs.  The fewer the better.  Define the size of the plane and the maneuvers to be performed and anything you can do to make it fly better is okay.  We want liberty not equality.
Jim

On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:
I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.


 


I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 


 


When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument


 


MattK






 









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

From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>

To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org

Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts







Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.

 

Anthony

 

> From: burtona at atmc.net

> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org

> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500

> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

> 

> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent

> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?

> ....... Just asking!

> Dave Burton

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org

> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino

> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM

> To: General pattern discussion

> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

> 

> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S

> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece

> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with

> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our

> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed

> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in

> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7

> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.

> 

> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the

> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.

> 

> Jim

> 

> 

> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:

> 

> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts

> is still limited to 42.56. 

> > 

> > Bob Kane

> > getterflash at yahoo.com

> > 

> > 

> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>

> wrote:

> > 

> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>

> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"

> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM

> >> 

> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and

> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!

> >> 

> >> Chris 

> >> 

> >> 

> >> 

> >> 

> >> 

> >> 

> >> 

> >> 

> >> 

> >> From: Chad

> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>

> >> To:

> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org

> >> Sent: Sun,

> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM

> >> Subject: Re:

> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

> >> 

> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell

> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you

> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.

> >> 

> >> Chad

> >> 

> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:

> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully

> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very

> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge

> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss

> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully

> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them

> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56

> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for

> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be

> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical

> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be

> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it

> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra

> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic

> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.

> >>> 

> >>> Ron Van Putte

> >>> 

> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:

> >>> 

> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load

> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the

> >> noise test and have a minimum value?

> >>>> 

> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O

> >>>> 

> >>>> 

> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:

> >>>> 

> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC

> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1

> >>>>> which

> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are

> >> limited to a maximum

> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."

> >>>>> 

> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM

> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion

> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

> >>>>> 

> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C

> >> section.

> >>>>> 

> >>>>> 

> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:

> >>>>> 

> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule

> >> for max volts?

> >>>>>> 

> >>>>>> 

> >> _______________________________________________

> >>>>>> 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

> >> 

> >> 

> >> 

> >> 

> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----

> >> 

> >> _______________________________________________

> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10

> 14:34:00

> 

> _______________________________________________

> NSRCA-discussion mailing list

> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org

> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion





Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 


_______________________________________________
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
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100303/3a6fdf0b/attachment.html>

From lld613 at psci.net  Tue Mar  2 17:11:52 2010
From: lld613 at psci.net (Lisa n Larry)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:11:52 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] For Sale: ATX Stylus 8ch Tx,
	w/ PCM Rx - Listed on e-Bay
References: <000601caa6ef$21608a50$64219ef0$@net> 
Message-ID: <00c001caba76$e1eb1e30$a5c15a90$@net>

I have listed an ATX Stylus 8ch Tx w/ Tx Module, 8ch PCM Rx, Acro Card, and
a 50 Model Memory Card.

 

 
<http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230444335896&ssPageName=
STRK:MESELX:IT>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230444335896&ssPageName=S
TRK:MESELX:IT

 

I have a few different channels to choose from. I will be selling additional
8ch PCM Rx's and Tx Modules after the Tx is sold.

 

It was serviced by Airtronics last August for a routine check up and the
internal battery was replaced.

 

Larry Diamond

NSRCA 3083

812-630-9592

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100303/e18b77bb/attachment.html>

From rcpilot at wowway.com  Tue Mar  2 17:47:45 2010
From: rcpilot at wowway.com (Ron Hansen)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:47:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser>

I touch my tongue to the leads on my lipo batteries to make sure they are
still charged and have suffered "no ill effects" so I'm not sure what all
the fuss is all about???

 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:42 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

Outlaw the regulators on every YS!!!

  _____  

From: joddino at socal.rr.com
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:29:56 -0800
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

What the guys are talking about is designing an ESC that compensates for
varying input voltages.  To make a rule against something so obviously good
is crazy.  It would be like prohibiting voltage regulators on our airborne
RC system packs.  Or prohibiting the use of circuits that compensate for
temperature changes in our systems.  I'm for simplifying the rules and regs.
The fewer the better.  Define the size of the plane and the maneuvers to be
performed and anything you can do to make it fly better is okay.  We want
liberty not equality.

 

Jim

 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

 

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean
explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do
some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how
easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something
similar in this thread.

 

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see
this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned
about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with
the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable
rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does
not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today.


 

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO
pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue
that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of
today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down
and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a
good argument

 

MattK



 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or
any other rules proposal.
 
Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the
intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ] On Behalf Of James
Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with
the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max
volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ]
> >> On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 <http://www.avg.com/>  
> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


  _____  


Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/>  now. = 

_______________________________________________
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

 

 

  _____  

Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/>  now.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100303/4a1e8f25/attachment.html>

From rcmaster199 at aol.com  Tue Mar  2 19:35:53 2010
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com (rcmaster199 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 04:35:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser>
Message-ID: <8CC88A215D3F58E-A918-1DF2@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com>


HMMMMMM!!!! 
An ESC that compensates for variable input voltage (and I assume it does this automatically with no input from the loose screw in front of the controls). 

And how is this different than a tx that compenates for variable (call it erratic) stick movement by the same loose screw? 

Voltage regs for airbrne systems don't look the same to me as this. A servo functions pretty much the same at 4.8 as it does 6 volts. Sure it's a little faster but the loose screw still has to command it. 

Maybe it's picking nits but I am not convinced. I think that you are talking about a device that counts poles per unit time and maintaining that ratio as long as possible for any stick position, while the battery lasts. It's a form of power governor. 

".....liberty, not equality...." I know you're joshing

MattK





-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:42 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
 
Outlaw the regulators on every YS!!!

From: joddino at socal.rr.com
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:29:56 -0800
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

What the guys are talking about is designing an ESC that compensates for varying input voltages.  To make a rule against something so obviously good is crazy.  It would be like prohibiting voltage regulators on our airborne RC system packs.  Or prohibiting the use of circuits that compensate for temperature changes in our systems.  I'm for simplifying the rules and regs.  The fewer the better.  Define the size of the plane and the maneuvers to be performed and anything you can do to make it fly better is okay.  We want liberty not equality.

 

Jim

 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

 

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.

 

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 

 

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument

 

MattK



 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
 
Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 

_______________________________________________
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

 

 

Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com


_______________________________________________
SRCA-discussion mailing list
SRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
ttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100303/02aaca38/attachment.html>

From joddino at socal.rr.com  Tue Mar  2 20:13:56 2010
From: joddino at socal.rr.com (James Oddino)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 05:13:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <8CC88A215D3F58E-A918-1DF2@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com>
References: <8CC88A215D3F58E-A918-1DF2@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <8418BF58-8F53-414B-ABAD-9B295D657952@socal.rr.com>


On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:35 PM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

> HMMMMMM!!!!
> An ESC that compensates for variable input voltage (and I assume it does this automatically with no input from the loose screw in front of the controls).  Yes
>  
> And how is this different than a tx that compenates for variable (call it erratic) stick movement by the same loose screw?  Transmitters only transmit what they are told to transmit.  They can't tell if the pilot screwed up
>  
> Voltage regs for airbrne systems don't look the same to me as this. A servo functions pretty much the same at 4.8 as it does 6 volts. Sure it's a little faster but the loose screw still has to command it.  It does exactly the same thing.  It keeps the servo speed the same as the battery voltage goes down.
>  
> Maybe it's picking nits but I am not convinced. I think that you are talking about a device that counts poles per unit time and maintaining that ratio as long as possible for any stick position, while the battery lasts. It's a form of power governor.  No, the voltage to the motor and therefore the rpm changes with stick position as it does now.  What we are trying to get is a consistent voltage and rpm for each stick position and not have it affected by the supply voltage.
>  
> ".....liberty, not equality...." I know you're joshing  If you want equality, don't keep score.  Jim
>  
> MattK
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:42 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>  
> Outlaw the regulators on every YS!!!
> From: joddino at socal.rr.com
> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:29:56 -0800
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> What the guys are talking about is designing an ESC that compensates for varying input voltages.  To make a rule against something so obviously good is crazy.  It would be like prohibiting voltage regulators on our airborne RC system packs.  Or prohibiting the use of circuits that compensate for temperature changes in our systems.  I'm for simplifying the rules and regs.  The fewer the better.  Define the size of the plane and the maneuvers to be performed and anything you can do to make it fly better is okay.  We want liberty not equality.
>  
> Jim
>  
>  
> On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:
>  
> I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.
>  
> I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today.
>  
> When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument
>  
> MattK
> 
> 
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
>  
> Anthony
>  
> > From: burtona at atmc.net
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > 
> > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> > and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> > ....... Just asking!
> > Dave Burton
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > 
> > I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> > pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> > of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> > its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> > 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> > and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> > flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> > volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> > 
> > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> > right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> > 
> > Jim
> > 
> > 
> > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> > 
> > > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> > is still limited to 42.56. 
> > > 
> > > Bob Kane
> > > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> > >> 
> > >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> > >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> > >> 
> > >> Chris 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> From: Chad
> > >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> > >> To:
> > >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >> Sent: Sun,
> > >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> > >> Subject: Re:
> > >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >> 
> > >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> > >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> > >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> > >> 
> > >> Chad
> > >> 
> > >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> > >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> > >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> > >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> > >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> > >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> > >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> > >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> > >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> > >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> > >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> > >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> > >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> > >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> > >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> > >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> > >>> 
> > >>> Ron Van Putte
> > >>> 
> > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> > >>> 
> > >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> > >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> > >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> > >>>> 
> > >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> > >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> > >>>>> which
> > >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> > >> limited to a maximum
> > >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> > >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> > >> section.
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> > >> for max volts?
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> 
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> 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
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > >> 
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> > 14:34:00
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. =
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>  
>  
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
> 
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100303/e361dca7/attachment.html>

From jim.woodward at baesystems.com  Wed Mar  3 05:02:08 2010
From: jim.woodward at baesystems.com (Woodward, Jim R (US SSA))
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:02:08 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <8418BF58-8F53-414B-ABAD-9B295D657952@socal.rr.com>
Message-ID: <cd5fe9$4nsuhf@dmzms99802.na.baesystems.com>

I think all you E-flyers have officially "Jumped-The-Shark."  :)
Jim W.



From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 11:14 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:35 PM, rcmaster199 at aol.com<mailto:rcmaster199 at aol.com> wrote:


HMMMMMM!!!!
An ESC that compensates for variable input voltage (and I assume it does this automatically with no input from the loose screw in front of the controls).  Yes

And how is this different than a tx that compenates for variable (call it erratic) stick movement by the same loose screw?  Transmitters only transmit what they are told to transmit.  They can't tell if the pilot screwed up

Voltage regs for airbrne systems don't look the same to me as this. A servo functions pretty much the same at 4.8 as it does 6 volts. Sure it's a little faster but the loose screw still has to command it.  It does exactly the same thing.  It keeps the servo speed the same as the battery voltage goes down.

Maybe it's picking nits but I am not convinced. I think that you are talking about a device that counts poles per unit time and maintaining that ratio as long as possible for any stick position, while the battery lasts. It's a form of power governor.  No, the voltage to the motor and therefore the rpm changes with stick position as it does now.  What we are trying to get is a consistent voltage and rpm for each stick position and not have it affected by the supply voltage.

".....liberty, not equality...." I know you're joshing  If you want equality, don't keep score.  Jim

MattK
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?>] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:42 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Outlaw the regulators on every YS!!!
________________________________
From: joddino at socal.rr.com<mailto:joddino at socal.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:29:56 -0800
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

What the guys are talking about is designing an ESC that compensates for varying input voltages.  To make a rule against something so obviously good is crazy.  It would be like prohibiting voltage regulators on our airborne RC system packs.  Or prohibiting the use of circuits that compensate for temperature changes in our systems.  I'm for simplifying the rules and regs.  The fewer the better.  Define the size of the plane and the maneuvers to be performed and anything you can do to make it fly better is okay.  We want liberty not equality.

Jim


On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com<mailto:rcmaster199 at aol.com> wrote:

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today.

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument

MattK




-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com<mailto:anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.

Anthony

> From: burtona at atmc.net<mailto:burtona at atmc.net>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?>] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> is still limited to 42.56.
> >
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com<mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com>
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com<mailto:homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com<mailto:homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org<mailto:chad at f3acanada.org>, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >>
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org<mailto:chad at f3acanada.org>>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >>
> >> Chad
> >>
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>>
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?>]
> >> On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>>>>>
> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing
> >> list
> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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<http://www.avg.com/>
> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/> =

_______________________________________________

NSRCA-discussion mailing list

NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/>

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com<http://www.eset.com/>

_______________________________________________

NSRCA-discussion mailing list

NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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/20100303/d835698f/attachment.html>

From rcmaster199 at aol.com  Wed Mar  3 05:55:32 2010
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com (rcmaster199 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:55:32 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <8418BF58-8F53-414B-ABAD-9B295D657952@socal.rr.com>
References: <8CC88A215D3F58E-A918-1DF2@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com>
	<8418BF58-8F53-414B-ABAD-9B295D657952@socal.rr.com>
Message-ID: <8CC88F8A68CF128-2610-10CF6@webmail-m095.sysops.aol.com>












On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:35 PM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:


HMMMMMM!!!! 
An ESC that compensates for variable input voltage (and I assume it does this automatically with no input from the loose screw in front of the controls).  Yes
 
And how is this different than a tx that compenates for variable (call it erratic) stick movement by the same loose screw?  Transmitters only transmit what they are told to transmit.  They can't tell if the pilot screwed up (my point here is that a gyro effect of sorts is added to the TX output; same can be said on RX side--MK)
 
Voltage regs for airbrne systems don't look the same to me as this. A servo functions pretty much the same at 4.8 as it does 6 volts. Sure it's a little faster but the loose screw still has to command it.  It does exactly the same thing.  It keeps the servo speed the same as the battery voltage goes down. (I don't see it that way... dumb voltage into a servo , regardless of amplitude, doesn't mean/do much. The servo may work faster and with more torque but so what. That, in and of itself, does absolutely nothing-- MK)
 
Maybe it's picking nits but I am not convinced. I think that you are talking about a device that counts poles per unit time and maintaining that ratio as long as possible for any stick position, while the battery lasts. It's a form of power governor.  No, the voltage to the motor and therefore the rpm changes with stick position as it does now.  What we are trying to get is a consistent voltage and rpm for each stick position and not have it affected by the supply voltage. (Yes that's what I meant... any given stick position will have a given #poles/time ratio with fresh batteries and a different ratio as battery dumps. What supporters of this variable voltage input want (I think) is that the poles/unit time/stick position be maintained automatically by the ESC as long as the battery lasts. The ESC has all the info it needs to make the adjustment. 

If that doesn't constitute an auto timing feature, I don't know what does. The way it is now the pilot has to make the adjustment to stick position in flight. That's the way it should be per the rule--MK)
 
".....liberty, not equality...." I know you're joshing  If you want equality, don't keep score.  Jim (If you want to fly with auto timing devices in your plane, fine. Don't fly in sanctioned events. 
Does the technology exist? YUP....my good friends Dean P, Dave L and Ed A all think this is trivial and I think they are right. Except there is a sticky rule about auto timing devices......Change the rule; what a can of worms THAT would be. 
Will it cost more money to get it there?? YUP, to Joe Average. Will it really cost more from the designer's point of view? Probably no. But the perception will be that it is far superior and the manufacturers will charge bunches more for it. T'was always thus, and thus shall always be---MK)
 
MattK





-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:42 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
 
Outlaw the regulators on every YS!!!

From: joddino at socal.rr.com
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:29:56 -0800
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

What the guys are talking about is designing an ESC that compensates for varying input voltages.  To make a rule against something so obviously good is crazy.  It would be like prohibiting voltage regulators on our airborne RC system packs.  Or prohibiting the use of circuits that compensate for temperature changes in our systems.  I'm for simplifying the rules and regs.  The fewer the better.  Define the size of the plane and the maneuvers to be performed and anything you can do to make it fly better is okay.  We want liberty not equality.

 

Jim

 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

 

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.

 

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 

 

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument

 

MattK



 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
 
Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 

_______________________________________________
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

 

 

Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com


_______________________________________________
SRCA-discussion mailing list
SRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
ttp://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

= 

_______________________________________________
SRCA-discussion mailing list
SRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
ttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

=
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100303/81b1dfc2/attachment.html>

From geobet4 at verizon.net  Wed Mar  3 06:08:29 2010
From: geobet4 at verizon.net (GEORGE KENNIE)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:08:29 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
References: <8CC88A215D3F58E-A918-1DF2@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <80805B9C74A84CA388002B3BEE9C6A59@george15cf36d8>

I'm not sure that I can see the difference between this and your Webra with the mixture needle?  Were you being deceptive Matt? ;>)




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: rcmaster199 at aol.com 
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 11:35 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


  HMMMMMM!!!! 
  An ESC that compensates for variable input voltage (and I assume it does this automatically with no input from the loose screw in front of the controls). 

  And how is this different than a tx that compenates for variable (call it erratic) stick movement by the same loose screw? 

  Voltage regs for airbrne systems don't look the same to me as this. A servo functions pretty much the same at 4.8 as it does 6 volts. Sure it's a little faster but the loose screw still has to command it. 

  Maybe it's picking nits but I am not convinced. I think that you are talking about a device that counts poles per unit time and maintaining that ratio as long as possible for any stick position, while the battery lasts. It's a form of power governor. 

  ".....liberty, not equality...." I know you're joshing

  MattK


  -----Original Message-----
  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
  Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:42 PM
  To: General pattern discussion
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

  Outlaw the regulators on every YS!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: joddino at socal.rr.com
  Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:29:56 -0800
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

  What the guys are talking about is designing an ESC that compensates for varying input voltages.  To make a rule against something so obviously good is crazy.  It would be like prohibiting voltage regulators on our airborne RC system packs.  Or prohibiting the use of circuits that compensate for temperature changes in our systems.  I'm for simplifying the rules and regs.  The fewer the better.  Define the size of the plane and the maneuvers to be performed and anything you can do to make it fly better is okay.  We want liberty not equality.

  Jim


  On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

    I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.

    I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 

    When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument

    MattK


     

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
    To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
    Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
     
    Anthony
     
    > From: burtona at atmc.net
    > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
    > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
    > 
    > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
    > and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
    > ....... Just asking!
    > Dave Burton
    > 
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
    > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
    > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
    > To: General pattern discussion
    > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
    > 
    > I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
    > pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
    > of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
    > its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
    > 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
    > and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
    > flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
    > volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
    > 
    > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
    > right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
    > 
    > Jim
    > 
    > 
    > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
    > 
    > > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
    > is still limited to 42.56. 
    > > 
    > > Bob Kane
    > > getterflash at yahoo.com
    > > 
    > > 
    > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
    > wrote:
    > > 
    > >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
    > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
    > >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
    > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
    > >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
    > >> 
    > >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
    > >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
    > >> 
    > >> Chris 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> From: Chad
    > >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
    > >> To:
    > >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    > >> Sent: Sun,
    > >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
    > >> Subject: Re:
    > >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
    > >> 
    > >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
    > >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
    > >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
    > >> 
    > >> Chad
    > >> 
    > >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
    > >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
    > >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
    > >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
    > >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
    > >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
    > >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
    > >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
    > >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
    > >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
    > >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
    > >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
    > >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
    > >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
    > >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
    > >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
    > >>> 
    > >>> Ron Van Putte
    > >>> 
    > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
    > >>> 
    > >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
    > >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
    > >> noise test and have a minimum value?
    > >>>> 
    > >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
    > >>>> 
    > >>>> 
    > >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
    > >>>> 
    > >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
    > >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
    > >>>>> which
    > >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
    > >> limited to a maximum
    > >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
    > >>>>> 
    > >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
    > >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
    > >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
    > >>>>> 
    > >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
    > >> section.
    > >>>>> 
    > >>>>> 
    > >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
    > >>>>> 
    > >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
    > >> for max volts?
    > >>>>>> 
    > >>>>>> 
    > >> _______________________________________________
    > >>>>>> 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
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
    > >> 
    > >> _______________________________________________
    > >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
    > 14:34:00
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
    > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 
_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

  __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________

  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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20100303/1344e596/attachment.html>

From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Wed Mar  3 06:15:48 2010
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:15:48 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <8CC883AB3B27807-33A4-129C@webmail-m039.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <62A5112EE28E41438BCD904BF8E6F7E3@jaysdesktop>

The interesting part is that if such a device were to exist it would be
almost impossible to detect.

 

Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 11:15 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean
explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do
some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how
easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something
similar in this thread.

 

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see
this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned
about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with
the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable
rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does
not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today.


 

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO
pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue
that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of
today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down
and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a
good argument

 

MattK



 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or
any other rules proposal.
 
Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the
intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ] On Behalf Of James
Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with
the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max
volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ]
> >> On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 <http://www.avg.com/>  
> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

  _____  

Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/>  now. = 

_______________________________________________
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/20100303/f34a2549/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Wed Mar  3 06:39:12 2010
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:39:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <8CC88F8A68CF128-2610-10CF6@webmail-m095.sysops.aol.com>
References: <8CC88A215D3F58E-A918-1DF2@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com><8418BF58-8F53-414B-ABAD-9B295D657952@socal.rr.com>
	<8CC88F8A68CF128-2610-10CF6@webmail-m095.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <CF3521E55F2948AAA4284D8E128CD566@davedesktop>

Matt,

 

If I follow your logic correctly, then it would seem to me that analog
servos would be legal, but digital servos would not.  Under no load
conditions, the two servos (theoretically) track equally ("dumb" voltage AND
power consumed are the same for a given amount of rotation).  Under a loaded
condition, both servos consume more power, but, the analog servos lags
behind (in the amount of rotation compared to a static no load conditions).
The digital servo, relative to the analog servo, consumes a greater amount
of power to maintain exact same of rotation (as static no load), and this is
accomplished by consuming greater power without specific command from the TX
or pilot.  The servo is reacting to a specific set of conditions.just as the
ESCs currently do now with regard to changes in timing at different RPMs and
different loads.  Just as the ESC would do if functioning to maintain
constant power output.

 

I want the power from the motor lipo regulated..just as I want the power to
my servos regulated.  I'll control the RPM with the throttle stick, just as
I control servo position with the TX.

 

BTW FWIW IMHO...If/when the regulated power out option appears in Castle
ESCs..I'll bet it doesn't cost a dime more...since Castle firmware can be
downloaded and installed by the user...and they have never charged for this.

 

Regards,


Dave

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:55 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

 

 

 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:35 PM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:





HMMMMMM!!!! 

An ESC that compensates for variable input voltage (and I assume it does
this automatically with no input from the loose screw in front of the
controls).  Yes

 

And how is this different than a tx that compenates for variable (call it
erratic) stick movement by the same loose screw?  Transmitters only transmit
what they are told to transmit.  They can't tell if the pilot screwed up (my
point here is that a gyro effect of sorts is added to the TX output; same
can be said on RX side--MK)

 

Voltage regs for airbrne systems don't look the same to me as this. A servo
functions pretty much the same at 4.8 as it does 6 volts. Sure it's a little
faster but the loose screw still has to command it.  It does exactly the
same thing.  It keeps the servo speed the same as the battery voltage goes
down. (I don't see it that way... dumb voltage into a servo , regardless of
amplitude, doesn't mean/do much. The servo may work faster and with more
torque but so what. That, in and of itself, does absolutely nothing-- MK)

 

Maybe it's picking nits but I am not convinced. I think that you are talking
about a device that counts poles per unit time and maintaining that ratio as
long as possible for any stick position, while the battery lasts. It's a
form of power governor.  No, the voltage to the motor and therefore the rpm
changes with stick position as it does now.  What we are trying to get is a
consistent voltage and rpm for each stick position and not have it affected
by the supply voltage. (Yes that's what I meant... any given stick position
will have a given #poles/time ratio with fresh batteries and a different
ratio as battery dumps. What supporters of this variable voltage input want
(I think) is that the poles/unit time/stick position be maintained
automatically by the ESC as long as the battery lasts. The ESC has all the
info it needs to make the adjustment. 

 

If that doesn't constitute an auto timing feature, I don't know what does.
The way it is now the pilot has to make the adjustment to stick position in
flight. That's the way it should be per the rule--MK)

 

".....liberty, not equality...." I know you're joshing  If you want
equality, don't keep score.  Jim (If you want to fly with auto timing
devices in your plane, fine. Don't fly in sanctioned events. 

Does the technology exist? YUP....my good friends Dean P, Dave L and Ed A
all think this is trivial and I think they are right. Except there is a
sticky rule about auto timing devices......Change the rule; what a can of
worms THAT would be. 

Will it cost more money to get it there?? YUP, to Joe Average. Will it
really cost more from the designer's point of view? Probably no. But the
perception will be that it is far superior and the manufacturers will charge
bunches more for it. T'was always thus, and thus shall always be---MK)

 

MattK

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:42 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

Outlaw the regulators on every YS!!!

  _____  

From: joddino at socal.rr.com
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:29:56 -0800
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

What the guys are talking about is designing an ESC that compensates for
varying input voltages.  To make a rule against something so obviously good
is crazy.  It would be like prohibiting voltage regulators on our airborne
RC system packs.  Or prohibiting the use of circuits that compensate for
temperature changes in our systems.  I'm for simplifying the rules and regs.
The fewer the better.  Define the size of the plane and the maneuvers to be
performed and anything you can do to make it fly better is okay.  We want
liberty not equality.

 

Jim

 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

 

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean
explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do
some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how
easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something
similar in this thread.

 

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see
this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned
about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with
the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable
rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does
not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today.


 

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO
pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue
that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of
today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down
and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a
good argument

 

MattK



 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or
any other rules proposal.
 
Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the
intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ] On Behalf Of James
Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with
the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max
volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ]
> >> On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 <http://www.avg.com/>  
> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


  _____  


Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/>  now. = 

_______________________________________________
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

 

 

  _____  

Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/>  now.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/> 

_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100303/42cf9926/attachment.html>

From jpavlick at idseng.com  Wed Mar  3 06:43:06 2010
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:43:06 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <CF3521E55F2948AAA4284D8E128CD566@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <66387.96174.qm@web80501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

"BTW FWIW IMHO??.If/when the regulated power out option appears in Castle ESCs?.I?ll bet it doesn?t cost a dime more?..since Castle firmware can be downloaded and installed by the user?..and they have never charged for this."
?
But the best part is it doesn't add any weight!
?
John Pavlick


--- On Wed, 3/3/10, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:


From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, March 3, 2010, 10:34 AM








Matt,
?
If I follow your logic correctly, then it would seem to me that analog servos would be legal, but digital servos would not. ?Under no load conditions, the two servos (theoretically) track equally (?dumb? voltage AND power consumed are the same for a given amount of rotation). ?Under a loaded condition, both servos consume more power, but, the analog servos lags behind (in the amount of rotation compared to a static no load conditions).? The digital servo, relative to the analog servo, consumes a greater amount of power to maintain exact same of rotation (as static no load), and this is accomplished by consuming greater power without specific command from the TX or pilot. ?The servo is reacting to a specific set of conditions?just as the ESCs currently do now with regard to changes in timing at different RPMs and different loads. ?Just as the ESC would do if functioning to maintain constant power output.
?
I want the power from the motor lipo regulated?.just as I want the power to my servos regulated. ?I?ll control the RPM with the throttle stick, just as I control servo position with the TX.
?
BTW FWIW IMHO??.If/when the regulated power out option appears in Castle ESCs?.I?ll bet it doesn?t cost a dime more?..since Castle firmware can be downloaded and installed by the user?..and they have never charged for this.
?
Regards,

Dave
?




From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:55 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
?
?
?

?

?


On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:35 PM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:




HMMMMMM!!!! 

An ESC that compensates for variable input voltage (and I assume it does this automatically with no input from the loose screw in front of the controls). ?Yes

?

And how is this different than a tx that compenates for variable (call it erratic) stick movement by the same loose screw? ?Transmitters only transmit what they are told to transmit. ?They can't tell if the pilot screwed up (my point here is that a gyro effect of sorts is added to the TX output; same can be said?on RX side--MK)

?

Voltage regs for airbrne systems don't look the same to me as this. A servo functions pretty much the same at 4.8 as it does 6 volts. Sure it's a little faster but the loose screw still has to command it.??It does exactly the same thing. ?It keeps the servo speed the same as the battery voltage goes down. (I don't see it that way... dumb voltage into a servo , regardless of amplitude, doesn't mean/do much. The servo may work?faster and with more torque but so what. That, in and of itself, does absolutely nothing--?MK)

?

Maybe it's picking nits but I am not convinced. I think that you are talking about a device that counts poles per unit time and maintaining that?ratio as long as possible for any stick position, while the battery lasts. It's a form of power governor. ?No, the voltage to the motor and therefore the rpm changes with stick position as it does now. ?What we are trying to get is a consistent voltage and rpm for each stick position and not have it affected by the supply voltage. (Yes that's what I meant... any given stick position will have a given #poles/time ratio with fresh batteries and a different ratio as battery dumps. What supporters of this variable voltage input want (I think) is that the poles/unit time/stick position be maintained automatically by the ESC as long as the battery lasts. The ESC has all the info it needs to make the adjustment. 

?

If that doesn't constitute an auto timing feature,?I don't know what does. The way it is now the pilot has to make the adjustment to stick position in flight. That's the way it should be per the rule--MK)

?

".....liberty, not equality...." I know you're joshing ?If you want equality, don't keep score. ?Jim (If you want to fly with auto timing devices in your plane, fine. Don't fly in sanctioned events. 

Does the technology exist? YUP....my good friends Dean P, Dave L and Ed A all think this is trivial and I think they are right. Except there is a sticky rule about auto timing devices......Change the rule; what a can of worms THAT would be. 

Will it cost more money to get it there?? YUP, to Joe Average. Will it really cost more from the designer's point of view? Probably no. But the perception will be that it is far superior and the manufacturers will charge bunches more for it. T'was always thus, and thus shall always be---MK)

?

MattK




-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:42 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

?

Outlaw the regulators on every YS!!!





From: joddino at socal.rr.com
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:29:56 -0800
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

What the guys are talking about is designing an ESC that compensates for varying input voltages. ?To make a rule against something so obviously good is crazy. ?It would be like prohibiting voltage regulators on our airborne RC system packs. ?Or prohibiting the use of circuits that compensate for temperature changes in our systems. ?I'm for simplifying the rules and regs. ?The fewer the better. ?Define the size of the plane and the maneuvers to be performed and anything you can do to make it fly better is okay. ?We want liberty not equality.


?


Jim


?


?



On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:


?


I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.


?


I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code.?I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 


?


When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with?RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument


?


MattK




?

?


-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
?
Anthony
?
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion





Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 
_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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

?

?





Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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 listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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/20100303/3f82773c/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Wed Mar  3 06:52:29 2010
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:52:29 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>,
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser>
	<SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop>

Matt,

 

One more thought/consideration/question -

 

Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?  Essentially
the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is
advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function.they advance timing as RPM
increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go back to sensors and
mechanical advance devices?

 

Regards,

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

 

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean
explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do
some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how
easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something
similar in this thread.

 

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see
this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned
about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with
the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable
rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does
not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today.


 

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO
pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue
that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of
today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down
and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a
good argument

 

MattK



 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or
any other rules proposal.
 
Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the
intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ] On Behalf Of James
Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with
the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max
volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ]
> >> On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 <http://www.avg.com/>  
> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


  _____  


Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
now. <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/>  = 

_______________________________________________
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

 

 

  _____  

Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/> 

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/> 

 

  _____  

Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/>  up now.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100303/5de37420/attachment.html>

From ejhaury at comcast.net  Wed Mar  3 07:02:34 2010
From: ejhaury at comcast.net (Earl Haury)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:02:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>,
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser><SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl>
	<28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>

Somewhat reluctantly I'm going to jump into this discussion and try to dissect it a bit. It appears to me that maybe more is being read into the rules than is actually there. There is one paragraph of three sentences that addresses what type of control is permitted  and what is not. Then there are some examples of what is permitted and what is not. (See below.) "Examples" by definition aren't all inclusive. I think we probably all agree on the "open loop" concept. The ESC discussion seems to fall somewhere in the "auto-pilot exclusion" and  "automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing device" prohibition seems to be where this discussion lies.

What's being proposed for ESC functionality, as I understand it, would ensure the same prop speed for a given throttle stick position. Not much difference than a fuel supply control system that ensures the same fuel delivery to the engine at a given throttle position. In neither case is the propulsion system controlling aircraft speed via a feedback loop, the nut on the stick is doing that. Seems OK within the rules to me. 

OTOH, I understand the view that control algorithms are doing magic changing "timing" of electrical pulses to the motor. I would argue this is outside the "automatic control timing device" rule which was intended to prevent automatic "control" inputs directly. Yes - I was around when these rules were discussed and implemented, so I have some insight at to their intent. I also realize that there are things around now that weren't at that time that merit these discussions. It would seem that if everyone feels passionately enough about this an easy fix would to add a sentence (pro or con) in the examples part of the rule that is specific to this topic, therefore keeping the "worms in the can".

Hmmm as Dave says - I wonder how the control algorithms of a servo fit into this, lots of electronic magic going on there.

Earl

"Radio equipment shall be of the open loop type (ie no electronic feedback from the model aircraft

to the ground). Auto-pilot control utilising inertia, gravity or any type of terrestrial reference is

prohibited. Automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing devices

are prohibited.

Example: Permitted:

1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot.

2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is initiated or activated and terminated

by the competitor.

3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix control functions.

SC4_Vol_F3_Aerobatics_09 Effective 1st January 2009 Page 10

5

Not permitted:

1. Snap roll buttons with automatic timing mode.

2. Pre-programming devices to automatically perform a series of commands.

3. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic wing levelling or other stabilisation of the model aircraft.

4. Propeller pitch change with automatic timing mode.

5. Any type of voice recognition system.

6. Conditions, switches, throttle curves, or any other mechanical or electronic device that will

prevent or limit maximum power or rpm of the propulsion device during the sound/noise test.

7. Any type of learning function involving manoeuvre to manoeuvre or flight to flight analysis."

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dave 
  To: 'General pattern discussion' 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


  Matt,

   

  One more thought/consideration/question -

   

  Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?  Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function.they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?

   

  Regards,

   

  Dave

   

   

   

   

  On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

     

    I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.

     

    I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 

     

    When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument

     

    MattK



     

     

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
    To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

    Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
     
    Anthony
     
    > From: burtona at atmc.net
    > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
    > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
    > 
    > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
    > and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
    > ....... Just asking!
    > Dave Burton
    > 
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
    > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
    > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
    > To: General pattern discussion
    > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
    > 
    > I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
    > pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
    > of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
    > its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
    > 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
    > and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
    > flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
    > volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
    > 
    > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
    > right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
    > 
    > Jim
    > 
    > 
    > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
    > 
    > > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
    > is still limited to 42.56. 
    > > 
    > > Bob Kane
    > > getterflash at yahoo.com
    > > 
    > > 
    > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
    > wrote:
    > > 
    > >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
    > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
    > >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
    > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
    > >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
    > >> 
    > >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
    > >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
    > >> 
    > >> Chris 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> From: Chad
    > >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
    > >> To:
    > >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    > >> Sent: Sun,
    > >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
    > >> Subject: Re:
    > >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
    > >> 
    > >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
    > >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
    > >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
    > >> 
    > >> Chad
    > >> 
    > >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
    > >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
    > >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
    > >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
    > >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
    > >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
    > >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
    > >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
    > >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
    > >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
    > >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
    > >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
    > >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
    > >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
    > >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
    > >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
    > >>> 
    > >>> Ron Van Putte
    > >>> 
    > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
    > >>> 
    > >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
    > >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
    > >> noise test and have a minimum value?
    > >>>> 
    > >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
    > >>>> 
    > >>>> 
    > >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
    > >>>> 
    > >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
    > >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
    > >>>>> which
    > >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
    > >> limited to a maximum
    > >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
    > >>>>> 
    > >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
    > >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
    > >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
    > >>>>> 
    > >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
    > >> section.
    > >>>>> 
    > >>>>> 
    > >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
    > >>>>> 
    > >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
    > >> for max volts?
    > >>>>>> 
    > >>>>>> 
    > >> _______________________________________________
    > >>>>>> 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
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> 
    > >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
    > >> 
    > >> _______________________________________________
    > >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
    > 14:34:00
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
    > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 

_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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

   

   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

  __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________

  The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

  http://www.eset.com

   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20100303/51020c03/attachment.html>

From Tim.Pascoe at ec.gc.ca  Wed Mar  3 07:35:37 2010
From: Tim.Pascoe at ec.gc.ca (Pascoe,Tim [Burlington])
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:35:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>,
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser><SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl><28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop>
	<C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>
Message-ID: <7C760A126D798C4C8D3B1DD4960BCA986522C0@ecburexch1.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca>

In reading this, it seems the logic programming available in radios such
as the 14MZ, which permit rate changes automatically based on single or
multiple stick positions would be illegal. So when I set a condition to
drop the Elevator rate by half as soon as full Elevator and full Rudder
are initiated, at the entry to a snap, I seem to breaking Number 3 in
the Not Permitted list below.

 

Correct?

 

Tim Pascoe 



From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl
Haury
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:02 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

Somewhat reluctantly I'm going to jump into this discussion and try to
dissect it a bit. It appears to me that maybe more is being read into
the rules than is actually there. There is one paragraph of three
sentences that addresses what type of control is permitted  and what is
not. Then there are some examples of what is permitted and what is not.
(See below.) "Examples" by definition aren't all inclusive. I think we
probably all agree on the "open loop" concept. The ESC discussion seems
to fall somewhere in the "auto-pilot exclusion" and  "automatic control
sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing device"
prohibition seems to be where this discussion lies.

What's being proposed for ESC functionality, as I understand it, would
ensure the same prop speed for a given throttle stick position. Not much
difference than a fuel supply control system that ensures the same fuel
delivery to the engine at a given throttle position. In neither case is
the propulsion system controlling aircraft speed via a feedback loop,
the nut on the stick is doing that. Seems OK within the rules to me. 

OTOH, I understand the view that control algorithms are doing magic
changing "timing" of electrical pulses to the motor. I would argue this
is outside the "automatic control timing device" rule which was intended
to prevent automatic "control" inputs directly. Yes - I was around when
these rules were discussed and implemented, so I have some insight at to
their intent. I also realize that there are things around now that
weren't at that time that merit these discussions. It would seem that if
everyone feels passionately enough about this an easy fix would to add a
sentence (pro or con) in the examples part of the rule that is specific
to this topic, therefore keeping the "worms in the can".

Hmmm as Dave says - I wonder how the control algorithms of a servo fit
into this, lots of electronic magic going on there.

Earl

"Radio equipment shall be of the open loop type (ie no electronic
feedback from the model aircraft

to the ground). Auto-pilot control utilising inertia, gravity or any
type of terrestrial reference is

prohibited. Automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic
control timing devices

are prohibited.

Example: Permitted:

1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot.

2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is
initiated or activated and terminated

by the competitor.

3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix
control functions.

SC4_Vol_F3_Aerobatics_09 Effective 1st January 2009 Page 10

5

Not permitted:

1. Snap roll buttons with automatic timing mode.

2. Pre-programming devices to automatically perform a series of
commands.

3. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic wing levelling or other
stabilisation of the model aircraft.

4. Propeller pitch change with automatic timing mode.

5. Any type of voice recognition system.

6. Conditions, switches, throttle curves, or any other mechanical or
electronic device that will

prevent or limit maximum power or rpm of the propulsion device during
the sound/noise test.

7. Any type of learning function involving manoeuvre to manoeuvre or
flight to flight analysis."

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

	From: Dave <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>  

	To: 'General pattern discussion'
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

	Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM

	Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

	 

	Matt,

	 

	One more thought/consideration/question -

	 

	Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?
Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases,
the timing is advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function...they
advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go
back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?

	 

	Regards,

	 

	Dave

	 

	 

	 

	 

	On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

		 

		I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this
subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of
programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery
use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems
a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.

		 

		I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the
battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I
am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would
like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me
how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these
adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation
within the rules as they exist today. 

		 

		When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing
with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However
I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible
with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules.
Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced
otherwise but it needs to be a good argument

		 

		MattK

		
		
		 

		 

		-----Original Message-----
		From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
		To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
		Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
		Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

		Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk
about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
		 
		Anthony
		 
		> From: burtona at atmc.net
		> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
		> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
		> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
		> 
		> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and
purposefully violating the intent
		> and letter of the rules to gain a performance
advantage called cheating?
		> ....... Just asking!
		> Dave Burton
		> 
		> -----Original Message-----
		> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
		> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ] On Behalf Of James
Oddino
		> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
		> To: General pattern discussion
		> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
		> 
		> I have the functional concept that solves the rules
problem. Picture a 10S
		> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch
with two poles, a piece
		> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second
two pole switch with
		> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two
poles we place our
		> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the
11th cell is bypassed
		> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical
maneuvers late in
		> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the
voltage to up to 41.7
		> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
		> 
		> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides
adequate power with the
		> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage
drops to 35 volts.
		> 
		> Jim
		> 
		> 
		> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
		> 
		> > Going higher and regulating down would be against
the rules, the max volts
		> is still limited to 42.56. 
		> > 
		> > Bob Kane
		> > getterflash at yahoo.com
		> > 
		> > 
		> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons
<homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
		> wrote:
		> > 
		> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons
<homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
		> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
		> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern
discussion"
		> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
		> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
		> >> 
		> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
		> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be
nice!
		> >> 
		> >> Chris 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> From: Chad
		> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
		> >> To:
		> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
		> >> Sent: Sun,
		> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
		> >> Subject: Re:
		> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
		> >> 
		> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish
volts/cell
		> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the
capacity you
		> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
		> >> 
		> >> Chad
		> >> 
		> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
		> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
		> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
		> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
		> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the
voltage loss
		> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
		> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
		> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
		> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
		> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
		> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of
a typical
		> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
		> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S
pack, it
		> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the
extra
		> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you
electronic
		> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
		> >>> 
		> >>> Ron Van Putte
		> >>> 
		> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
		> >>> 
		> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
		> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
		> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
		> >>>> 
		> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
		> >>>> 
		> >>>> 
		> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
		> >>>> 
		> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
		> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
		> >>>>> which
		> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
		> >> limited to a maximum
		> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
		> >>>>> 
		> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
		> >>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
		> >>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ]
		> >> On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
		> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
		> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
		> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
		> >>>>> 
		> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
		> >> section.
		> >>>>> 
		> >>>>> 
		> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
		> >>>>> 
		> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
		> >> for max volts?
		> >>>>>> 
		> >>>>>> 
		> >> _______________________________________________
		> >>>>>> 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
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
		> >> 
		> >> _______________________________________________
		> >> 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 <http://www.avg.com/>  
		> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 -
Release Date: 03/01/10
		> 14:34:00
		> 
		> _______________________________________________
		> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
		> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
		>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

		
________________________________


		Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM
protection. Sign up now.
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/>  = 

		_______________________________________________
		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

	 

	 

	
________________________________


	Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
now. <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/> 
	
	__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of
virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________
	
	The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
	
	http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/> 

	 

	
________________________________


	Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
Sign up now. <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/> 

	
________________________________


	_______________________________________________
	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/20100303/64382e5a/attachment.html>

From vicenterc at comcast.net  Wed Mar  3 07:41:01 2010
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:41:01 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <7C760A126D798C4C8D3B1DD4960BCA986522C0@ecburexch1.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca>
Message-ID: <58821221.10499761267634459819.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

I believe that those are "open loop" so they are permitted.? 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Pascoe [Burlington]" <Tim.Pascoe at ec.gc.ca> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2010 10:35:33 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 




In reading this, it seems the logic programming available in radios such as the 14MZ, which permit rate changes automatically based on single or multiple stick positions would be illegal. So when I set a condition to drop the Elevator rate by half as soon as full Elevator and full Rudder are initiated, at the entry to a snap, I seem to breaking Number 3 in the Not Permitted list below. 



Correct? 




Tim Pascoe 




From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl Haury 
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:02 AM 
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 





Somewhat reluctantly I'm going to jump into this discussion and try to dissect it a bit. It appears to me that maybe more is being read into the rules than is actually there. There is one paragraph of three sentences that addresses what type of control is permitted? and what is not. Then there are some examples of what is permitted and what is not. (See below.) "Examples" by definition aren't all inclusive. I think we probably all agree on the "open loop" concept. The ESC discussion seems to fall somewhere in the?"auto-pilot exclusion" and? "automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing device" prohibition seems to be where this discussion lies. 

What's being proposed for ESC functionality, as I understand it, would ensure the same prop speed for a given throttle stick position. Not much difference than a fuel supply control system that ensures the same fuel delivery to the engine at a given throttle position. In neither case is the propulsion system?controlling aircraft speed via a feedback loop, the nut on the stick is doing that. Seems OK within the rules to me. 

OTOH, I understand the view that control algorithms are doing magic changing "timing" of electrical pulses to the motor. I would argue this is outside the "automatic control timing device" rule which was intended to prevent automatic "control" inputs?directly. Yes - I was around when these rules were discussed and implemented, so I have some insight?at to their?intent. I also realize that there are things around now that weren't at that time that merit these discussions. It would?seem that if everyone feels passionately enough about this an easy fix would to add a sentence (pro or con) in the examples part of the rule that is specific to this topic, therefore keeping the "worms in the can". 

Hmmm as Dave says - I wonder how the control algorithms of a servo fit into this, lots of electronic magic going on there. 

Earl 

"Radio equipment shall be of the open loop type (ie no electronic feedback from the model aircraft 

to the ground). Auto-pilot control utilising inertia, gravity or any type of terrestrial reference is 

prohibited. Automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing devices 

are prohibited. 

Example: Permitted: 

1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot. 

2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is initiated or activated and terminated 

by the competitor. 

3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix control functions. 

SC4_Vol_F3_Aerobatics_09 Effective 1st January 2009 Page 10 

5 

Not permitted: 

1. Snap roll buttons with automatic timing mode. 

2. Pre-programming devices to automatically perform a series of commands. 

3. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic wing levelling or other stabilisation of the model aircraft. 

4. Propeller pitch change with automatic timing mode. 

5. Any type of voice recognition system. 

6. Conditions, switches, throttle curves, or any other mechanical or electronic device that will 

prevent or limit maximum power or rpm of the propulsion device during the sound/noise test. 

7. Any type of learning function involving manoeuvre to manoeuvre or flight to flight analysis." 




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


From: Dave 


To: 'General pattern discussion' 


Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM 


Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 






Matt, 



One more thought/consideration/question ? 



Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal? ?Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.? The ESCs of today do the same function?they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor. ?Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices? 



Regards, 



Dave 












On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote: 






I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread. 





I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code.?I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 





When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with?RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument 





MattK 




? 




-----Original Message----- 
From: Anthony Romano < anthonyr105 at hotmail.com > 
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 


Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal. 
? 
Anthony 
? 
> From: burtona at atmc.net 
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent 
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating? 
> ....... Just asking! 
> Dave Burton 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [ mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org ] On Behalf Of James Oddino 
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM 
> To: General pattern discussion 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S 
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece 
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with 
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our 
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed 
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in 
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7 
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec. 
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the 
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts. 
> 
> Jim 
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote: 
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts 
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane 
> > getterflash at yahoo.com 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons < homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com > 
> wrote: 
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons < homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com > 
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org , "General pattern discussion" 
> < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org > 
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM 
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and 
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice! 
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad 
> >> Northeast < chad at f3acanada.org > 
> >> To: 
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> >> Sent: Sun, 
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM 
> >> Subject: Re: 
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell 
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you 
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time. 
> >> 
> >> Chad 
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote: 
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully 
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very 
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge 
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss 
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully 
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them 
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56 
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for 
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be 
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical 
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be 
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it 
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra 
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic 
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong. 
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte 
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load 
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the 
> >> noise test and have a minimum value? 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote: 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC 
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1 
> >>>>> which 
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are 
> >> limited to a maximum 
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.." 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM 
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion 
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C 
> >> section. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote: 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule 
> >> for max volts? 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________ 
> >>>>>> 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 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________ 
> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10 
> 14:34:00 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list 
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 




Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 
_______________________________________________ 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 








Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. 

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________ 

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. 

http://www.eset.com 





Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now. 



_______________________________________________ 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100303/6cf9ba22/attachment.html>

From Tim.Pascoe at ec.gc.ca  Wed Mar  3 08:39:31 2010
From: Tim.Pascoe at ec.gc.ca (Pascoe,Tim [Burlington])
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:39:31 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] *****SPAM***** Re:  Max volts
In-Reply-To: <7C760A126D798C4C8D3B1DD4960BCA986522C0@ecburexch1.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca>
References: <C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>
	<7C760A126D798C4C8D3B1DD4960BCA986522C0@ecburexch1.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca>
Message-ID: <7C760A126D798C4C8D3B1DD4960BCA986522D8@ecburexch1.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca>

Oops......Number 2.

 

Tim Pascoe 



From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
Pascoe,Tim [Burlington]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:36 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: *****SPAM***** Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

In reading this, it seems the logic programming available in radios such
as the 14MZ, which permit rate changes automatically based on single or
multiple stick positions would be illegal. So when I set a condition to
drop the Elevator rate by half as soon as full Elevator and full Rudder
are initiated, at the entry to a snap, I seem to breaking Number 3 in
the Not Permitted list below.

 

Correct?

 

Tim Pascoe 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl
Haury
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:02 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

Somewhat reluctantly I'm going to jump into this discussion and try to
dissect it a bit. It appears to me that maybe more is being read into
the rules than is actually there. There is one paragraph of three
sentences that addresses what type of control is permitted  and what is
not. Then there are some examples of what is permitted and what is not.
(See below.) "Examples" by definition aren't all inclusive. I think we
probably all agree on the "open loop" concept. The ESC discussion seems
to fall somewhere in the "auto-pilot exclusion" and  "automatic control
sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing device"
prohibition seems to be where this discussion lies.

What's being proposed for ESC functionality, as I understand it, would
ensure the same prop speed for a given throttle stick position. Not much
difference than a fuel supply control system that ensures the same fuel
delivery to the engine at a given throttle position. In neither case is
the propulsion system controlling aircraft speed via a feedback loop,
the nut on the stick is doing that. Seems OK within the rules to me. 

OTOH, I understand the view that control algorithms are doing magic
changing "timing" of electrical pulses to the motor. I would argue this
is outside the "automatic control timing device" rule which was intended
to prevent automatic "control" inputs directly. Yes - I was around when
these rules were discussed and implemented, so I have some insight at to
their intent. I also realize that there are things around now that
weren't at that time that merit these discussions. It would seem that if
everyone feels passionately enough about this an easy fix would to add a
sentence (pro or con) in the examples part of the rule that is specific
to this topic, therefore keeping the "worms in the can".

Hmmm as Dave says - I wonder how the control algorithms of a servo fit
into this, lots of electronic magic going on there.

Earl

"Radio equipment shall be of the open loop type (ie no electronic
feedback from the model aircraft

to the ground). Auto-pilot control utilising inertia, gravity or any
type of terrestrial reference is

prohibited. Automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic
control timing devices

are prohibited.

Example: Permitted:

1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot.

2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is
initiated or activated and terminated

by the competitor.

3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix
control functions.

SC4_Vol_F3_Aerobatics_09 Effective 1st January 2009 Page 10

5

Not permitted:

1. Snap roll buttons with automatic timing mode.

2. Pre-programming devices to automatically perform a series of
commands.

3. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic wing levelling or other
stabilisation of the model aircraft.

4. Propeller pitch change with automatic timing mode.

5. Any type of voice recognition system.

6. Conditions, switches, throttle curves, or any other mechanical or
electronic device that will

prevent or limit maximum power or rpm of the propulsion device during
the sound/noise test.

7. Any type of learning function involving manoeuvre to manoeuvre or
flight to flight analysis."

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

	From: Dave <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>  

	To: 'General pattern discussion'
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

	Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM

	Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

	 

	Matt,

	 

	One more thought/consideration/question -

	 

	Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?
Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases,
the timing is advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function...they
advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go
back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?

	 

	Regards,

	 

	Dave

	 

	 

	 

	 

	On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

		 

		I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this
subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of
programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery
use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems
a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.

		 

		I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the
battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I
am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would
like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me
how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these
adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation
within the rules as they exist today. 

		 

		When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing
with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However
I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible
with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules.
Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced
otherwise but it needs to be a good argument

		 

		MattK

		
		
		 

		 

		-----Original Message-----
		From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
		To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
		Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
		Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

		Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk
about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
		 
		Anthony
		 
		> From: burtona at atmc.net
		> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
		> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
		> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
		> 
		> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and
purposefully violating the intent
		> and letter of the rules to gain a performance
advantage called cheating?
		> ....... Just asking!
		> Dave Burton
		> 
		> -----Original Message-----
		> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
		> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ] On Behalf Of James
Oddino
		> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
		> To: General pattern discussion
		> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
		> 
		> I have the functional concept that solves the rules
problem. Picture a 10S
		> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch
with two poles, a piece
		> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second
two pole switch with
		> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two
poles we place our
		> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the
11th cell is bypassed
		> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical
maneuvers late in
		> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the
voltage to up to 41.7
		> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
		> 
		> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides
adequate power with the
		> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage
drops to 35 volts.
		> 
		> Jim
		> 
		> 
		> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
		> 
		> > Going higher and regulating down would be against
the rules, the max volts
		> is still limited to 42.56. 
		> > 
		> > Bob Kane
		> > getterflash at yahoo.com
		> > 
		> > 
		> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons
<homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
		> wrote:
		> > 
		> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons
<homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
		> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
		> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern
discussion"
		> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
		> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
		> >> 
		> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
		> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be
nice!
		> >> 
		> >> Chris 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> From: Chad
		> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
		> >> To:
		> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
		> >> Sent: Sun,
		> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
		> >> Subject: Re:
		> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
		> >> 
		> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish
volts/cell
		> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the
capacity you
		> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
		> >> 
		> >> Chad
		> >> 
		> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
		> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
		> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
		> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
		> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the
voltage loss
		> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
		> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
		> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
		> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
		> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
		> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of
a typical
		> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
		> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S
pack, it
		> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the
extra
		> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you
electronic
		> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
		> >>> 
		> >>> Ron Van Putte
		> >>> 
		> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
		> >>> 
		> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
		> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
		> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
		> >>>> 
		> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
		> >>>> 
		> >>>> 
		> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
		> >>>> 
		> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
		> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
		> >>>>> which
		> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
		> >> limited to a maximum
		> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
		> >>>>> 
		> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
		> >>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
		> >>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ]
		> >> On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
		> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
		> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
		> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
		> >>>>> 
		> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
		> >> section.
		> >>>>> 
		> >>>>> 
		> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
		> >>>>> 
		> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
		> >> for max volts?
		> >>>>>> 
		> >>>>>> 
		> >> _______________________________________________
		> >>>>>> 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
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> 
		> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
		> >> 
		> >> _______________________________________________
		> >> 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 <http://www.avg.com/>  
		> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 -
Release Date: 03/01/10
		> 14:34:00
		> 
		> _______________________________________________
		> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
		> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
		>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

		
________________________________


		Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM
protection. Sign up now.
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/>  = 

		_______________________________________________
		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

	 

	 

	
________________________________


	Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
now. <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/> 
	
	__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of
virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________
	
	The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
	
	http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/> 

	 

	
________________________________


	Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
Sign up now. <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/> 

	
________________________________


	_______________________________________________
	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/20100303/4789f13c/attachment.html>

From ronlock at comcast.net  Wed Mar  3 08:40:18 2010
From: ronlock at comcast.net (ronlock at comcast.net)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:40:18 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls
In-Reply-To: <1506661205.2318871267637617901.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <1572102566.2323081267638017371.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>



My interpretation of permitted controls would allow the example below - 

Application of full elevator and full rudder by pilot?switches on a "mixer"? that results in half elevator. 

It does not involving timing intervals, or aircraft peformance in commanding an inpur (half elevator in this example) 



Ron Lockhart 



Example: Permitted: 

1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot. 

2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is initiated or activated and terminated 

by the competitor. 

3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix control functions. 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Pascoe [Burlington]" <Tim.Pascoe at ec.gc.ca> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2010 11:35:33 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 




In reading this, it seems the logic programming available in radios such as the 14MZ, which permit rate changes automatically based on single or multiple stick positions would be illegal. So when I set a condition to drop the Elevator rate by half as soon as full Elevator and full Rudder are initiated, at the entry to a snap, I seem to breaking Number 3 in the Not Permitted list below. 



Correct? 




Tim Pascoe 




From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl Haury 
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:02 AM 
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 





Somewhat reluctantly I'm going to jump into this discussion and try to dissect it a bit. It appears to me that maybe more is being read into the rules than is actually there. There is one paragraph of three sentences that addresses what type of control is permitted? and what is not. Then there are some examples of what is permitted and what is not. (See below.) "Examples" by definition aren't all inclusive. I think we probably all agree on the "open loop" concept. The ESC discussion seems to fall somewhere in the?"auto-pilot exclusion" and? "automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing device" prohibition seems to be where this discussion lies. 

What's being proposed for ESC functionality, as I understand it, would ensure the same prop speed for a given throttle stick position. Not much difference than a fuel supply control system that ensures the same fuel delivery to the engine at a given throttle position. In neither case is the propulsion system?controlling aircraft speed via a feedback loop, the nut on the stick is doing that. Seems OK within the rules to me. 

OTOH, I understand the view that control algorithms are doing magic changing "timing" of electrical pulses to the motor. I would argue this is outside the "automatic control timing device" rule which was intended to prevent automatic "control" inputs?directly. Yes - I was around when these rules were discussed and implemented, so I have some insight?at to their?intent. I also realize that there are things around now that weren't at that time that merit these discussions. It would?seem that if everyone feels passionately enough about this an easy fix would to add a sentence (pro or con) in the examples part of the rule that is specific to this topic, therefore keeping the "worms in the can". 

Hmmm as Dave says - I wonder how the control algorithms of a servo fit into this, lots of electronic magic going on there. 

Earl 

"Radio equipment shall be of the open loop type (ie no electronic feedback from the model aircraft 

to the ground). Auto-pilot control utilising inertia, gravity or any type of terrestrial reference is 

prohibited. Automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing devices 

are prohibited. 

Example: Permitted: 

1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot. 

2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is initiated or activated and terminated 

by the competitor. 

3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix control functions. 

SC4_Vol_F3_Aerobatics_09 Effective 1st January 2009 Page 10 

5 

Not permitted: 

1. Snap roll buttons with automatic timing mode. 

2. Pre-programming devices to automatically perform a series of commands. 

3. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic wing levelling or other stabilisation of the model aircraft. 

4. Propeller pitch change with automatic timing mode. 

5. Any type of voice recognition system. 

6. Conditions, switches, throttle curves, or any other mechanical or electronic device that will 

prevent or limit maximum power or rpm of the propulsion device during the sound/noise test. 

7. Any type of learning function involving manoeuvre to manoeuvre or flight to flight analysis." 




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


From: Dave 


To: 'General pattern discussion' 


Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM 


Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 






Matt, 



One more thought/consideration/question ? 



Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal? ?Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.? The ESCs of today do the same function?they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor. ?Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices? 



Regards, 



Dave 












On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote: 






I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread. 





I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code.?I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 





When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with?RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument 





MattK 




? 




-----Original Message----- 
From: Anthony Romano < anthonyr105 at hotmail.com > 
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 


Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal. 
? 
Anthony 
? 
> From: burtona at atmc.net 
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent 
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating? 
> ....... Just asking! 
> Dave Burton 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [ mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org ] On Behalf Of James Oddino 
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM 
> To: General pattern discussion 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S 
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece 
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with 
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our 
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed 
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in 
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7 
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec. 
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the 
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts. 
> 
> Jim 
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote: 
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts 
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane 
> > getterflash at yahoo.com 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons < homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com > 
> wrote: 
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons < homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com > 
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org , "General pattern discussion" 
> < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org > 
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM 
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and 
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice! 
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad 
> >> Northeast < chad at f3acanada.org > 
> >> To: 
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> >> Sent: Sun, 
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM 
> >> Subject: Re: 
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell 
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you 
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time. 
> >> 
> >> Chad 
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote: 
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully 
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very 
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge 
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss 
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully 
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them 
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56 
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for 
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be 
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical 
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be 
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it 
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra 
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic 
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong. 
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte 
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load 
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the 
> >> noise test and have a minimum value? 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote: 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC 
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1 
> >>>>> which 
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are 
> >> limited to a maximum 
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.." 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM 
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion 
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C 
> >> section. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote: 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule 
> >> for max volts? 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________ 
> >>>>>> 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 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________ 
> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10 
> 14:34:00 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list 
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 




Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 
_______________________________________________ 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 








Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. 

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________ 

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. 

http://www.eset.com 





Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now. 



_______________________________________________ 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100303/8b066d5e/attachment.html>

From joddino at socal.rr.com  Wed Mar  3 08:55:24 2010
From: joddino at socal.rr.com (James Oddino)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:55:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <7C760A126D798C4C8D3B1DD4960BCA986522C0@ecburexch1.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>,
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser><SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl><28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop>
	<C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>
	<7C760A126D798C4C8D3B1DD4960BCA986522C0@ecburexch1.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca>
Message-ID: <C0720571-6733-49FD-B365-50CEEB0EFE71@socal.rr.com>

Tim, I would say you are breaking the law.  You are automatically sequencing the controls.  However, you would seem to get a pass based on Permitted Number 3, ....switches to... mix control functions.  That is a poorly written rule.

We are all breaking the second part, ...automatic control timing devices are prohibited, and always have as our radios are full of automatic control timing devices.  As Earl mentioned, servos are a good example.  The position of the servo output shaft automatically controls the timing of a pulse generator. We are talking about a similar servo loop within the ESC.  It is not an automatic timing device in the outer man- machine loop which I believe is what the rule was aimed at.

Change the rule or ignore it.

Jim


On Mar 3, 2010, at 8:35 AM, Pascoe,Tim [Burlington] wrote:

> In reading this, it seems the logic programming available in radios such as the 14MZ, which permit rate changes automatically based on single or multiple stick positions would be illegal. So when I set a condition to drop the Elevator rate by half as soon as full Elevator and full Rudder are initiated, at the entry to a snap, I seem to breaking Number 3 in the Not Permitted list below.
>  
> Correct?
>  
> Tim Pascoe 
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl Haury
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:02 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>  
> Somewhat reluctantly I'm going to jump into this discussion and try to dissect it a bit. It appears to me that maybe more is being read into the rules than is actually there. There is one paragraph of three sentences that addresses what type of control is permitted  and what is not. Then there are some examples of what is permitted and what is not. (See below.) "Examples" by definition aren't all inclusive. I think we probably all agree on the "open loop" concept. The ESC discussion seems to fall somewhere in the "auto-pilot exclusion" and  "automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing device" prohibition seems to be where this discussion lies.
> 
> What's being proposed for ESC functionality, as I understand it, would ensure the same prop speed for a given throttle stick position. Not much difference than a fuel supply control system that ensures the same fuel delivery to the engine at a given throttle position. In neither case is the propulsion system controlling aircraft speed via a feedback loop, the nut on the stick is doing that. Seems OK within the rules to me.
> 
> OTOH, I understand the view that control algorithms are doing magic changing "timing" of electrical pulses to the motor. I would argue this is outside the "automatic control timing device" rule which was intended to prevent automatic "control" inputs directly. Yes - I was around when these rules were discussed and implemented, so I have some insight at to their intent. I also realize that there are things around now that weren't at that time that merit these discussions. It would seem that if everyone feels passionately enough about this an easy fix would to add a sentence (pro or con) in the examples part of the rule that is specific to this topic, therefore keeping the "worms in the can".
> 
> Hmmm as Dave says - I wonder how the control algorithms of a servo fit into this, lots of electronic magic going on there.
> 
> Earl
> 
> "Radio equipment shall be of the open loop type (ie no electronic feedback from the model aircraft
> 
> to the ground). Auto-pilot control utilising inertia, gravity or any type of terrestrial reference is
> 
> prohibited. Automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing devices
> 
> are prohibited.
> 
> Example: Permitted:
> 
> 1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot.
> 
> 2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is initiated or activated and terminated
> 
> by the competitor.
> 
> 3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix control functions.
> 
> SC4_Vol_F3_Aerobatics_09 Effective 1st January 2009 Page 10
> 
> 5
> 
> Not permitted:
> 
> 1. Snap roll buttons with automatic timing mode.
> 
> 2. Pre-programming devices to automatically perform a series of commands.
> 
> 3. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic wing levelling or other stabilisation of the model aircraft.
> 
> 4. Propeller pitch change with automatic timing mode.
> 
> 5. Any type of voice recognition system.
> 
> 6. Conditions, switches, throttle curves, or any other mechanical or electronic device that will
> 
> prevent or limit maximum power or rpm of the propulsion device during the sound/noise test.
> 
> 7. Any type of learning function involving manoeuvre to manoeuvre or flight to flight analysis."
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>  
> Matt,
>  
> One more thought/consideration/question ?
>  
> Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?  Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function?they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Dave
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:
>  
> I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.
>  
> I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today.
>  
> When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument
>  
> MattK
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
>  
> Anthony
>  
> > From: burtona at atmc.net
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > 
> > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> > and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> > ....... Just asking!
> > Dave Burton
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > 
> > I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> > pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> > of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> > its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> > 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> > and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> > flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> > volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> > 
> > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> > right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> > 
> > Jim
> > 
> > 
> > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> > 
> > > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> > is still limited to 42.56. 
> > > 
> > > Bob Kane
> > > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> > >> 
> > >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> > >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> > >> 
> > >> Chris 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> From: Chad
> > >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> > >> To:
> > >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >> Sent: Sun,
> > >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> > >> Subject: Re:
> > >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >> 
> > >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> > >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> > >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> > >> 
> > >> Chad
> > >> 
> > >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> > >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> > >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> > >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> > >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> > >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> > >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> > >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> > >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> > >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> > >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> > >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> > >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> > >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> > >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> > >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> > >>> 
> > >>> Ron Van Putte
> > >>> 
> > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> > >>> 
> > >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> > >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> > >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> > >>>> 
> > >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> > >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> > >>>>> which
> > >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> > >> limited to a maximum
> > >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> > >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> > >> section.
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> > >> for max volts?
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> 
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> 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
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > >> 
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> > 14:34:00
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. =
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>  
>  
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
> 
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
>  
> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100303/dd1d4cb4/attachment.html>

From cchariandy at yahoo.ca  Wed Mar  3 09:22:39 2010
From: cchariandy at yahoo.ca (colin chariandy)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:22:39 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] *****SPAM***** Re:  Max volts
In-Reply-To: <7C760A126D798C4C8D3B1DD4960BCA986522D8@ecburexch1.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca>
Message-ID: <409598.46878.qm@web112620.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

I don't have one of those radios so I vote that it should be illegal.
?
But really...it does seem to infringe on that rule.
?
Colin.

--- On Wed, 3/3/10, Pascoe,Tim [Burlington] <Tim.Pascoe at ec.gc.ca> wrote:


From: Pascoe,Tim [Burlington] <Tim.Pascoe at ec.gc.ca>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] *****SPAM***** Re: Max volts
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Received: Wednesday, March 3, 2010, 12:39 PM








Oops??Number 2.
?

Tim Pascoe 



From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Pascoe,Tim [ Burlington ]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:36 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: *****SPAM***** Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
?
In reading this, it seems the logic programming available in radios such as the 14MZ, which permit rate changes automatically based on single or multiple stick positions would be illegal. So when I set a condition to drop the Elevator rate by half as soon as full Elevator and full Rudder are initiated, at the entry to a snap, I seem to breaking Number 3 in the Not Permitted list below.
?
Correct?
?

Tim Pascoe 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl Haury
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:02 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
?


Somewhat reluctantly I'm going to jump into this discussion and try to dissect it a bit. It appears to me that maybe more is being read into the rules than is actually there. There is one paragraph of three sentences that addresses what type of control is permitted? and what is not. Then there are some examples of what is permitted and what is not. (See below.) "Examples" by definition aren't all inclusive. I think we probably all agree on the "open loop" concept. The ESC discussion seems to fall somewhere in the?"auto-pilot exclusion" and? "automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing device" prohibition seems to be where this discussion lies.
What's being proposed for ESC functionality, as I understand it, would ensure the same prop speed for a given throttle stick position. Not much difference than a fuel supply control system that ensures the same fuel delivery to the engine at a given throttle position. In neither case is the propulsion system?controlling aircraft speed via a feedback loop, the nut on the stick is doing that. Seems OK within the rules to me. 
OTOH, I understand the view that control algorithms are doing magic changing "timing" of electrical pulses to the motor. I would argue this is outside the "automatic control timing device" rule which was intended to prevent automatic "control" inputs?directly. Yes - I was around when these rules were discussed and implemented, so I have some insight?at to their?intent. I also realize that there are things around now that weren't at that time that merit these discussions. It would?seem that if everyone feels passionately enough about this an easy fix would to add a sentence (pro or con) in the examples part of the rule that is specific to this topic, therefore keeping the "worms in the can".
Hmmm as Dave says - I wonder how the control algorithms of a servo fit into this, lots of electronic magic going on there.
Earl
"Radio equipment shall be of the open loop type (ie no electronic feedback from the model aircraft
to the ground). Auto-pilot control utilising inertia, gravity or any type of terrestrial reference is
prohibited. Automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing devices
are prohibited.
Example: Permitted:
1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot.
2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is initiated or activated and terminated
by the competitor.
3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix control functions.
SC4_Vol_F3_Aerobatics_09 Effective 1st January 2009 Page 10
5
Not permitted:
1. Snap roll buttons with automatic timing mode.
2. Pre-programming devices to automatically perform a series of commands.
3. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic wing levelling or other stabilisation of the model aircraft.
4. Propeller pitch change with automatic timing mode.
5. Any type of voice recognition system.
6. Conditions, switches, throttle curves, or any other mechanical or electronic device that will
prevent or limit maximum power or rpm of the propulsion device during the sound/noise test.
7. Any type of learning function involving manoeuvre to manoeuvre or flight to flight analysis."


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

From: Dave 

To: 'General pattern discussion' 

Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

?


Matt,
?
One more thought/consideration/question ?
?
Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal? ?Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.? The ESCs of today do the same function?they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor. ?Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?
?
Regards,
?
Dave
?
?
?

?


On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

?

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.

?

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code.?I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 

?

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with?RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument

?

MattK



?
?

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
?
Anthony
?
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, " General pattern discussion "
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion




Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 
_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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
?
?




Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
?



Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.



_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      __________________________________________________________________
Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100303/b9392eca/attachment.html>

From rcmaster199 at aol.com  Wed Mar  3 09:27:14 2010
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com (rcmaster199 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:27:14 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>,
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser><SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl><28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop>
	<C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>
Message-ID: <8CC8916373ECDCF-43F8-55EB@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com>


Yes, indeed, and I agree. On the digital vs analog servo also. 

Matt






-----Original Message-----
From: Earl Haury <ejhaury at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, Mar 3, 2010 11:01 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts



Somewhat reluctantly I'm going to jump into this discussion and try to dissect it a bit. It appears to me that maybe more is being read into the rules than is actually there. There is one paragraph of three sentences that addresses what type of control is permitted  and what is not. Then there are some examples of what is permitted and what is not. (See below.) "Examples" by definition aren't all inclusive. I think we probably all agree on the "open loop" concept. The ESC discussion seems to fall somewhere in the "auto-pilot exclusion" and  "automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing device" prohibition seems to be where this discussion lies.
What's being proposed for ESC functionality, as I understand it, would ensure the same prop speed for a given throttle stick position. Not much difference than a fuel supply control system that ensures the same fuel delivery to the engine at a given throttle position. In neither case is the propulsion system controlling aircraft speed via a feedback loop, the nut on the stick is doing that. Seems OK within the rules to me. 
OTOH, I understand the view that control algorithms are doing magic changing "timing" of electrical pulses to the motor. I would argue this is outside the "automatic control timing device" rule which was intended to prevent automatic "control" inputs directly. Yes - I was around when these rules were discussed and implemented, so I have some insight at to their intent. I also realize that there are things around now that weren't at that time that merit these discussions. It would seem that if everyone feels passionately enough about this an easy fix would to add a sentence (pro or con) in the examples part of the rule that is specific to this topic, therefore keeping the "worms in the can".
Hmmm as Dave says - I wonder how the control algorithms of a servo fit into this, lots of electronic magic going on there.
Earl
"Radio equipment shall be of the open loop type (ie no electronic feedback from the model aircraft
to the ground). Auto-pilot control utilising inertia, gravity or any type of terrestrial reference is
prohibited. Automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing devices
are prohibited.
Example: Permitted:
1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot.
2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is initiated or activated and terminated
by the competitor.
3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix control functions.
SC4_Vol_F3_Aerobatics_09 Effective 1st January 2009 Page 10
5
Not permitted:
1. Snap roll buttons with automatic timing mode.
2. Pre-programming devices to automatically perform a series of commands.
3. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic wing levelling or other stabilisation of the model aircraft.
4. Propeller pitch change with automatic timing mode.
5. Any type of voice recognition system.
6. Conditions, switches, throttle curves, or any other mechanical or electronic device that will
prevent or limit maximum power or rpm of the propulsion device during the sound/noise test.
7. Any type of learning function involving manoeuvre to manoeuvre or flight to flight analysis."
permitted:
1. Snap roll buttons with automatic timing mode.
2. Pre-programming devices to automatically perform a series of commands.
3. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic wing levelling or other stabilisation of the model aircraft.
4. Propeller pitch change with automatic timing mode.
5. Any type of voice recognition system.
6. Conditions, switches, throttle curves, or any other mechanical or electronic device that will
prevent or limit maximum power or rpm of the propulsion device during the sound/noise test.
7. Any type of learning function involving manoeuvre to manoeuvre or flight to flight analysis."


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Dave 
To: 'General pattern discussion' 
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts




Matt,
 
One more thought/consideration/question ?
 
Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?  Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function?they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?
 
Regards,
 
Dave
 
 
 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

 

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.

 

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 

 

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument

 

MattK



 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
 
Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 

_______________________________________________
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

 

 


Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

 

Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
SRCA-discussion mailing list
SRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
ttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100303/fcc45a5a/attachment.html>

From chuenkan at comcast.net  Wed Mar  3 09:57:23 2010
From: chuenkan at comcast.net (Phil Spelt)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:57:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <8CC8916373ECDCF-43F8-55EB@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser>
	<SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl>
	<28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop>
	<C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>
	<8CC8916373ECDCF-43F8-55EB@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <20100303185723.38D3211668@bridi.netexpress.com>

I probably should not jump into this, since I 
don't have a dog in this fight, but here goes:

I quote from the quote below:  Radio equipment 
shall be of the open loop type (ie no electronic 
feedback from the model aircraft to the ground).

That says to me that any internal feedback loops 
are permitted, since the ESC, the servo control 
systems, and the EFI module are not communicating 
with "the ground" which I take it to mean the 
larger outside (the aircraft) world.  This 
wording is in the rule, itself, not in the 
examples.  I would be prepared to argue that 
these systems, which are already in use, are NOT 
illegal...gyros and other autopilot devices must 
obtain information from the aircraft's external 
environment in order to function properly. JMHO...

At 01:26 PM 3/3/2010, you wrote:
>Yes, indeed, and I agree. On the digital vs analog servo also.
>
>Matt
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Earl Haury <ejhaury at comcast.net>
>To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Sent: Wed, Mar 3, 2010 11:01 am
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
>Somewhat reluctantly I'm going to jump into this 
>discussion and try to dissect it a bit. It 
>appears to me that maybe more is being read into 
>the rules than is actually there. There is one 
>paragraph of three sentences that addresses what 
>type of control is permitted  and what is not. 
>Then there are some examples of what is 
>permitted and what is not. (See below.) 
>"Examples" by definition aren't all inclusive. I 
>think we probably all agree on the "open loop" 
>concept. The ESC discussion seems to fall 
>somewhere in the "auto-pilot exclusion" 
>and  "automatic control sequencing 
>(pre-programming) or automatic control timing 
>device" prohibition seems to be where this discussion lies.
>What's being proposed for ESC functionality, as 
>I understand it, would ensure the same prop 
>speed for a given throttle stick position. Not 
>much difference than a fuel supply control 
>system that ensures the same fuel delivery to 
>the engine at a given throttle position. In 
>neither case is the propulsion system 
>controlling aircraft speed via a feedback loop, 
>the nut on the stick is doing that. Seems OK within the rules to me.
>OTOH, I understand the view that control 
>algorithms are doing magic changing "timing" of 
>electrical pulses to the motor. I would argue 
>this is outside the "automatic control timing 
>device" rule which was intended to prevent 
>automatic "control" inputs directly. Yes - I was 
>around when these rules were discussed and 
>implemented, so I have some insight at to their 
>intent. I also realize that there are things 
>around now that weren't at that time that merit 
>these discussions. It would seem that if 
>everyone feels passionately enough about this an 
>easy fix would to add a sentence (pro or con) in 
>the examples part of the rule that is specific 
>to this topic, therefore keeping the "worms in the can".
>Hmmm as Dave says - I wonder how the control 
>algorithms of a servo fit into this, lots of electronic magic going on there.
>Earl
>"Radio equipment shall be of the open loop type 
>(ie no electronic feedback from the model aircraft
>to the ground). Auto-pilot control utilising 
>inertia, gravity or any type of terrestrial reference is
>prohibited. Automatic control sequencing 
>(pre-programming) or automatic control timing devices
>are prohibited.
>Example: Permitted:
>1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot.
>2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial 
>control that is initiated or activated and terminated
>by the competitor.
>3. Manually operated switches or programmable 
>options to couple and mix control functions.
>SC4_Vol_F3_Aerobatics_09 Effective 1st January 2009 Page 10
>5
>Not permitted:
>1. Snap roll buttons with automatic timing mode.
>2. Pre-programming devices to automatically perform a series of commands.
>3. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic wing 
>levelling or other stabilisation of the model aircraft.
>4. Propeller pitch change with automatic timing mode.
>5. Any type of voice recognition system.
>6. Conditions, switches, throttle curves, or any 
>other mechanical or electronic device that will
>prevent or limit maximum power or rpm of the 
>propulsion device during the sound/noise test.
>7. Any type of learning function involving 
>manoeuvre to manoeuvre or flight to flight analysis."
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>Dave
>To: <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>'General pattern discussion'
>Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
>Matt,
>
>One more thought/consideration/question ?
>
>Is electronic ignition with variable timing 
>advance illegal?  Essentially the RPM is sensed 
>(through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the 
>timing is advanced.  The ESCs of today do the 
>same function
they advance timing as RPM 
>increases, but do so without sensor..  Should we 
>go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?
>
>Regards,
>
>Dave
>
>
>
>
>On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, 
><mailto:rcmaster199 at aol.com>rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:
>
>I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on 
>this subject recently. Dean explained that some 
>folks have been advocates of programming the ESC 
>to do some footwork at various stages of battery 
>use. He explained to me just how easy this is to 
>do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.
>
>I am not that concerned about raising the 
>voltage of the battery as I see this as a 
>somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am 
>more concerned about what and how the ESC is 
>"programmed" . I would like for some one with 
>the electronic/software pedigree to explain to 
>me how programming adjustable rates of voltage 
>potential and making these adjustments 
>automatically, does not constitute a programming 
>violation within the rules as they exist today.
>
>When the rules were written, we were clearly 
>dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and 
>the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue 
>that rate auto adjustments that are definitely 
>possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify 
>as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit 
>down and think this through...I could be 
>convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument
>
>MattK
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anthony Romano <<mailto:anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
>To: <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we 
>talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
>
>Anthony
>
> > From: <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>burtona at atmc.net
> > To: 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >
> > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and 
> purposefully violating the intent
> > and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> > ....... Just asking!
> > Dave Burton
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >
> > I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> > pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> > of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> > its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> > 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> > and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> > flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> > volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> >
> > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> > right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> >
> > > Going higher and regulating down would be 
> against the rules, the max volts
> > is still limited to 42.56.
> > >
> > > Bob Kane
> > > <mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com>getterflash at yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons 
> <<mailto:homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons 
> <<mailto:homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >> To: 
> <mailto:chad at f3acanada.org>chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> > <<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> > >>
> > >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> > >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> > >>
> > >> Chris
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: Chad
> > >> Northeast <<mailto:chad at f3acanada.org>chad at f3acanada.org>
> > >> To:
> > >> 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >> Sent: Sun,
> > >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> > >> Subject: Re:
> > >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >>
> > >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> > >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> > >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> > >>
> > >> Chad
> > >>
> > >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> > >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> > >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> > >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> > >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> > >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> > >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> > >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> > >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> > >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> > >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> > >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> > >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> > >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> > >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> > >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ron Van Putte
> > >>>
> > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> > >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> > >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> > >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> > >>>>> which
> > >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> > >> limited to a maximum
> > >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>> From: 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> > >> On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> > >>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> > >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> > >> section.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> > >> for max volts?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >>>>>> 
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>>>>>
> > >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >>>>> 
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing
> > >> list
> > >>>>> 
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >>>> 
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >>> 
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >> 
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >> 
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com/>www.avg.com
> > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> > 14:34:00
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>----------
>Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft???s 
>powerful SPAM protection. 
><http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/>Sign up now. =
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>
><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
>----------
>Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM 
>protection. <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/>Sign up now.
>
>__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, 
>version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________
>
>The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
><http://www.eset.com/>http://www.eset.com
>
>
>----------
>Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live 
>Hotmail Free. <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/>Sign up now.
>
>----------
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>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

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member, SPA--177
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100303/eb879618/attachment.html>

From rcmaster199 at aol.com  Wed Mar  3 09:58:52 2010
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com (rcmaster199 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:58:52 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <8CC8916373ECDCF-43F8-55EB@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>,
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser><SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl><28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop><C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>
	<8CC8916373ECDCF-43F8-55EB@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <8CC891AA5DD3C7A-68E0-4E7@webmail-m041.sysops.aol.com>


Dave,

I would argue that the ESC has the sensor built. It isn't a sensor in the sense of a mag pick up such as CDI devices have. It is rather an exact frequency determination to which the motor is driven. It is simpler and hidden. Should we go back on mechanical advance....God no./

I think the CDI electronic advance is similar to today's digital servo. The former advances spark pulsing based on rpm and the latter advances motor output torque based on input load. Whether each violates, not sure. Needs more thought and comparison to the rules. My first take would be to say NO because the magnitude of adjustment is fixed

Matt




----- Original Message ----- 
From: Dave 
To: 'General pattern discussion' 
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts




Matt,
 
One more thought/consideration/question ?
 
Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?  Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function?they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?
 
Regards,
 
Dave
 
 
 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

 

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.

 

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 

 

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument

 

MattK



 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
 
Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 

_______________________________________________
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

 

 


Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

 

Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


_______________________________________________
SRCA-discussion mailing list
SRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
ttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


_______________________________________________
SRCA-discussion mailing list
SRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
ttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100303/70e2f3de/attachment.html>

From scott at rcfoamy.com  Wed Mar  3 13:09:10 2010
From: scott at rcfoamy.com (scott anderson)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:09:10 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] for sale
Message-ID: <ADE5ECE982F64D06B40FA366926B7595@ScottPC>

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220565892950&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.com%3A80%2F%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dp3907.m38.l1313%26_nkw%3D220565892950%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1


  
Cutlass Supreme Mark II 

" The most wanted pattern ship for the '73 season "

Wing span 64"

This is a new in box kit !   A find for the classic pattern flier...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100303/075c12df/attachment.html>

From ed_alt at hotmail.com  Wed Mar  3 15:57:00 2010
From: ed_alt at hotmail.com (Ed Alt)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:57:00 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <8CC891AA5DD3C7A-68E0-4E7@webmail-m041.sysops.aol.com>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>, ,
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser><SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl><28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop><C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>,
	<8CC8916373ECDCF-43F8-55EB@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com>,
	<8CC891AA5DD3C7A-68E0-4E7@webmail-m041.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <SNT138-w59103F453B48F2C93F6A24E8390@phx.gbl>


I actually was only halfway joking I said "Ban the YS Pressure Regulator", or something like that.  Not that I really think it should be banned, but for everyone who thinks it would be cheating to have an ESC that can auto-compensate for dwindling battery voltage, then you ought to seriously think about why it is OK to have a automatic pressure regulator in a recip.  There isn't much difference, other than one is wet and the other is dry.  And the other key point about having an ESC with this feature is that it doesn't do anything to alter the piloting of the model based on the external conditions that the model is encountering. All it is doing is de-rating the output of the the battery to make it consistent throughout its useful operation range.  

 

Ed
 


To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:58:30 -0500
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


Dave,
 
I would argue that the ESC has the sensor built. It isn't a sensor in the sense of a mag pick up such as CDI devices have. It is rather an exact frequency determination to which the motor is driven. It is simpler and hidden. Should we go back on mechanical advance....God no./
 
I think the CDI electronic advance is similar to today's digital servo. The former advances spark pulsing based on rpm and the latter advances motor output torque based on input load. Whether each violates, not sure. Needs more thought and comparison to the rules. My first take would be to say NO because the magnitude of adjustment is fixed
 
Matt






----- Original Message ----- 
From: Dave 
To: 'General pattern discussion' 
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts





Matt,
 
One more thought/consideration/question ?
 
Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?  Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function?they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?
 
Regards,
 
Dave
 
 
 

 


On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

 

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.

 

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 

 

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument

 

MattK



 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
 
Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion




Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 
_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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
 
 




Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 



Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.



_______________________________________________
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
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469230/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100304/5eb3bf60/attachment.html>

From vanputte at cox.net  Wed Mar  3 16:01:42 2010
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:01:42 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Ocala (Florida) Contest
Message-ID: <F8002E87-845C-475A-9AAB-54A905853E56@cox.net>

After a bit of digging, I found a flyer for the Ocala Model Flying  
Club's contest on March 20th and 21st.  Go here:

http://www.ocalaflyingmodelclub.com/mar2010.pdf

Five of us will be coming from the Eglin Aero Modellers:  John Fuqua,  
Rob Campbell, Mike Plummer, Houston Schweitzer and me.  We are  
looking forward to having some warm weather (please!).

Ron Van Putte

From edvwhite at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 16:16:37 2010
From: edvwhite at yahoo.com (Ed White)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:16:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls
In-Reply-To: <1572102566.2323081267638017371.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1572102566.2323081267638017371.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <524112.4772.qm@web83505.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

I would agree.  The example of the elevator is open loop, it does not use any kind of an Earth reference and it does not create a sequence or use a timing device.  All it does is create a highly nonlinear relationship between the stick and the elevator.  If we can't have nonlinear stick to control surfaces programmed, we've all got to zero out our expos.


I also think the ESC example has to be allowed.  If the issue is that it is a closed loop control, then we all have to go into our servos and cut the wires from the feedback pots. [Insert comment on what my flying looks like here].  Servos are, nearly by definition of the word, closed loop feedback devices.  The ESC example is just another example of a closed loop feedback system, the only difference is the loop doesn't close on mechanical position, it closes on motor rpm or whatever.

So I am a little troubled by the AMA rule book saying that ?Radio control equipment
shall be of the open loop type?"  A controls person would say we always (we hope) have closed loop control of the airplane. Every closed loop control system has these minimum
elements:  a commanded state; at least one actuator that has an effect 
on
the actual state; at least one sensor capable of estimating the actual 
state;
and last, a control algorithm that generates a feedback signal to change the
actuator input to minimize the difference between the commanded and 
actual
states.

In our case both the sensors and control algorithm that close the loop are wetware located 
between our
ears [or elsewhere for some of us]. Just because a human is in the loop does not
make it open loop control.  If you want
to fly open loop control, you have to break the 
control loop ?
it's easily done, just fly with your eyes closed. [Insert second comment about my flying here].

I'm not sure adding more examples really solves the underlying problem which I am afraid is with the idea that our control is open loop when it is not.  In control parlance the closed control loops in the servos are inner loops and the multi-axis control of aircraft attitude and rates through our thumbs is the outer loop.  I think a more technically correct approach would be to say that we can't use artificial sensors that measure and use primary outer loop parameters which I would define to be at a minimum aircraft attitude, rates and flight path angles.

Probably this doesn't solve it either.  The trouble with advancing technology is it makes the simple very messy.


Ed


________________________________
From: "ronlock at comcast.net" <ronlock at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 11:40:17 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls


My interpretation of permitted controls would allow the example below -
Application of full elevator and full rudder by pilot switches on a "mixer"  that results in half elevator.
It does not involving timing intervals, or aircraft peformance in commanding an inpur (half elevator in this example)
 
Ron Lockhart
 
Example: Permitted:
1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot.
2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is initiated or activated and terminated
by the competitor.
3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix control functions.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Pascoe [Burlington]" <Tim.Pascoe at ec.gc.ca>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2010 11:35:33 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

   
In reading this, it seems the logic programming available in radios such as the 14MZ, which permit rate changes automatically based on single or multiple stick positions would be illegal. So when I set a condition to drop the Elevator rate by half as soon as full Elevator and full Rudder are initiated, at the entry to a snap, I seem to breaking Number 3 in the Not Permitted list below.
 
Correct?
 
Tim Pascoe 


From:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl Haury
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:02 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
 
Somewhat reluctantly I'm going to jump into this discussion and try to dissect it a bit. It appears to me that maybe more is being read into the rules than is actually there. There is one paragraph of three sentences that addresses what type of control is permitted  and what is not. Then there are some examples of what is permitted and what is not. (See below.) "Examples" by definition aren't all inclusive. I think we probably all agree on the "open loop" concept. The ESC discussion seems to fall somewhere in the "auto-pilot exclusion" and  "automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing device" prohibition seems to be where this discussion lies.
What's being proposed for ESC functionality, as I understand it, would ensure the same prop speed for a given throttle stick position. Not much difference than a fuel supply control system that ensures the same fuel delivery to the engine at a given throttle position. In neither case is the propulsion system controlling aircraft speed via a feedback loop, the nut on the stick is doing that. Seems OK within the rules to me. 
OTOH, I understand the view that control algorithms are doing magic changing "timing" of electrical pulses to the motor. I would argue this is outside the "automatic control timing device" rule which was intended to prevent automatic "control" inputs directly. Yes - I was around when these rules were discussed and implemented, so I have some insight at to their intent. I also realize that there are things around now that weren't at that time that merit these discussions. It would seem that if everyone feels passionately enough about this an easy fix would to add a sentence (pro or con) in the examples part of the rule that is specific to this topic, therefore keeping the "worms in the can".
Hmmm as Dave says - I wonder how the control algorithms of a servo fit into this, lots of electronic magic going on there.
Earl
"Radio equipment shall be of the open loop type (ie no electronic feedback from the model aircraft
to the ground). Auto-pilot control utilising inertia, gravity or any type of terrestrial reference is
prohibited. Automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing devices
are prohibited.
Example: Permitted:
1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot.
2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is initiated or activated and terminated
by the competitor.
3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix control functions.
SC4_Vol_F3_Aerobatics_09 Effective 1st January 2009 Page 10
5
Not permitted:
1. Snap roll buttons with automatic timing mode.
2. Pre-programming devices to automatically perform a series of commands.
3. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic wing levelling or other stabilisation of the model aircraft.
4. Propeller pitch change with automatic timing mode.
5. Any type of voice recognition system.
6. Conditions, switches, throttle curves, or any other mechanical or electronic device that will
prevent or limit maximum power or rpm of the propulsion device during the sound/noise test.
7. Any type of learning function involving manoeuvre to manoeuvre or flight to flight analysis."
----- Original Message ----- 
>From:Dave 
>To:'General pattern discussion' 
>Sent:Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM
>Subject:Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
>Matt,
> 
>One more thought/consideration/question ?
> 
>Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?  Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function?they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?
> 
>Regards,
> 
>Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
>On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:
> 
>>I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.
>> 
>>I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 
>> 
>>When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument
>> 
>>MattK
>>
>>
>> 
>> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
>>To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
>> 
>>Anthony
>> 
>>> From: burtona at atmc.net
>>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> 
>>> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
>>> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
>>> ....... Just asking!
>>> Dave Burton
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
>>> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> 
>>> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
>>> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
>>> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
>>> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
>>> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
>>> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
>>> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
>>> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>>> 
>>> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
>>> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
>>> 
>>> Jim
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>>> 
>>> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
>>> is still limited to 42.56. 
>>> > 
>>> > Bob Kane
>>> > getterflash at yahoo.com
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>>> >> 
>>> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>>> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>>> >> 
>>> >> Chris 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> From: Chad
>>> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>>> >> To:
>>> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> >> Sent: Sun,
>>> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>>> >> Subject: Re:
>>> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> >> 
>>> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
>>> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
>>> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>>> >> 
>>> >> Chad
>>> >> 
>>> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>>> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
>>> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
>>> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
>>> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
>>> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
>>> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
>>> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
>>> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
>>> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
>>> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
>>> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
>>> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
>>> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
>>> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
>>> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> Ron Van Putte
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
>>> >>> 
>>> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
>>> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
>>> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
>>> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>>> >>>>> which
>>> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
>>> >> limited to a maximum
>>> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>>> >>>>> 
>>> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
>>> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> >>>>> 
>>> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
>>> >> section.
>>> >>>>> 
>>> >>>>> 
>>> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>>> >>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>>> >> for max volts?
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>> 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
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>> >> 
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
>>> 14:34:00
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
________________________________
 
>>Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
> 
> 
>
________________________________
 
>Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
>
>__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________
>
>The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
>http://www.eset.com/
> 
>
________________________________
 
>Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.
>
________________________________
 
>_______________________________________________
>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100304/457b392c/attachment.html>

From burtona at atmc.net  Wed Mar  3 16:24:53 2010
From: burtona at atmc.net (Dave Burton)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:24:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls
In-Reply-To: <524112.4772.qm@web83505.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <1572102566.2323081267638017371.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
	<524112.4772.qm@web83505.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <003f01cabb39$6c47b850$44d728f0$@net>

This stuff is way too complicated! My head is starting to hurt!  it must be winter!

 Come on Spring and warm weather, I gotta get out and fly and quit reading e-mail and forums! 

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed White
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 8:17 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls

 

I would agree.  The example of the elevator is open loop, it does not use any kind of an Earth reference and it does not create a sequence or use a timing device.  All it does is create a highly nonlinear relationship between the stick and the elevator.  If we can't have nonlinear stick to control surfaces programmed, we've all got to zero out our expos.


I also think the ESC example has to be allowed.  If the issue is that it is a closed loop control, then we all have to go into our servos and cut the wires from the feedback pots. [Insert comment on what my flying looks like here].  Servos are, nearly by definition of the word, closed loop feedback devices.  The ESC example is just another example of a closed loop feedback system, the only difference is the loop doesn't close on mechanical position, it closes on motor rpm or whatever.

So I am a little troubled by the AMA rule book saying that ?Radio control equipment shall be of the open loop type?"  A controls person would say we always (we hope) have closed loop control of the airplane. Every closed loop control system has these minimum elements:  a commanded state; at least one actuator that has an effect on the actual state; at least one sensor capable of estimating the actual state; and last, a control algorithm that generates a feedback signal to change the actuator input to minimize the difference between the commanded and actual states.

In our case both the sensors and control algorithm that close the loop are wetware located between our ears [or elsewhere for some of us]. Just because a human is in the loop does not make it open loop control.  If you want to fly open loop control, you have to break the control loop ? it's easily done, just fly with your eyes closed. [Insert second comment about my flying here]. 

I'm not sure adding more examples really solves the underlying problem which I am afraid is with the idea that our control is open loop when it is not.  In control parlance the closed control loops in the servos are inner loops and the multi-axis control of aircraft attitude and rates through our thumbs is the outer loop.  I think a more technically correct approach would be to say that we can't use artificial sensors that measure and use primary outer loop parameters which I would define to be at a minimum aircraft attitude, rates and flight path angles.

Probably this doesn't solve it either.  The trouble with advancing technology is it makes the simple very messy.


Ed

  _____  

From: "ronlock at comcast.net" <ronlock at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 11:40:17 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls

My interpretation of permitted controls would allow the example below -

Application of full elevator and full rudder by pilot switches on a "mixer"  that results in half elevator.

It does not involving timing intervals, or aircraft peformance in commanding an inpur (half elevator in this example)

 

Ron Lockhart

 

Example: Permitted:

1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot.

2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is initiated or activated and terminated

by the competitor.

3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix control functions.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Pascoe [Burlington]" <Tim.Pascoe at ec.gc.ca>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2010 11:35:33 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

In reading this, it seems the logic programming available in radios such as the 14MZ, which permit rate changes automatically based on single or multiple stick positions would be illegal. So when I set a condition to drop the Elevator rate by half as soon as full Elevator and full Rudder are initiated, at the entry to a snap, I seem to breaking Number 3 in the Not Permitted list below.

 

Correct?

 

Tim Pascoe 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl Haury
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:02 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

Somewhat reluctantly I'm going to jump into this discussion and try to dissect it a bit. It appears to me that maybe more is being read into the rules than is actually there. There is one paragraph of three sentences that addresses what type of control is permitted  and what is not. Then there are some examples of what is permitted and what is not. (See below.) "Examples" by definition aren't all inclusive. I think we probably all agree on the "open loop" concept. The ESC discussion seems to fall somewhere in the "auto-pilot exclusion" and  "automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing device" prohibition seems to be where this discussion lies.

What's being proposed for ESC functionality, as I understand it, would ensure the same prop speed for a given throttle stick position. Not much difference than a fuel supply control system that ensures the same fuel delivery to the engine at a given throttle position. In neither case is the propulsion system controlling aircraft speed via a feedback loop, the nut on the stick is doing that. Seems OK within the rules to me. 

OTOH, I understand the view that control algorithms are doing magic changing "timing" of electrical pulses to the motor. I would argue this is outside the "automatic control timing device" rule which was intended to prevent automatic "control" inputs directly. Yes - I was around when these rules were discussed and implemented, so I have some insight at to their intent. I also realize that there are things around now that weren't at that time that merit these discussions. It would seem that if everyone feels passionately enough about this an easy fix would to add a sentence (pro or con) in the examples part of the rule that is specific to this topic, therefore keeping the "worms in the can".

Hmmm as Dave says - I wonder how the control algorithms of a servo fit into this, lots of electronic magic going on there.

Earl

"Radio equipment shall be of the open loop type (ie no electronic feedback from the model aircraft

to the ground). Auto-pilot control utilising inertia, gravity or any type of terrestrial reference is

prohibited. Automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing devices

are prohibited.

Example: Permitted:

1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot.

2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is initiated or activated and terminated

by the competitor.

3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix control functions.

SC4_Vol_F3_Aerobatics_09 Effective 1st January 2009 Page 10

5

Not permitted:

1. Snap roll buttons with automatic timing mode.

2. Pre-programming devices to automatically perform a series of commands.

3. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic wing levelling or other stabilisation of the model aircraft.

4. Propeller pitch change with automatic timing mode.

5. Any type of voice recognition system.

6. Conditions, switches, throttle curves, or any other mechanical or electronic device that will

prevent or limit maximum power or rpm of the propulsion device during the sound/noise test.

7. Any type of learning function involving manoeuvre to manoeuvre or flight to flight analysis."

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

From: Dave <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>  

To: 'General pattern discussion' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

Matt,

 

One more thought/consideration/question ?

 

Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?  Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function?they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?

 

Regards,

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

 

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.

 

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 

 

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument

 

MattK



 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
 
Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ]
> >> On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 <http://www.avg.com/>  
> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


  _____  


Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/>  now. = 

_______________________________________________
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

 

 


  _____  


Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/>  now.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com/

 


  _____  


Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/>  now.


  _____  


_______________________________________________
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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2719 - Release Date: 03/03/10 14:34:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100304/1d5d4ccc/attachment.html>

From edvwhite at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 16:50:18 2010
From: edvwhite at yahoo.com (Ed White)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:50:18 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls
In-Reply-To: <003f01cabb39$6c47b850$44d728f0$@net>
References: <1572102566.2323081267638017371.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
	<524112.4772.qm@web83505.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<003f01cabb39$6c47b850$44d728f0$@net>
Message-ID: <925819.51146.qm@web83501.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

You're right.  When I started it I thought it was going somewhere intelligent.  Now my head hurts too, and I wouldn't bet it goes anywhere useful.

Gotta get out and fly.





________________________________
From: Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 7:24:22 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls

 
This stuff is way too complicated! My head is starting to hurt!  it
must be winter!
 Come on Spring and warm weather, I gotta get out and fly and
quit reading e-mail and forums! 
 
From:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed White
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 8:17 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls
 
I
would agree.  The example of the elevator is open loop, it does not use
any kind of an Earth reference and it does not create a sequence or use a
timing device.  All it does is create a highly nonlinear relationship
between the stick and the elevator.  If we can't have nonlinear stick to
control surfaces programmed, we've all got to zero out our expos.

I also think the ESC example has to be allowed.  If the issue is that it
is a closed loop control, then we all have to go into our servos and cut the
wires from the feedback pots. [Insert comment on what my flying looks like
here].  Servos are, nearly by definition of the word, closed loop feedback
devices.  The ESC example is just another example of a closed loop
feedback system, the only difference is the loop doesn't close on mechanical
position, it closes on motor rpm or whatever.

So I am a little troubled by the AMA rule book saying that ?Radio control
equipment shall be of the open loop type?"  A controls person would
say we always (we hope) have closed loop control of the airplane. Every closed
loop control system has these minimum elements:  a commanded state; at
least one actuator that has an effect on the actual state; at least one sensor
capable of estimating the actual state; and last, a control algorithm that
generates a feedback signal to change the actuator input to minimize the
difference between the commanded and actual states.

In our case both the sensors and control algorithm that close the loop are
wetware located between our ears [or elsewhere for some of us]. Just because a
human is in the loop does not make it open loop control.  If you want to
fly open loop control, you have to break the control loop ? it's easily done,
just fly with your eyes closed. [Insert second comment about my flying here]. 

I'm not sure adding more examples really solves the underlying problem which I
am afraid is with the idea that our control is open loop when it is not. 
In control parlance the closed control loops in the servos are inner loops and
the multi-axis control of aircraft attitude and rates through our thumbs is the
outer loop.  I think a more technically correct approach would be to say
that we can't use artificial sensors that measure and use primary outer loop
parameters which I would define to be at a minimum aircraft attitude, rates and
flight path angles.

Probably this doesn't solve it either.  The trouble with advancing
technology is it makes the simple very messy.

Ed

________________________________
 
From:"ronlock at comcast.net"
<ronlock at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 11:40:17 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls
My interpretation
of permitted controls would allow the example below -
Application of
full elevator and full rudder by pilot switches on a
"mixer"  that results in half elevator.
It does not
involving timing intervals, or aircraft peformance in commanding an inpur (half
elevator in this example)
 
Ron Lockhart
 
Example:
Permitted:
1. Control rate
devices that are manually switched by the pilot.
2. Any type of
button or lever, switch, or dial control that is initiated or activated and
terminated
by the
competitor.
3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple
and mix control functions.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Pascoe [Burlington]" <Tim.Pascoe at ec.gc.ca>
To: "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2010 11:35:33 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In reading this, it seems the logic programming available in radios
such as the 14MZ, which permit rate changes automatically based on single or
multiple stick positions would be illegal. So when I set a condition to drop
the Elevator rate by half as soon as full Elevator and full Rudder are
initiated, at the entry to a snap, I seem to breaking Number 3 in the Not
Permitted list below.
 
Correct?
 
Tim
Pascoe 
From:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl
Haury
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:02 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
 
Somewhat reluctantly I'm going to jump into this
discussion and try to dissect it a bit. It appears to me that maybe more is
being read into the rules than is actually there. There is one paragraph of
three sentences that addresses what type of control is permitted  and what
is not. Then there are some examples of what is permitted and what is not. (See
below.) "Examples" by definition aren't all inclusive. I think we
probably all agree on the "open loop" concept. The ESC discussion
seems to fall somewhere in the "auto-pilot exclusion" and 
"automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing
device" prohibition seems to be where this discussion lies.
What's being proposed for ESC functionality, as I
understand it, would ensure the same prop speed for a given throttle stick
position. Not much difference than a fuel supply control system that ensures
the same fuel delivery to the engine at a given throttle position. In neither
case is the propulsion system controlling aircraft speed via a feedback
loop, the nut on the stick is doing that. Seems OK within the rules to me. 
OTOH, I understand the view that control
algorithms are doing magic changing "timing" of electrical pulses to
the motor. I would argue this is outside the "automatic control timing
device" rule which was intended to prevent automatic "control"
inputs directly. Yes - I was around when these rules were discussed and
implemented, so I have some insight at to their intent. I also
realize that there are things around now that weren't at that time that merit
these discussions. It would seem that if everyone feels passionately
enough about this an easy fix would to add a sentence (pro or con) in the
examples part of the rule that is specific to this topic, therefore keeping the
"worms in the can".
Hmmm as Dave says - I wonder how the control
algorithms of a servo fit into this, lots of electronic magic going on there.
Earl
"Radio equipment shall be of the open loop
type (ie no electronic feedback from the model aircraft
to the ground). Auto-pilot control utilising
inertia, gravity or any type of terrestrial reference is
prohibited. Automatic control sequencing
(pre-programming) or automatic control timing devices
are prohibited.
Example: Permitted:
1. Control rate devices that are manually switched
by the pilot.
2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial
control that is initiated or activated and terminated
by the competitor.
3. Manually operated switches or programmable
options to couple and mix control functions.
SC4_Vol_F3_Aerobatics_09 Effective 1st January
2009 Page 10
5
Not permitted:
1. Snap roll buttons with automatic timing mode.
2. Pre-programming devices to automatically
perform a series of commands.
3. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic wing
levelling or other stabilisation of the model aircraft.
4. Propeller pitch change with automatic timing
mode.
5. Any type of voice recognition system.
6. Conditions, switches, throttle curves, or any
other mechanical or electronic device that will
prevent or limit maximum power or rpm of the
propulsion device during the sound/noise test.
7. Any type of learning function involving
manoeuvre to manoeuvre or flight to flight analysis."
>
>>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>>
>From:Dave 
>>
>To:'General pattern discussion' 
>>
>Sent:Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM
>>
>Subject:Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>
> 
>>
>>
>Matt,
> 
>One more
>thought/consideration/question ?
> 
>Is electronic ignition with
>variable timing advance illegal?  Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a
>sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.  The ESCs of today
>do the same function?they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor.
> Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?
> 
>Regards,
> 
>Dave
> 
> 
> 
>>
> 
>>
>>
>On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com >wrote:
>>>
>> 
>>>>
>>I had a brief conversation with
>>Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been
>>advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of
>>battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It
>>seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.
>>>>
>> 
>>>>
>>I am not that concerned about
>>raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation
>>of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is
>>"programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software
>>pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential
>>and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming
>>violation within the rules as they exist today. 
>>>>
>> 
>>>>
>>When the rules were written, we
>>were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no
>>gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are
>>definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of
>>said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be
>>convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument
>>>>
>> 
>>>>
>>MattK
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>> 
>> 
>>>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
>>>>To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
>>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>
>>Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight
>>limits! Or any other rules proposal.
>>>> 
>>>>Anthony
>>>> 
>>>>> From: burtona at atmc.net
>>>>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>> 
>>>>> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the
>>intent
>>>>> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
>>>>> ....... Just asking!
>>>>> Dave Burton
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
>>On Behalf Of James Oddino
>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
>>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
>>>>> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
>>>>> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
>>>>> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
>>>>> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
>>>>> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
>>>>> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
>>>>> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with
>>the
>>>>> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jim
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max
>>volts
>>>>> is still limited to 42.56. 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > Bob Kane
>>>>> > getterflash at yahoo.com
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > 
>>>>> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>>>> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org,
>>"General pattern discussion"
>>>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
>>>>> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> Chris 
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> From: Chad
>>>>> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
>>>>> >> To:
>>>>> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>> >> Sent: Sun,
>>>>> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
>>>>> >> Subject: Re:
>>>>> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
>>>>> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
>>>>> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> Chad
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>>>>> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
>>>>> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
>>>>> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
>>>>> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
>>>>> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
>>>>> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
>>>>> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
>>>>> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
>>>>> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
>>>>> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
>>>>> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
>>>>> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
>>>>> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
>>>>> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
>>>>> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
>>>>> >>> 
>>>>> >>> Ron Van Putte
>>>>> >>> 
>>>>> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
>>>>> >>> 
>>>>> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
>>>>> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
>>>>> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
>>>>> >>>> 
>>>>> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
>>>>> >>>> 
>>>>> >>>> 
>>>>> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>>>>> >>>> 
>>>>> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
>>>>> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
>>>>> >>>>> which
>>>>> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
>>>>> >> limited to a maximum
>>>>> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
>>>>> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
>>>>> >> section.
>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
>>>>> >> for max volts?
>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >>>>>> 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
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
>>>>> 14:34:00
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>
>>>>
________________________________
 >>
>>Hotmail: Trusted email with
>>Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
>>now. = 
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
> 
> 
>>
>>
________________________________
 >
>Hotmail: Trusted email with
>powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
>now.
>
>>__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
>database 4910 (20100302) __________
>
>>The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
>http://www.eset.com/
> 
>>
________________________________
 >
>Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up
>now.
>>
________________________________
 >
>_______________________________________________
>>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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2719 - Release Date: 03/03/10
14:34:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100304/873b2c6c/attachment.html>

From joddino at socal.rr.com  Wed Mar  3 18:40:08 2010
From: joddino at socal.rr.com (James Oddino)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 03:40:08 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls
In-Reply-To: <524112.4772.qm@web83505.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <1572102566.2323081267638017371.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
	<524112.4772.qm@web83505.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <366E31DC-218B-4978-93E9-6406A621F8D5@socal.rr.com>

Well said.

Jim
On Mar 3, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Ed White wrote:

> I would agree.  The example of the elevator is open loop, it does not use any kind of an Earth reference and it does not create a sequence or use a timing device.  All it does is create a highly nonlinear relationship between the stick and the elevator.  If we can't have nonlinear stick to control surfaces programmed, we've all got to zero out our expos.
> 
> I also think the ESC example has to be allowed.  If the issue is that it is a closed loop control, then we all have to go into our servos and cut the wires from the feedback pots. [Insert comment on what my flying looks like here].  Servos are, nearly by definition of the word, closed loop feedback devices.  The ESC example is just another example of a closed loop feedback system, the only difference is the loop doesn't close on mechanical position, it closes on motor rpm or whatever.
> 
> So I am a little troubled by the AMA rule book saying that ?Radio control equipment shall be of the open loop type?"  A controls person would say we always (we hope) have closed loop control of the airplane. Every closed loop control system has these minimum elements:  a commanded state; at least one actuator that has an effect on the actual state; at least one sensor capable of estimating the actual state; and last, a control algorithm that generates a feedback signal to change the actuator input to minimize the difference between the commanded and actual states.
> 
> In our case both the sensors and control algorithm that close the loop are wetware located between our ears [or elsewhere for some of us]. Just because a human is in the loop does not make it open loop control.  If you want to fly open loop control, you have to break the control loop ? it's easily done, just fly with your eyes closed. [Insert second comment about my flying here]. 
> 
> I'm not sure adding more examples really solves the underlying problem which I am afraid is with the idea that our control is open loop when it is not.  In control parlance the closed control loops in the servos are inner loops and the multi-axis control of aircraft attitude and rates through our thumbs is the outer loop.  I think a more technically correct approach would be to say that we can't use artificial sensors that measure and use primary outer loop parameters which I would define to be at a minimum aircraft attitude, rates and flight path angles.
> 
> Probably this doesn't solve it either.  The trouble with advancing technology is it makes the simple very messy.
> 
> Ed
> From: "ronlock at comcast.net" <ronlock at comcast.net>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 11:40:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls
> 
> My interpretation of permitted controls would allow the example below -
> Application of full elevator and full rudder by pilot switches on a "mixer"  that results in half elevator.
> It does not involving timing intervals, or aircraft peformance in commanding an inpur (half elevator in this example)
>  
> Ron Lockhart
>  
> Example: Permitted:
> 1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot.
> 2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is initiated or activated and terminated
> by the competitor.
> 3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix control functions.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Pascoe [Burlington]" <Tim.Pascoe at ec.gc.ca>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2010 11:35:33 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> In reading this, it seems the logic programming available in radios such as the 14MZ, which permit rate changes automatically based on single or multiple stick positions would be illegal. So when I set a condition to drop the Elevator rate by half as soon as full Elevator and full Rudder are initiated, at the entry to a snap, I seem to breaking Number 3 in the Not Permitted list below.
>  
> Correct?
>  
> Tim Pascoe 
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl Haury
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:02 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>  
> Somewhat reluctantly I'm going to jump into this discussion and try to dissect it a bit. It appears to me that maybe more is being read into the rules than is actually there. There is one paragraph of three sentences that addresses what type of control is permitted  and what is not. Then there are some examples of what is permitted and what is not. (See below.) "Examples" by definition aren't all inclusive. I think we probably all agree on the "open loop" concept. The ESC discussion seems to fall somewhere in the "auto-pilot exclusion" and  "automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing device" prohibition seems to be where this discussion lies.
> What's being proposed for ESC functionality, as I understand it, would ensure the same prop speed for a given throttle stick position. Not much difference than a fuel supply control system that ensures the same fuel delivery to the engine at a given throttle position. In neither case is the propulsion system controlling aircraft speed via a feedback loop, the nut on the stick is doing that. Seems OK within the rules to me.
> OTOH, I understand the view that control algorithms are doing magic changing "timing" of electrical pulses to the motor. I would argue this is outside the "automatic control timing device" rule which was intended to prevent automatic "control" inputs directly. Yes - I was around when these rules were discussed and implemented, so I have some insight at to their intent. I also realize that there are things around now that weren't at that time that merit these discussions. It would seem that if everyone feels passionately enough about this an easy fix would to add a sentence (pro or con) in the examples part of the rule that is specific to this topic, therefore keeping the "worms in the can".
> Hmmm as Dave says - I wonder how the control algorithms of a servo fit into this, lots of electronic magic going on there.
> Earl
> "Radio equipment shall be of the open loop type (ie no electronic feedback from the model aircraft
> to the ground). Auto-pilot control utilising inertia, gravity or any type of terrestrial reference is
> prohibited. Automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing devices
> are prohibited.
> Example: Permitted:
> 1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot.
> 2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is initiated or activated and terminated
> by the competitor.
> 3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix control functions.
> SC4_Vol_F3_Aerobatics_09 Effective 1st January 2009 Page 10
> 5
> Not permitted:
> 1. Snap roll buttons with automatic timing mode.
> 2. Pre-programming devices to automatically perform a series of commands.
> 3. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic wing levelling or other stabilisation of the model aircraft.
> 4. Propeller pitch change with automatic timing mode.
> 5. Any type of voice recognition system.
> 6. Conditions, switches, throttle curves, or any other mechanical or electronic device that will
> prevent or limit maximum power or rpm of the propulsion device during the sound/noise test.
> 7. Any type of learning function involving manoeuvre to manoeuvre or flight to flight analysis."
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>  
> Matt,
>  
> One more thought/consideration/question ?
>  
> Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?  Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function?they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Dave
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:
>  
> I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.
>  
> I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today.
>  
> When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument
>  
> MattK
> 
> 
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
>  
> Anthony
>  
> > From: burtona at atmc.net
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > 
> > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> > and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> > ....... Just asking!
> > Dave Burton
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > 
> > I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> > pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> > of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> > its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> > 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> > and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> > flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> > volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> > 
> > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> > right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> > 
> > Jim
> > 
> > 
> > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> > 
> > > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> > is still limited to 42.56. 
> > > 
> > > Bob Kane
> > > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> > >> 
> > >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> > >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> > >> 
> > >> Chris 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> From: Chad
> > >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> > >> To:
> > >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >> Sent: Sun,
> > >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> > >> Subject: Re:
> > >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >> 
> > >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> > >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> > >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> > >> 
> > >> Chad
> > >> 
> > >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> > >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> > >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> > >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> > >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> > >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> > >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> > >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> > >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> > >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> > >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> > >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> > >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> > >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> > >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> > >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> > >>> 
> > >>> Ron Van Putte
> > >>> 
> > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> > >>> 
> > >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> > >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> > >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> > >>>> 
> > >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> > >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> > >>>>> which
> > >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> > >> limited to a maximum
> > >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> > >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> > >> section.
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> > >> for max volts?
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> 
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> 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
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > >> 
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> > 14:34:00
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. =
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>  
>  
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
> 
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
> 
> http://www.eset.com/
>  
> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100304/bc4023e5/attachment.html>

From rcmaster199 at aol.com  Wed Mar  3 19:48:34 2010
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com (rcmaster199 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 04:48:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <SNT138-w59103F453B48F2C93F6A24E8390@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>, ,
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser><SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl><28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop><C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>,
	<8CC8916373ECDCF-43F8-55EB@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com>,
	<8CC891AA5DD3C7A-68E0-4E7@webmail-m041.sysops.aol.com>
	<SNT138-w59103F453B48F2C93F6A24E8390@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <8CC896D09F5684D-1198-2B49@webmail-d096.sysops.aol.com>


Ed,

I'm not so sure. Most IC's don't have a pressure regulator...the YS is about the only one. This a passive device that has fixed settings. Dave's example of the EFI may be a dfferent story though...I never spent any time dealing with the OS EFI so I don't know how it worked. 

The problem with such analogies is that gas and glow fuels have a fixed amount of pop per unit mass. Put in X amount and you will pretty much get Y out for any given set-up, even poor ones. Y would vary of course depending on how good the set-up was, meaning different operators will probably get different Y's. However Y would be pretty much fixed for each operator

Batteries on the other hand, have a continuously variable amount of pop per unit mass. Electronically taking the variable input volts and, through some apparently straight forward software, drive a constant Y at the motor, is where I am having some issue with. 

As for ESC's not doing much to alter the piloting of the model, again I am not so sure. Dean used a good example: at near the end of the flight, let's assume there is a diagonal or vertical. The battery has lost some pop and the motor won't be able to keep up under constant throttle conditions. The pilot would need to make a throttle adjustment to maintain momentum. If the ESC had this new programming, the pilot would fly through this without hardly noticing or changing his flying, just like we do with ICs. I certainly am NOT opposed to reducing pilot work load...it's the how not the what. 

And in this particular instance, equality between the types of propulsion IS what the programmable ESC proponents want.....

The rule as written is sticky. I think that some type of clarification or addendum to the rule, as Earl suggested, would eliminate the sticky wicket if you will.

BTW- I am not implying that Dean is against the programmable ESC, far from it. He has thought through what would be needed to accomplish the task. In fact, he did something similar to Bob Hunt's WC stunt entry a few years ago. 

Matt





-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
To: NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, Mar 3, 2010 7:56 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


I actually was only halfway joking I said "Ban the YS Pressure Regulator", or something like that.  Not that I really think it should be banned, but for everyone who thinks it would be cheating to have an ESC that can auto-compensate for dwindling battery voltage, then you ought to seriously think about why it is OK to have a automatic pressure regulator in a recip.  There isn't much difference, other than one is wet and the other is dry.  And the other key point about having an ESC with this feature is that it doesn't do anything to alter the piloting of the model based on the external conditions that the model is encountering. All it is doing is de-rating the output of the the battery to make it consistent throughout its useful operation range.  
 
Ed
 
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:58:30 -0500
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


Dave,
 
I would argue that the ESC has the sensor built. It isn't a sensor in the sense of a mag pick up such as CDI devices have. It is rather an exact frequency determination to which the motor is driven. It is simpler and hidden. Should we go back on mechanical advance....God no./
 
I think the CDI electronic advance is similar to today's digital servo. The former advances spark pulsing based on rpm and the latter advances motor output torque based on input load. Whether each violates, not sure. Needs more thought and comparison to the rules. My first take would be to say NO because the magnitude of adjustment is fixed
 
Matt




----- Original Message ----- 
From: Dave 
To: 'General pattern discussion' 
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts




Matt,
 
One more thought/consideration/question ?
 
Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?  Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function?they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?
 
Regards,
 
Dave
 
 
 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

 

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.

 

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 

 

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument

 

MattK



 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
 
Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 

_______________________________________________
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

 

 


Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

 

Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


_______________________________________________
SRCA-discussion mailing list
SRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
ttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


_______________________________________________
SRCA-discussion mailing list
SRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
ttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now. = 

_______________________________________________
SRCA-discussion mailing list
SRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
ttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100304/e0717c47/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Wed Mar  3 20:53:10 2010
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:53:10 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <8CC896D09F5684D-1198-2B49@webmail-d096.sysops.aol.com>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>, ,
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser><SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl><28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop><C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>,
	<8CC8916373ECDCF-43F8-55EB@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com>,
	<8CC891AA5DD3C7A-68E0-4E7@webmail-m041.sysops.aol.com><SNT138-w59103F453B48F2C93F6A24E8390@phx.gbl>
	<8CC896D09F5684D-1198-2B49@webmail-d096.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <6F64CBD831B745649E01C7D86902B5E5@davedesktop>

The OS EFI looked at throttle position (taken from the throttle servo signal
pulse width), RPM, and temperature.  I disconnected the temp sensor and
found it made ZERO difference in running characteristics under normal
conditions.  Others reported the engine would not even start without the
temp sensor connected.  My understanding is that EFI computer unit basically
compared throttle position to RPM and adjusted the mixture to reduce
rich/lean spots as the engine came on/off the pipe.

 

The ?biggest lie? about electrics is that they always produce the same
amount of power.  Phooey.  Ambient temperature has a big influence.

 

So far as the ESC feature I would like to have
..it is not a governor like
the governor mode from the heli software or the governor mode Dean has
worked with for CL Stunt.  And I certainly don?t want my electric setup to
emulate an IC (if I did, I?d just fly IC).  What the feature is, is a way to
?clip? peak power at the beginning of the discharge cycle to maintain a
constant peak power (if/when requested by advancing the throttle stick to
100%) and constant part throttle power.  In the instance of a fresh battery
being capable of 6500 RPM, it might be limited to 6100 RPM
..and ? throttle
would be 4500 RPM (for instance).  As the battery is discharged, it might
only be capable of 6200 RPM, but full throttle would remain 6100 RPM, and ?
throttle would remain 4500 RPM.  Think of it more as the way modern TX
output strength is controlled


.whether the TX battery is freshly charged
at 11 volts (Nixx) or near depleted at 9.3 volts
the signal output strength
is the same.

 

So far as a 45 upline or vertical upline

certainly electric or IC both need
throttle adjustments to maintain constant airspeed.  A ?governor? that
maintains constant prop RPM could be applied to either setup (and
potentially maintain constant airspeed without an input from the pilot).  In
practice, less throttle adjustment is needed with an electric, because as
the load on the electric increases (airspeed decreases when climbing), the
electric motor attempts to maintain the RPM from the start of the climb
(KV*volts) by drawing more amps to maintain the RPM.  IC doesn?t do
this
.more load on engine results in a loss of RPM (absent any specific
tuning effects of the exhaust system, mixture, etc).

 

I think the intent of the rules are clear enough, and need to be updated to
reflect the current technology.

 

Regards,

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:48 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

Ed,

 

I'm not so sure. Most IC's don't have a pressure regulator...the YS is about
the only one. This a passive device that has fixed settings. Dave's example
of the EFI may be a dfferent story though...I never spent any time dealing
with the OS EFI so I don't know how it worked. 

 

The problem with such analogies is that gas and glow fuels have a fixed
amount of pop per unit mass. Put in X amount and you will pretty much get Y
out for any given set-up, even poor ones. Y would vary of course depending
on how good the set-up was, meaning different operators will probably get
different Y's. However Y would be pretty much fixed for each operator

 

Batteries on the other hand, have a continuously variable amount of pop per
unit mass. Electronically taking the variable input volts and, through some
apparently straight forward software, drive a constant Y at the motor, is
where I am having some issue with. 

 

As for ESC's not doing much to alter the piloting of the model, again I am
not so sure. Dean used a good example: at near the end of the flight, let's
assume there is a diagonal or vertical. The battery has lost some pop and
the motor won't be able to keep up under constant throttle conditions. The
pilot would need to make a throttle adjustment to maintain momentum. If the
ESC had this new programming, the pilot would fly through this without
hardly noticing or changing his flying, just like we do with ICs. I
certainly am NOT opposed to reducing pilot work load...it's the how not the
what. 

 

And in this particular instance, equality between the types of propulsion IS
what the programmable ESC proponents want.....

 

The rule as written is sticky. I think that some type of clarification or
addendum to the rule, as Earl suggested, would eliminate the sticky wicket
if you will.

 

BTW- I am not implying that Dean is against the programmable ESC, far from
it. He has thought through what would be needed to accomplish the task. In
fact, he did something similar to Bob Hunt's WC stunt entry a few years ago.


 

Matt

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
To: NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, Mar 3, 2010 7:56 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

I actually was only halfway joking I said "Ban the YS Pressure Regulator",
or something like that.  Not that I really think it should be banned, but
for everyone who thinks it would be cheating to have an ESC that can
auto-compensate for dwindling battery voltage, then you ought to seriously
think about why it is OK to have a automatic pressure regulator in a recip.
There isn't much difference, other than one is wet and the other is dry.
And the other key point about having an ESC with this feature is that it
doesn't do anything to alter the piloting of the model based on the external
conditions that the model is encountering. All it is doing is de-rating the
output of the the battery to make it consistent throughout its useful
operation range.  
 
Ed
 

  _____  

To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:58:30 -0500
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Dave,

 

I would argue that the ESC has the sensor built. It isn't a sensor in the
sense of a mag pick up such as CDI devices have. It is rather an exact
frequency determination to which the motor is driven. It is simpler and
hidden. Should we go back on mechanical advance....God no./

 

I think the CDI electronic advance is similar to today's digital servo. The
former advances spark pulsing based on rpm and the latter advances motor
output torque based on input load. Whether each violates, not sure. Needs
more thought and comparison to the rules. My first take would be to say NO
because the magnitude of adjustment is fixed

 

Matt

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

From: Dave <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>  

To: 'General pattern discussion' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

Matt,

 

One more thought/consideration/question ?

 

Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?  Essentially
the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is
advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function
they advance timing as RPM
increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go back to sensors and
mechanical advance devices?

 

Regards,

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

 

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean
explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do
some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how
easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something
similar in this thread.

 

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see
this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned
about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with
the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable
rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does
not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today.


 

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO
pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue
that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of
today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down
and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a
good argument

 

MattK



 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or
any other rules proposal.
 
Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the
intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ] On Behalf Of James
Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with
the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max
volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ]
> >> On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 <http://www.avg.com/>  
> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


  _____  


Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/>  now. = 

_______________________________________________
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

 

 


  _____  


Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/>  now.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/> 

 


  _____  


Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/>  now.


  _____  


_______________________________________________
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

 

  _____  

Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469230/direct/01/>  now. = 

_______________________________________________
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/20100304/90eba9e8/attachment.html>

From ejhaury at comcast.net  Thu Mar  4 04:02:18 2010
From: ejhaury at comcast.net (Earl Haury)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:02:18 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <6F64CBD831B745649E01C7D86902B5E5@davedesktop>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>, ,
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser><SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl><28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop><C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>,
	<8CC8916373ECDCF-43F8-55EB@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com>,
	<8CC891AA5DD3C7A-68E0-4E7@webmail-m041.sysops.aol.com><SNT138-w59103F453B48F2C93F6A24E8390@phx.gbl><8CC896D09F5684D-1198-2B49@webmail-d096.sysops.aol.com>
	<6F64CBD831B745649E01C7D86902B5E5@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <3EB037E5EF564CE6A492BC5B265E2DE7@EarlPC>

IC powered models improve in thrust to weight ratio as fuel is burned off, the converse is true of E powered models - power declines as battery charge (fuel) is used. 

Dave's ESC requirements are exactly what is desirable. "Giving up" some early flight "punch" to ensure constant performance throughout. A lot different than having an ESC do some magic to extract more performance at the latter stages of flight. In other words, the prop rpm would be proportional to the (pilot controlled) stick position throughout a flight. Simply a more direct relation between control input and result, not unlike an IC system. The system now used is kinda "back-door" in that TX inputs are turned into a power output from the ESC that varies with input voltage resulting in different motor outputs for the same stick position.

For the sake of argument, I suppose that if one wants' to read things unintended into the rules ad nauseum, then jettisoning fuel via the exhaust is reason for not scoring a flight from the point where exhaust is seen leaving the model.  From the rules: "If any part of the model aircraft is jettisoned during the flight, scoring will cease at that point and the competitor must be instructed by the flight line director to immediately land his model aircraft."

Earl 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dave 
  To: 'General pattern discussion' 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:48 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


  The OS EFI looked at throttle position (taken from the throttle servo signal pulse width), RPM, and temperature.  I disconnected the temp sensor and found it made ZERO difference in running characteristics under normal conditions.  Others reported the engine would not even start without the temp sensor connected.  My understanding is that EFI computer unit basically compared throttle position to RPM and adjusted the mixture to reduce rich/lean spots as the engine came on/off the pipe.

   

  The "biggest lie" about electrics is that they always produce the same amount of power.  Phooey.  Ambient temperature has a big influence.

   

  So far as the ESC feature I would like to have...it is not a governor like the governor mode from the heli software or the governor mode Dean has worked with for CL Stunt.  And I certainly don't want my electric setup to emulate an IC (if I did, I'd just fly IC).  What the feature is, is a way to "clip" peak power at the beginning of the discharge cycle to maintain a constant peak power (if/when requested by advancing the throttle stick to 100%) and constant part throttle power.  In the instance of a fresh battery being capable of 6500 RPM, it might be limited to 6100 RPM...and ? throttle would be 4500 RPM (for instance).  As the battery is discharged, it might only be capable of 6200 RPM, but full throttle would remain 6100 RPM, and ? throttle would remain 4500 RPM.  Think of it more as the way modern TX output strength is controlled....whether the TX battery is freshly charged at 11 volts (Nixx) or near depleted at 9.3 volts.the signal output strength is the same.

   

  So far as a 45 upline or vertical upline..certainly electric or IC both need throttle adjustments to maintain constant airspeed.  A "governor" that maintains constant prop RPM could be applied to either setup (and potentially maintain constant airspeed without an input from the pilot).  In practice, less throttle adjustment is needed with an electric, because as the load on the electric increases (airspeed decreases when climbing), the electric motor attempts to maintain the RPM from the start of the climb (KV*volts) by drawing more amps to maintain the RPM.  IC doesn't do this..more load on engine results in a loss of RPM (absent any specific tuning effects of the exhaust system, mixture, etc).

   

  I think the intent of the rules are clear enough, and need to be updated to reflect the current technology.

   

  Regards,

   

  Dave

   

   

   

   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com
  Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:48 PM
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

   

  Ed,

   

  I'm not so sure. Most IC's don't have a pressure regulator...the YS is about the only one. This a passive device that has fixed settings. Dave's example of the EFI may be a dfferent story though...I never spent any time dealing with the OS EFI so I don't know how it worked. 

   

  The problem with such analogies is that gas and glow fuels have a fixed amount of pop per unit mass. Put in X amount and you will pretty much get Y out for any given set-up, even poor ones. Y would vary of course depending on how good the set-up was, meaning different operators will probably get different Y's. However Y would be pretty much fixed for each operator

   

  Batteries on the other hand, have a continuously variable amount of pop per unit mass. Electronically taking the variable input volts and, through some apparently straight forward software, drive a constant Y at the motor, is where I am having some issue with. 

   

  As for ESC's not doing much to alter the piloting of the model, again I am not so sure. Dean used a good example: at near the end of the flight, let's assume there is a diagonal or vertical. The battery has lost some pop and the motor won't be able to keep up under constant throttle conditions. The pilot would need to make a throttle adjustment to maintain momentum. If the ESC had this new programming, the pilot would fly through this without hardly noticing or changing his flying, just like we do with ICs. I certainly am NOT opposed to reducing pilot work load...it's the how not the what. 

   

  And in this particular instance, equality between the types of propulsion IS what the programmable ESC proponents want.....

   

  The rule as written is sticky. I think that some type of clarification or addendum to the rule, as Earl suggested, would eliminate the sticky wicket if you will.

   

  BTW- I am not implying that Dean is against the programmable ESC, far from it. He has thought through what would be needed to accomplish the task. In fact, he did something similar to Bob Hunt's WC stunt entry a few years ago. 

   

  Matt

   

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
  To: NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  Sent: Wed, Mar 3, 2010 7:56 pm
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

  I actually was only halfway joking I said "Ban the YS Pressure Regulator", or something like that.  Not that I really think it should be banned, but for everyone who thinks it would be cheating to have an ESC that can auto-compensate for dwindling battery voltage, then you ought to seriously think about why it is OK to have a automatic pressure regulator in a recip.  There isn't much difference, other than one is wet and the other is dry.  And the other key point about having an ESC with this feature is that it doesn't do anything to alter the piloting of the model based on the external conditions that the model is encountering. All it is doing is de-rating the output of the the battery to make it consistent throughout its useful operation range.  
   
  Ed
   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:58:30 -0500
  From: rcmaster199 at aol.com
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

  Dave,

   

  I would argue that the ESC has the sensor built. It isn't a sensor in the sense of a mag pick up such as CDI devices have. It is rather an exact frequency determination to which the motor is driven. It is simpler and hidden. Should we go back on mechanical advance....God no./

   

  I think the CDI electronic advance is similar to today's digital servo. The former advances spark pulsing based on rpm and the latter advances motor output torque based on input load. Whether each violates, not sure. Needs more thought and comparison to the rules. My first take would be to say NO because the magnitude of adjustment is fixed

   

  Matt

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

    From: Dave 

    To: 'General pattern discussion' 

    Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM

    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

     

    Matt,

     

    One more thought/consideration/question -

     

    Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?  Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function.they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?

     

    Regards,

     

    Dave

     

     

     

     

    On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

       

      I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.

       

      I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 

       

      When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument

       

      MattK



       

       

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
      To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
      Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
      Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

      Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
       
      Anthony
       
      > From: burtona at atmc.net
      > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
      > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
      > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
      > 
      > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
      > and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
      > ....... Just asking!
      > Dave Burton
      > 
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
      > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
      > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
      > To: General pattern discussion
      > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
      > 
      > I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
      > pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
      > of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
      > its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
      > 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
      > and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
      > flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
      > volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
      > 
      > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
      > right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
      > 
      > Jim
      > 
      > 
      > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
      > 
      > > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
      > is still limited to 42.56. 
      > > 
      > > Bob Kane
      > > getterflash at yahoo.com
      > > 
      > > 
      > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
      > wrote:
      > > 
      > >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
      > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
      > >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
      > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
      > >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
      > >> 
      > >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
      > >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
      > >> 
      > >> Chris 
      > >> 
      > >> 
      > >> 
      > >> 
      > >> 
      > >> 
      > >> 
      > >> 
      > >> 
      > >> From: Chad
      > >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
      > >> To:
      > >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
      > >> Sent: Sun,
      > >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
      > >> Subject: Re:
      > >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
      > >> 
      > >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
      > >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
      > >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
      > >> 
      > >> Chad
      > >> 
      > >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
      > >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
      > >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
      > >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
      > >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
      > >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
      > >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
      > >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
      > >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
      > >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
      > >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
      > >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
      > >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
      > >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
      > >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
      > >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
      > >>> 
      > >>> Ron Van Putte
      > >>> 
      > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
      > >>> 
      > >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
      > >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
      > >> noise test and have a minimum value?
      > >>>> 
      > >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
      > >>>> 
      > >>>> 
      > >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
      > >>>> 
      > >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
      > >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
      > >>>>> which
      > >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
      > >> limited to a maximum
      > >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
      > >>>>> 
      > >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
      > >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
      > >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
      > >>>>> 
      > >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
      > >> section.
      > >>>>> 
      > >>>>> 
      > >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
      > >>>>> 
      > >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
      > >> for max volts?
      > >>>>>> 
      > >>>>>> 
      > >> _______________________________________________
      > >>>>>> 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
      > >> 
      > >> 
      > >> 
      > >> 
      > >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
      > >> 
      > >> _______________________________________________
      > >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
      > 14:34:00
      > 
      > _______________________________________________
      > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
      > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
      > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 

_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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

     

     


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

    __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________

    The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

    http://www.eset.com

     


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    _______________________________________________
    NSRCA-discussion mailing list
    NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now. = 

_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100304/b2962441/attachment.html>

From jim.woodward at baesystems.com  Thu Mar  4 04:22:19 2010
From: jim.woodward at baesystems.com (Woodward, Jim R (US SSA))
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:22:19 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts - fresh comparison?
In-Reply-To: <6F64CBD831B745649E01C7D86902B5E5@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <cd5fe9$4o2fn9@dmzms99802.na.baesystems.com>

Bingo - "Dave quote, The "biggest lie" about electrics is that they always produce the same amount of power.  Phooey.  Ambient temperature has a big influence."

Truths about electric - from a glow flyer's perspective:

1.       The holy grail of absolute consistency - is false

2.       The holy grail of motor system security - is false  - must still carry extra motor, ESC, Battery

3.       Weather effects are at least equal compared to glow - temps, humidity, wind, effect mah usage

4.       11 lbs weight limit is significantly more difficult to meet with electric plane than glow

5.       E-deadsticks or low-power runs still occur

6.       Must have field charging solution - most likely Honda generator

7.       Must have temp-control measures in place for batteries (hot dashboard or warm blanket?)

8.       Can have an "E-crash" while flying - ESC or battery starts smoking/fire

9.       Battery safety ???

10.   Reduced flight time - All this ruminating and crazyness for 8-9 minutes of flight time??

>From my perspective, the only reason to fly electric would be if the industry and judging trends were so badly biased towards electric, that it became the only "competitive" solution available.  I'm leaving the "sponsorship" component out of the equation, because people on the E or G side of the discussion have sponsorships either way.  It just seems like a large pain in the arse to fly electric, given the reduced flight times and severe penalty on battery life if you fly too long.

Given all this, what is the E-flyer really getting?

Thanks,
Jim W.







________________________________
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:48 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Ed,

I'm not so sure. Most IC's don't have a pressure regulator...the YS is about the only one. This a passive device that has fixed settings. Dave's example of the EFI may be a dfferent story though...I never spent any time dealing with the OS EFI so I don't know how it worked.

The problem with such analogies is that gas and glow fuels have a fixed amount of pop per unit mass. Put in X amount and you will pretty much get Y out for any given set-up, even poor ones. Y would vary of course depending on how good the set-up was, meaning different operators will probably get different Y's. However Y would be pretty much fixed for each operator

Batteries on the other hand, have a continuously variable amount of pop per unit mass. Electronically taking the variable input volts and, through some apparently straight forward software, drive a constant Y at the motor, is where I am having some issue with.

As for ESC's not doing much to alter the piloting of the model, again I am not so sure. Dean used a good example: at near the end of the flight, let's assume there is a diagonal or vertical. The battery has lost some pop and the motor won't be able to keep up under constant throttle conditions. The pilot would need to make a throttle adjustment to maintain momentum. If the ESC had this new programming, the pilot would fly through this without hardly noticing or changing his flying, just like we do with ICs. I certainly am NOT opposed to reducing pilot work load...it's the how not the what.

And in this particular instance, equality between the types of propulsion IS what the programmable ESC proponents want.....

The rule as written is sticky. I think that some type of clarification or addendum to the rule, as Earl suggested, would eliminate the sticky wicket if you will.

BTW- I am not implying that Dean is against the programmable ESC, far from it. He has thought through what would be needed to accomplish the task. In fact, he did something similar to Bob Hunt's WC stunt entry a few years ago.

Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
To: NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, Mar 3, 2010 7:56 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
I actually was only halfway joking I said "Ban the YS Pressure Regulator", or something like that.  Not that I really think it should be banned, but for everyone who thinks it would be cheating to have an ESC that can auto-compensate for dwindling battery voltage, then you ought to seriously think about why it is OK to have a automatic pressure regulator in a recip.  There isn't much difference, other than one is wet and the other is dry.  And the other key point about having an ESC with this feature is that it doesn't do anything to alter the piloting of the model based on the external conditions that the model is encountering. All it is doing is de-rating the output of the the battery to make it consistent throughout its useful operation range.

Ed

________________________________
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:58:30 -0500
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com<mailto:rcmaster199 at aol.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
Dave,

I would argue that the ESC has the sensor built. It isn't a sensor in the sense of a mag pick up such as CDI devices have. It is rather an exact frequency determination to which the motor is driven. It is simpler and hidden. Should we go back on mechanical advance....God no./

I think the CDI electronic advance is similar to today's digital servo. The former advances spark pulsing based on rpm and the latter advances motor output torque based on input load. Whether each violates, not sure. Needs more thought and comparison to the rules. My first take would be to say NO because the magnitude of adjustment is fixed

Matt
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave<mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion'<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Matt,

One more thought/consideration/question -

Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?  Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function...they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?

Regards,

Dave




On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com<mailto:rcmaster199 at aol.com> wrote:

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today.

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument

MattK




-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com<mailto:anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.

Anthony

> From: burtona at atmc.net<mailto:burtona at atmc.net>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?>] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
>
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> is still limited to 42.56.
> >
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com<mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com>
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com<mailto:homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com<mailto:homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org<mailto:chad at f3acanada.org>, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >>
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org<mailto:chad at f3acanada.org>>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >>
> >> Chad
> >>
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>>
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?>]
> >> On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>>>>>
> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing
> >> list
> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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<http://www.avg.com/>
> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/> =

_______________________________________________

NSRCA-discussion mailing list

NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/>

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com<http://www.eset.com/>

________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/>
________________________________
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________

NSRCA-discussion mailing list

NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________

NSRCA-discussion mailing list

NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469230/direct/01/> =

_______________________________________________

NSRCA-discussion mailing list

NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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/20100304/97fbe539/attachment.html>

From ronlock at comcast.net  Thu Mar  4 04:23:12 2010
From: ronlock at comcast.net (ronlock at comcast.net)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:23:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls
In-Reply-To: <1391307149.2693241267708654340.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <257611718.2695651267708986689.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>



Good discussion Ed. 



("Wetware"?? that coined by you Ed?) 



Ron Lockhart 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed White" <edvwhite at yahoo.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2010 8:16:35 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls 


I would agree.? The example of the elevator is open loop, it does not use any kind of an Earth reference and it does not create a sequence or use a timing device.? All it does is create a highly nonlinear relationship between the stick and the elevator.? If we can't have nonlinear stick to control surfaces programmed, we've all got to zero out our expos. 


I also think the ESC example has to be allowed.? If the issue is that it is a closed loop control, then we all have to go into our servos and cut the wires from the feedback pots. [Insert comment on what my flying looks like here].? Servos are, nearly by definition of the word, closed loop feedback devices.? The ESC example is just another example of a closed loop feedback system, the only difference is the loop doesn't close on mechanical position, it closes on motor rpm or whatever. 

So I am a little troubled by the AMA rule book saying that ?Radio control equipment shall be of the open loop type?"? A controls person would say we always (we hope) have closed loop control of the airplane. Every closed loop control system has these minimum elements:? a commanded state; at least one actuator that has an effect on the actual state; at least one sensor capable of estimating the actual state; and last, a control algorithm that generates a feedback signal to change the actuator input to minimize the difference between the commanded and actual states. 

In our case both the sensors and control algorithm that close the loop are wetware located between our ears [or elsewhere for some of us]. Just because a human is in the loop does not make it open loop control. ? If you want to fly open loop control, you have to break the control loop ? it's easily done, just fly with your eyes closed. [Insert second comment about my flying here]. 

I'm not sure adding more examples really solves the underlying problem which I am afraid is with the idea that our control is open loop when it is not.? In control parlance the closed control loops in the servos are inner loops and the multi-axis control of aircraft attitude and rates through our thumbs is the outer loop.? I think a more technically correct approach would be to say that we can't use artificial sensors that measure and use primary outer loop parameters which I would define to be at a minimum aircraft attitude, rates and flight path angles. 

Probably this doesn't solve it either.? The trouble with advancing technology is it makes the simple very messy. 


Ed 


From: "ronlock at comcast.net" <ronlock at comcast.net> 
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 11:40:17 AM 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls 




My interpretation of permitted controls would allow the example below - 

Application of full elevator and full rudder by pilot?switches on a "mixer"? that results in half elevator. 

It does not involving timing intervals, or aircraft peformance in commanding an inpur (half elevator in this example) 



Ron Lockhart 



Example: Permitted: 

1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot. 

2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is initiated or activated and terminated 

by the competitor. 

3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix control functions. 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Pascoe [Burlington]" <Tim.Pascoe at ec.gc.ca> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2010 11:35:33 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 




In reading this, it seems the logic programming available in radios such as the 14MZ, which permit rate changes automatically based on single or multiple stick positions would be illegal. So when I set a condition to drop the Elevator rate by half as soon as full Elevator and full Rudder are initiated, at the entry to a snap, I seem to breaking Number 3 in the Not Permitted list below. 



Correct? 




Tim Pascoe 




From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl Haury 
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:02 AM 
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 





Somewhat reluctantly I'm going to jump into this discussion and try to dissect it a bit. It appears to me that maybe more is being read into the rules than is actually there. There is one paragraph of three sentences that addresses what type of control is permitted? and what is not. Then there are some examples of what is permitted and what is not. (See below.) "Examples" by definition aren't all inclusive. I think we probably all agree on the "open loop" concept. The ESC discussion seems to fall somewhere in the?"auto-pilot exclusion" and? "automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing device" prohibition seems to be where this discussion lies. 

What's being proposed for ESC functionality, as I understand it, would ensure the same prop speed for a given throttle stick position. Not much difference than a fuel supply control system that ensures the same fuel delivery to the engine at a given throttle position. In neither case is the propulsion system?controlling aircraft speed via a feedback loop, the nut on the stick is doing that. Seems OK within the rules to me. 

OTOH, I understand the view that control algorithms are doing magic changing "timing" of electrical pulses to the motor. I would argue this is outside the "automatic control timing device" rule which was intended to prevent automatic "control" inputs?directly. Yes - I was around when these rules were discussed and implemented, so I have some insight?at to their?intent. I also realize that there are things around now that weren't at that time that merit these discussions. It would?seem that if everyone feels passionately enough about this an easy fix would to add a sentence (pro or con) in the examples part of the rule that is specific to this topic, therefore keeping the "worms in the can". 

Hmmm as Dave says - I wonder how the control algorithms of a servo fit into this, lots of electronic magic going on there. 

Earl 

"Radio equipment shall be of the open loop type (ie no electronic feedback from the model aircraft 

to the ground). Auto-pilot control utilising inertia, gravity or any type of terrestrial reference is 

prohibited. Automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing devices 

are prohibited. 

Example: Permitted: 

1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot. 

2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is initiated or activated and terminated 

by the competitor. 

3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix control functions. 

SC4_Vol_F3_Aerobatics_09 Effective 1st January 2009 Page 10 

5 

Not permitted: 

1. Snap roll buttons with automatic timing mode. 

2. Pre-programming devices to automatically perform a series of commands. 

3. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic wing levelling or other stabilisation of the model aircraft. 

4. Propeller pitch change with automatic timing mode. 

5. Any type of voice recognition system. 

6. Conditions, switches, throttle curves, or any other mechanical or electronic device that will 

prevent or limit maximum power or rpm of the propulsion device during the sound/noise test. 

7. Any type of learning function involving manoeuvre to manoeuvre or flight to flight analysis." 




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


From: Dave 


To: 'General pattern discussion' 


Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM 


Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 






Matt, 



One more thought/consideration/question ? 



Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal? ?Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.? The ESCs of today do the same function?they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor. ?Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices? 



Regards, 



Dave 












On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote: 






I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread. 





I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code.?I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 





When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with?RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument 





MattK 




? 




-----Original Message----- 
From: Anthony Romano < anthonyr105 at hotmail.com > 
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 


Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal. 
? 
Anthony 
? 
> From: burtona at atmc.net 
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent 
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating? 
> ....... Just asking! 
> Dave Burton 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [ mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org ] On Behalf Of James Oddino 
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM 
> To: General pattern discussion 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S 
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece 
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with 
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our 
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed 
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in 
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7 
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec. 
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the 
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts. 
> 
> Jim 
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote: 
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts 
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane 
> > getterflash at yahoo.com 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons < homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com > 
> wrote: 
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons < homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com > 
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org , "General pattern discussion" 
> < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org > 
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM 
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and 
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice! 
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad 
> >> Northeast < chad at f3acanada.org > 
> >> To: 
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> >> Sent: Sun, 
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM 
> >> Subject: Re: 
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell 
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you 
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time. 
> >> 
> >> Chad 
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote: 
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully 
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very 
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge 
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss 
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully 
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them 
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56 
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for 
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be 
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical 
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be 
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it 
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra 
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic 
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong. 
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte 
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load 
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the 
> >> noise test and have a minimum value? 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote: 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC 
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1 
> >>>>> which 
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are 
> >> limited to a maximum 
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.." 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM 
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion 
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C 
> >> section. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote: 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule 
> >> for max volts? 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________ 
> >>>>>> 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 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________ 
> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10 
> 14:34:00 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list 
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 




Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 
_______________________________________________ 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 








Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. 

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________ 

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. 

http://www.eset.com/ 





Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now. 



_______________________________________________ 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100304/66d9066c/attachment.html>

From duane.e.beck at comcast.net  Thu Mar  4 04:53:55 2010
From: duane.e.beck at comcast.net (Duane Beck)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:53:55 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls
In-Reply-To: <257611718.2695651267708986689.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <897254553.5384761267710833573.JavaMail.root@sz0056a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetware_(brain)#Origin

> From: ronlock at comcast.net
> 
> ("Wetware"?? that coined by you Ed?)
> 
> Ron Lockhart

From johnfuqua at embarqmail.com  Thu Mar  4 05:00:28 2010
From: johnfuqua at embarqmail.com (John Fuqua)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:00:28 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts - fresh comparison?
In-Reply-To: <cd5fe9$4o2fn9@dmzms99802.na.baesystems.com>
References: <6F64CBD831B745649E01C7D86902B5E5@davedesktop>
	<cd5fe9$4o2fn9@dmzms99802.na.baesystems.com>
Message-ID: <020c01cabba3$0d07d180$27177480$@com>

But you never get slimed!!   Plus Plane, servos, rx never wear out.   Do not
need a 1700mil rx pack when you only draw 75mah or less per flight.   Noise
gone.   Of course you miss that glow fuel smell that we have all grown up to
luv.   Kinda like Chevys and Mercedes.  Depends on what you prefer and how
well you fly it.

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Woodward, Jim
R (US SSA)
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 7:22 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts - fresh comparison?

 

Bingo - "Dave quote, The "biggest lie" about electrics is that they always
produce the same amount of power.  Phooey.  Ambient temperature has a big
influence."

 

Truths about electric - from a glow flyer's perspective:

1.       The holy grail of absolute consistency - is false

2.       The holy grail of motor system security - is false  - must still
carry extra motor, ESC, Battery

3.       Weather effects are at least equal compared to glow - temps,
humidity, wind, effect mah usage

4.       11 lbs weight limit is significantly more difficult to meet with
electric plane than glow

5.       E-deadsticks or low-power runs still occur

6.       Must have field charging solution - most likely Honda generator

7.       Must have temp-control measures in place for batteries (hot
dashboard or warm blanket?)

8.       Can have an "E-crash" while flying - ESC or battery starts
smoking/fire

9.       Battery safety ???

10.   Reduced flight time - All this ruminating and crazyness for 8-9
minutes of flight time??

 

>From my perspective, the only reason to fly electric would be if the
industry and judging trends were so badly biased towards electric, that it
became the only "competitive" solution available.  I'm leaving the
"sponsorship" component out of the equation, because people on the E or G
side of the discussion have sponsorships either way.  It just seems like a
large pain in the arse to fly electric, given the reduced flight times and
severe penalty on battery life if you fly too long.  

 

Given all this, what is the E-flyer really getting?

 

Thanks,

Jim W.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:48 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

Ed,

 

I'm not so sure. Most IC's don't have a pressure regulator...the YS is about
the only one. This a passive device that has fixed settings. Dave's example
of the EFI may be a dfferent story though...I never spent any time dealing
with the OS EFI so I don't know how it worked. 

 

The problem with such analogies is that gas and glow fuels have a fixed
amount of pop per unit mass. Put in X amount and you will pretty much get Y
out for any given set-up, even poor ones. Y would vary of course depending
on how good the set-up was, meaning different operators will probably get
different Y's. However Y would be pretty much fixed for each operator

 

Batteries on the other hand, have a continuously variable amount of pop per
unit mass. Electronically taking the variable input volts and, through some
apparently straight forward software, drive a constant Y at the motor, is
where I am having some issue with. 

 

As for ESC's not doing much to alter the piloting of the model, again I am
not so sure. Dean used a good example: at near the end of the flight, let's
assume there is a diagonal or vertical. The battery has lost some pop and
the motor won't be able to keep up under constant throttle conditions. The
pilot would need to make a throttle adjustment to maintain momentum. If the
ESC had this new programming, the pilot would fly through this without
hardly noticing or changing his flying, just like we do with ICs. I
certainly am NOT opposed to reducing pilot work load...it's the how not the
what. 

 

And in this particular instance, equality between the types of propulsion IS
what the programmable ESC proponents want.....

 

The rule as written is sticky. I think that some type of clarification or
addendum to the rule, as Earl suggested, would eliminate the sticky wicket
if you will.

 

BTW- I am not implying that Dean is against the programmable ESC, far from
it. He has thought through what would be needed to accomplish the task. In
fact, he did something similar to Bob Hunt's WC stunt entry a few years ago.


 

Matt

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
To: NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, Mar 3, 2010 7:56 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

I actually was only halfway joking I said "Ban the YS Pressure Regulator",
or something like that.  Not that I really think it should be banned, but
for everyone who thinks it would be cheating to have an ESC that can
auto-compensate for dwindling battery voltage, then you ought to seriously
think about why it is OK to have a automatic pressure regulator in a recip.
There isn't much difference, other than one is wet and the other is dry.
And the other key point about having an ESC with this feature is that it
doesn't do anything to alter the piloting of the model based on the external
conditions that the model is encountering. All it is doing is de-rating the
output of the the battery to make it consistent throughout its useful
operation range.  
 
Ed
 

  _____  

To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:58:30 -0500
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Dave,

 

I would argue that the ESC has the sensor built. It isn't a sensor in the
sense of a mag pick up such as CDI devices have. It is rather an exact
frequency determination to which the motor is driven. It is simpler and
hidden. Should we go back on mechanical advance....God no./

 

I think the CDI electronic advance is similar to today's digital servo. The
former advances spark pulsing based on rpm and the latter advances motor
output torque based on input load. Whether each violates, not sure. Needs
more thought and comparison to the rules. My first take would be to say NO
because the magnitude of adjustment is fixed

 

Matt

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

From: Dave <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>  

To: 'General pattern discussion' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

Matt,

 

One more thought/consideration/question -

 

Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?  Essentially
the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is
advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function.they advance timing as RPM
increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go back to sensors and
mechanical advance devices?

 

Regards,

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

 

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean
explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do
some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how
easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something
similar in this thread.

 

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see
this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned
about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with
the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable
rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does
not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today.


 

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO
pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue
that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of
today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down
and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a
good argument

 

MattK



 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or
any other rules proposal.
 
Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the
intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ] On Behalf Of James
Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with
the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max
volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ]
> >> On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 <http://www.avg.com/>  
> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


  _____  


Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
now. <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/>  = 

_______________________________________________
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

 

 


  _____  


Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/>  now.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/> 

 


  _____  


Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/>  now.


  _____  


_______________________________________________
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

 

  _____  

Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469230/direct/01/>  now. = 

_______________________________________________
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/20100304/23445374/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Thu Mar  4 05:16:03 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:16:03 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts - fresh comparison?
Message-ID: <582334.98697.qm@web1116.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>


I agree with most of what you say, except for #3. I personally don't feel weather messes with the electrics nearly as much as with glow. Changing density altitude will affect the propellor performance of both. However, temp, humidity, altitude will also affect the performance, and especially the settings,?of an IC engine. If you take?both an electric and an IC plane to 10k feet altitude, you could change the prop on the electric (larger, more pitch) and get?back all the power - you don't inherently lose power with the electrics due to altitude, in fact you can still get all the power from an electric motor in a complete vacuum as long as you can present it with a load. The IC engine at 10k feet, you will have to mess with fuel (more nitro), mixture settings, as well as prop, and you will probably never get back all the power.? Now, cooling could?be an issue with the electrics since the air is less dense at higher altitude.
?
Ponder this: when was the last time you saw someone fly an .049 powered plane?? I have not seen one in years. In fact, most of the .25 sized or smaller planes are almost all electric now. I have to ask why?
?
I have lots of electrics, a few glow powered, and a few gassers. So, I am speaking as someone that does them all. They all have their advantages, allure, nostalgia or whatever. Don S let me fly his 1.70 powered Black Magic at Bealton last year, and I was VERY impressed. ?However, if I ever put together another competition pattern plane, I am going to lean heavily towards electric. Not due to performance or weight or cost, but because I have been happy with the smaller electrics thus far, and I don't miss having to clean up the plane after each flight.
?

Either you like electrics, or you don't - to each their own. Can't we all just get along? :-)
?
Bob R.
?

--- On Thu, 3/4/10, Woodward, Jim R (US SSA) <jim.woodward at baesystems.com> wrote:










Bingo ? ?Dave quote, The ?biggest lie? about electrics is that they always produce the same amount of power. ?Phooey.? Ambient temperature has a big influence.?
?
Truths about electric ? from a glow flyer?s perspective: 
1.?????? The holy grail of absolute consistency ? is false 
2.?????? The holy grail of motor system security ? is false? - must still carry extra motor, ESC, Battery 
3.?????? Weather effects are at least equal compared to glow ? temps, humidity, wind, effect mah usage 
4.?????? 11 lbs weight limit is significantly more difficult to meet with electric plane than glow 
5.?????? E-deadsticks or low-power runs still occur 
6.?????? Must have field charging solution ? most likely Honda generator 
7.?????? Must have temp-control measures in place for batteries (hot dashboard or warm blanket?) 
8.?????? Can have an ?E-crash? while flying ? ESC or battery starts smoking/fire 
9.?????? Battery safety ??? 
10.?? Reduced flight time - All this ruminating and crazyness for 8-9 minutes of flight time?? 
? 
>From my perspective, the only reason to fly electric would be if the industry and judging trends were so badly biased towards electric, that it became the only ?competitive? solution available.? I?m leaving the ?sponsorship? component out of the equation, because people on the E or G side of the discussion have sponsorships either way.? It just seems like a large pain in the arse to fly electric, given the reduced flight times and severe penalty on battery life if you fly too long.? 
? 
Given all this, what is the E-flyer really getting? 
? 
Thanks, 
Jim W. 
? 
? 
? 
? 
? 
? 
? 




From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:48 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
? 

Ed,

?

I'm not so sure. Most IC's don't have a pressure regulator...the YS is about the only one. This a passive device?that has fixed settings. Dave's example of the EFI may be a dfferent story though...I never spent any time dealing with the OS EFI so I don't know how it worked. 

?

The problem with such analogies is that gas and glow fuels have a fixed amount of pop per unit mass. Put in X amount and you will pretty much get Y out for any given set-up, even poor ones. Y would vary of course depending on how good the set-up was, meaning different operators will probably get different Y's. However Y would be pretty much fixed for each operator

?

Batteries on the other hand, have a continuously variable amount of pop per unit mass. Electronically taking the variable input volts and, through some apparently straight forward software,?drive a?constant Y at the motor, is where I am having some issue with. 

?

As for?ESC's not doing much to alter the piloting of the model, again I am not so sure. Dean used a good example: at near the end of the flight, let's assume there is a diagonal or vertical. The battery has lost some pop and the motor won't be able to keep up under?constant throttle?conditions. The pilot would need to make a throttle adjustment to maintain momentum. If the ESC had this new programming, the pilot would fly through this without hardly noticing or changing his flying, just like we do with ICs. I certainly am NOT opposed to reducing pilot work load...it's the how not the what. 

?

And in this particular instance, equality between the types of propulsion?IS what?the programmable?ESC?proponents want.....

?

The rule as written is sticky. I think that some type of clarification or addendum to the rule, as Earl suggested, would eliminate the sticky wicket if you will.

?

BTW- I am not implying that Dean is against the programmable ESC, far from it. He has thought through what would be needed to accomplish the task. In fact, he did something similar to Bob Hunt's WC stunt entry a few years ago. 

?

Matt
? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
To: NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, Mar 3, 2010 7:56 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

I actually was only halfway joking I said "Ban the YS Pressure Regulator", or something like that.? Not that I really?think it should be banned, but for everyone who thinks it would be cheating to have an ESC that can auto-compensate for dwindling battery voltage, then you ought to seriously think about?why it is OK to have a automatic pressure regulator in a recip.? There isn't?much difference, other than one is wet and the other is dry.? And the other key point about having an ESC with this feature is that it doesn't do anything to alter the piloting of the model based on the external conditions that the model is encountering. All it is doing is de-rating the output of?the the battery to make it consistent throughout?its useful operation range.? 
?
Ed
?



To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:58:30 -0500
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts 

Dave,

?

I would argue that the ESC has the sensor built. It isn't a sensor in the sense of a mag pick up such as CDI devices have. It is rather an exact frequency determination to which the motor is driven. It is simpler and hidden. Should we go back on mechanical advance....God no./

?

I think the CDI electronic advance is similar to today's digital servo. The former advances spark pulsing based on rpm and the latter advances motor output torque based on input load. Whether each violates, not sure. Needs more thought and comparison to the rules. My first take would be to say NO because the magnitude of adjustment is fixed

?

Matt






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

From: Dave 

To: 'General pattern discussion' 

Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

?




Matt,

?

One more thought/consideration/question ?

?

Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal? ?Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.? The ESCs of today do the same function?they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor. ?Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?

?

Regards,

?

Dave

?

?

?


?



On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:


?


I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.


?


I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code.?I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 


?


When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with?RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument


?


MattK




?

?


-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
?
Anthony
?
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion





Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 
_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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

?

?





Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

?




Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.




_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
? 



Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now. = 
_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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/20100304/8d63ff55/attachment.html>

From vanputte at cox.net  Thu Mar  4 05:24:15 2010
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:24:15 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts - fresh comparison?
In-Reply-To: <cd5fe9$4o2fn9@dmzms99802.na.baesystems.com>
References: <cd5fe9$4o2fn9@dmzms99802.na.baesystems.com>
Message-ID: <7CA20947-9B87-49B4-8A43-42818B51207E@cox.net>

The E-Flier is getting "no slime".

Ron

On Mar 4, 2010, at 7:22 AM, Woodward, Jim R (US SSA) wrote:

>
> From my perspective, the only reason to fly electric would be if  
> the industry and judging trends were so badly biased towards  
> electric, that it became the only ?competitive? solution  
> available.  I?m leaving the ?sponsorship? component out of the  
> equation, because people on the E or G side of the discussion have  
> sponsorships either way.  It just seems like a large pain in the  
> arse to fly electric, given the reduced flight times and severe  
> penalty on battery life if you fly too long.
>
>
>
> Given all this, what is the E-flyer really getting?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim W.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:48 PM
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
>
>
> Ed,
>
>
>
> I'm not so sure. Most IC's don't have a pressure regulator...the YS  
> is about the only one. This a passive device that has fixed  
> settings. Dave's example of the EFI may be a dfferent story  
> though...I never spent any time dealing with the OS EFI so I don't  
> know how it worked.
>
>
>
> The problem with such analogies is that gas and glow fuels have a  
> fixed amount of pop per unit mass. Put in X amount and you will  
> pretty much get Y out for any given set-up, even poor ones. Y would  
> vary of course depending on how good the set-up was, meaning  
> different operators will probably get different Y's. However Y  
> would be pretty much fixed for each operator
>
>
>
> Batteries on the other hand, have a continuously variable amount of  
> pop per unit mass. Electronically taking the variable input volts  
> and, through some apparently straight forward software, drive a  
> constant Y at the motor, is where I am having some issue with.
>
>
>
> As for ESC's not doing much to alter the piloting of the model,  
> again I am not so sure. Dean used a good example: at near the end  
> of the flight, let's assume there is a diagonal or vertical. The  
> battery has lost some pop and the motor won't be able to keep up  
> under constant throttle conditions. The pilot would need to make a  
> throttle adjustment to maintain momentum. If the ESC had this new  
> programming, the pilot would fly through this without hardly  
> noticing or changing his flying, just like we do with ICs. I  
> certainly am NOT opposed to reducing pilot work load...it's the how  
> not the what.
>
>
>
> And in this particular instance, equality between the types of  
> propulsion IS what the programmable ESC proponents want.....
>
>
>
> The rule as written is sticky. I think that some type of  
> clarification or addendum to the rule, as Earl suggested, would  
> eliminate the sticky wicket if you will.
>
>
>
> BTW- I am not implying that Dean is against the programmable ESC,  
> far from it. He has thought through what would be needed to  
> accomplish the task. In fact, he did something similar to Bob  
> Hunt's WC stunt entry a few years ago.
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
> To: NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wed, Mar 3, 2010 7:56 pm
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> I actually was only halfway joking I said "Ban the YS Pressure  
> Regulator", or something like that.  Not that I really think it  
> should be banned, but for everyone who thinks it would be cheating  
> to have an ESC that can auto-compensate for dwindling battery  
> voltage, then you ought to seriously think about why it is OK to  
> have a automatic pressure regulator in a recip.  There isn't much  
> difference, other than one is wet and the other is dry.  And the  
> other key point about having an ESC with this feature is that it  
> doesn't do anything to alter the piloting of the model based on the  
> external conditions that the model is encountering. All it is doing  
> is de-rating the output of the the battery to make it consistent  
> throughout its useful operation range.
>
> Ed
>
>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:58:30 -0500
> From: rcmaster199 at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> Dave,
>
>
>
> I would argue that the ESC has the sensor built. It isn't a sensor  
> in the sense of a mag pick up such as CDI devices have. It is  
> rather an exact frequency determination to which the motor is  
> driven. It is simpler and hidden. Should we go back on mechanical  
> advance....God no./
>
>
>
> I think the CDI electronic advance is similar to today's digital  
> servo. The former advances spark pulsing based on rpm and the  
> latter advances motor output torque based on input load. Whether  
> each violates, not sure. Needs more thought and comparison to the  
> rules. My first take would be to say NO because the magnitude of  
> adjustment is fixed
>
>
>
> Matt
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Dave
>
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
>
>
> Matt,
>
>
>
> One more thought/consideration/question ?
>
>
>
> Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?   
> Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM  
> increases, the timing is advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same  
> function?they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without  
> sensor.  Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject  
> recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of  
> programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of  
> battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do  
> physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this  
> thread.
>
>
>
> I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as  
> I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more  
> concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like  
> for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me  
> how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making  
> these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming  
> violation within the rules as they exist today.
>
>
>
> When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre- 
> programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would  
> argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with  
> the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules.  
> Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be  
> convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument
>
>
>
> MattK
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight  
> limits! Or any other rules proposal.
>
> Anthony
>
> > From: burtona at atmc.net
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >
> > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating  
> the intent
> > and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called  
> cheating?
> > ....... Just asking!
> > Dave Burton
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of  
> James Oddino
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >
> > I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem.  
> Picture a 10S
> > pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two  
> poles, a piece
> > of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole  
> switch with
> > its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we  
> place our
> > 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is  
> bypassed
> > and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers  
> late in
> > flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up  
> to 41.7
> > volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> >
> > Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate  
> power with the
> > right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to  
> 35 volts.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> >
> > > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules,  
> the max volts
> > is still limited to 42.56.
> > >
> > > Bob Kane
> > > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons  
> <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> > >>
> > >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> > >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> > >>
> > >> Chris
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: Chad
> > >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> > >> To:
> > >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >> Sent: Sun,
> > >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> > >> Subject: Re:
> > >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >>
> > >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> > >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> > >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> > >>
> > >> Chad
> > >>
> > >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> > >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> > >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> > >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> > >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> > >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> > >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> > >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> > >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> > >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> > >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> > >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> > >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> > >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> > >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> > >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ron Van Putte
> > >>>
> > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> > >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> > >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> > >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> > >>>>> which
> > >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> > >> limited to a maximum
> > >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> > >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> > >> section.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> > >> for max volts?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date:  
> 03/01/10
> > 14:34:00
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection.  
> Sign up now. =
>
> _______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion  
> mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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
>
>
>
>
>
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus  
> signature database 4910 (20100302) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign  
> up now.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion  
> mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/ 
> mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> _______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion  
> mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/ 
> mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now. =
>
> _______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion  
> mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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


From jpavlick at idseng.com  Thu Mar  4 05:24:56 2010
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:24:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls
In-Reply-To: <257611718.2695651267708986689.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <824782.20624.qm@web80506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Gee,?I thought my girlfriend was the only source of "Wetware" in my control loop. LOL
?
John Pavlick
?
--- On Thu, 3/4/10, ronlock at comcast.net <ronlock at comcast.net> wrote:


From: ronlock at comcast.net <ronlock at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, March 4, 2010, 8:23 AM



#yiv2106314076 p {margin:0;}


Good discussion Ed.
?
("Wetware"?? that coined by you Ed?)
?
Ron Lockhart
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed White" <edvwhite at yahoo.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2010 8:16:35 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls




I would agree.? The example of the elevator is open loop, it does not use any kind of an Earth reference and it does not create a sequence or use a timing device.? All it does is create a highly nonlinear relationship between the stick and the elevator.? If we can't have nonlinear stick to control surfaces programmed, we've all got to zero out our expos.


I also think the ESC example has to be allowed.? If the issue is that it is a closed loop control, then we all have to go into our servos and cut the wires from the feedback pots. [Insert comment on what my flying looks like here].? Servos are, nearly by definition of the word, closed loop feedback devices.? The ESC example is just another example of a closed loop feedback system, the only difference is the loop doesn't close on mechanical position, it closes on motor rpm or whatever.

So I am a little troubled by the AMA rule book saying that ?Radio control equipment shall be of the open loop type?"? A controls person would say we always (we hope) have closed loop control of the airplane. Every closed loop control system has these minimum elements:? a commanded state; at least one actuator that has an effect on the actual state; at least one sensor capable of estimating the actual state; and last, a control algorithm that generates a feedback signal to change the actuator input to minimize the difference between the commanded and actual states.

In our case both the sensors and control algorithm that close the loop are wetware located between our ears [or elsewhere for some of us]. Just because a human is in the loop does not make it open loop control.? If you want to fly open loop control, you have to break the control loop ? it's easily done, just fly with your eyes closed. [Insert second comment about my flying here]. 

I'm not sure adding more examples really solves the underlying problem which I am afraid is with the idea that our control is open loop when it is not.? In control parlance the closed control loops in the servos are inner loops and the multi-axis control of aircraft attitude and rates through our thumbs is the outer loop.? I think a more technically correct approach would be to say that we can't use artificial sensors that measure and use primary outer loop parameters which I would define to be at a minimum aircraft attitude, rates and flight path angles.

Probably this doesn't solve it either.? The trouble with advancing technology is it makes the simple very messy.


Ed



From: "ronlock at comcast.net" <ronlock at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 11:40:17 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls


#yiv2106314076 p {margin:0;}


My interpretation of permitted controls would allow the example below -
Application of full elevator and full rudder by pilot?switches on a "mixer"? that results in half elevator.
It does not involving timing intervals, or aircraft peformance in commanding an inpur (half elevator in this example)
?
Ron Lockhart
?
Example: Permitted:
1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot.
2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is initiated or activated and terminated
by the competitor.
3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix control functions.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Pascoe [Burlington]" <Tim.Pascoe at ec.gc.ca>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2010 11:35:33 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts



#yiv2106314076 v\00003a* {}
#yiv2106314076 o\00003a* {}
#yiv2106314076 w\00003a* {}
#yiv2106314076 .shape {}



#yiv2106314076 st1\00003a*{}







In reading this, it seems the logic programming available in radios such as the 14MZ, which permit rate changes automatically based on single or multiple stick positions would be illegal. So when I set a condition to drop the Elevator rate by half as soon as full Elevator and full Rudder are initiated, at the entry to a snap, I seem to breaking Number 3 in the Not Permitted list below.
?
Correct?
?

Tim Pascoe 



From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl Haury
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:02 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
?


Somewhat reluctantly I'm going to jump into this discussion and try to dissect it a bit. It appears to me that maybe more is being read into the rules than is actually there. There is one paragraph of three sentences that addresses what type of control is permitted? and what is not. Then there are some examples of what is permitted and what is not. (See below.) "Examples" by definition aren't all inclusive. I think we probably all agree on the "open loop" concept. The ESC discussion seems to fall somewhere in the?"auto-pilot exclusion" and? "automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing device" prohibition seems to be where this discussion lies.
What's being proposed for ESC functionality, as I understand it, would ensure the same prop speed for a given throttle stick position. Not much difference than a fuel supply control system that ensures the same fuel delivery to the engine at a given throttle position. In neither case is the propulsion system?controlling aircraft speed via a feedback loop, the nut on the stick is doing that. Seems OK within the rules to me. 
OTOH, I understand the view that control algorithms are doing magic changing "timing" of electrical pulses to the motor. I would argue this is outside the "automatic control timing device" rule which was intended to prevent automatic "control" inputs?directly. Yes - I was around when these rules were discussed and implemented, so I have some insight?at to their?intent. I also realize that there are things around now that weren't at that time that merit these discussions. It would?seem that if everyone feels passionately enough about this an easy fix would to add a sentence (pro or con) in the examples part of the rule that is specific to this topic, therefore keeping the "worms in the can".
Hmmm as Dave says - I wonder how the control algorithms of a servo fit into this, lots of electronic magic going on there.
Earl
"Radio equipment shall be of the open loop type (ie no electronic feedback from the model aircraft
to the ground). Auto-pilot control utilising inertia, gravity or any type of terrestrial reference is
prohibited. Automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing devices
are prohibited.
Example: Permitted:
1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot.
2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is initiated or activated and terminated
by the competitor.
3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix control functions.
SC4_Vol_F3_Aerobatics_09 Effective 1st January 2009 Page 10
5
Not permitted:
1. Snap roll buttons with automatic timing mode.
2. Pre-programming devices to automatically perform a series of commands.
3. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic wing levelling or other stabilisation of the model aircraft.
4. Propeller pitch change with automatic timing mode.
5. Any type of voice recognition system.
6. Conditions, switches, throttle curves, or any other mechanical or electronic device that will
prevent or limit maximum power or rpm of the propulsion device during the sound/noise test.
7. Any type of learning function involving manoeuvre to manoeuvre or flight to flight analysis."


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

From: Dave 

To: 'General pattern discussion' 

Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

?


Matt,
?
One more thought/consideration/question ?
?
Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal? ?Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.? The ESCs of today do the same function?they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor. ?Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?
?
Regards,
?
Dave
?
?
?

?


On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

?

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.

?

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code.?I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 

?

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with?RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument

?

MattK



?
?

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
?
Anthony
?
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion




Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 
_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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
?
?




Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com/
?



Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.



_______________________________________________
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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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/20100304/819e7d38/attachment.html>

From jim.woodward at baesystems.com  Thu Mar  4 05:42:57 2010
From: jim.woodward at baesystems.com (Woodward, Jim R (US SSA))
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:42:57 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts - fresh comparison?
In-Reply-To: <7CA20947-9B87-49B4-8A43-42818B51207E@cox.net>
Message-ID: <f7b52c$3n6b3q@dmzms99901.na.baesystems.com>

I did not list the "down-side" to glow and I know there is some.  For me, that is the funnest thing to run.  Also, E-pattern planes seem to promote a "foamy" flying style if there are not glow planes around to offset the presentation. 

I love the indoor electrics, and small outdoor stuff.  Electric has its place for sure.  I just don't really see the justification of the entire E-setup infrastructure, given the reduced flight times.  I'll take more practice time per flight.  
Thanks,
Jim




-----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: Thursday, March 04, 2010 8:28 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts - fresh comparison?

The E-Flier is getting "no slime".

Ron

On Mar 4, 2010, at 7:22 AM, Woodward, Jim R (US SSA) wrote:

>


From vanputte at cox.net  Thu Mar  4 05:48:32 2010
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:48:32 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts - fresh comparison?
In-Reply-To: <f7b52c$3n6b3q@dmzms99901.na.baesystems.com>
References: <f7b52c$3n6b3q@dmzms99901.na.baesystems.com>
Message-ID: <312AD66F-4D92-42F1-AB03-18333FABAD3A@cox.net>

That's why they make Fords and Chevrolets.  You get your choice,  
until the Feds get into it.

Ron

On Mar 4, 2010, at 8:42 AM, Woodward, Jim R (US SSA) wrote:

> I did not list the "down-side" to glow and I know there is some.   
> For me, that is the funnest thing to run.  Also, E-pattern planes  
> seem to promote a "foamy" flying style if there are not glow planes  
> around to offset the presentation.
>
> I love the indoor electrics, and small outdoor stuff.  Electric has  
> its place for sure.  I just don't really see the justification of  
> the entire E-setup infrastructure, given the reduced flight times.   
> I'll take more practice time per flight.
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> -----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: Thursday, March 04, 2010 8:28 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts - fresh comparison?
>
> The E-Flier is getting "no slime".
>
> Ron
>
> On Mar 4, 2010, at 7:22 AM, Woodward, Jim R (US SSA) wrote:
>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From rcmaster199 at aol.com  Thu Mar  4 08:39:47 2010
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com (rcmaster199 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:39:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <6F64CBD831B745649E01C7D86902B5E5@davedesktop>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>, ,
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser><SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl><28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop><C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>,
	<8CC8916373ECDCF-43F8-55EB@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com>,
	<8CC891AA5DD3C7A-68E0-4E7@webmail-m041.sysops.aol.com><SNT138-w59103F453B48F2C93F6A24E8390@phx.gbl><8CC896D09F5684D-1198-2B49@webmail-d096.sysops.aol.com>
	<6F64CBD831B745649E01C7D86902B5E5@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <8CC89D8BA47513B-525C-3CC@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com>


Okay I see what you are saying Dave. I think you are after a form of voltage regulation to power the plane as we do on airborne radio packs. To me, that's far simpler than I originally believed it to be. There is no magic done to regulate voltage down from a 2 cell lipo for example, to a usable magnitude in the airborne stuff. It sounds like it's a similar arrangement for the power plant also, but don't know enough about ESC's to make a reasonable assessment. In the case of the airborne regs, Ed explained his design. There is nothing there construing a violation.

I am also using his IBEC design for powering the CDI unit on the SAP180 gassie and there is no violation there either. Just straight forward regulation from an RX port to the CDI and filters to eliminate spurious signals from the CDI/spark plug wire back to the RX

Matt






-----Original Message-----
From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:48 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts



The OS EFI looked at throttle position (taken from the throttle servo signal pulse width), RPM, and temperature.  I disconnected the temp sensor and found it made ZERO difference in running characteristics under normal conditions.  Others reported the engine would not even start without the temp sensor connected.  My understanding is that EFI computer unit basically compared throttle position to RPM and adjusted the mixture to reduce rich/lean spots as the engine came on/off the pipe.
 
The ?biggest lie? about electrics is that they always produce the same amount of power.  Phooey.  Ambient temperature has a big influence.
 
So far as the ESC feature I would like to have?..it is not a governor like the governor mode from the heli software or the governor mode Dean has worked with for CL Stunt.  And I certainly don?t want my electric setup to emulate an IC (if I did, I?d just fly IC).  What the feature is, is a way to ?clip? peak power at the beginning of the discharge cycle to maintain a constant peak power (if/when requested by advancing the throttle stick to 100%) and constant part throttle power.  In the instance of a fresh battery being capable of 6500 RPM, it might be limited to 6100 RPM?..and ? throttle would be 4500 RPM (for instance).  As the battery is discharged, it might only be capable of 6200 RPM, but full throttle would remain 6100 RPM, and ? throttle would remain 4500 RPM.  Think of it more as the way modern TX output strength is controlled???.whether the TX battery is freshly charged at 11 volts (Nixx) or near depleted at 9.3 volts?the signal output strength is the same.
 
So far as a 45 upline or vertical upline??certainly electric or IC both need throttle adjustments to maintain constant airspeed.  A ?governor? that maintains constant prop RPM could be applied to either setup (and potentially maintain constant airspeed without an input from the pilot).  In practice, less throttle adjustment is needed with an electric, because as the load on the electric increases (airspeed decreases when climbing), the electric motor attempts to maintain the RPM from the start of the climb (KV*volts) by drawing more amps to maintain the RPM.  IC doesn?t do this?.more load on engine results in a loss of RPM (absent any specific tuning effects of the exhaust system, mixture, etc).
 
I think the intent of the rules are clear enough, and need to be updated to reflect the current technology.
 
Regards,
 
Dave
 
 
 
 


From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:48 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

Ed,

 

I'm not so sure. Most IC's don't have a pressure regulator...the YS is about the only one. This a passive device that has fixed settings. Dave's example of the EFI may be a dfferent story though...I never spent any time dealing with the OS EFI so I don't know how it worked. 

 

The problem with such analogies is that gas and glow fuels have a fixed amount of pop per unit mass. Put in X amount and you will pretty much get Y out for any given set-up, even poor ones. Y would vary of course depending on how good the set-up was, meaning different operators will probably get different Y's. However Y would be pretty much fixed for each operator

 

Batteries on the other hand, have a continuously variable amount of pop per unit mass. Electronically taking the variable input volts and, through some apparently straight forward software, drive a constant Y at the motor, is where I am having some issue with. 

 

As for ESC's not doing much to alter the piloting of the model, again I am not so sure. Dean used a good example: at near the end of the flight, let's assume there is a diagonal or vertical. The battery has lost some pop and the motor won't be able to keep up under constant throttle conditions. The pilot would need to make a throttle adjustment to maintain momentum. If the ESC had this new programming, the pilot would fly through this without hardly noticing or changing his flying, just like we do with ICs. I certainly am NOT opposed to reducing pilot work load...it's the how not the what. 

 

And in this particular instance, equality between the types of propulsion IS what the programmable ESC proponents want.....

 

The rule as written is sticky. I think that some type of clarification or addendum to the rule, as Earl suggested, would eliminate the sticky wicket if you will.

 

BTW- I am not implying that Dean is against the programmable ESC, far from it. He has thought through what would be needed to accomplish the task. In fact, he did something similar to Bob Hunt's WC stunt entry a few years ago. 

 

Matt

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
To: NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, Mar 3, 2010 7:56 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

I actually was only halfway joking I said "Ban the YS Pressure Regulator", or something like that.  Not that I really think it should be banned, but for everyone who thinks it would be cheating to have an ESC that can auto-compensate for dwindling battery voltage, then you ought to seriously think about why it is OK to have a automatic pressure regulator in a recip.  There isn't much difference, other than one is wet and the other is dry.  And the other key point about having an ESC with this feature is that it doesn't do anything to alter the piloting of the model based on the external conditions that the model is encountering. All it is doing is de-rating the output of the the battery to make it consistent throughout its useful operation range.  
 
Ed
 

To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:58:30 -0500
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Dave,

 

I would argue that the ESC has the sensor built. It isn't a sensor in the sense of a mag pick up such as CDI devices have. It is rather an exact frequency determination to which the motor is driven. It is simpler and hidden. Should we go back on mechanical advance....God no./

 

I think the CDI electronic advance is similar to today's digital servo. The former advances spark pulsing based on rpm and the latter advances motor output torque based on input load. Whether each violates, not sure. Needs more thought and comparison to the rules. My first take would be to say NO because the magnitude of adjustment is fixed

 

Matt




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

From: Dave 

To: 'General pattern discussion' 

Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 



Matt,

 

One more thought/consideration/question ?

 

Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?  Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function?they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?

 

Regards,

 

Dave

 

 

 


 


On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:


 


I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.


 


I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 


 


When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument


 


MattK




 


 


-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
 
Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 


_______________________________________________
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


 


 



Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com


 


Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.



_______________________________________________
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

 

Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now. = 

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



_______________________________________________
SRCA-discussion mailing list
SRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
ttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100304/c1d71af7/attachment.html>

From brian_w_young at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  4 09:28:20 2010
From: brian_w_young at yahoo.com (brian young)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:28:20 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts - fresh comparison?
In-Reply-To: <f7b52c$3n6b3q@dmzms99901.na.baesystems.com>
References: <f7b52c$3n6b3q@dmzms99901.na.baesystems.com>
Message-ID: <920914.40194.qm@web112112.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

We had a guy come to our club who was a very very proficient foamy flier, tended to do that exclusively for awhile and he got sponsored into IMAC flying. His 40% IMAC planes snaps looked just like foamy snaps, really funny to watch....i would set back and say 0, 0, 0, ...... but he would do some amazing stuff otherwise.

E flying I think is low wear, easy setup, less maintenance. Scales are balanced I imagine disadvantage vs. advantages. 

Brian




________________________________
From: "Woodward, Jim R (US SSA)" <jim.woodward at baesystems.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thu, March 4, 2010 8:42:50 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts - fresh comparison?

I did not list the "down-side" to glow and I know there is some.? For me, that is the funnest thing to run.? Also, E-pattern planes seem to promote a "foamy" flying style if there are not glow planes around to offset the presentation. 

I love the indoor electrics, and small outdoor stuff.? Electric has its place for sure.? I just don't really see the justification of the entire E-setup infrastructure, given the reduced flight times.? I'll take more practice time per flight.? 
Thanks,
Jim




-----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: Thursday, March 04, 2010 8:28 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts - fresh comparison?

The E-Flier is getting "no slime".

Ron

On Mar 4, 2010, at 7:22 AM, Woodward, Jim R (US SSA) wrote:

>

_______________________________________________
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/20100304/3a3acb99/attachment.html>

From brian_w_young at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  4 09:32:28 2010
From: brian_w_young at yahoo.com (brian young)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:32:28 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico
In-Reply-To: <8CC89D8BA47513B-525C-3CC@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>, ,
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser><SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl><28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop><C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>,
	<8CC8916373ECDCF-43F8-55EB@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com>,
	<8CC891AA5DD3C7A-68E0-4E7@webmail-m041.sysops.aol.com><SNT138-w59103F453B48F2C93F6A24E8390@phx.gbl><8CC896D09F5684D-1198-2B49@webmail-d096.sysops.aol.com>
	<6F64CBD831B745649E01C7D86902B5E5@davedesktop>
	<8CC89D8BA47513B-525C-3CC@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <581435.56668.qm@web112117.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Anyone try the LiFe batteries Hobbico has listed for Receivers yet?
?
http://www.hobbico.com/radioaccys/hcam6415.html
?
Brian


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100304/8f64d17a/attachment.html>

From johnfuqua at embarqmail.com  Thu Mar  4 09:49:50 2010
From: johnfuqua at embarqmail.com (John Fuqua)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:49:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico
In-Reply-To: <581435.56668.qm@web112117.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>, ,
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser><SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl><28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop><C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>,
	<8CC8916373ECDCF-43F8-55EB@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com>,
	<8CC891AA5DD3C7A-68E0-4E7@webmail-m041.sysops.aol.com><SNT138-w59103F453B48F2C93F6A24E8390@phx.gbl><8CC896D09F5684D-1198-2B49@webmail-d096.sysops.aol.com>	<6F64CBD831B745649E01C7D86902B5E5@davedesktop>	<8CC89D8BA47513B-525C-3CC@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com>
	<581435.56668.qm@web112117.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <024c01cabbcb$7b0dfd30$7129f790$@com>

Wow Steve Kaluf.   As the nominal voltage is different assume you need a
different charger to charge them.

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of brian young
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 12:32 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico

 

Anyone try the LiFe batteries Hobbico has listed for Receivers yet?

 

http://www.hobbico.com/radioaccys/hcam6415.html

 

Brian

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100304/f53ecedc/attachment.html>

From anthonyr105 at hotmail.com  Thu Mar  4 09:56:29 2010
From: anthonyr105 at hotmail.com (Anthony Romano)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:56:29 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico
In-Reply-To: <024c01cabbcb$7b0dfd30$7129f790$@com>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>, , ,
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser><SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl><28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop><C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>,
	, <8CC8916373ECDCF-43F8-55EB@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com>, ,
	<8CC891AA5DD3C7A-68E0-4E7@webmail-m041.sysops.aol.com><SNT138-w59103F453B48F2C93F6A24E8390@phx.gbl><8CC896D09F5684D-1198-2B49@webmail-d096.sysops.aol.com>
	<6F64CBD831B745649E01C7D86902B5E5@davedesktop>
	<8CC89D8BA47513B-525C-3CC@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com>,
	<581435.56668.qm@web112117.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>,
	<024c01cabbcb$7b0dfd30$7129f790$@com>
Message-ID: <SNT138-w31CA4FA50ADEDFAC9E39DCE2390@phx.gbl>


Sounds similar to the A123 cells the GS guys have been using for a while. Most lipo chargers have a LiFe setting. Wonder who is making the cells. A123's are very tough great current capacity but heavy when compared to the energy density of lipos.

 

Anthony
 


From: johnfuqua at embarqmail.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:49:52 -0600
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico





Wow Steve Kaluf.   As the nominal voltage is different assume you need a different charger to charge them.
 


From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of brian young
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 12:32 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico
 

Anyone try the LiFe batteries Hobbico has listed for Receivers yet?

 

http://www.hobbico.com/radioaccys/hcam6415.html

 

Brian

  		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100304/d40c582c/attachment.html>

From brian_w_young at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  4 12:19:17 2010
From: brian_w_young at yahoo.com (brian young)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:19:17 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico
In-Reply-To: <SNT138-w31CA4FA50ADEDFAC9E39DCE2390@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>, , ,
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser><SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl><28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop><C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>,
	, <8CC8916373ECDCF-43F8-55EB@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com>, ,
	<8CC891AA5DD3C7A-68E0-4E7@webmail-m041.sysops.aol.com><SNT138-w59103F453B48F2C93F6A24E8390@phx.gbl><8CC896D09F5684D-1198-2B49@webmail-d096.sysops.aol.com>
	<6F64CBD831B745649E01C7D86902B5E5@davedesktop>
	<8CC89D8BA47513B-525C-3CC@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com>,
	<581435.56668.qm@web112117.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>,
	<024c01cabbcb$7b0dfd30$7129f790$@com>
	<SNT138-w31CA4FA50ADEDFAC9E39DCE2390@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <382675.76382.qm@web112109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

I use A123 in my 35% for receivers, ignition and servo. Im not using regulators so you gain back the weight disadvantage, the A123?have a flatter discharge curve than LIPo I understand.

Brian




________________________________
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Thu, March 4, 2010 12:56:27 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico

Sounds similar to the A123 cells?the GS guys have been using for a while. Most lipo chargers have a LiFe setting. Wonder?who is making the?cells.?A123's are very tough great current capacity but heavy when compared to the energy density of lipos.
?
Anthony
?
________________________________
From: johnfuqua at embarqmail.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:49:52 -0600
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico


Wow Steve Kaluf.?? As the nominal voltage is different assume you need a different charger to charge them.
?
From:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of brian young
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 12:32 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico
?
Anyone try the LiFe batteries Hobbico has listed for Receivers yet?
?
http://www.hobbico.com/radioaccys/hcam6415.html
?
Brian

?
________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. 


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100304/9e1f6491/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Thu Mar  4 12:19:53 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:19:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico
In-Reply-To: <024c01cabbcb$7b0dfd30$7129f790$@com>
Message-ID: <750879.8040.qm@web1116.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

Have not seen or used them, but sounds similar to A123 technology and the Fromeco "Iron Corp" batts. Does require a different charge voltage than LiIon or Lipo, otherwise they have the same charge algorithm (constant voltage, current limited). Most of the newer Lipo chargers have a LiFe setting. 
?
I've got a pair of?A123 batts in a 50cc Extra, charge time is 15 minutes or less. Similar to NiCads as far as a discharge curve goes, they stay almost flat and then fall off very quickly at the end. 
?
Bob R.

--- On Thu, 3/4/10, John Fuqua <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com> wrote:









Wow Steve Kaluf.?? As the nominal voltage is different assume you need a different charger to charge them.
?
?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100304/b3c7a591/attachment.html>

From schale at optonline.net  Thu Mar  4 12:25:45 2010
From: schale at optonline.net (Stuart Chale)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:25:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico
In-Reply-To: <SNT138-w31CA4FA50ADEDFAC9E39DCE2390@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser>
	<SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl>
	<28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop>
	<C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>
	<8CC8916373ECDCF-43F8-55EB@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com>
	<8CC891AA5DD3C7A-68E0-4E7@webmail-m041.sysops.aol.com>
	<SNT138-w59103F453B48F2C93F6A24E8390@phx.gbl>
	<8CC896D09F5684D-1198-2B49@webmail-d096.sysops.aol.com>
	<6F64CBD831B745649E01C7D86902B5E5@davedesktop>
	<8CC89D8BA47513B-525C-3CC@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com>
	<581435.56668.qm@web112117.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<024c01cabbcb$7b0dfd30$7129f790$@com>
	<SNT138-w31CA4FA50ADEDFAC9E39DCE2390@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4B90252E.2000606@optonline.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100304/ff2866be/attachment.html>

From js.smith at verizon.net  Thu Mar  4 14:07:44 2010
From: js.smith at verizon.net (Scott Smith)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:07:44 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts - fresh comparison?
In-Reply-To: <cd5fe9$4o2fn9@dmzms99802.na.baesystems.com>
References: <6F64CBD831B745649E01C7D86902B5E5@davedesktop>
	<cd5fe9$4o2fn9@dmzms99802.na.baesystems.com>
Message-ID: <008401cabbef$69f67da0$3de378e0$@smith@verizon.net>

 

1.       The holy grail of absolute consistency - is false

Maybe.  I'm not good enough to notice

2.       The holy grail of motor system security - is false  - must still
carry extra motor, ESC, Battery

True, I did have one dead stick in my last 834 flights.

3.       Weather effects are at least equal compared to glow - temps,
humidity, wind, effect mah usage

Maybe.but I haven't tweaked anything in three years (other than play with
esc settings)

4.       11 lbs weight limit is significantly more difficult to meet with
electric plane than glow

Maybe, but not with the right equipment (both my planes are at 10lbs rtf
without any difficulty.)

5.       E-deadsticks or low-power runs still occur

Yes, 0.12% of the time in my case

6.       Must have field charging solution - most likely Honda generator

Yes, but I used my generator to run the TV during power outages more than I
did charging batteries last summer! 

7.       Must have temp-control measures in place for batteries (hot
dashboard or warm blanket?)

I haven't seen a need for this and I'll fly down to 45 degrees.

8.       Can have an "E-crash" while flying - ESC or battery starts
smoking/fire

Knock on wood.

9.       Battery safety ???

Common sense (I hope that statement doesn't bite me!)

10.   Reduced flight time - All this ruminating and crazyness for 8-9
minutes of flight time??

Focused flights, no time to screw around.

 

Best part of all this craziness for me.flying at 6:00am before work!

 

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Woodward, Jim
R (US SSA)
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 8:22 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts - fresh comparison?

 

Bingo - "Dave quote, The "biggest lie" about electrics is that they always
produce the same amount of power.  Phooey.  Ambient temperature has a big
influence."

 

Truths about electric - from a glow flyer's perspective:

11.   The holy grail of absolute consistency - is false

12.   The holy grail of motor system security - is false  - must still carry
extra motor, ESC, Battery

13.   Weather effects are at least equal compared to glow - temps, humidity,
wind, effect mah usage

14.   11 lbs weight limit is significantly more difficult to meet with
electric plane than glow

15.   E-deadsticks or low-power runs still occur

16.   Must have field charging solution - most likely Honda generator

17.   Must have temp-control measures in place for batteries (hot dashboard
or warm blanket?)

18.   Can have an "E-crash" while flying - ESC or battery starts
smoking/fire

19.   Battery safety ???

20.   Reduced flight time - All this ruminating and crazyness for 8-9
minutes of flight time??

 

>From my perspective, the only reason to fly electric would be if the
industry and judging trends were so badly biased towards electric, that it
became the only "competitive" solution available.  I'm leaving the
"sponsorship" component out of the equation, because people on the E or G
side of the discussion have sponsorships either way.  It just seems like a
large pain in the arse to fly electric, given the reduced flight times and
severe penalty on battery life if you fly too long.  

 

Given all this, what is the E-flyer really getting?

 

Thanks,

Jim W.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:48 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

Ed,

 

I'm not so sure. Most IC's don't have a pressure regulator...the YS is about
the only one. This a passive device that has fixed settings. Dave's example
of the EFI may be a dfferent story though...I never spent any time dealing
with the OS EFI so I don't know how it worked. 

 

The problem with such analogies is that gas and glow fuels have a fixed
amount of pop per unit mass. Put in X amount and you will pretty much get Y
out for any given set-up, even poor ones. Y would vary of course depending
on how good the set-up was, meaning different operators will probably get
different Y's. However Y would be pretty much fixed for each operator

 

Batteries on the other hand, have a continuously variable amount of pop per
unit mass. Electronically taking the variable input volts and, through some
apparently straight forward software, drive a constant Y at the motor, is
where I am having some issue with. 

 

As for ESC's not doing much to alter the piloting of the model, again I am
not so sure. Dean used a good example: at near the end of the flight, let's
assume there is a diagonal or vertical. The battery has lost some pop and
the motor won't be able to keep up under constant throttle conditions. The
pilot would need to make a throttle adjustment to maintain momentum. If the
ESC had this new programming, the pilot would fly through this without
hardly noticing or changing his flying, just like we do with ICs. I
certainly am NOT opposed to reducing pilot work load...it's the how not the
what. 

 

And in this particular instance, equality between the types of propulsion IS
what the programmable ESC proponents want.....

 

The rule as written is sticky. I think that some type of clarification or
addendum to the rule, as Earl suggested, would eliminate the sticky wicket
if you will.

 

BTW- I am not implying that Dean is against the programmable ESC, far from
it. He has thought through what would be needed to accomplish the task. In
fact, he did something similar to Bob Hunt's WC stunt entry a few years ago.


 

Matt

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
To: NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, Mar 3, 2010 7:56 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

I actually was only halfway joking I said "Ban the YS Pressure Regulator",
or something like that.  Not that I really think it should be banned, but
for everyone who thinks it would be cheating to have an ESC that can
auto-compensate for dwindling battery voltage, then you ought to seriously
think about why it is OK to have a automatic pressure regulator in a recip.
There isn't much difference, other than one is wet and the other is dry.
And the other key point about having an ESC with this feature is that it
doesn't do anything to alter the piloting of the model based on the external
conditions that the model is encountering. All it is doing is de-rating the
output of the the battery to make it consistent throughout its useful
operation range.  
 
Ed
 

  _____  

To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:58:30 -0500
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Dave,

 

I would argue that the ESC has the sensor built. It isn't a sensor in the
sense of a mag pick up such as CDI devices have. It is rather an exact
frequency determination to which the motor is driven. It is simpler and
hidden. Should we go back on mechanical advance....God no./

 

I think the CDI electronic advance is similar to today's digital servo. The
former advances spark pulsing based on rpm and the latter advances motor
output torque based on input load. Whether each violates, not sure. Needs
more thought and comparison to the rules. My first take would be to say NO
because the magnitude of adjustment is fixed

 

Matt

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

From: Dave <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>  

To: 'General pattern discussion' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

Matt,

 

One more thought/consideration/question -

 

Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?  Essentially
the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is
advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function.they advance timing as RPM
increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go back to sensors and
mechanical advance devices?

 

Regards,

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

 

I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean
explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do
some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how
easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something
similar in this thread.

 

I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see
this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned
about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with
the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable
rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does
not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today.


 

When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO
pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue
that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of
today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down
and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a
good argument

 

MattK



 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or
any other rules proposal.
 
Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the
intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ] On Behalf Of James
Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with
the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max
volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ]
> >> On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 <http://www.avg.com/>  
> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


  _____  


Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
now. <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/>  = 

_______________________________________________
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

 

 


  _____  


Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/>  now.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/> 

 


  _____  


Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/>  now.


  _____  


_______________________________________________
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

 

  _____  

Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469230/direct/01/>  now. = 

_______________________________________________
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/20100304/c10f07a6/attachment.html>

From wcgalligan at att.net  Thu Mar  4 16:59:34 2010
From: wcgalligan at att.net (Wayne Galligan)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 01:59:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico
In-Reply-To: <581435.56668.qm@web112117.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>, ,
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser><SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl><28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop><C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>,
	<8CC8916373ECDCF-43F8-55EB@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com>,
	<8CC891AA5DD3C7A-68E0-4E7@webmail-m041.sysops.aol.com><SNT138-w59103F453B48F2C93F6A24E8390@phx.gbl><8CC896D09F5684D-1198-2B49@webmail-d096.sysops.aol.com><6F64CBD831B745649E01C7D86902B5E5@davedesktop><8CC89D8BA47513B-525C-3CC@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com>
	<581435.56668.qm@web112117.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <AF69A5E231354548A82EB275557E243E@WaynePC>

Get rid of all the connectors and maybe they have something there.  I am switching to A123 on all my planes.  Just getting rid of one more connection in the circuit is well worth it (regulators).

Wayne

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: brian young 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 12:32 PM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico


  Anyone try the LiFe batteries Hobbico has listed for Receivers yet?



  http://www.hobbico.com/radioaccys/hcam6415.html



  Brian





------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20100305/df30e64a/attachment.html>

From ed_alt at hotmail.com  Thu Mar  4 18:06:16 2010
From: ed_alt at hotmail.com (Ed Alt)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:06:16 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico
In-Reply-To: <SNT138-w31CA4FA50ADEDFAC9E39DCE2390@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>, , ,
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser><SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl><28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop><C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>,
	, <8CC8916373ECDCF-43F8-55EB@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com>, ,
	<8CC891AA5DD3C7A-68E0-4E7@webmail-m041.sysops.aol.com><SNT138-w59103F453B48F2C93F6A24E8390@phx.gbl><8CC896D09F5684D-1198-2B49@webmail-d096.sysops.aol.com><6F64CBD831B745649E01C7D86902B5E5@davedesktop><8CC89D8BA47513B-525C-3CC@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com>,
	<581435.56668.qm@web112117.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>,
	<024c01cabbcb$7b0dfd30$7129f790$@com>
	<SNT138-w31CA4FA50ADEDFAC9E39DCE2390@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <SNT138-ds39EABBF90C58B0DFE9CA7E8380@phx.gbl>

Very flat discharge curve too, so it's more difficult to know what's left to go.

Ed


From: Anthony Romano 
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 1:56 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico


Sounds similar to the A123 cells the GS guys have been using for a while. Most lipo chargers have a LiFe setting. Wonder who is making the cells. A123's are very tough great current capacity but heavy when compared to the energy density of lipos.
 
Anthony
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: johnfuqua at embarqmail.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:49:52 -0600
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico


Wow Steve Kaluf.   As the nominal voltage is different assume you need a different charger to charge them.



From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of brian young
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 12:32 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico



Anyone try the LiFe batteries Hobbico has listed for Receivers yet?
 
http://www.hobbico.com/radioaccys/hcam6415.html
 
Brian





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
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/20100305/46dee8b8/attachment.html>

From khoard at gmail.com  Thu Mar  4 18:33:57 2010
From: khoard at gmail.com (Keith Hoard)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:33:57 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico
In-Reply-To: <SNT138-ds39EABBF90C58B0DFE9CA7E8380@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>
	<8CC891AA5DD3C7A-68E0-4E7@webmail-m041.sysops.aol.com>
	<SNT138-w59103F453B48F2C93F6A24E8390@phx.gbl>
	<8CC896D09F5684D-1198-2B49@webmail-d096.sysops.aol.com>
	<6F64CBD831B745649E01C7D86902B5E5@davedesktop>
	<8CC89D8BA47513B-525C-3CC@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com>
	<581435.56668.qm@web112117.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<024c01cabbcb$7b0dfd30$7129f790$@com>
	<SNT138-w31CA4FA50ADEDFAC9E39DCE2390@phx.gbl>
	<SNT138-ds39EABBF90C58B0DFE9CA7E8380@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <6792ef121003041933t2b8240c8kd3cc5b5b4bfcd84b@mail.gmail.com>

I had some of the LiFe batteries and A123's, both were 1100 Mah rated.  I
ran both of them thru several cycles on my West Mountain Radio CBA II.
After plotting several discharge curves on top of each other you could
definitely tell that the batteries are not the same.

  The A123 cells had a very flat discharge curve, almost like they were on a
regulator even during a continuous 4 amp load.  The LiFe's voltage curve was
fairly steep and the capacity would drop as you increased the discharge
current.

  The A123's didn't seem to care how much juice you drew, they just leveled
at ~6.6V until they were empty.   Charge at 4A, then immediately discharge
at 4A, every time the same curve.  The LiFe's curves were all over depending
on how hard the last discharge was.

   I threw out the LiFe's, and have stuck with the A123's. . .

   Ed is correct that you can't use voltage to check the remaining capacity
of the cells.  However, since you can charge them at 4 Amps all day long
(wire and connector limit, not battery), I just plug in my charger as soon
as I land and it is done before I have gotten the tank half way filled up.
Of course you can see how many Mah you're putting back in per flight and
estimate how many flights you have, but I find it easier to just top it off
each flight.

   If anyone is interested in the CBA discharge charts, I can dig them out
of my laptop and e-mail them. . . I make my 1100Mah A123 packs out of the
Black and Decker VPX brand battery packs.  It is very easy to disassemble
the pack and wire it up with heavy gauge Futaba connector using the white
wire as the balancing tap.  VPX tools have been discontinued, so you have to
go to E-bay and get them.

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com> wrote:

>  Very flat discharge curve too, so it's more difficult to know what's left
> to go.
>
> Ed
>
>  *From:* Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 04, 2010 1:56 PM
> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico
>
> Sounds similar to the A123 cells the GS guys have been using for a while.
> Most lipo chargers have a LiFe setting. Wonder who is making
> the cells. A123's are very tough great current capacity but heavy when
> compared to the energy density of lipos.
>
> Anthony
>
> ------------------------------
> From: johnfuqua at embarqmail.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:49:52 -0600
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico
>
>  Wow Steve Kaluf.   As the nominal voltage is different assume you need a
> different charger to charge them.
>
>
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *brian young
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 04, 2010 12:32 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico
>
>
> Anyone try the LiFe batteries Hobbico has listed for Receivers yet?
>
> http://www.hobbico.com/radioaccys/hcam6415.html
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 

Keith Hoard
Collierville, TN
khoard at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100305/a6be8e45/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Thu Mar  4 19:47:42 2010
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:47:42 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] LiFe batteries Hobbico
In-Reply-To: <SNT138-ds39EABBF90C58B0DFE9CA7E8380@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>, , ,
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser><SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl><28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop><C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>,
	, <8CC8916373ECDCF-43F8-55EB@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com>, ,
	<8CC891AA5DD3C7A-68E0-4E7@webmail-m041.sysops.aol.com><SNT138-w59103F453B48F2C93F6A24E8390@phx.gbl><8CC896D09F5684D-1198-2B49@webmail-d096.sysops.aol.com><6F64CBD831B745649E01C7D86902B5E5@davedesktop><8CC89D8BA47513B-525C-3CC@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com>,
	<581435.56668.qm@web112117.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>,
	<024c01cabbcb$7b0dfd30$7129f790$@com>	<SNT138-w31CA4FA50ADEDFAC9E39DCE2390@phx.gbl>
	<SNT138-ds39EABBF90C58B0DFE9CA7E8380@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4B908CE0.9080002@cox.net>

Ed Alt wrote:
> Very flat discharge curve too, so it's more difficult to know what's 
> left to go.
>  
> Ed
>
I'm using the Hyperion brand LiFePO4 packs in a few different planes. So 
far I am very happy with them. Ed is right that they drop off like a 
rock at the end, but given their performance and ability to be charged 
at 4C there is no excuse for running them, or any battery for that 
matter, right up to the bitter end. The Hyperion packs have a single 
plug made with heavy gauge wire.

I have some discharge curves for anyone that is interested. This list 
does not allow attachments. Let me know and I'll send them to you.

I get my Hyperion packs from http://www.rclipos.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100305/a1f32708/attachment.html>

From mups1953 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  5 04:38:32 2010
From: mups1953 at yahoo.com (mike mueller)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:38:32 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] EAA Museum needs help
Message-ID: <760080.47288.qm@web51007.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

 Hey guys an old flying buddy of mine is Rick Larsen who is the VP of marketing at the EAA in Oshkosh. They have a beautiful museum on there facility. Many of you don't know this but our own John Konneker owns the pristine J3 Cub full scale in the museum.
 Rick asked me if I could help them with supplying interesting RC models for an 11 month exhibit that they are assembling on RC. In particular but not limited to this request for help involved Pattern planes. Could be vintage and could be current.
 If you have an interesting item that you would consider loaning to the EAA for this exhibit I can connect you to the proper people to discuss it.
 On a side note the conversation I had with Rick yesterday was very enlightening. The AMA and EAA have been in talks about how they can help each other. They share many common problems such as an aging demographic. 
 Rick and I just reconnected a few months ago after losing touch 40 years ago. He's a real dynamo and it's was fun to share old stories.
 You can use this email to contact me off list and I will get you connected. Thanks, Mike Mueller


      

From adriancwong at earthlink.net  Fri Mar  5 04:52:11 2010
From: adriancwong at earthlink.net (adriancwong at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:52:11 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] For sale - YS 160DZ
Message-ID: <11489631.1267797127638.JavaMail.root@wamui-junio.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

To all,

One of the YS 160DZ is sold. I still have two more for sale, and will reduce the price from $475.00 to $425.00 each, two for $800.00.

Both engines has new bearings & piston ring, ran on Coolpower 30% heli.

I accept paypal and will pay for UPS ground shipping within the 48 states.

Any interested party please contact me off list - adriancwong at earthlink.net

Thanks,

Adrian



From rcmaster199 at aol.com  Fri Mar  5 14:00:47 2010
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com (rcmaster199 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:00:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
In-Reply-To: <3EB037E5EF564CE6A492BC5B265E2DE7@EarlPC>
References: <SNT138-w404EDD3FA84BB60C10F124E83A0@phx.gbl>, ,
	<DCD1285508A24921873105DFE06D156C@toshibauser><SNT138-w25FFA72385DEECED029402E83A0@phx.gbl><28D8698A9B904CA192BDD43589A9189C@davedesktop><C70E6872B471452DBB57727DD921C0E4@EarlPC>,
	<8CC8916373ECDCF-43F8-55EB@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com>,
	<8CC891AA5DD3C7A-68E0-4E7@webmail-m041.sysops.aol.com><SNT138-w59103F453B48F2C93F6A24E8390@phx.gbl><8CC896D09F5684D-1198-2B49@webmail-d096.sysops.aol.com><6F64CBD831B745649E01C7D86902B5E5@davedesktop>
	<3EB037E5EF564CE6A492BC5B265E2DE7@EarlPC>
Message-ID: <8CC8ACEC5D87B61-6374-56BC@webmail-d099.sysops.aol.com>



Earl, I am susprised!!!

One might take it further and say that glow or gas fuel is not part of the plane because the plane is weighed without the fuel.

But I didn't say that (VBG)

Matt





-----Original Message-----
From: Earl Haury <ejhaury at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thu, Mar 4, 2010 8:01 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


 
For the sake of argument, I suppose that if one wants' to read things unintended into the rules ad nauseum, then jettisoning fuel via the exhaust is reason for not scoring a flight from the point where exhaust is seen leaving the model.  >From the rules: "If any part of the model aircraft is jettisoned during the flight, scoring will cease at that point and the competitor must be instructed by the flight line director to immediately land his model aircraft."
 
Earl 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Dave 
To: 'General pattern discussion' 
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts



The OS EFI looked at throttle position (taken from the throttle servo signal pulse width), RPM, and temperature.  I disconnected the temp sensor and found it made ZERO difference in running characteristics under normal conditions.  Others reported the engine would not even start without the temp sensor connected.  My understanding is that EFI computer unit basically compared throttle position to RPM and adjusted the mixture to reduce rich/lean spots as the engine came on/off the pipe.
 
The ?biggest lie? about electrics is that they always produce the same amount of power.  Phooey.  Ambient temperature has a big influence.
 
So far as the ESC feature I would like to have?..it is not a governor like the governor mode from the heli software or the governor mode Dean has worked with for CL Stunt.  And I certainly don?t want my electric setup to emulate an IC (if I did, I?d just fly IC).  What the feature is, is a way to ?clip? peak power at the beginning of the discharge cycle to maintain a constant peak power (if/when requested by advancing the throttle stick to 100%) and constant part throttle power.  In the instance of a fresh battery being capable of 6500 RPM, it might be limited to 6100 RPM?..and ? throttle would be 4500 RPM (for instance).  As the battery is discharged, it might only be capable of 6200 RPM, but full throttle would remain 6100 RPM, and ? throttle would remain 4500 RPM.  Think of it more as the way modern TX output strength is controlled???.whether the TX battery is freshly charged at 11 volts (Nixx) or near depleted at 9.3 volts?the signal output strength is the same.
 
So far as a 45 upline or vertical upline??certainly electric or IC both need throttle adjustments to maintain constant airspeed.  A ?governor? that maintains constant prop RPM could be applied to either setup (and potentially maintain constant airspeed without an input from the pilot).  In practice, less throttle adjustment is needed with an electric, because as the load on the electric increases (airspeed decreases when climbing), the electric motor attempts to maintain the RPM from the start of the climb (KV*volts) by drawing more amps to maintain the RPM.  IC doesn?t do this?.more load on engine results in a loss of RPM (absent any specific tuning effects of the exhaust system, mixture, etc).
 
I think the intent of the rules are clear enough, and need to be updated to reflect the current technology.
 
Regards,
 
Dave
 
 
 
 


From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:48 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 

Ed,

 

I'm not so sure. Most IC's don't have a pressure regulator...the YS is about the only one. This a passive device that has fixed settings. Dave's example of the EFI may be a dfferent story though...I never spent any time dealing with the OS EFI so I don't know how it worked. 

 

The problem with such analogies is that gas and glow fuels have a fixed amount of pop per unit mass. Put in X amount and you will pretty much get Y out for any given set-up, even poor ones. Y would vary of course depending on how good the set-up was, meaning different operators will probably get different Y's. However Y would be pretty much fixed for each operator

 

Batteries on the other hand, have a continuously variable amount of pop per unit mass. Electronically taking the variable input volts and, through some apparently straight forward software, drive a constant Y at the motor, is where I am having some issue with. 

 

As for ESC's not doing much to alter the piloting of the model, again I am not so sure. Dean used a good example: at near the end of the flight, let's assume there is a diagonal or vertical. The battery has lost some pop and the motor won't be able to keep up under constant throttle conditions. The pilot would need to make a throttle adjustment to maintain momentum. If the ESC had this new programming, the pilot would fly through this without hardly noticing or changing his flying, just like we do with ICs. I certainly am NOT opposed to reducing pilot work load...it's the how not the what. 

 

And in this particular instance, equality between the types of propulsion IS what the programmable ESC proponents want.....

 

The rule as written is sticky. I think that some type of clarification or addendum to the rule, as Earl suggested, would eliminate the sticky wicket if you will.

 

BTW- I am not implying that Dean is against the programmable ESC, far from it. He has thought through what would be needed to accomplish the task. In fact, he did something similar to Bob Hunt's WC stunt entry a few years ago. 

 

Matt

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
To: NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, Mar 3, 2010 7:56 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

I actually was only halfway joking I said "Ban the YS Pressure Regulator", or something like that.  Not that I really think it should be banned, but for everyone who thinks it would be cheating to have an ESC that can auto-compensate for dwindling battery voltage, then you ought to seriously think about why it is OK to have a automatic pressure regulator in a recip.  There isn't much difference, other than one is wet and the other is dry.  And the other key point about having an ESC with this feature is that it doesn't do anything to alter the piloting of the model based on the external conditions that the model is encountering. All it is doing is de-rating the output of the the battery to make it consistent throughout its useful operation range.  
 
Ed
 

To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:58:30 -0500
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Dave,

 

I would argue that the ESC has the sensor built. It isn't a sensor in the sense of a mag pick up such as CDI devices have. It is rather an exact frequency determination to which the motor is driven. It is simpler and hidden. Should we go back on mechanical advance....God no./

 

I think the CDI electronic advance is similar to today's digital servo. The former advances spark pulsing based on rpm and the latter advances motor output torque based on input load. Whether each violates, not sure. Needs more thought and comparison to the rules. My first take would be to say NO because the magnitude of adjustment is fixed

 

Matt




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

From: Dave 

To: 'General pattern discussion' 

Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

 



Matt,

 

One more thought/consideration/question ?

 

Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?  Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases, the timing is advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function?they advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?

 

Regards,

 

Dave

 

 

 


 


On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:


 


I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this thread.


 


I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming violation within the rules as they exist today. 


 


When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre-programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules. Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument


 


MattK




 


 


-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.
 
Anthony
 
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent
> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> ....... Just asking!
> Dave Burton
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> 
> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S
> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece
> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with
> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our
> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed
> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in
> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7
> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.
> 
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the
> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
> 
> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts
> is still limited to 42.56. 
> > 
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM
> >> 
> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and
> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >> 
> >> Chris 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Chad
> >> Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> >> To:
> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Sun,
> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >> 
> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell
> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you
> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.
> >> 
> >> Chad
> >> 
> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully
> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very
> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge
> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss
> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully
> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them
> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56
> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for
> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be
> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it
> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra
> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic
> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Ron Van Putte
> >>> 
> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load
> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the
> >> noise test and have a minimum value?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC
> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1
> >>>>> which
> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are
> >> limited to a maximum
> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----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: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C
> >> section.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule
> >> for max volts?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> 14:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. = 


_______________________________________________
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


 


 



Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com


 


Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.



_______________________________________________
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

 

Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now. = 

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
SRCA-discussion mailing list
SRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
ttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100305/1890c36c/attachment.html>

From rharn at carolina.rr.com  Fri Mar  5 14:44:06 2010
From: rharn at carolina.rr.com (rharn)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:44:06 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Charging a JR 12x
Message-ID: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAABeGCaS+7axDt+NuNO0OrS7CgAAAEAAAAIXU6SOO6MNGqP8JoUw0xB4BAAAAAA==@carolina.rr.com>

Can you charge a JR 12x transmitter with a Triton 2 charger? If so, how?

Or what do you recommend?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100305/c51ac514/attachment.html>

From dkrev at shaw.ca  Fri Mar  5 17:15:44 2010
From: dkrev at shaw.ca (Dave Reaville)
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:15:44 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] PACSS link
Message-ID: <42D68DB9C5BF4694812E853BEF172938@david83d2598ac>

My harddrive has been replaced and I am trying to reload the PACSS scoring system... anyone have an up to date link for download?

Great program BTW

Thanks Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100306/80bf457e/attachment.html>

From lld613 at psci.net  Fri Mar  5 17:26:05 2010
From: lld613 at psci.net (Lisa n Larry)
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:26:05 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] PACSS link
In-Reply-To: <42D68DB9C5BF4694812E853BEF172938@david83d2598ac>
References: <42D68DB9C5BF4694812E853BEF172938@david83d2598ac>
Message-ID: <000601cabcd4$62215240$2663f6c0$@net>

This is the last link I had, but the site appears to be down.

 

http://pacss.sgmservice.com/index.htm

 

My e-mails have also bounced back as undeliverable.

 

The link and the e-mail was good about a week ago. Perhaps Gene is working
out some bugs.or there might be a server problem.I haven't heard anything
about why.

 

Larry 

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Reaville
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 8:16 PM
To: NSRCA
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] PACSS link

 

My harddrive has been replaced and I am trying to reload the PACSS scoring
system... anyone have an up to date link for download?

 

Great program BTW

 

Thanks Dave

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100306/f7cc2ba5/attachment.html>

From gene.maurice at sgmservice.com  Fri Mar  5 18:13:52 2010
From: gene.maurice at sgmservice.com (gene.maurice at sgmservice.com)
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 03:13:52 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] PACSS link
In-Reply-To: <000601cabcd4$62215240$2663f6c0$@net>
References: <42D68DB9C5BF4694812E853BEF172938@david83d2598ac>
	<000601cabcd4$62215240$2663f6c0$@net>
Message-ID: <42779.98.219.118.253.1267845232.squirrel@webmail.sgmservice.com>


Hmmmmmm. First I've heard of the problem. Just opened a ticket with my
hosting service. Will let you know when it's fixed

Gene Maurice


> This is the last link I had, but the site appears to be down.
>
>
>
> http://pacss.sgmservice.com/index.htm
>
>
>
> My e-mails have also bounced back as undeliverable.
>
>
>
> The link and the e-mail was good about a week ago. Perhaps Gene is working
> out some bugs.or there might be a server problem.I haven't heard anything
> about why.
>
>
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave
> Reaville
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 8:16 PM
> To: NSRCA
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] PACSS link
>
>
>
> My harddrive has been replaced and I am trying to reload the PACSS scoring
> system... anyone have an up to date link for download?
>
>
>
> Great program BTW
>
>
>
> Thanks Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



From smaragdz at bellsouth.net  Fri Mar  5 18:35:09 2010
From: smaragdz at bellsouth.net (Ryan Smith)
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 03:35:09 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Charging a JR 12x
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAABeGCaS+7axDt+NuNO0OrS7CgAAAEAAAAIXU6SOO6MNGqP8JoUw0xB4BAAAAAA==@carolina.rr.com>
References: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAABeGCaS+7axDt+NuNO0OrS7CgAAAEAAAAIXU6SOO6MNGqP8JoUw0xB4BAAAAAA==@carolina.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1AB1CDD9B44845C7B04117A1BE28DC67@desktop>

Rick,

 

I presume that the charging methods for a Triton and Triton 2 are similar. I
have also charged my 12X and 10X batteries on a Thunder Power 610C with
great results. 

 

I was lazy, and bought a premade JR charging lead with banana plugs to use.
Be sure that you have the correct charge lead, if you have a Futaba one,
reverse the positive and negative, otherwise you'll be sending in your
battery to get the fuse fixed. Charging settings are pretty self
explanatory, you should charge it as a NiMH, and I never went above 1/2A to
charge my packs with. They were usually done fairly quickly, even when drawn
down. Also, as a little extra precaution, I always take the battery out of
the transmitter when I charge using anything other than the wall charger.
I've not heard of anybody having trouble otherwise, but it's just an extra
layer of safety, as well as the ability to keep your TX safe and prevent it
from falling off of something.

 

I hope I have provided you with what you're looking for. It's a fairly
straightforward procedure.

 

Take care!

 

Regards,


Ryan

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rharn
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 6:44 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Charging a JR 12x

 

Can you charge a JR 12x transmitter with a Triton 2 charger? If so, how?

Or what do you recommend?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100306/3ca8b171/attachment.html>

From lld613 at psci.net  Fri Mar  5 18:43:26 2010
From: lld613 at psci.net (Lisa n Larry)
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 03:43:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] PACSS link
In-Reply-To: <42779.98.219.118.253.1267845232.squirrel@webmail.sgmservice.com>
References: <42D68DB9C5BF4694812E853BEF172938@david83d2598ac>	<000601cabcd4$62215240$2663f6c0$@net>
	<42779.98.219.118.253.1267845232.squirrel@webmail.sgmservice.com>
Message-ID: <000601cabcdf$305c1370$91143a50$@net>

Thanks Gene...

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
gene.maurice at sgmservice.com
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 9:14 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] PACSS link


Hmmmmmm. First I've heard of the problem. Just opened a ticket with my
hosting service. Will let you know when it's fixed

Gene Maurice


> This is the last link I had, but the site appears to be down.
>
>
>
> http://pacss.sgmservice.com/index.htm
>
>
>
> My e-mails have also bounced back as undeliverable.
>
>
>
> The link and the e-mail was good about a week ago. Perhaps Gene is working
> out some bugs.or there might be a server problem.I haven't heard anything
> about why.
>
>
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave
> Reaville
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 8:16 PM
> To: NSRCA
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] PACSS link
>
>
>
> My harddrive has been replaced and I am trying to reload the PACSS scoring
> system... anyone have an up to date link for download?
>
>
>
> Great program BTW
>
>
>
> Thanks Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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




From lld613 at psci.net  Sun Mar  7 08:53:22 2010
From: lld613 at psci.net (Lisa n Larry)
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:53:22 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] PACSS link
In-Reply-To: <000601cabcdf$305c1370$91143a50$@net>
References: <42D68DB9C5BF4694812E853BEF172938@david83d2598ac>	<000601cabcd4$62215240$2663f6c0$@net>	<42779.98.219.118.253.1267845232.squirrel@webmail.sgmservice.com>
	<000601cabcdf$305c1370$91143a50$@net>
Message-ID: <002101cabe1f$1941b280$4bc51780$@net>

I just checked the site, looks like PACSS is back up and going...

http://pacss.sgmservice.com/index.htm

Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Lisa n Larry
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 9:43 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] PACSS link

Thanks Gene...

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
gene.maurice at sgmservice.com
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 9:14 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] PACSS link


Hmmmmmm. First I've heard of the problem. Just opened a ticket with my
hosting service. Will let you know when it's fixed

Gene Maurice


> This is the last link I had, but the site appears to be down.
>
>
>
> http://pacss.sgmservice.com/index.htm
>
>
>
> My e-mails have also bounced back as undeliverable.
>
>
>
> The link and the e-mail was good about a week ago. Perhaps Gene is working
> out some bugs.or there might be a server problem.I haven't heard anything
> about why.
>
>
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave
> Reaville
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 8:16 PM
> To: NSRCA
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] PACSS link
>
>
>
> My harddrive has been replaced and I am trying to reload the PACSS scoring
> system... anyone have an up to date link for download?
>
>
>
> Great program BTW
>
>
>
> Thanks Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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




From dkrev at shaw.ca  Sun Mar  7 09:15:36 2010
From: dkrev at shaw.ca (dkrev at shaw.ca)
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:15:36 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] PACSS link
In-Reply-To: <002101cabe1f$1941b280$4bc51780$@net>
References: <42D68DB9C5BF4694812E853BEF172938@david83d2598ac><000601cabcd4$62215240$2663f6c0$@net><42779.98.219.118.253.1267845232.squirrel@webmail.sgmservice.com><000601cabcdf$305c1370$91143a50$@net><002101cabe1f$1941b280$4bc51780$@net>
Message-ID: <911562332-1267985733-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1328912601-@bda515.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

Thanks Larry!
Sent from Dave's Crackberry

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa n Larry <lld613 at psci.net>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:53:25 
To: 'General pattern discussion'<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] PACSS link

I just checked the site, looks like PACSS is back up and going...

http://pacss.sgmservice.com/index.htm

Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Lisa n Larry
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 9:43 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] PACSS link

Thanks Gene...

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
gene.maurice at sgmservice.com
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 9:14 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] PACSS link


Hmmmmmm. First I've heard of the problem. Just opened a ticket with my
hosting service. Will let you know when it's fixed

Gene Maurice


> This is the last link I had, but the site appears to be down.
>
>
>
> http://pacss.sgmservice.com/index.htm
>
>
>
> My e-mails have also bounced back as undeliverable.
>
>
>
> The link and the e-mail was good about a week ago. Perhaps Gene is working
> out some bugs.or there might be a server problem.I haven't heard anything
> about why.
>
>
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave
> Reaville
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 8:16 PM
> To: NSRCA
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] PACSS link
>
>
>
> My harddrive has been replaced and I am trying to reload the PACSS scoring
> system... anyone have an up to date link for download?
>
>
>
> Great program BTW
>
>
>
> Thanks Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

From joddino at socal.rr.com  Sun Mar  7 09:16:34 2010
From: joddino at socal.rr.com (James Oddino)
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:16:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Futaba 10CAP
Message-ID: <119C9326-2E49-431E-8A0F-3F4C5D7DF26A@socal.rr.com>

A friend asked me to set up "conditions" on his 10C transmitter.  I took his manual home and after a quick look it doesn't appear to have the capability to set up flight conditions like the 9Z, 14MZ, etc.
Should I look harder or am I right, no conditions?

Jim O

From love2flypattern at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  7 09:42:33 2010
From: love2flypattern at yahoo.com (Jarvis Johnson)
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:42:33 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Futaba 10CAP
In-Reply-To: <119C9326-2E49-431E-8A0F-3F4C5D7DF26A@socal.rr.com>
Message-ID: <951341.24562.qm@web52705.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Hello Jim
I have a 10c also, I was told by TAK, that you can input up to 3 condition.
I could be wrong

--- On Sun, 3/7/10, James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com> wrote:


From: James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Futaba 10CAP
To: "discussion pattern General" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Sunday, March 7, 2010, 10:16 AM


A friend asked me to set up "conditions" on his 10C transmitter.? I took his manual home and after a quick look it doesn't appear to have the capability to set up flight conditions like the 9Z, 14MZ, etc.
Should I look harder or am I right, no conditions?

Jim O
_______________________________________________
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/20100307/0cb24988/attachment.html>

From joddino at socal.rr.com  Sun Mar  7 10:36:11 2010
From: joddino at socal.rr.com (James Oddino)
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:36:11 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Futaba 10CAP
In-Reply-To: <951341.24562.qm@web52705.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <951341.24562.qm@web52705.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3BC56F42-93C5-4419-9330-3696E349B038@socal.rr.com>

Thanks Jarvis, but I believe I found the answer in Futaba's system comparison chart.  For the 10C, number of conditions is 1.

Jim


On Mar 7, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Jarvis Johnson wrote:

> Hello Jim
> I have a 10c also, I was told by TAK, that you can input up to 3 condition.
> I could be wrong
> 
> --- On Sun, 3/7/10, James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> From: James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Futaba 10CAP
> To: "discussion pattern General" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Sunday, March 7, 2010, 10:16 AM
> 
> A friend asked me to set up "conditions" on his 10C transmitter.  I took his manual home and after a quick look it doesn't appear to have the capability to set up flight conditions like the 9Z, 14MZ, etc.
> Should I look harder or am I right, no conditions?
> 
> Jim O
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100307/ff5d27c6/attachment.html>

From precisionaero at hotmail.com  Sun Mar  7 12:18:59 2010
From: precisionaero at hotmail.com (Michael Cohen)
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:18:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Triton 2EQ
Message-ID: <BLU115-W4116EDCC8C9DF25D8F16BA0360@phx.gbl>


If anyone has one of these chargers, please e-mail me privately.

 

Thanks

 

Mike C
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100307/9dcd4938/attachment.html>

From precisionaero at hotmail.com  Sun Mar  7 12:25:40 2010
From: precisionaero at hotmail.com (Michael Cohen)
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:25:40 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Helpful tip - The pin vise!
Message-ID: <BLU115-W8F354CDE18D3F4B1737A8A0360@phx.gbl>


I have been "building" my first pattern airplane, a CARF Integral, and I have found a good use for a pin vise I thought I would share.  These thin skin composite aircraft make using a drill overkill, but a dremmel also tears the daylights out of everything too.  So, since the shafts of the routing bits, sanding bits, etc.. are small enough to fit in the pin vise, I have been using that to route out holes, slotting the skins for the control horns, etc... by hand with much better and cleaner results.  Just thought I would pass this on.

 

Mike C

D4
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100307/8f4aedfa/attachment.html>

From kvelez at rochester.rr.com  Sun Mar  7 17:41:57 2010
From: kvelez at rochester.rr.com (Kenneth Velez)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:41:57 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Rx's For sale
In-Reply-To: <BLU115-W8F354CDE18D3F4B1737A8A0360@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU115-W8F354CDE18D3F4B1737A8A0360@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <001201cabe68$ec25b1d0$c4711570$@rr.com>

Hi all,

 

 I have the following receivers for sale 50% off list price if any one is
interested

 

2- JR NER-649S PCM - 75.00 ea OBO

http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=JRPR649**

 

4- R790 scan select PCM - 50.00 ea OBO

http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=JRPR790

 

2-R770 PCM - 50.00ea OBO

http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=JRPR770F

 

This are all in 72Mhz, all in perfect working condition. The 790's were
installed in my electric Bravos w/ 2 spares the 770's were on my Prestige's
and the 649's on my 33% Extra. Just switching to 2.4

Please respond direct to me at kvelez at rochester.rr.com

 

 TIA

 

Ken

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100308/f3dc43e1/attachment.html>

From pcosky at comcast.net  Sun Mar  7 17:57:03 2010
From: pcosky at comcast.net (Pete Cosky)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:57:03 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Webra 1.60, header, pipe and hyde mount
In-Reply-To: <BLU115-W8F354CDE18D3F4B1737A8A0360@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU115-W8F354CDE18D3F4B1737A8A0360@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <009d01cabe6b$6ab538c0$401faa40$@net>

Guys,

 

Rick Cilles has this complete setup and wants to sell it. He can be reached
at rcflierrc at hotmail.com

 

He is looking to make it go bye bye and is open to offers...please contact
him if interested.

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Michael Cohen
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 4:26 PM
To: NSRCA
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Helpful tip - The pin vise!

 

I have been "building" my first pattern airplane, a CARF Integral, and I
have found a good use for a pin vise I thought I would share.  These thin
skin composite aircraft make using a drill overkill, but a dremmel also
tears the daylights out of everything too.  So, since the shafts of the
routing bits, sanding bits, etc.. are small enough to fit in the pin vise, I
have been using that to route out holes, slotting the skins for the control
horns, etc... by hand with much better and cleaner results.  Just thought I
would pass this on.
 
Mike C
D4

  _____  

Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/>  now.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100308/384d41f3/attachment.html>

From deanfunk1 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  7 19:27:04 2010
From: deanfunk1 at yahoo.com (Dean Funk)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 04:27:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] For Sale Price Update...
In-Reply-To: <009d01cabe6b$6ab538c0$401faa40$@net>
References: <BLU115-W8F354CDE18D3F4B1737A8A0360@phx.gbl>
	<009d01cabe6b$6ab538c0$401faa40$@net>
Message-ID: <196797.18548.qm@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

For Sale:

Black Magic V2.2 (ARF)

Custom built and painted, concours quality

Super lite - 5 lbs 7 oz with bolly gear and carbon wing/stab tubes

Could be converted to electric, set up for a YS

Wings - rudder and elevator need covered - I can do that for an additional $300.00

http://www.rcuniverse.com/market/item.cfm?itemID=611820

$1300.00



Black Magic Vf3 Sheeted Kit

Partially assembled with super lite 8 /14 oz wing panels.

Listed on RCU here - 

http://www.rcuniverse.com/market/item.cfm?itemID=611822

$1200.00



Defiant MK II Kit

Last one Todd made, super lite fuse and very well made. Include cores as I recieved from Todd. 

http://www.rcuniverse.com/market/item.cfm?itemID=611823

$500.00



Like New Tru-Turn 3" 4 blade spinner with 2 15.5 x 12 apc props

http://www.rcuniverse.com/market/item.cfm?itemID=611824

$65.00


Hyde Mount For YS 170 HCMY16RISA

New in Bag - $250.00




if interested please contact me off list...

thanks, Dean


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100308/e8cbe196/attachment.html>

From rcpilot at wowway.com  Mon Mar  8 16:06:09 2010
From: rcpilot at wowway.com (Ron Hansen)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:06:09 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Tint Clear Canopy
Message-ID: <9AAB52CCAB54409AB50ECA8D6E08143C@toshibauser>

I'm trying to tint/paint a clear canopy a smokey color.

 

I tried dying it but it won't work because it is the wrong kind of plastic.

 

I tried airbrushing it with water based black paint but it looks a little
grainy.

 

Anyone have any suggestions/tips.

 

Thanks

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100309/506ff18b/attachment.html>

From kthompson56 at satx.rr.com  Mon Mar  8 16:56:51 2010
From: kthompson56 at satx.rr.com (Ken Thompson)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:56:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Tint Clear Canopy
References: <9AAB52CCAB54409AB50ECA8D6E08143C@toshibauser>
Message-ID: <EA3AE6159A714AB98B1CB7C03494EB94@kenpc>

Clean it real good then shoot it with window tint made for RC cars...from the inside

Ken
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ron Hansen 
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
  Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 7:06 PM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Tint Clear Canopy


  I'm trying to tint/paint a clear canopy a smokey color.



  I tried dying it but it won't work because it is the wrong kind of plastic.



  I tried airbrushing it with water based black paint but it looks a little grainy.



  Anyone have any suggestions/tips.



  Thanks



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20100309/7dfa5ee7/attachment.html>

From ed.lyerly at nctv.com  Mon Mar  8 16:57:40 2010
From: ed.lyerly at nctv.com (Ed Lyerly)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:57:40 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Tint Clear Canopy
In-Reply-To: <9AAB52CCAB54409AB50ECA8D6E08143C@toshibauser>
References: <9AAB52CCAB54409AB50ECA8D6E08143C@toshibauser>
Message-ID: <001a01cabf2b$dda4e270$98eea750$@lyerly@nctv.com>

Ron,

 

If the canopy is clear, scuff sand the inside with scotch brite or steel
wool.   Then tape the outside to protect it from overspray.  Clean the
inside with alcohol .. then spray the inside with Krylon or Luster Kote.
Use several light coats to prevent runs.

 

Ed

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Hansen
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 8:06 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Tint Clear Canopy

 

I'm trying to tint/paint a clear canopy a smokey color.

 

I tried dying it but it won't work because it is the wrong kind of plastic.

 

I tried airbrushing it with water based black paint but it looks a little
grainy.

 

Anyone have any suggestions/tips.

 

Thanks

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100309/61de0d79/attachment.html>

From frankjuliei at comcast.net  Mon Mar  8 17:09:20 2010
From: frankjuliei at comcast.net (frank)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:09:20 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Tint Clear Canopy
In-Reply-To: <9AAB52CCAB54409AB50ECA8D6E08143C@toshibauser>
References: <9AAB52CCAB54409AB50ECA8D6E08143C@toshibauser>
Message-ID: <15349FFBDFDE415587A64BFD109F4C81@FMILaptop>

With a new clear canopy, spray the  inside ( after you clean it well with
rubbing alcohol)  with multiple , LIGHT  coats. The exterior must be
completely masked. I have had good success with Pactra Candy Racing Colors
in 3.5  ounce cans. My favorite is #RC272( Candy Blue).They have other
colors, but this one is very visible.

Do not scuff the inside ! The stuff has never flaked off or peeled on me.
Been doing this since the 60s when I raced slot cars.

 

Have Fun, 

Frank

One more thing. Put a 1/16" hole in the top , towards  the back. Helps the
canopy  vent on hot days and keeps it from distorting.

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Hansen
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 8:06 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Tint Clear Canopy

 

I'm trying to tint/paint a clear canopy a smokey color.

 

I tried dying it but it won't work because it is the wrong kind of plastic.

 

I tried airbrushing it with water based black paint but it looks a little
grainy.

 

Anyone have any suggestions/tips.

 

Thanks

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100309/ad937b54/attachment.html>

From verne at twmi.rr.com  Mon Mar  8 19:15:38 2010
From: verne at twmi.rr.com (Verne Koester)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:15:38 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Tint Clear Canopy
In-Reply-To: <15349FFBDFDE415587A64BFD109F4C81@FMILaptop>
References: <9AAB52CCAB54409AB50ECA8D6E08143C@toshibauser>
	<15349FFBDFDE415587A64BFD109F4C81@FMILaptop>
Message-ID: <000001cabf3f$39e2f320$ada8d960$@rr.com>

Ron,

That's exactly how I did my Smaragd canopies if that's the effect you're
looking for. One other tip, put a few small unobservable pinholes from
inside the cockpit into the fuse so it can vent. Otherwise, your canopy will
get that sucked-in look when it's hot outside. On the Smaragd, I went right
through the dashboard with the pinholes and you couldn't even see them. I
glued a small piece of shop-vac bag over the holes from the fuselage side so
no dust could enter the canopy. Obviously, you can't put any glue on the
pinholes or you'll defeat the purpose. I found I had to reduce the Pactra a
lot to get it to spray right. I tried the spray bombs, but they had a lot of
spatter. I bought the small bottles and used an airbrush.

 

Good Luck!

Verne

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of frank
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 9:09 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Tint Clear Canopy

 

With a new clear canopy, spray the  inside ( after you clean it well with
rubbing alcohol)  with multiple , LIGHT  coats. The exterior must be
completely masked. I have had good success with Pactra Candy Racing Colors
in 3.5  ounce cans. My favorite is #RC272( Candy Blue).They have other
colors, but this one is very visible.

Do not scuff the inside ! The stuff has never flaked off or peeled on me.
Been doing this since the 60s when I raced slot cars.

 

Have Fun, 

Frank

One more thing. Put a 1/16" hole in the top , towards  the back. Helps the
canopy  vent on hot days and keeps it from distorting.

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Hansen
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 8:06 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Tint Clear Canopy

 

I'm trying to tint/paint a clear canopy a smokey color.

 

I tried dying it but it won't work because it is the wrong kind of plastic.

 

I tried airbrushing it with water based black paint but it looks a little
grainy.

 

Anyone have any suggestions/tips.

 

Thanks

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100309/18195cee/attachment.html>

From lld613 at psci.net  Mon Mar  8 21:14:25 2010
From: lld613 at psci.net (Lisa n Larry)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:14:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] How to Promote Pattern
Message-ID: <001201cabf4f$c1ac3310$45049930$@net>

First you meet a number of club members and get to know them.  Then you ask
the club members to host a pattern contest. Finally, when the club members
ask for help in learning about pattern, and knowing I'm no expert but have
the brain trust of this discussion group and good friends, you take a plunge
and take on the challenge. I have also been asked by the club board to do a
15 to 30 minute Power Point presentation at a club meeting on Pattern. I may
try to get a copy of the Judging Seminar DVD and scale it back for
Sportsman.

 

Any recommendations or thoughts are always welcome.

 

Evansville, IN, ERCMAC will host its first Pattern Contest July 10th and
11th. I will do the best I can to make sure those that want to try Sportsman
get the opportunity.

 

Below is an e-mail sent to our club News Letter Editor for distribution to
members (150 strong) by e-mail and to be included in our March News Letter.

 

It is a challenging task, but here we go. The seed is planted, we just have
to make sure it grows.

 

Larry Diamond

NSRCA 3083

AMA 5024 (CD)

 

From: Lisa n Larry [mailto:lld613 at psci.net] 
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:46 PM
To: Howard Leistner
Cc: Tony Schauberger
Subject: Pattern Contest Committee Meeting

 

Howard, can you send this note out to the members and include it in the News
Letter?

 

The ERCMAC Pattern Contest Committee will have a kickoff meeting at the Mall
Show at 1pm. If you are interested in helping out please join us.

 

For those interested in learning the Sportsman Sequences and practicing for
the contest, starting Saturdays at 1pm March 27th through April 24th, I will
be at the field to assist and provide training. We will start with the
basics and work towards simulating a contest environment for the last couple
of weeks. Bring the plane you feel most comfortable with. If you don't have
a plane ready, please attend as there will be plenty to learn in the
beginning. The flying part of the training should not interfere with open
flying at the field. I will bring Lisa's Tower Hobbies Kaos 40 for demo
training flights. See ya at the field.

 

The invitation for assistance and Pattern training is open to any AMA member
from any club. Please help pass the word around. The most Sportsman I have
seen entered in a pattern contest is 9 when I attended one in Detroit. My
goal is to have 10 Sportsman from ERCMAC and surrounding clubs enter our
contest. Tony Schauberger was the first one to pre-register for the
Sportsman Class. Thanks Tony.

 

Please feel free to call or e-mail me anytime. Well before 10pm anyway.

 

Larry Diamond

LLD613 at psci.net

812-544-2306 (Home)

812-630-9592 (Cell)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100309/89b0b0c3/attachment.html>

From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Tue Mar  9 03:29:55 2010
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:29:55 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] How to Promote Pattern
In-Reply-To: <001201cabf4f$c1ac3310$45049930$@net>
Message-ID: <BBE58E21A49D41C691F834CBA3F88EB9@jaysdesktop>

Use some of the ppt slides from the nsrca.us site.

 

Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Lisa n Larry
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:14 AM
To: NSRCA
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] How to Promote Pattern

 

First you meet a number of club members and get to know them.  Then you ask
the club members to host a pattern contest. Finally, when the club members
ask for help in learning about pattern, and knowing I'm no expert but have
the brain trust of this discussion group and good friends, you take a plunge
and take on the challenge. I have also been asked by the club board to do a
15 to 30 minute Power Point presentation at a club meeting on Pattern. I may
try to get a copy of the Judging Seminar DVD and scale it back for
Sportsman.

 

Any recommendations or thoughts are always welcome.

 

Evansville, IN, ERCMAC will host its first Pattern Contest July 10th and
11th. I will do the best I can to make sure those that want to try Sportsman
get the opportunity.

 

Below is an e-mail sent to our club News Letter Editor for distribution to
members (150 strong) by e-mail and to be included in our March News Letter.

 

It is a challenging task, but here we go. The seed is planted, we just have
to make sure it grows.

 

Larry Diamond

NSRCA 3083

AMA 5024 (CD)

 

From: Lisa n Larry [mailto:lld613 at psci.net] 
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:46 PM
To: Howard Leistner
Cc: Tony Schauberger
Subject: Pattern Contest Committee Meeting

 

Howard, can you send this note out to the members and include it in the News
Letter?

 

The ERCMAC Pattern Contest Committee will have a kickoff meeting at the Mall
Show at 1pm. If you are interested in helping out please join us.

 

For those interested in learning the Sportsman Sequences and practicing for
the contest, starting Saturdays at 1pm March 27th through April 24th, I will
be at the field to assist and provide training. We will start with the
basics and work towards simulating a contest environment for the last couple
of weeks. Bring the plane you feel most comfortable with. If you don't have
a plane ready, please attend as there will be plenty to learn in the
beginning. The flying part of the training should not interfere with open
flying at the field. I will bring Lisa's Tower Hobbies Kaos 40 for demo
training flights. See ya at the field.

 

The invitation for assistance and Pattern training is open to any AMA member
from any club. Please help pass the word around. The most Sportsman I have
seen entered in a pattern contest is 9 when I attended one in Detroit. My
goal is to have 10 Sportsman from ERCMAC and surrounding clubs enter our
contest. Tony Schauberger was the first one to pre-register for the
Sportsman Class. Thanks Tony.

 

Please feel free to call or e-mail me anytime. Well before 10pm anyway.

 

Larry Diamond

LLD613 at psci.net

812-544-2306 (Home)

812-630-9592 (Cell)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100309/d38dab6c/attachment.html>

From jonlowe at aol.com  Tue Mar  9 03:43:45 2010
From: jonlowe at aol.com (Jon Lowe)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:43:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D3: Alabaster, AL Contest, Apr 17-18 CANCELLED
In-Reply-To: <BBE58E21A49D41C691F834CBA3F88EB9@jaysdesktop>
Message-ID: <8CC8D9D3D1E141F-5974-BCBB@webmail-m072.sysops.aol.com>


 Got word from D3 rep Gary Courtney that the Alabaster, AL contest on Apr 17-18 has been CANCELLED.  CD, Mike Wingo, had to cancel it due to work reasons.

 

Jon Lowe
 

 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100309/efdf28eb/attachment.html>

From jim.woodward at baesystems.com  Tue Mar  9 04:02:59 2010
From: jim.woodward at baesystems.com (Woodward, Jim R (US SSA))
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:02:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D3: Alabaster, AL Contest,
 Apr 17-18 CANCELLED
In-Reply-To: <8CC8D9D3D1E141F-5974-BCBB@webmail-m072.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <20100309130256.E84E8114B6@bridi.netexpress.com>

Jon - thanks for posting. Sucks to be us :( .  I was hoping to make that my first contest of the year.

Jim W.
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 6:43 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D3: Alabaster, AL Contest, Apr 17-18 CANCELLED

Got word from D3 rep Gary Courtney that the Alabaster, AL contest on Apr 17-18 has been CANCELLED.  CD, Mike Wingo, had to cancel it due to work reasons.

Jon Lowe



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100309/2722ddff/attachment.html>

From vanputte at cox.net  Tue Mar  9 05:41:30 2010
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:41:30 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D3: Alabaster, AL Contest,
	Apr 17-18 CANCELLED
In-Reply-To: <20100309130256.E84E8114B6@bridi.netexpress.com>
References: <20100309130256.E84E8114B6@bridi.netexpress.com>
Message-ID: <E150EF72-B40E-46DD-9E0C-D1EC7E392E3F@cox.net>

What about the Ocala, FL contest on March 21st and 22nd?

Ron

On Mar 9, 2010, at 7:02 AM, Woodward, Jim R (US SSA) wrote:

> Jon ? thanks for posting. Sucks to be us L .  I was hoping to make  
> that my first contest of the year.
>
>
>
> Jim W.
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 6:43 AM
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D3: Alabaster, AL Contest, Apr 17-18  
> CANCELLED
>
>
>
> Got word from D3 rep Gary Courtney that the Alabaster, AL contest  
> on Apr 17-18 has been CANCELLED.  CD, Mike Wingo, had to cancel it  
> due to work reasons.
>
>
>
> Jon Lowe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From mkmsg at cox.net  Tue Mar  9 16:45:02 2010
From: mkmsg at cox.net (Mike Moritko)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:45:02 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Phoenix Simulator
In-Reply-To: <20100309130256.E84E8114B6@bridi.netexpress.com>
References: <20100309130256.E84E8114B6@bridi.netexpress.com>
Message-ID: <22B1D829655A457EBE75CFC71241ACA9@OwnerPC>


I just received and loaded the Phoenix simulator on a new quad core Windows 7 based PC.  The install went fine but the simulator won't recognize the DX5e that came in the package.  There's a note which indicates some sort of adapter is needed for this old style DX5e with the side port, but no adapter was provided in the box.  The USB cable has a black plastic rectangular box installed in the middle of the cable.  I assume this is not the adapter.  Am I missing a hardware component?  Any help/advice would be appreciated.

Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100310/4f4dde2c/attachment.html>

From schale at optonline.net  Tue Mar  9 17:26:05 2010
From: schale at optonline.net (Stuart Chale)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:26:05 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Phoenix Simulator
In-Reply-To: <22B1D829655A457EBE75CFC71241ACA9@OwnerPC>
References: <20100309130256.E84E8114B6@bridi.netexpress.com>
	<22B1D829655A457EBE75CFC71241ACA9@OwnerPC>
Message-ID: <4B970302.2080400@optonline.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100310/9aac0cc0/attachment.html>

From mkmsg at cox.net  Tue Mar  9 18:14:52 2010
From: mkmsg at cox.net (Mike Moritko)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:14:52 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Phoenix Simulator
In-Reply-To: <4B970302.2080400@optonline.net>
References: <20100309130256.E84E8114B6@bridi.netexpress.com><22B1D829655A457EBE75CFC71241ACA9@OwnerPC>
	<4B970302.2080400@optonline.net>
Message-ID: <E8BB1C225FF04106ABB04FB7F19A24B6@OwnerPC>

Thanks Stuart.  That confirms what I thought.....I'm missing a required adapter.

Mike


From: Stuart Chale 
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 8:25 PM
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Phoenix Simulator


Mine has an axtra plug that goes between the dongle plug and the radio.
Stuart

On 3/9/2010 8:44 PM, Mike Moritko wrote: 

  I just received and loaded the Phoenix simulator on a new quad core Windows 7 based PC.  The install went fine but the simulator won't recognize the DX5e that came in the package.  There's a note which indicates some sort of adapter is needed for this old style DX5e with the side port, but no adapter was provided in the box.  The USB cable has a black plastic rectangular box installed in the middle of the cable.  I assume this is not the adapter.  Am I missing a hardware component?  Any help/advice would be appreciated.

  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100310/e629cb82/attachment.html>

From jpavlick at idseng.com  Wed Mar 10 05:02:37 2010
From: jpavlick at idseng.com (John Pavlick)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:02:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] How to Promote Pattern
In-Reply-To: <001201cabf4f$c1ac3310$45049930$@net>
Message-ID: <577482.30647.qm@web80508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Yes, that will work (voice of experience). Just don't be disappointed if some people lose interest. That's OK. Not everyone will enjoy Pattern flying. That's OK too. The important part is that they are exposed to it on a more personal level which is exactly what you're doing. 
?
Out of 150 people you should expect to see maybe?10 become interested enough to go to a contest. If you can do this in your first year, you've really accomplished something. On the other hand, even if only one person gets hooked, you've accomplished more than a lot of people have.
?
You'll be busy but don't forget to set aside some time for "fun" flying. Bring a glider or a warbird to the field too, NOT just Pattern planes. You need to bond?with the clubbies and most of them can relate to a warbird or a glider more easily than they can to a Pattern plane. It's all about breaking down the barriers and making them feel like Pattern is something fun and within their reach. 
?
John Pavlick

--- On Tue, 3/9/10, Lisa n Larry <lld613 at psci.net> wrote:


From: Lisa n Larry <lld613 at psci.net>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] How to Promote Pattern
To: "NSRCA" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 1:14 AM








First you meet a number of club members and get to know them.? Then you ask the club members to host a pattern contest. Finally, when the club members ask for help in learning about pattern, and knowing I?m no expert but have the brain trust of this discussion group and good friends, you take a plunge and take on the challenge? I have also been asked by the club board to do a 15 to 30 minute Power Point presentation at a club meeting on Pattern. I may try to get a copy of the Judging Seminar DVD and scale it back for Sportsman?
?
Any recommendations or thoughts are always welcome.
?
Evansville, IN, ERCMAC will host its first Pattern Contest July 10th and 11th. I will do the best I can to make sure those that want to try Sportsman get the opportunity.
?
Below is an e-mail sent to our club News Letter Editor for distribution to members (150 strong) by e-mail and to be included in our March News Letter?
?
It is a challenging task, but here we go? The seed is planted, we just have to make sure it grows?
?
Larry Diamond
NSRCA 3083
AMA 5024 (CD)
?


From: Lisa n Larry [mailto:lld613 at psci.net] 
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:46 PM
To: Howard Leistner
Cc: Tony Schauberger
Subject: Pattern Contest Committee Meeting
?
Howard, can you send this note out to the members and include it in the News Letter?
?
The ERCMAC Pattern Contest Committee will have a kickoff meeting at the Mall Show at 1pm. If you are interested in helping out please join us.
?
For those interested in learning the Sportsman Sequences and practicing for the contest, starting Saturdays at 1pm March 27th through April 24th, I will be at the field to assist and provide training. We will start with the basics and work towards simulating a contest environment for the last couple of weeks. Bring the plane you feel most comfortable with. If you don?t have a plane ready, please attend as there will be plenty to learn in the beginning. The flying part of the training should not interfere with open flying at the field. I will bring Lisa?s Tower Hobbies Kaos 40 for demo training flights. See ya at the field?
?
The invitation for assistance and Pattern training is open to any AMA member from any club. Please help pass the word around. The most Sportsman I have seen entered in a pattern contest is 9 when I attended one in Detroit. My goal is to have 10 Sportsman from ERCMAC and surrounding clubs enter our contest. Tony Schauberger was the first one to pre-register for the Sportsman Class. Thanks Tony?
?
Please feel free to call or e-mail me anytime? Well before 10pm anyway?
?
Larry Diamond
LLD613 at psci.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100310/b0098c2a/attachment.html>

From wilsorc at gmail.com  Wed Mar 10 05:41:53 2010
From: wilsorc at gmail.com (Bob Wilson)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:41:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] How to Promote Pattern
In-Reply-To: <577482.30647.qm@web80508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <001201cabf4f$c1ac3310$45049930$@net>
	<577482.30647.qm@web80508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <888fdd981003100641v205b0857k3a20b0fd3bb4b0bd@mail.gmail.com>

Make sure you organize some "after-hour entertainment".  We have a Friday
night pre-contest get together at a local eatery and a club member invites
all the contestants to a BBQ at his house on Saturday evening.  It doesn't
hurt that Peoria has a gambling boat and Big Al's (for the singel guys).

For the price of admission we provide lunch.

In naming the event I tried to come up with a name that was different and
not easily forgotten.

Visit with every flier and make them welcome.

Shop around for the trophies.  A lot of the local "sport trophy stores" are
WAY too expensive!

Finally, make sure that everything runs as smoothly as possible.  Get
someone to be in charge of the scoring program that really knows what
they're doing.

Bob Wilson
Fat Lake Pattern Rendezvous (July 31-Aug 1)

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 8:02 AM, John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com> wrote:

> Yes, that will work (voice of experience). Just don't be disappointed if
> some people lose interest. That's OK. Not everyone will enjoy Pattern
> flying. That's OK too. The important part is that they are exposed to it on
> a more personal level which is exactly what you're doing.
>
> Out of 150 people you should expect to see maybe 10 become interested
> enough to go to a contest. If you can do this in your first year, you've
> really accomplished something. On the other hand, even if only one person
> gets hooked, you've accomplished more than a lot of people have.
>
> You'll be busy but don't forget to set aside some time for "fun" flying.
> Bring a glider or a warbird to the field too, NOT just Pattern planes. You
> need to bond with the clubbies and most of them can relate to a warbird or a
> glider more easily than they can to a Pattern plane. It's all about breaking
> down the barriers and making them feel like Pattern is something fun and
> within their reach.
>
> John Pavlick
>
> --- On *Tue, 3/9/10, Lisa n Larry <lld613 at psci.net>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Lisa n Larry <lld613 at psci.net>
>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] How to Promote Pattern
> To: "NSRCA" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 1:14 AM
>
>
>  First you meet a number of club members and get to know them.  Then you
> ask the club members to host a pattern contest. Finally, when the club
> members ask for help in learning about pattern, and knowing I?m no expert
> but have the brain trust of this discussion group and good friends, you take
> a plunge and take on the challenge? I have also been asked by the club board
> to do a 15 to 30 minute Power Point presentation at a club meeting on
> Pattern. I may try to get a copy of the Judging Seminar DVD and scale it
> back for Sportsman?
>
>
>
> Any recommendations or thoughts are always welcome.
>
>
>
> Evansville, IN, ERCMAC will host its first Pattern Contest July 10th and
> 11th. I will do the best I can to make sure those that want to try
> Sportsman get the opportunity.
>
>
>
> Below is an e-mail sent to our club News Letter Editor for distribution to
> members (150 strong) by e-mail and to be included in our March News Letter?
>
>
>
> It is a challenging task, but here we go? The seed is planted, we just have
> to make sure it grows?
>
>
>
> Larry Diamond
>
> NSRCA 3083
>
> AMA 5024 (CD)
>
>
>
> *From:* Lisa n Larry [mailto:lld613 at psci.net]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 11:46 PM
> *To:* Howard Leistner
> *Cc:* Tony Schauberger
> *Subject:* Pattern Contest Committee Meeting
>
>
>
> Howard, can you send this note out to the members and include it in the
> News Letter?
>
>
>
> The ERCMAC Pattern Contest Committee will have a kickoff meeting at the
> Mall Show at 1pm. If you are interested in helping out please join us.
>
>
>
> For those interested in learning the Sportsman Sequences and practicing for
> the contest, starting Saturdays at 1pm March 27th through April 24th, I
> will be at the field to assist and provide training. We will start with the
> basics and work towards simulating a contest environment for the last couple
> of weeks. Bring the plane you feel most comfortable with. If you don?t have
> a plane ready, please attend as there will be plenty to learn in the
> beginning. The flying part of the training should not interfere with open
> flying at the field. I will bring Lisa?s Tower Hobbies Kaos 40 for demo
> training flights. See ya at the field?
>
>
>
> The invitation for assistance and Pattern training is open to any AMA
> member from any club. Please help pass the word around. The most Sportsman I
> have seen entered in a pattern contest is 9 when I attended one inDetroit. My goal is to have 10 Sportsman from ERCMAC and surrounding clubs
> enter our contest. Tony Schauberger was the first one to pre-register for
> the Sportsman Class. Thanks Tony?
>
>
>
> Please feel free to call or e-mail me anytime? Well before 10pm anyway?
>
>
>
> Larry Diamond
>
> LLD613 at psci.net<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=LLD613 at psci.net>
>
>  812-544-2306  812-544-2306 (Home)
>
>  812-630-9592  812-630-9592 (Cell)
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100310/6f970c72/attachment.html>

From cjm767driver at hotmail.com  Wed Mar 10 06:09:25 2010
From: cjm767driver at hotmail.com (Chris Moon)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:09:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP76F3E14C43CAB3DA3507E583330@phx.gbl>

Kind of off topic but for those who have trailers, can you suggest a 
good or bad brand to look at?  I think I need a 10' or 12'.

Thanks,

Chris

From burtona at atmc.net  Wed Mar 10 06:18:25 2010
From: burtona at atmc.net (Dave Burton)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:18:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP76F3E14C43CAB3DA3507E583330@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU0-SMTP76F3E14C43CAB3DA3507E583330@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <002301cac064$f17575f0$d46061d0$@net>

I think there's not much difference in the quality of any of them. Some of
the locally built ones are just as good or better than the National brands.
Look on Craig's list for a used one. People buy them for a short time use or
a move then sell them much cheaper than new. Done that myself.
Be sure to get one with a side door. I made that mistake too and had to add
a door myself.
Dave Burton

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Chris Moon
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:09 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers

Kind of off topic but for those who have trailers, can you suggest a 
good or bad brand to look at?  I think I need a 10' or 12'.

Thanks,

Chris
_______________________________________________
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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2733 - Release Date: 03/10/10
02:33:00


From jim.woodward at baesystems.com  Wed Mar 10 06:22:15 2010
From: jim.woodward at baesystems.com (Woodward, Jim R (US SSA))
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:22:15 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
In-Reply-To: <002301cac064$f17575f0$d46061d0$@net>
Message-ID: <20100310152214.AF0E91162C@bridi.netexpress.com>

http://www.southboundtrailers.com/

I purchased an AWESOME 6'x12' V-nose with dual side doors (absolute must have), split rear doors, shade of metal grey, for $2400.  I could not find a used trailer that matched what I wanted.  If you like, I'll email you some pictures.

MANY of the various trailer brands are made in GA, then rebranded with the right sticker.  They will deliver for reasonable charge too.

Thank You,

Jim Woodward

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Burton
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 9:18 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers

I think there's not much difference in the quality of any of them. Some of
the locally built ones are just as good or better than the National brands.
Look on Craig's list for a used one. People buy them for a short time use or
a move then sell them much cheaper than new. Done that myself.
Be sure to get one with a side door. I made that mistake too and had to add
a door myself.
Dave Burton

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Chris Moon
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:09 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers

Kind of off topic but for those who have trailers, can you suggest a 
good or bad brand to look at?  I think I need a 10' or 12'.

Thanks,

Chris
_______________________________________________
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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2733 - Release Date: 03/10/10
02:33:00

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

From anthonyr105 at hotmail.com  Wed Mar 10 06:28:20 2010
From: anthonyr105 at hotmail.com (Anthony Romano)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:28:20 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP76F3E14C43CAB3DA3507E583330@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU0-SMTP76F3E14C43CAB3DA3507E583330@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <SNT138-w5911414DB2FF4C5880C011E2330@phx.gbl>


Go to some of the GS forums. Lots of experience there. Great secondary market. Many buy but don't use or want bigger/smaller. Or buy and find what a pain they are to own/use/store. Always guys looking for low profile tires and drop axles when they bring it home and find it doesn't fit in their garage. Big debate if the torsion bars are any good for our use since the load is so low. Would be nice to not have to constantly load and unload.

Are there lots of Parkways around your neighborhood/flying field were you can't bring a trailer? I know quite a few guys who got surprised in my area.

Good luck.
 
> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:09:21 -0500
> From: cjm767driver at hotmail.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
> 
> Kind of off topic but for those who have trailers, can you suggest a 
> good or bad brand to look at? I think I need a 10' or 12'.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100310/7357b3de/attachment.html>

From homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 10 06:32:37 2010
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com (krishlan fitzsimmons)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:32:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP76F3E14C43CAB3DA3507E583330@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU0-SMTP76F3E14C43CAB3DA3507E583330@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <414246.58080.qm@web113913.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Any that doesn't have leaf springs..?Our loads are too light for them and they are light and bouncy. I had a Wells Cargo V nose and really liked it. It had the torsional suspension and it really helped for the light loads. Dave is correct, build wise they are all about the same,?but drivability is where they differ IMO. And with our light?delicate planes you want a trailer that isn't bouncy..
?
Chris 







________________________________
From: Chris Moon <cjm767driver at hotmail.com>
To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, March 10, 2010 7:09:21 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers

Kind of off topic but for those who have trailers, can you suggest a good or bad brand to look at?? I think I need a 10' or 12'.

Thanks,

Chris
_______________________________________________
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/20100310/6ad53c9c/attachment.html>

From terryb at beachlers.com  Wed Mar 10 06:47:10 2010
From: terryb at beachlers.com (Terry Beachler)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:47:10 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
In-Reply-To: <SNT138-w5911414DB2FF4C5880C011E2330@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU0-SMTP76F3E14C43CAB3DA3507E583330@phx.gbl>
	<SNT138-w5911414DB2FF4C5880C011E2330@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4B97BEF6.5030404@beachlers.com>


Check the Thule enclosed trailer with 7' bed and clamshell cover:

http://www.thule-trailer.com/products?task=viewdetails&id=7&categoryId=20

Terry Beachler


From vicenterc at comcast.net  Wed Mar 10 06:53:47 2010
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:53:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
In-Reply-To: <1093660238.13337751268236309880.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <1844747941.13338861268236426273.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>



Hi Chris, 



Check if you can get one all made with aluminum.? Most of the trailers are made for construction guys?and the empty weight is too high for our use.? For example, check this one:? http :// www . worthingtontrailers .com/trailers/cargo/cargo_ultra_56/56cargo_trailers. aspx ? I am sure that there are other companies. 



The weigh of all aluminum made trailer is?around half of the standard construction.? It will make a difference in miles per gallon and you could use smaller car to pull it.? At least one?side door is a must for our application.? Check this one made in Spain.? I wish that someone can make this one here: 



http :// www . depablos .net/ FICHA_portaviones . html 



If you get a good aluminum trailer let me know.? I would like to?replace my trailer with all aluminum made one.??If you are planing to fit the trailer in your garage?you will?special order to fit your garage.??The standard is too tall to fit most garages.? ? 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: " krishlan fitzsimmons " <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 9:32:21 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [ NSRCA -discussion] Trailers 




Any that doesn't have leaf springs..?Our loads are too light for them and they are light and bouncy. I had a Wells Cargo V nose and really liked it. It had the torsional suspension and it really helped for the light loads. Dave is correct, build wise they are all about the same,?but drivability is where they differ IMO. And with our light?delicate planes you want a trailer that isn't bouncy.. 
? 
Chris 








From: Chris Moon <cjm767driver@ hotmail .com> 
To: NSRCA Mailing List < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
Sent: Wed, March 10, 2010 7:09:21 AM 
Subject: [ NSRCA -discussion] Trailers 

Kind of off topic but for those who have trailers, can you suggest a good or bad brand to look at?? I think I need a 10' or 12'. 

Thanks, 

Chris 
_______________________________________________ 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100310/8a84bdaf/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Wed Mar 10 07:02:47 2010
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:02:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
In-Reply-To: <414246.58080.qm@web113913.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <BLU0-SMTP76F3E14C43CAB3DA3507E583330@phx.gbl>,
	<414246.58080.qm@web113913.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W124F4AF7065B28655BCD84A0330@phx.gbl>


You might consider gutting an old pop-up.  They ride reasonably well and tow fairly easy.

RS
 


Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:32:21 -0800
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers






Any that doesn't have leaf springs.. Our loads are too light for them and they are light and bouncy. I had a Wells Cargo V nose and really liked it. It had the torsional suspension and it really helped for the light loads. Dave is correct, build wise they are all about the same, but drivability is where they differ IMO. And with our light delicate planes you want a trailer that isn't bouncy..
 
Chris 
 
 
 






From: Chris Moon <cjm767driver at hotmail.com>
To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, March 10, 2010 7:09:21 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers

Kind of off topic but for those who have trailers, can you suggest a good or bad brand to look at?  I think I need a 10' or 12'.

Thanks,

Chris
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100310/b61d19b0/attachment.html>

From vicenterc at comcast.net  Wed Mar 10 07:03:39 2010
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:03:39 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
In-Reply-To: <4B97BEF6.5030404@beachlers.com>
Message-ID: <153407939.13344241268237019291.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>



Terry, 



Do they have a dealer in USA?? They don't list one in the web page.? Looks good option for RC planes. 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terry Beachler" <terryb at beachlers.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 9:47:02 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers 


Check the Thule enclosed trailer with 7' bed and clamshell cover: 

http://www.thule-trailer.com/products?task=viewdetails&id=7&categoryId=20 

Terry Beachler 

_______________________________________________ 
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/20100310/783ea7f5/attachment.html>

From cjm767driver at hotmail.com  Wed Mar 10 07:22:33 2010
From: cjm767driver at hotmail.com (Chris Moon)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:22:33 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP76F3E14C43CAB3DA3507E583330@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU0-SMTP76F3E14C43CAB3DA3507E583330@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP45A1A65017E5D70D0B97D983330@phx.gbl>

Thanks for the info guys, I appreciate it.  I do need size though to 
carry 12-15 2m kits at once, and that would keep me from the smaller 1-2 
plane size ones.

Chris

Chris Moon wrote:
> Kind of off topic but for those who have trailers, can you suggest a 
> good or bad brand to look at?  I think I need a 10' or 12'.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>

From schale at optonline.net  Wed Mar 10 07:33:37 2010
From: schale at optonline.net (Stuart Chale)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:33:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP45A1A65017E5D70D0B97D983330@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU0-SMTP76F3E14C43CAB3DA3507E583330@phx.gbl>
	<BLU0-SMTP45A1A65017E5D70D0B97D983330@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4B97C99E.5000001@optonline.net>

Also check into service.  A guy at my club bought one new locally but 
found it it had to go back to the manufacturer for service (side door 
was installed improperly).  Not sure what finally happened.
Stu

On 3/10/2010 11:22 AM, Chris Moon wrote:
> Thanks for the info guys, I appreciate it.  I do need size though to 
> carry 12-15 2m kits at once, and that would keep me from the smaller 
> 1-2 plane size ones.
>
> Chris
>
> Chris Moon wrote:
>> Kind of off topic but for those who have trailers, can you suggest a 
>> good or bad brand to look at?  I think I need a 10' or 12'.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


From jferrell13 at triad.rr.com  Wed Mar 10 08:23:18 2010
From: jferrell13 at triad.rr.com (John Ferrell)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:23:18 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
References: <BLU0-SMTP76F3E14C43CAB3DA3507E583330@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <464A174B32754CA58732BFF720ACE573@xppro2>

I still think my Pace is a good choice. I have had it for well over 10 
years. They tend to be like boats, too small when you load them and too big 
when you tow them. The price does not change much with size so get what you 
want the first time. The tandem wheel versions are sprung so hard that you 
must be careful with delicate cargo. They are also harder to back precisely. 
6X10 is what I chose with an additional 6" of headroom. Mine weighs about 
1700 pounds empty so that means 170 pounds on the hitch. If you load it so 
as to reduce that weight, you will rearrange the cargo in the first 5 miles! 
You have a choice with the rear door, ramp or vertical. Both have their 
advantages & disadvantages. It is too much load for my Chrysler Town & 
Country (the Chrysler book say it is good to 3000 pounds, I disagree) and 
you forget you are towing with an RV. Besides model airplanes it has served 
as a moving van for the family several times. At the moment, it is 
semi-permanently parked and being used more like a shed!

A good, name brand trailer hold its value well. I think I paid less than 
3000 for it and I expect I could get 2000 if I were to sell it.

John Ferrell  W8CCW

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."
-Edward R. Murrow
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Moon" <cjm767driver at hotmail.com>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:09 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers


> Kind of off topic but for those who have trailers, can you suggest a good 
> or bad brand to look at?  I think I need a 10' or 12'.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 



From terryb at beachlers.com  Wed Mar 10 08:44:49 2010
From: terryb at beachlers.com (Terry Beachler)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:44:49 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
In-Reply-To: <153407939.13344241268237019291.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <153407939.13344241268237019291.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <4B97DA8E.5010908@beachlers.com>

Vince,

I bought mine from an out of town dealer. Can't remember the name. I'll 
check tonight.  TerryB

Vicente "Vince" Bortone wrote:
>
> Terry,
>
>  
>
> Do they have a dealer in USA?  They don't list one in the web page.  
> Looks good option for RC planes.
>
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Terry Beachler" <terryb at beachlers.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 9:47:02 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
>
>
> Check the Thule enclosed trailer with 7' bed and clamshell cover:
>
> http://www.thule-trailer.com/products?task=viewdetails&id=7&categoryId=20
>
> Terry Beachler
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100310/877f6d80/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Wed Mar 10 09:09:01 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:09:01 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP76F3E14C43CAB3DA3507E583330@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <724829.49098.qm@web1104.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

I've got a 6 x 12 Wells Cargo trailer that I bought 15 years ago. Have had no issues with it. Tows nice, but I've never towed it with anything other than a V8 van or my diesel pickup. I think it is a little heavier than others, but it is built solid.
?
I purposely got one that is 6" shorter in height than the standard model, was the same height as my old van so the wind resistance was less. Would not be an issue with pattern size models, but a little cramped with the giant scale planes.
?
Based on my experiences and listening to others, get a V nose model. Less drag and a little more room inside for the same overall length. Get a side door. Like someone said, two would be nice (had not thought about that). Also, don't get the single rear barn door, either get the double doors or the ramp, since the single door is not as wide as others. Mine is a single door. :-(
?
A roof vent is nice, but get one with a cover that keeps the rain out if it is open. Also, I think it is a good idea to get insulation, especially in the roof, since the bare metal roof can turn it into an oven on a hot day. It is not difficult or expensive to insulate it yourself, but I'm not sure how much the cost would be to buy it that way.
?
Bob R.


--- On Wed, 3/10/10, Chris Moon <cjm767driver at hotmail.com> wrote:


From: Chris Moon <cjm767driver at hotmail.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 10:09 AM


Kind of off topic but for those who have trailers, can you suggest a good or bad brand to look at?? I think I need a 10' or 12'.

Thanks,

Chris
_______________________________________________
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/20100310/493c3118/attachment.html>

From lodomjr at verizon.net  Wed Mar 10 16:29:18 2010
From: lodomjr at verizon.net (Larry Odom)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:29:18 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP76F3E14C43CAB3DA3507E583330@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <JGECJPKHFCGHOPOLPIAHOEDACEAA.lodomjr@verizon.net>

Chris,

The 6x12 is a very popular size with an inside height at 6' to 6'6" and the
front doors are a must.  The V-nose is a good choice for aerodynamics and I
noticed a difference after I traded to one.  But with you hauling kits to
contests and setting up sales booths you may want to consider a drop down
rear door.  It makes it real easy going in and out of your trailer
especially if you are carrying big boxes in and out.  Most drop door
trailers come with a center drop axial and the door has a cable and spring
setup like a garage door does.  With the ramp door you could also move other
things, mowers, furniture... ect. and do it with ease.  Just my two cents.

Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Chris Moon
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:09 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers


Kind of off topic but for those who have trailers, can you suggest a
good or bad brand to look at?  I think I need a 10' or 12'.

Thanks,

Chris
_______________________________________________
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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2734 - Release Date: 03/10/10
02:33:00


From cjm767driver at hotmail.com  Wed Mar 10 20:19:34 2010
From: cjm767driver at hotmail.com (Chris Moon)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:19:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
In-Reply-To: <JGECJPKHFCGHOPOLPIAHOEDACEAA.lodomjr@verizon.net>
References: <JGECJPKHFCGHOPOLPIAHOEDACEAA.lodomjr@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP100005EB55950DCC32FBF1783320@phx.gbl>

Thanks Larry and everyone else who responded. I see the 6X12 is very 
popular by looking at inventories from the local trailer dealers.  The 
6' ones are also noticeably larger than the 5' ones, not just in width 
but in height too.  I really would like to get one that fits in the 
garage so I will have to check heights carefully and I don't really want 
to special order a trailer with a lower than std roof height. It seems 
every manufacturer has a slightly different standard roof height for 
their 5' and 6' wide trailers so that complicates things a little too.

Thanks again everyone, I appreciate your help.

Chris

Larry Odom wrote:
> Chris,
>
> The 6x12 is a very popular size with an inside height at 6' to 6'6" and the
> front doors are a must.  The V-nose is a good choice for aerodynamics and I
> noticed a difference after I traded to one.  But with you hauling kits to
> contests and setting up sales booths you may want to consider a drop down
> rear door.  It makes it real easy going in and out of your trailer
> especially if you are carrying big boxes in and out.  Most drop door
> trailers come with a center drop axial and the door has a cable and spring
> setup like a garage door does.  With the ramp door you could also move other
> things, mowers, furniture... ect. and do it with ease.  Just my two cents.
>
> Larry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Chris Moon
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:09 AM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Trailers
>
>
> Kind of off topic but for those who have trailers, can you suggest a
> good or bad brand to look at?  I think I need a 10' or 12'.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2734 - Release Date: 03/10/10
> 02:33:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>   

From adriancwong at earthlink.net  Fri Mar 12 20:26:37 2010
From: adriancwong at earthlink.net (adriancwong at earthlink.net)
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 05:26:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] For sale - YS 160DZ
Message-ID: <14981231.1268457995436.JavaMail.root@wamui-cynical.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

To all,

The two YS 160DZ listed a week ago has been sold. I still have one left, and will be returning next week after maintenance check up from YS parts. 

I would like to sell it for the same price of $425.00 with free UPS ground shipping within the 48 states.

Interested party please contact me off list - adriancwong at earthlink.net

Thank you.

Adrian

From rob at koolsoft.com  Sun Mar 14 07:35:49 2010
From: rob at koolsoft.com (Robert L. Beaubien)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:35:49 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Lancaster Contest Flyer and Re-Registration ...
Message-ID: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201E6567D@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>

... is up.  Get it while its hot.  Forecast weather for next weekend
looks good at this time.

 

Flyer: http://www.patternflying.com/NewsDetailPage.aspx?ID=61

 

Pre-Registration: http://www.patternflying.net/TempRegistrationPage.aspx

 

 

- Robert Beaubien

- NSRCA District 7 Webmaster

-

"No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, however a large
number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced."

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100314/9a6062d5/attachment.html>

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 14 17:11:39 2010
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:11:39 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
Message-ID: <407729.16107.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

I have to ship a very large box (15"x15"x71") with an airplane inside. Weight 24lbs. The UPS online calculator says this will cost $138.00  !!!!!   Yikes.

Anyone know if this is really the UPS rate or a cheaper shipping vendor?  Thanks.


Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com


      

From tony at radiosouthrc.com  Sun Mar 14 17:17:49 2010
From: tony at radiosouthrc.com (Tony)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:17:49 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
In-Reply-To: <407729.16107.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <407729.16107.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <DF1CBDD4C3DC403B8300F7FC00B6C05A@Tony>

Bob:
Try Greyhound Bus Lines.... They do a pretty good job and are much cheaper!

Tony Stillman, President
Radio South, Inc.
139 Altama Connector, Box 322
Brunswick, GA  31525
1-800-962-7802
www.radiosouthrc.com

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Kane
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 9:12 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question

I have to ship a very large box (15"x15"x71") with an airplane inside.
Weight 24lbs. The UPS online calculator says this will cost $138.00  !!!!!
Yikes.

Anyone know if this is really the UPS rate or a cheaper shipping vendor?
Thanks.


Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com


      
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From kthompson56 at satx.rr.com  Sun Mar 14 17:18:56 2010
From: kthompson56 at satx.rr.com (Ken Thompson)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:18:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
References: <407729.16107.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <736B5DC25AA3478E8042EE53838987B7@kenpc>

Try FedEx...or Greyhound
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Kane" <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 8:11 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question


>I have to ship a very large box (15"x15"x71") with an airplane inside. 
>Weight 24lbs. The UPS online calculator says this will cost $138.00  !!!!! 
>Yikes.
>
> Anyone know if this is really the UPS rate or a cheaper shipping vendor? 
> Thanks.
>
>
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 


From iflyrc24 at gmail.com  Sun Mar 14 17:21:15 2010
From: iflyrc24 at gmail.com (DoWayne Gould)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:21:15 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
In-Reply-To: <407729.16107.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4b9d8b85.02c3f10a.0811.6121@mx.google.com>

Bob
I shipped a Focus to a gentleman in Memphis thru Forward Air. They were very
reasonable. It was under $100 in a couple days if I remember right. The only
think is you have to take the box to Forward Air terminal and it will have
to be picked up at their terminal.
Dowayne

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Kane
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 9:12 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question

I have to ship a very large box (15"x15"x71") with an airplane inside.
Weight 24lbs. The UPS online calculator says this will cost $138.00  !!!!!
Yikes.

Anyone know if this is really the UPS rate or a cheaper shipping vendor?
Thanks.


Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com


      
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From ed_alt at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 14 17:21:35 2010
From: ed_alt at hotmail.com (Ed Alt)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:21:35 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
In-Reply-To: <736B5DC25AA3478E8042EE53838987B7@kenpc>
References: <407729.16107.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<736B5DC25AA3478E8042EE53838987B7@kenpc>
Message-ID: <SNT138-ds14C28A4C8AE07A9995D698E82E0@phx.gbl>

Old Dominion has pretty good rates.  Best bet is to find a depot location 
that you can drop off to, and similarly have the recipient pick up from. 
This cuts out the local delivery cost and also increase the odds that it 
will be received intact.

Ed

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Ken Thompson" <kthompson56 at satx.rr.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 9:18 PM
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question

> Try FedEx...or Greyhound
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bob Kane" <getterflash at yahoo.com>
> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 8:11 PM
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
>
>
>>I have to ship a very large box (15"x15"x71") with an airplane inside. 
>>Weight 24lbs. The UPS online calculator says this will cost $138.00  !!!!! 
>>Yikes.
>>
>> Anyone know if this is really the UPS rate or a cheaper shipping vendor? 
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Bob Kane
>> getterflash at yahoo.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 

From cjm767driver at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 14 17:24:21 2010
From: cjm767driver at hotmail.com (Chris Moon)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:24:21 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
In-Reply-To: <407729.16107.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <407729.16107.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP838302B7C1DAB87845CF53832E0@phx.gbl>

Bob, FedEx is only a few dollars cheaper usually than UPS but both will 
deliver to the door. Greyhound is cheaper but the receiver must go to 
the bus station and pick it up which is no problem if there is a bus 
station nearby. The rate you got quoted sounds about right.

I have always said the only people sure to make money in the R/C 
business is UPS and FedEx :(

Chris

Bob Kane wrote:
> I have to ship a very large box (15"x15"x71") with an airplane inside. Weight 24lbs. The UPS online calculator says this will cost $138.00  !!!!!   Yikes.
>
> Anyone know if this is really the UPS rate or a cheaper shipping vendor?  Thanks.
>
>
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
>
>
>       
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>   

From khoard at gmail.com  Sun Mar 14 17:39:55 2010
From: khoard at gmail.com (Keith Hoard)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:39:55 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP838302B7C1DAB87845CF53832E0@phx.gbl>
References: <407729.16107.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<BLU0-SMTP838302B7C1DAB87845CF53832E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <6792ef121003141839l2eb3f9c9p1bbabcdc44344948@mail.gmail.com>

And I thank you all very much!!!

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Chris Moon <cjm767driver at hotmail.com>wrote:

> Bob, FedEx is only a few dollars cheaper usually than UPS but both will
> deliver to the door. Greyhound is cheaper but the receiver must go to the
> bus station and pick it up which is no problem if there is a bus station
> nearby. The rate you got quoted sounds about right.
>
> I have always said the only people sure to make money in the R/C business
> is UPS and FedEx :(
>
> Chris
>
>
> Bob Kane wrote:
>
>> I have to ship a very large box (15"x15"x71") with an airplane inside.
>> Weight 24lbs. The UPS online calculator says this will cost $138.00  !!!!!
>> Yikes.
>>
>> Anyone know if this is really the UPS rate or a cheaper shipping vendor?
>>  Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Bob Kane
>> getterflash at yahoo.com
>>
>>
>>      _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 

Keith Hoard
Collierville, TN
khoard at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100315/335d1b9b/attachment.html>

From d_bodary at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 14 17:50:30 2010
From: d_bodary at yahoo.com (Dennis Bodary)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:50:30 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
In-Reply-To: <407729.16107.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <120546.52189.qm@web56407.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

So Bob what airplane are you selling?

--- On Sun, 3/14/10, Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Sunday, March 14, 2010, 9:11 PM


I have to ship a very large box (15"x15"x71") with an airplane inside. Weight 24lbs. The UPS online calculator says this will cost $138.00? !!!!!???Yikes.

Anyone know if this is really the UPS rate or a cheaper shipping vendor?? Thanks.


Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com


? ? ? 
_______________________________________________
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/20100315/acdd57aa/attachment.html>

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 14 18:43:41 2010
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:43:41 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
In-Reply-To: <120546.52189.qm@web56407.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <103177.86700.qm@web113309.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Not selling anything, just need to get it built. The "it" will remain a mystery.

Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com

--- On Sun, 3/14/10, Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Dennis Bodary <d_bodary at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Sunday, March 14, 2010, 9:50 PM






So Bob what airplane are you selling?

--- On Sun, 3/14/10, Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Sunday, March 14, 2010, 9:11 PM


I have to ship a very large box (15"x15"x71") with an airplane inside. Weight 24lbs. The UPS online calculator says this will cost $138.00? !!!!!???Yikes.

Anyone know if this is really the UPS rate or a cheaper shipping vendor?? Thanks.


Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com


? ? ? 
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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/20100315/c8c6df52/attachment.html>

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 14 18:44:48 2010
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:44:48 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP838302B7C1DAB87845CF53832E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <785503.28977.qm@web113317.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Amen 

Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com


--- On Sun, 3/14/10, Chris Moon <cjm767driver at hotmail.com> wrote:

> From: Chris Moon <cjm767driver at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Sunday, March 14, 2010, 9:24 PM
> Bob, FedEx is only a few dollars
> cheaper usually than UPS but both will 
> deliver to the door. Greyhound is cheaper but the receiver
> must go to 
> the bus station and pick it up which is no problem if there
> is a bus 
> station nearby. The rate you got quoted sounds about
> right.
> 
> I have always said the only people sure to make money in
> the R/C 
> business is UPS and FedEx :(
> 
> Chris
> 
> Bob Kane wrote:
> > I have to ship a very large box (15"x15"x71") with an
> airplane inside. Weight 24lbs. The UPS online calculator
> says this will cost $138.00?
> !!!!!???Yikes.
> >
> > Anyone know if this is really the UPS rate or a
> cheaper shipping vendor?? Thanks.
> >
> >
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >? ? ???
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 


      

From rob at koolsoft.com  Sun Mar 14 18:47:25 2010
From: rob at koolsoft.com (Robert L. Beaubien)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:47:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] [NSRCA-dist7] Lancaster Contest Flyer and
	Re-Registration ...
In-Reply-To: <F2BD28E0-777A-47C4-A086-366607E9D9C9@sbcglobal.net>
References: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201E6567D@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>
	<F2BD28E0-777A-47C4-A086-366607E9D9C9@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <F078987D4F08C3429D64F81264554EB201E65695@mail2.koolsoftmail.com>

Oops, my bad.  Sorry about that.  I had the 22nd on my mind.

 

- Robert Beaubien

- NSRCA District 7 Webmaster

-

"No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, however a large
number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced."

 

From: nsrca-dist7-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-dist7-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Frackowiak
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 5:22 PM
To: CA, AZ, HI, NV, UT
Cc: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-dist7] Lancaster Contest Flyer and Re-Registration
...

 

Just want to clear up any confusion. The Lancaster meet is on March
27th, 28th, not next weekend.

 

Thanks!

 

Tony

 

On Mar 14, 2010, at 8:35 AM, Robert L. Beaubien wrote:





... is up.  Get it while its hot.  Forecast weather for next weekend
looks good at this time.

 

Flyer: http://www.patternflying.com/NewsDetailPage.aspx?ID=61

 

Pre-Registration: http://www.patternflying.net/TempRegistrationPage.aspx

 

 

- Robert Beaubien

- NSRCA District 7 Webmaster

-

"No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, however a large
number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced."

 

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-dist7 mailing list
NSRCA-dist7 at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist7

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100315/dcf0a295/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 14 20:01:26 2010
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 04:01:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
In-Reply-To: <407729.16107.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <407729.16107.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W874DF48AEF4E9613ED91BA02E0@phx.gbl>


Rates have gone up lately--I had good luck with Greyhound--but 100 bucks isn't uncommon.

RS
 
> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:11:36 -0700
> From: getterflash at yahoo.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
> 
> I have to ship a very large box (15"x15"x71") with an airplane inside. Weight 24lbs. The UPS online calculator says this will cost $138.00 !!!!! Yikes.
> 
> Anyone know if this is really the UPS rate or a cheaper shipping vendor? Thanks.
> 
> 
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850553/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100315/faee4e97/attachment.html>

From DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com  Mon Mar 15 04:11:35 2010
From: DMWILLIAMS at bigpond.com (Dean & Melissa Williams)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:11:35 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Pattern plane for G5
Message-ID: <1B5533D9CECB4D02AF2EC2D89331C81D@dean>

Hi Peoples
I just updated to G5 from reflex what aircraft is there to practice pattern f3a ?

Any assistance will be appreciated.

Thanking you
                   Dean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100315/61774873/attachment.html>

From flyintexan at att.net  Mon Mar 15 04:21:25 2010
From: flyintexan at att.net (Mark Hunt)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:21:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Temple TX contest
In-Reply-To: <1B5533D9CECB4D02AF2EC2D89331C81D@dean>
References: <1B5533D9CECB4D02AF2EC2D89331C81D@dean>
Message-ID: <705681.56142.qm@web80705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

All:
?
I have some bad news.? I?received word from Bobby last night?that the Temple TX Pattern Contest scheduled for April 17th and 18th is cancelled.? Their field (and local park) are closed indefinitely due to high water.
?

Regards,
Mark Hunt, VP D6
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100315/c1c527be/attachment.html>

From schale at optonline.net  Mon Mar 15 04:44:51 2010
From: schale at optonline.net (Stuart Chale)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:44:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Pattern plane for G5
In-Reply-To: <1B5533D9CECB4D02AF2EC2D89331C81D@dean>
References: <1B5533D9CECB4D02AF2EC2D89331C81D@dean>
Message-ID: <4B9E2B77.3040106@optonline.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100315/fddf3dde/attachment.html>

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 15 05:15:47 2010
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:15:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
In-Reply-To: <BAY128-W874DF48AEF4E9613ED91BA02E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <966887.28038.qm@web113312.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Thanks to all for the responses.? Just another educational moment, I was caught off-guard by the shipping costs.

Bob Kane

getterflash at yahoo.com

--- On Mon, 3/15/10, Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
To: "NSRCA" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, March 15, 2010, 12:01 AM




Rates have gone up lately--I had good luck with Greyhound--but 100 bucks isn't uncommon.

RS
?
> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:11:36 -0700
> From: getterflash at yahoo.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
> 
> I have to ship a very large box (15"x15"x71") with an airplane inside. Weight 24lbs. The UPS online calculator says this will cost $138.00 !!!!! Yikes.
> 
> Anyone know if this is really the UPS rate or a cheaper shipping vendor? Thanks.
> 
> 
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
 		 	   		  
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/20100315/cd8c0c19/attachment.html>

From schale at optonline.net  Mon Mar 15 05:45:08 2010
From: schale at optonline.net (Stuart Chale)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:45:08 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
In-Reply-To: <966887.28038.qm@web113312.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <966887.28038.qm@web113312.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B9E3993.5060104@optonline.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100315/fc382550/attachment.html>

From verne at twmi.rr.com  Mon Mar 15 09:38:38 2010
From: verne at twmi.rr.com (verne at twmi.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:38:38 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
In-Reply-To: <966887.28038.qm@web113312.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20100315173836.G4S9K.486778.root@hrndva-web12-z01>

Even though the shipping may seem a little high, they don't charge anything extra for running a forklift through it.....

Verne


---- Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> wrote: 

=============
Thanks to all for the responses.? Just another educational moment, I was caught off-guard by the shipping costs.

Bob Kane

getterflash at yahoo.com

--- On Mon, 3/15/10, Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
To: "NSRCA" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, March 15, 2010, 12:01 AM




Rates have gone up lately--I had good luck with Greyhound--but 100 bucks isn't uncommon.

RS
?
> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:11:36 -0700
> From: getterflash at yahoo.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
> 
> I have to ship a very large box (15"x15"x71") with an airplane inside. Weight 24lbs. The UPS online calculator says this will cost $138.00 !!!!! Yikes.
> 
> Anyone know if this is really the UPS rate or a cheaper shipping vendor? Thanks.
> 
> 
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
 		 	   		  
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

From jim.woodward at baesystems.com  Mon Mar 15 09:39:04 2010
From: jim.woodward at baesystems.com (Woodward, Jim R (US SSA))
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:39:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Passport airframe for sale
Message-ID: <20100315173904.00D04116A6@bridi.netexpress.com>

Guys,

I'm posting a CA Models Passport airframe for sale by George Brod.  This is the standard CA red scheme, and was run with a YS 170 CDI.  $950 for airframe only.  If you are interested in making an offer or need pictures, please email George at GBrod at crystalfunds.com<mailto:GBrod at crystalfunds.com>

Thanks,
Jim

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100315/60dabe32/attachment.html>

From vanputte at cox.net  Mon Mar 15 10:16:32 2010
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:16:32 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
In-Reply-To: <966887.28038.qm@web113312.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <966887.28038.qm@web113312.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BE89C2B8-C508-42BB-B963-677E59D12B9F@cox.net>

The best two airplane travel deals I heard of were:

1.  Getting Steve Lelito's Genesis from Massachusetts to Jason  
Shulman in Orlando via (Dave Lampron, who was going to Disney World),  
then Jason taking it to the Lakeland contest, where I took possession  
and returned it the Fort Walton Beach, FL.

2.  Getting Jason's two Sharks (in BIG boxes) to Crestview, FL via  
John Fuqua, where they were picked up by John's son, Kevin a week  
later when he came for a visit, and Kevin taking them back to Baton  
Rouge, LA, where Bryan Hebert picked them up to work on.

No money exchanged hands.  What a pair of deals!

Ron

On Mar 15, 2010, at 8:15 AM, Bob Kane wrote:

> Thanks to all for the responses.  Just another educational moment,  
> I was caught off-guard by the shipping costs.
>
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
>
> --- On Mon, 3/15/10, Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
> To: "NSRCA" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, March 15, 2010, 12:01 AM
>
> <!-- #yiv62327126 .hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;}  
> #yiv62327126 .hmmessage { font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;} -->  
> Rates have gone up lately--I had good luck with Greyhound--but 100  
> bucks isn't uncommon.
> RS
>
> > Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:11:36 -0700
> > From: getterflash at yahoo.com
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
> >
> > I have to ship a very large box (15"x15"x71") with an airplane  
> inside. Weight 24lbs. The UPS online calculator says this will cost  
> $138.00 !!!!! Yikes.
> >
> > Anyone know if this is really the UPS rate or a cheaper shipping  
> vendor? Thanks.
> >
> >
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From burtona at atmc.net  Mon Mar 15 10:21:59 2010
From: burtona at atmc.net (Dave Burton)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:21:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
In-Reply-To: <BE89C2B8-C508-42BB-B963-677E59D12B9F@cox.net>
References: <966887.28038.qm@web113312.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<BE89C2B8-C508-42BB-B963-677E59D12B9F@cox.net>
Message-ID: <005801cac46c$7191c0d0$54b54270$@net>

Ron, 
You have to report the shipping cost of those two deals as taxable income!

-----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: Monday, March 15, 2010 2:16 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question

The best two airplane travel deals I heard of were:

1.  Getting Steve Lelito's Genesis from Massachusetts to Jason  
Shulman in Orlando via (Dave Lampron, who was going to Disney World),  
then Jason taking it to the Lakeland contest, where I took possession  
and returned it the Fort Walton Beach, FL.

2.  Getting Jason's two Sharks (in BIG boxes) to Crestview, FL via  
John Fuqua, where they were picked up by John's son, Kevin a week  
later when he came for a visit, and Kevin taking them back to Baton  
Rouge, LA, where Bryan Hebert picked them up to work on.

No money exchanged hands.  What a pair of deals!

Ron

On Mar 15, 2010, at 8:15 AM, Bob Kane wrote:

> Thanks to all for the responses.  Just another educational moment,  
> I was caught off-guard by the shipping costs.
>
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
>
> --- On Mon, 3/15/10, Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
> To: "NSRCA" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, March 15, 2010, 12:01 AM
>
> <!-- #yiv62327126 .hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;}  
> #yiv62327126 .hmmessage { font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;} -->  
> Rates have gone up lately--I had good luck with Greyhound--but 100  
> bucks isn't uncommon.
> RS
>
> > Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:11:36 -0700
> > From: getterflash at yahoo.com
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
> >
> > I have to ship a very large box (15"x15"x71") with an airplane  
> inside. Weight 24lbs. The UPS online calculator says this will cost  
> $138.00 !!!!! Yikes.
> >
> > Anyone know if this is really the UPS rate or a cheaper shipping  
> vendor? Thanks.
> >
> >
> > Bob Kane
> > getterflash at yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 9.0.790 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2748 - Release Date: 03/15/10
03:33:00


From vanputte at cox.net  Mon Mar 15 10:26:48 2010
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:26:48 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
In-Reply-To: <005801cac46c$7191c0d0$54b54270$@net>
References: <966887.28038.qm@web113312.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<BE89C2B8-C508-42BB-B963-677E59D12B9F@cox.net>
	<005801cac46c$7191c0d0$54b54270$@net>
Message-ID: <8DBA6D53-1366-499C-AD3F-9A18E1A52A1C@cox.net>

Every penny will be reported.

Ron



On Mar 15, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Dave Burton wrote:

> Ron,
> You have to report the shipping cost of those two deals as taxable  
> income!
>
> -----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: Monday, March 15, 2010 2:16 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
>
> The best two airplane travel deals I heard of were:
>
> 1.  Getting Steve Lelito's Genesis from Massachusetts to Jason
> Shulman in Orlando via (Dave Lampron, who was going to Disney World),
> then Jason taking it to the Lakeland contest, where I took possession
> and returned it the Fort Walton Beach, FL.
>
> 2.  Getting Jason's two Sharks (in BIG boxes) to Crestview, FL via
> John Fuqua, where they were picked up by John's son, Kevin a week
> later when he came for a visit, and Kevin taking them back to Baton
> Rouge, LA, where Bryan Hebert picked them up to work on.
>
> No money exchanged hands.  What a pair of deals!
>
> Ron
>
> On Mar 15, 2010, at 8:15 AM, Bob Kane wrote:
>
>> Thanks to all for the responses.  Just another educational moment,
>> I was caught off-guard by the shipping costs.
>>
>> Bob Kane
>> getterflash at yahoo.com
>>
>> --- On Mon, 3/15/10, Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com>  
>> wrote:
>>
>> From: Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
>> To: "NSRCA" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: Monday, March 15, 2010, 12:01 AM
>>
>> <!-- #yiv62327126 .hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;}
>> #yiv62327126 .hmmessage { font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;} -->
>> Rates have gone up lately--I had good luck with Greyhound--but 100
>> bucks isn't uncommon.
>> RS
>>
>>> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:11:36 -0700
>>> From: getterflash at yahoo.com
>>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
>>>
>>> I have to ship a very large box (15"x15"x71") with an airplane
>> inside. Weight 24lbs. The UPS online calculator says this will cost
>> $138.00 !!!!! Yikes.
>>>
>>> Anyone know if this is really the UPS rate or a cheaper shipping
>> vendor? Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob Kane
>>> getterflash at yahoo.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
>>
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 9.0.790 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2748 - Release Date:  
> 03/15/10
> 03:33:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From brian_w_young at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 15 11:10:22 2010
From: brian_w_young at yahoo.com (brian young)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:10:22 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
In-Reply-To: <20100315173836.G4S9K.486778.root@hrndva-web12-z01>
References: <20100315173836.G4S9K.486778.root@hrndva-web12-z01>
Message-ID: <479937.30808.qm@web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

baaa..dump bump......




________________________________
From: "verne at twmi.rr.com" <verne at twmi.rr.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, March 15, 2010 12:38:36 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question

Even though the shipping may seem a little high, they don't charge anything extra for running a forklift through it.....

Verne


---- Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> wrote: 

=============
Thanks to all for the responses.? Just another educational moment, I was caught off-guard by the shipping costs.

Bob Kane

getterflash at yahoo.com

--- On Mon, 3/15/10, Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
To: "NSRCA" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, March 15, 2010, 12:01 AM




Rates have gone up lately--I had good luck with Greyhound--but 100 bucks isn't uncommon.

RS
?
> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:11:36 -0700
> From: getterflash at yahoo.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
> 
> I have to ship a very large box (15"x15"x71") with an airplane inside. Weight 24lbs. The UPS online calculator says this will cost $138.00 !!!!! Yikes.
> 
> Anyone know if this is really the UPS rate or a cheaper shipping vendor? Thanks.
> 
> 
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
??? ??? ??? ? ??? ??? ? 
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100315/ec98cd2f/attachment.html>

From paul.horan at sbcglobal.net  Mon Mar 15 11:40:41 2010
From: paul.horan at sbcglobal.net (Paul Horan)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:40:41 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP
Message-ID: <198114.34889.qm@web83605.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Good-Day,?? ? ? ? ? How are you doing today? I am so sorry I wasn't able to inform you about my trip to England to visit my ill cousin today,the news came to me since last week and i had to be there soon enough. I am at present in NHS London with my ill cousin,so I decided to write you from a nearest business depot.She was diagnosed with a critical uterine fibroid. X-ray and scan shows that her condition is deteriorating because the fibroid has done a lot of damages to her abdominal area and an emergency hysterectomy surgery must be carried-out to save her life.I am deeply sorry for not writing or calling you before leaving.Besides i told no one before i left, the news of her illness arrived to me as an emergency and that she needs family support to keep her going.?I had little time to prepare or even to inform people about my trip, I hope you understand my plight and pardon me.Unfortunately,The money the doctor asked for was more than what i
 planned for,PLEASE PLEASE AND PLEASE,I will like you to please assist me with a soft loan of $1980 urgently to sort-out my Cousin's bills or any fund you can assiste me with.The hospital management is demanding for a deposit before they can invite a surgeon from Malaysia to carry out the surgery but she has been place on a temporary medical care prior the time we make the deposit with the money i gave them.I traveled with little money because I never expected things to be the way it is right now.?I will appreciate whatever you can afford, I will refund the money back to you as soon as i return, let me know if you can be of any help?What scares me the most is that she is going through a lot of pain at the moment and the doctor advice that, it is necessary that the tumor is operated soon to avoid anything from going wrong?A friend of mine just sent me $900(Nine hundred US dollars) through western union but this is little to what i am looking for !!!!I
 will appreciate whatever you can afford to assist me with, since I don't know your financial status at the moment.. I'll pay back as soon as I return with all the money you spent.?I did not take along my phone. So it is currently switched off as I was unable to roam it with the phone company because of the time frame I had to be here.This is my information that i will like you to help me to send the money to through WESTERN UNION ?MONEY TRANSFER?Paul Horan42 Hampstead Road,?London,NW1 7AWUnited Kingdom
I will make sure i refund the money back to you with the western union money charges ..so kindly e-mail me promptly and when I get back I will give you a call.I'll be pleased to read from you soon regarding my request..Thanks for your help..

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100315/ccd42b73/attachment.html>

From AtwoodDon at aol.com  Mon Mar 15 11:44:16 2010
From: AtwoodDon at aol.com (AtwoodDon at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:44:16 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP
Message-ID: <59da2.5fbcda86.38cfe801@aol.com>

Oh, someone please help this poor man!!!  
 
Probably one of our Nigerian pests....
 
Don
 
 
In a message dated 3/15/2010 12:40:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
paul.horan at sbcglobal.net writes:

Good-Day,
           How are you doing today? I  am so sorry I wasn't able to inform 
you about my trip to England to  visit my ill cousin today,the news came to 
me since last week and i had  to be there soon enough. I am at present in 
NHS London with my ill  cousin,so I decided to write you from a nearest 
business depot.She was  diagnosed with a critical uterine fibroid. X-ray and scan 
shows that her  condition is deteriorating because the fibroid has done a 
lot of damages  to her abdominal area and an emergency hysterectomy surgery 
must be  carried-out to save her life.I am deeply sorry for not writing or  
calling you before leaving.
Besides i told no one before i left, the news of her illness  arrived to me 
as an emergency and that she needs family support to keep  her going. 
I had little time to prepare or even to inform people about my  trip, I 
hope you understand my plight and pardon me.
Unfortunately,The money the doctor asked for was more than what i  planned 
for,PLEASE PLEASE AND PLEASE,I will like you to please assist me  with a 
soft loan of $1980 urgently to sort-out my Cousin's bills or any  fund you can 
assiste me with.The hospital management is demanding for a  deposit before 
they can invite a surgeon from Malaysia to carry out the  surgery but she has 
been place on a temporary medical care prior the  time we make the deposit 
with the money i gave them.I traveled with  little money because I never 
expected things to be the way it is right  now. 
I will appreciate whatever you can afford, I will refund the money  back to 
you as soon as i return, let me know if you can be of any  help?
What scares me the most is that she is going through a lot of pain  at the 
moment and the doctor advice that, it is necessary that the tumor  is 
operated soon to avoid anything from going wrong?
A friend of mine just sent me $900(Nine hundred US dollars) through  
western union but this is little to what i am looking for !!!!
I will appreciate whatever you can afford to assist me with, since  I don't 
know your financial status at the moment.. I'll pay back as soon  as I 
return with all the money you spent.
 I did not take along my phone. So it is currently switched  off as I was 
unable to roam it with the phone company because of the  time frame I had to 
be here.
This is my information that i will like you to help me to send the  money 
to through WESTERN UNION  MONEY TRANSFER
 
Paul Horan
42 Hampstead Road, 
London,
NW1 7AW
United Kingdom


I will make sure i refund the money back to you with the western  union 
money charges ..
so kindly e-mail me promptly and when I get back I will give you a  
call.I'll be pleased to read from you soon regarding my request..
Thanks for your help..






_______________________________________________
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/20100315/1f9ba629/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Mon Mar 15 11:49:00 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:49:00 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Shipping airplane question
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP838302B7C1DAB87845CF53832E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <204194.35163.qm@web1109.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

LOL! Ain't that the truth!

--- On Sun, 3/14/10, Chris Moon <cjm767driver at hotmail.com> wrote:



I have always said the only people sure to make money in the R/C 
business is UPS and FedEx :(
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100315/50700498/attachment.html>

From chuenkan at comcast.net  Mon Mar 15 11:50:46 2010
From: chuenkan at comcast.net (Phil Spelt)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:50:46 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP
In-Reply-To: <59da2.5fbcda86.38cfe801@aol.com>
References: <59da2.5fbcda86.38cfe801@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20100315195046.6ABFE114B6@bridi.netexpress.com>

"Pests"???   PESTS???  You're being 'way too kind to them, Don...

At 03:44 PM 3/15/2010, you wrote:
>Oh, someone please help this poor man!!!
>[]
>
>
>Probably one of our Nigerian pests....
>
>Don
>
>In a message dated 3/15/2010 12:40:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
>paul.horan at sbcglobal.net writes:
>Good-Day,
>            How are you doing today? I am so sorry I wasn't able to 
> inform you about my trip to England to visit my ill cousin 
> today,the news came to me since last week and i had to be there 
> soon enough. I am at present in NHS London with my ill cousin,so I 
> decided to write you from a nearest business depot.She was 
> diagnosed with a critical uterine fibroid. X-ray and scan shows 
> that her condition is deteriorating because the fibroid has done a 
> lot of damages to her abdominal area and an emergency hysterectomy 
> surgery must be carried-out to save her life.I am deeply sorry for 
> not writing or calling you before leaving.
>Besides i told no one before i left, the news of her illness arrived 
>to me as an emergency and that she needs family support to keep her going.
>I had little time to prepare or even to inform people about my trip, 
>I hope you understand my plight and pardon me.
>Unfortunately,The money the doctor asked for was more than what i 
>planned for,PLEASE PLEASE AND PLEASE,I will like you to please 
>assist me with a soft loan of $1980 urgently to sort-out my Cousin's 
>bills or any fund you can assiste me with.The hospital management is 
>demanding for a deposit before they can invite a surgeon from 
>Malaysia to carry out the surgery but she has been place on a 
>temporary medical care prior the time we make the deposit with the 
>money i gave them.I traveled with little money because I never 
>expected things to be the way it is right now.
>I will appreciate whatever you can afford, I will refund the money 
>back to you as soon as i return, let me know if you can be of any help?
>What scares me the most is that she is going through a lot of pain 
>at the moment and the doctor advice that, it is necessary that the 
>tumor is operated soon to avoid anything from going wrong?
>A friend of mine just sent me $900(Nine hundred US dollars) through 
>western union but this is little to what i am looking for !!!!
>I will appreciate whatever you can afford to assist me with, since I 
>don't know your financial status at the moment.. I'll pay back as 
>soon as I return with all the money you spent.
>  I did not take along my phone. So it is currently switched off as 
> I was unable to roam it with the phone company because of the time 
> frame I had to be here.
>This is my information that i will like you to help me to send the 
>money to through WESTERN UNION  MONEY TRANSFER
>
>Paul Horan
>42 Hampstead Road,
>London,
>NW1 7AW
>United Kingdom
>
>I will make sure i refund the money back to you with the western 
>union money charges ..
>so kindly e-mail me promptly and when I get back I will give you a 
>call.I'll be pleased to read from you soon regarding my request..
>Thanks for your help..
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member  SPA--177, Board Member
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100315/ef0d8c34/attachment.html>

From jerry at buddengineering.com  Mon Mar 15 11:58:02 2010
From: jerry at buddengineering.com (Budd Engineering)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:58:02 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP
In-Reply-To: <59da2.5fbcda86.38cfe801@aol.com>
References: <59da2.5fbcda86.38cfe801@aol.com>
Message-ID: <BE9E1C18-2BE9-4A52-9143-A53DF74EFF25@buddengineering.com>

And I was thinking it was an eMail from my old friend AAM1024 on RCU...

Jerry

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 15, 2010, at 12:44 PM, AtwoodDon at aol.com wrote:

> Oh, someone please help this poor man!!!
>
> Probably one of our Nigerian pests....
>
> Don
>
> In a message dated 3/15/2010 12:40:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, paul.horan at sbcglobal.net 
>  writes:
> Good-Day,
>            How are you doing today? I am so sorry I wasn't able to  
> inform you about my trip to England to visit my ill cousin today,the  
> news came to me since last week and i had to be there soon enough. I  
> am at present in NHS London with my ill          cousin,so I decided  
> to write you from a nearest business depot.She was diagnosed with a  
> critical uterine fibroid. X-ray and scan shows that her condition is  
> deteriorating because the fibroid has done a lot of damages to her  
> abdominal area and an emergency hysterectomy surgery must be carried- 
> out to save her life.I am deeply sorry for not writing or calling  
> you before leaving.
> Besides i told no one before i left, the news of her illness arrived  
> to me as an emergency and that she needs family support to keep her  
> going.
> I had little time to prepare or even to inform people about my trip,  
> I hope you understand my plight and pardon me.
> Unfortunately,The money the doctor asked for was more than what i  
> planned for,PLEASE PLEASE AND PLEASE,I will like you to please  
> assist me with a soft loan of $1980 urgently to sort-out my Cousin's  
> bills or any fund you can assiste me with.The hospital management is  
> demanding for a deposit before they can invite a surgeon from  
> Malaysia to carry out the surgery but she has been place on a  
> temporary medical care prior the time we make the deposit with the  
> money i gave them.I traveled with little money because I never  
> expected things to be the way it is right now.
> I will appreciate whatever you can afford, I will refund the money  
> back to you as soon as i return, let me know if you can be of any  
> help?
> What scares me the most is that she is going through a lot of pain  
> at the moment and the doctor advice that, it is necessary that the  
> tumor is operated soon to avoid anything from going wrong?
> A friend of mine just sent me $900(Nine hundred US dollars) through  
> western union but this is little to what i am looking for !!!!
> I will appreciate whatever you can afford to assist me with, since I  
> don't know your financial status at the moment.. I'll pay back as  
> soon as I return with all the money you spent.
>  I did not take along my phone. So it is currently switched off as I  
> was unable to roam it with the phone company because of the time  
> frame I had to be here.
> This is my information that i will like you to help me to send the  
> money to through WESTERN UNION  MONEY TRANSFER
>
> Paul Horan
> 42 Hampstead Road,
> London,
> NW1 7AW
> United Kingdom
>
> I will make sure i refund the money back to you with the western  
> union money charges ..
> so kindly e-mail me promptly and when I get back I will give you a  
> call.I'll be pleased to read from you soon regarding my request..
> Thanks for your help..
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100315/81f65988/attachment.html>

From simestd at netexpress.com  Mon Mar 15 12:03:11 2010
From: simestd at netexpress.com (Tom Simes)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:03:11 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP
In-Reply-To: <59da2.5fbcda86.38cfe801@aol.com>
References: <59da2.5fbcda86.38cfe801@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20100315120309.26af4aec.simestd@netexpress.com>

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:44:01 EDT
AtwoodDon at aol.com wrote:

> Oh, someone please help this poor man!!!  
>  

I've temporarily removed Paul from the NSRCA lists and sent a private
e-mail explaining why and offering help if needed.  As an aside, NSRCA
list e-mails are virus scanned as well before being let loose from the
server.  I offer no guarantees about the lists being 100% spam and virus
free, but they're close ;)


Tom Simes - NSRCA list admin
 
======================================================================
   "Z-80 system stack overflow.  Shut 'er down Scotty, the system's
         sucking mud" - Error message on TRS 80 Model-16B

Tom Simes                                       simestd at netexpress.com 
======================================================================

From jaqfly at prodigy.net  Mon Mar 15 12:03:57 2010
From: jaqfly at prodigy.net (Jim Quinn)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:03:57 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP
In-Reply-To: <BE9E1C18-2BE9-4A52-9143-A53DF74EFF25@buddengineering.com>
References: <59da2.5fbcda86.38cfe801@aol.com>
	<BE9E1C18-2BE9-4A52-9143-A53DF74EFF25@buddengineering.com>
Message-ID: <250516.3085.qm@web83301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Interestingly enough NSRCA does have a member, Paul Horan from D 6, Belton, TX with that same email address, who joined in 2003, but hasn't yet renewed for 2010. He was a member in 2009.

So go figure!
?Jim Quinn 




________________________________
From: Budd Engineering <jerry at buddengineering.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Cc: "nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, March 15, 2010 3:53:54 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP


And I was thinking it was an eMail from my old friend AAM1024 on RCU...

Jerry

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 15, 2010, at 12:44 PM, AtwoodDon at aol.com wrote:


Oh, someone please help this poor man!!!? 
>
>Probably one of our Nigerian pests....
>
>Don
>
>In a message dated 3/15/2010 12:40:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, paul.horan at sbcglobal.net writes:
>Good-Day,
>>?? ? ? ? ? How are you doing today? I am so sorry I wasn't able to inform you about my trip to England to visit my ill cousin today,the news came to me since last week and i had to be there soon enough. I am at present in NHS London with my ill cousin,so I decided to write you from a nearest business depot.She was diagnosed with a critical uterine fibroid. X-ray and scan shows that her condition is deteriorating because the fibroid has done a lot of damages to her abdominal area and an emergency hysterectomy surgery must be carried-out to save her life.I am deeply sorry for not writing or calling you before leaving.
>>Besides i told no one before i left, the news of her illness arrived to me as an emergency and that she needs family support to keep her going.?
>>I had little time to prepare or even to inform people about my trip, I hope you understand my plight and pardon me.
>>Unfortunately,The money the doctor asked for was more than what i planned for,PLEASE PLEASE AND PLEASE,I will like you to please assist me with a soft loan of $1980 urgently to sort-out my Cousin's bills or any fund you can assiste me with.The hospital management is demanding for a deposit before they can invite a surgeon from Malaysia to carry out the surgery but she has been place on a temporary medical care prior the time we make the deposit with the money i gave them.I traveled with little money because I never expected things to be the way it is right now.?
>>I will appreciate whatever you can afford, I will refund the money back to you as soon as i return, let me know if you can be of any help?
>>What scares me the most is that she is going through a lot of pain at the moment and the doctor advice that, it is necessary that the tumor is operated soon to avoid anything from going wrong?
>>A friend of mine just sent me $900(Nine hundred US dollars) through western union but this is little to what i am looking for !!!!
>>I will appreciate whatever you can afford to assist me with, since I don't know your financial status at the moment.. I'll pay back as soon as I return with all the money you spent.
>>?I did not take along my phone. So it is currently switched off as I was unable to roam it with the phone company because of the time frame I had to be here.
>>This is my information that i will like you to help me to send the money to through WESTERN UNION ?MONEY TRANSFER
>>
>>Paul Horan
>>42 Hampstead Road,?
>>London,
>>NW1 7AW
>>United Kingdom
>>
>>
>>I will make sure i refund the money back to you with the western union money charges ..
>>so kindly e-mail me promptly and when I get back I will give you a call.I'll be pleased to read from you soon regarding my request..
>>Thanks for your help..
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100315/cea3e710/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Mon Mar 15 13:14:26 2010
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:14:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP
In-Reply-To: <250516.3085.qm@web83301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <59da2.5fbcda86.38cfe801@aol.com>	<BE9E1C18-2BE9-4A52-9143-A53DF74EFF25@buddengineering.com>
	<250516.3085.qm@web83301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B9EA330.8030809@cox.net>

A Google search turns up 31,700 hits. Not an uncommon name. This still 
smells like a scam. And if not there are better ways to do this.




From chuenkan at comcast.net  Mon Mar 15 13:53:06 2010
From: chuenkan at comcast.net (Phil Spelt)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:53:06 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP
In-Reply-To: <20100315120309.26af4aec.simestd@netexpress.com>
References: <59da2.5fbcda86.38cfe801@aol.com>
	<20100315120309.26af4aec.simestd@netexpress.com>
Message-ID: <20100315215305.DC91D114B6@bridi.netexpress.com>

Tom, we all appreciate your work on the NSRCA List and well as the 
work on the web site.  Many thanks!!!

At 04:03 PM 3/15/2010, you wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:44:01 EDT
>AtwoodDon at aol.com wrote:
>
> > Oh, someone please help this poor man!!!
> >
>
>I've temporarily removed Paul from the NSRCA lists and sent a private
>Tom Simes - NSRCA list admin

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member  SPA--177, Board Member
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100315/862d2d22/attachment.html>

From patterndude at tx.rr.com  Mon Mar 15 15:34:27 2010
From: patterndude at tx.rr.com (patterndude at tx.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:34:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP
In-Reply-To: <198114.34889.qm@web83605.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <198114.34889.qm@web83605.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <779301406-1268696064-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1868917358-@bda261.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

I know Paul from Temple. He's a Southern boy but still speaks better English than this imposter
Lance
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Horan <paul.horan at sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:40:39 
To: undisclosed recipients: ;<Invalid address>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

From duane.e.beck at comcast.net  Mon Mar 15 17:02:47 2010
From: duane.e.beck at comcast.net (Duane Beck)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:02:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Tom Weedon?
Message-ID: <1328613832.10297291268701365459.JavaMail.root@sz0056a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>

Is Tom Weedon still around (or someone else familiar with his foam cutting power supply design)?  Thanks.

Duane

From wcgalligan at att.net  Mon Mar 15 21:35:22 2010
From: wcgalligan at att.net (Wayne Galligan)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 05:35:22 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP
In-Reply-To: <779301406-1268696064-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1868917358-@bda261.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
References: <198114.34889.qm@web83605.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<779301406-1268696064-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1868917358-@bda261.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <702C29CAC9A94BD9B31C14C4582BE9FC@WaynePC>

I think Paul would start out with a Y'all rather then a Good-Day.  Wouldn't 
you just love to reach right through this thread and choke the slime ball 
pretending to be Paul.

Wayno

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <patterndude at tx.rr.com>
To: <numail08 at gmail.com>; "General pattern discussion" 
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; "undisclosed recipients:"
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP


>I know Paul from Temple. He's a Southern boy but still speaks better 
>English than this imposter
> Lance
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Horan <paul.horan at sbcglobal.net>
> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:40:39
> To: undisclosed recipients: ;<Invalid address>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 


From billglaze at bellsouth.net  Tue Mar 16 05:27:37 2010
From: billglaze at bellsouth.net (Bill Glaze)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:27:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP
References: <198114.34889.qm@web83605.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><779301406-1268696064-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1868917358-@bda261.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
	<702C29CAC9A94BD9B31C14C4582BE9FC@WaynePC>
Message-ID: <A1F75DFEBDA74946842FB205489B101A@glazecstp32xp>

This thing is so "Former Nigerian Secretary of the Treasury."
Bill
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wayne Galligan" <wcgalligan at att.net>
To: <patterndude at tx.rr.com>; "General pattern discussion" 
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP


>I think Paul would start out with a Y'all rather then a Good-Day.  Wouldn't 
>you just love to reach right through this thread and choke the slime ball 
>pretending to be Paul.
>
> Wayno
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <patterndude at tx.rr.com>
> To: <numail08 at gmail.com>; "General pattern discussion" 
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; "undisclosed recipients:"
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 6:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP
>
>
>>I know Paul from Temple. He's a Southern boy but still speaks better 
>>English than this imposter
>> Lance
>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Horan <paul.horan at sbcglobal.net>
>> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:40:39
>> To: undisclosed recipients: ;<Invalid address>
>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 


From simestd at netexpress.com  Tue Mar 16 07:23:50 2010
From: simestd at netexpress.com (Tom Simes)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:23:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP
In-Reply-To: <20100315215305.DC91D114B6@bridi.netexpress.com>
References: <59da2.5fbcda86.38cfe801@aol.com>
	<20100315120309.26af4aec.simestd@netexpress.com>
	<20100315215305.DC91D114B6@bridi.netexpress.com>
Message-ID: <20100316072342.183b25a1.simestd@netexpress.com>

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:53:07 -0400
Phil Spelt <chuenkan at comcast.net> wrote:

> Tom, we all appreciate your work on the NSRCA List and well as the 
> work on the web site.  Many thanks!!!

I'm more than happy to contribute the list hosting - Marty is the real
mover and shaker on the web site though!  By the way, if your club or
non-profit R/C organization could use a mailing list, I would be glad to
provide the hosting.

-- 
Tom
 
======================================================================
   "Z-80 system stack overflow.  Shut 'er down Scotty, the system's
         sucking mud" - Error message on TRS 80 Model-16B

Tom Simes                                       simestd at netexpress.com 
======================================================================

From scott at rcfoamy.com  Tue Mar 16 08:11:56 2010
From: scott at rcfoamy.com (scott at rcfoamy.com)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:11:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP
Message-ID: <1355342609-1268755443-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-686561247-@bda484.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

I would like to say "Thank you" to Tom Simes for providing the mail list for Classic Pattern Association. The CPA is grateful for this service.


Scott
www.classicpatternassociation
------Original Message------
From: Tom Simes
Sender: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
To: Nsrca
ReplyTo: Nsrca
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] From Paul Horan,Please reply ASAP
Sent: Mar 16, 2010 11:23 AM

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:53:07 -0400
Phil Spelt <chuenkan at comcast.net> wrote:

> Tom, we all appreciate your work on the NSRCA List and well as the 
> work on the web site.  Many thanks!!!

I'm more than happy to contribute the list hosting - Marty is the real
mover and shaker on the web site though!  By the way, if your club or
non-profit R/C organization could use a mailing list, I would be glad to
provide the hosting.

-- 
Tom
 
======================================================================
   "Z-80 system stack overflow.  Shut 'er down Scotty, the system's
         sucking mud" - Error message on TRS 80 Model-16B

Tom Simes                                       simestd at netexpress.com 
======================================================================
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

From donramsey at gmail.com  Tue Mar 16 08:45:59 2010
From: donramsey at gmail.com (Don Ramsey)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:45:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2011 F3A World Champioship Logo
In-Reply-To: <20100316072342.183b25a1.simestd@netexpress.com>
References: <59da2.5fbcda86.38cfe801@aol.com>	<20100315120309.26af4aec.simestd@netexpress.com>	<20100315215305.DC91D114B6@bridi.netexpress.com>
	<20100316072342.183b25a1.simestd@netexpress.com>
Message-ID: <009e01cac528$40aa0b50$c1fe21f0$@com>

We are going to need a logo for the 2011 F3A World Championships.  If you
have any suggestions please send them to me at donramsey at gmail.com

Don


From glmiller3 at suddenlink.net  Tue Mar 16 09:10:13 2010
From: glmiller3 at suddenlink.net (glmiller3 at suddenlink.net)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:10:13 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2011 F3A World Champioship Logo
In-Reply-To: <009e01cac528$40aa0b50$c1fe21f0$@com>
Message-ID: <20100316121010.MBVMZ.414592.root@Web01>

Something with a boat on it ;)

G
---- Don Ramsey <donramsey at gmail.com> wrote: 

=============
We are going to need a logo for the 2011 F3A World Championships.  If you
have any suggestions please send them to me at donramsey at gmail.com

Don

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From adriancwong at earthlink.net  Tue Mar 16 13:45:22 2010
From: adriancwong at earthlink.net (adriancwong at earthlink.net)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:45:22 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] For sale - YS 160DZ
Message-ID: <10640792.1268775921512.JavaMail.root@wamui-cynical.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

To all,

My last YS 160 DZ has been return from YS parts with new piston ring & bearings, I would like to sell it for $420.00 including UPS ground shipping within the 48 states.

Any interested party please contact me off list - adriancwong at earthlink.net.

Thanks,

Adrian

From rcmaster199 at aol.com  Thu Mar 18 07:26:34 2010
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com (rcmaster199 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:26:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] OS160, muffler and Perry Pump
In-Reply-To: <153407939.13344241268237019291.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <8CC94C67E8FD36D-65B8-738A@webmail-m035.sysops.aol.com>




NIB, OS160 FX, muffler, Perry Pump, and RTC header included

300$ delivered, firm price. Contact me off list please

MattK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100318/11faf12f/attachment.html>

From letdiamond at psci.net  Thu Mar 18 19:22:20 2010
From: letdiamond at psci.net (letdiamond)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:22:20 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Does my new e-mail work?
Message-ID: <20100319032104.M69682@psci.net>

Not a test, but a test
Cause it?s quiet and I haven?t received anything with 
a new e-mail account



From vanputte at cox.net  Thu Mar 18 19:27:18 2010
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:27:18 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Does my new e-mail work?
In-Reply-To: <20100319032104.M69682@psci.net>
References: <20100319032104.M69682@psci.net>
Message-ID: <F95BA53E-E2DA-445A-9D21-244E2DA80261@cox.net>

Why don't you just say something about snaps?  That should stir up  
some activity.

Ron

On Mar 18, 2010, at 10:22 PM, letdiamond wrote:

> Not a test, but a test?Cause it?s quiet and I haven?t received  
> anything with
> a new e-mail account?
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From vicenterc at comcast.net  Thu Mar 18 19:27:53 2010
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:27:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Does my new e-mail work?
In-Reply-To: <20100319032104.M69682@psci.net>
Message-ID: <1360828851.402621268969273590.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

Taxes + Spring Fever +?NCAA could explain why is so quiet.? In my case, ?I?have to add the Indian Wells tennis tournament.? 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: " letdiamond " < letdiamond @ psci .net> 
To: nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org 
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:22:19 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Does my new e-mail work? 

Not a test, but a test?Cause it?s quiet and I haven?t received anything with 
a new e-mail account? 

_______________________________________________ 
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/20100319/dea2fd90/attachment.html>

From schale at optonline.net  Thu Mar 18 20:04:31 2010
From: schale at optonline.net (Stuart Chale)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:04:31 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Does my new e-mail work?
In-Reply-To: <20100319032104.M69682@psci.net>
References: <20100319032104.M69682@psci.net>
Message-ID: <4BA2F770.3010307@optonline.net>

Nope didn't get it here!

On 3/18/2010 11:22 PM, letdiamond wrote:
> Not a test, but a test?Cause it?s quiet and I haven?t received anything with
> a new e-mail account?
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>    


From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Thu Mar 18 20:44:03 2010
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:44:03 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Does my new e-mail work?
In-Reply-To: <20100319032104.M69682@psci.net>
References: <20100319032104.M69682@psci.net>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W23AE5B83829D65781107ABA02A0@phx.gbl>


Got it in KC
 
> From: letdiamond at psci.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:22:19 -0600
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Does my new e-mail work?
> 
> Not a test, but a test?Cause it?s quiet and I haven?t received anything with 
> a new e-mail account?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100319/11b69a19/attachment.html>

From vanputte at cox.net  Fri Mar 19 06:12:01 2010
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:12:01 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Does my new e-mail work?
In-Reply-To: <4BA2F770.3010307@optonline.net>
References: <20100319032104.M69682@psci.net> <4BA2F770.3010307@optonline.net>
Message-ID: <6244DAFC-A0A9-4E44-90A1-04CAA8780D8D@cox.net>

Stuart - I like your sense of humor.  John Fuqua will probably say,  
"Yep, that sounds just like something Van Putte would say."

Ron

On Mar 18, 2010, at 11:02 PM, Stuart Chale wrote:

> Nope didn't get it here!
>
> On 3/18/2010 11:22 PM, letdiamond wrote:
>> Not a test, but a test?Cause it?s quiet and I haven?t received  
>> anything with
>> a new e-mail account?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


From rcmaster199 at aol.com  Fri Mar 19 06:19:08 2010
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com (rcmaster199 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:19:08 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] OS160, muffler and Perry Pump
In-Reply-To: <8CC94C67E8FD36D-65B8-738A@webmail-m035.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <8CC95863A3A5D01-328C-174DB@Webmail-d112.sysops.aol.com>


OS has been sold

MattK






-----Original Message-----
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Thu, Mar 18, 2010 11:26 am
Subject: OS160, muffler and Perry Pump





NIB, OS160 FX, muffler, Perry Pump, and RTC header included
 
300$ delivered, firm price. Contact me off list please
 
MattK

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100319/1104bbef/attachment.html>

From flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net  Fri Mar 19 16:43:27 2010
From: flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net (William C. Harden)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:43:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] It's too quiet.
Message-ID: <80AC119D6D2F491FBAF43C63DBAEEED4@bill>

Everyone must be out flying today.  


From jshulman at cfl.rr.com  Fri Mar 19 17:07:44 2010
From: jshulman at cfl.rr.com (JShup)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:07:44 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] It's too quiet.
In-Reply-To: <80AC119D6D2F491FBAF43C63DBAEEED4@bill>
References: <80AC119D6D2F491FBAF43C63DBAEEED4@bill>
Message-ID: <1BB46B12-FFA2-4598-8464-B079C5505D06@cfl.rr.com>

Yep, flew 17 times today... Only 3 were with my plane

JASiP

On Mar 19, 2010, at 8:43 PM, "William C. Harden" <flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net 
 > wrote:

> Everyone must be out flying today.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

From frankjuliei at comcast.net  Sat Mar 20 03:10:48 2010
From: frankjuliei at comcast.net (frank)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:10:48 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX
Message-ID: <AE4E6873C4A143DFAE8DFCE95AF900EF@FMILaptop>

Been running an APC 3- blade (15-10) re-pitched by Dave Lockhart on my Brio
for quite some time until yesterday when  I nicked a tip on landing. I  have
also used an 18.1 x 10 with pretty good results. I noticed that APC also has
an 18x 8 W IMAC prop and a 18x 6W 3D prop. I assume the later would be less
desirable, but who knows until it's tried. Has anyone used either and on
what motor ?

 

Thanks,

Frank

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100320/044ca706/attachment.html>

From ed_alt at hotmail.com  Sat Mar 20 04:24:47 2010
From: ed_alt at hotmail.com (Ed Alt)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:24:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX
In-Reply-To: <AE4E6873C4A143DFAE8DFCE95AF900EF@FMILaptop>
References: <AE4E6873C4A143DFAE8DFCE95AF900EF@FMILaptop>
Message-ID: <SNT138-ds7462D01CE5A7DABF40F8FE8290@phx.gbl>

Frank:
Don't go less than 10 pitch, you just won't have enough speed without developing a lot of RPMs and a lot of noise to go with it.

Ed


From: frank 
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 7:10 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion' 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX


Been running an APC 3- blade (15-10) re-pitched by Dave Lockhart on my Brio for quite some time until yesterday when  I nicked a tip on landing. I  have  also used an 18.1 x 10 with pretty good results. I noticed that APC also has an 18x 8 W IMAC prop and a 18x 6W 3D prop. I assume the later would be less desirable, but who knows until it's tried. Has anyone used either and on what motor ?

 

Thanks,

Frank



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
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/20100320/7f8645d8/attachment.html>

From ronlock at comcast.net  Sat Mar 20 04:36:45 2010
From: ronlock at comcast.net (ronlock at comcast.net)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:36:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX
In-Reply-To: <SNT138-ds7462D01CE5A7DABF40F8FE8290@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <1644136500.9715581269088600016.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>

You might try an 18x10 , the one with very wide blade at hub, tapering to point at end. Will likely require a significant spinner cone trim. That prop was next best to the 3b 10p for me. 
Ron Lockhart 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Alt" <ed_alt at hotmail.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 7:24:42 AM (GMT-0500) Auto-Detected 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX 


Frank: 
Don't go less than 10 pitch, you just won't have enough speed without developing a lot of RPMs and a lot of noise to go with it. 

Ed 




From: frank 
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 7:10 AM 
To: 'General pattern discussion' 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX 




Been running an APC 3- blade (15-10) re-pitched by Dave Lockhart on my Brio for quite some time until yesterday when I nicked a tip on landing. I have also used an 18.1 x 10 with pretty good results. I noticed that APC also has an 18x 8 W IMAC prop and a 18x 6W 3D prop. I assume the later would be less desirable, but who knows until it?s tried. Has anyone used either and on what motor ? 



Thanks, 

Frank 




_______________________________________________ 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100320/f06fd88c/attachment.html>

From rcmaster199 at aol.com  Sat Mar 20 06:11:25 2010
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com (rcmaster199 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:11:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX
In-Reply-To: <1644136500.9715581269088600016.JavaMail.root@sz0086a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <8CC964E525687B9-2728-23279@Webmail-m111.sysops.aol.com>


I've used the 18x10 sport prop that Ron talks about. Still have it I think. I used it on a 27% Xtra 300 10 years ago at least. I don't think I liked it much from thrust generation POV and it was very heavy.

Frank stick with the 18.1x10. If you need a little more speed, try a standard blade 17x12. Stay away from wide blades...they don't help much in generating thrust. If I can find the 18x10, I'll bring it to the field today so you can try it. 

Matt






-----Original Message-----
From: ronlock at comcast.net
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sat, Mar 20, 2010 7:36 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX


You might try an 18x10 , the one with very wide blade at hub, tapering to point at end.  Will likely require a significant spinner cone trim.  That prop was next best to the 3b 10p for me.
Ron Lockhart

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Alt" <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 7:24:42 AM (GMT-0500) Auto-Detected
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX


Frank:
Don't go less than 10 pitch, you just won't have enough speed without developing a lot of RPMs and a lot of noise to go with it.

Ed




From: frank 
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 7:10 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion' 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX




Been running an APC 3- blade (15-10) re-pitched by Dave Lockhart on my Brio for quite some time until yesterday when  I nicked a tip on landing. I  have  also used an 18.1 x 10 with pretty good results. I noticed that APC also has an 18x 8 W IMAC prop and a 18x 6W 3D prop. I assume the later would be less desirable, but who knows until it?s tried. Has anyone used either and on what motor ?
 
Thanks,
Frank


_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
SRCA-discussion mailing list
SRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
ttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100320/1b1ece2a/attachment.html>

From vicenterc at comcast.net  Sat Mar 20 07:29:20 2010
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:29:20 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX
In-Reply-To: <8CC964E525687B9-2728-23279@Webmail-m111.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <1533549174.861911269098959058.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

I have one?3 blade re-pithched.? Do you want to go back to 3b?? That is the best for that engine. 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: rcmaster199@ aol .com 
To: nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org 
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:11:08 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX 


I've used the 18x10 sport prop that Ron talks about. Still have it I think. I used it on a 27% Xtra 300 10 years ago at least. I don't think I liked it much from thrust generation POV and it was very heavy. 

Frank stick with the 18.1x10. If you need a little more speed, try a standard blade 17x12. Stay away from wide blades...they don't help much in generating thrust. If I can find the 18x10, I'll bring it to the field today so you can try it. 

Matt 





-----Original Message----- 
From: ronlock @comcast.net 
To: General pattern discussion < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
Sent: Sat, Mar 20, 2010 7:36 am 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX 



You might try an 18x10 , the one with very wide blade at hub, tapering to point at end.? Will likely require a significant spinner cone trim.? That prop was next best to the 3b 10p for me. 
Ron Lockhart 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Alt" < ed_alt @ hotmail .com > 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org > 
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 7:24:42 AM (GMT-0500) Auto-Detected 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX 


Frank: 
Don't go less than 10 pitch, you just won't have enough speed without developing a lot of RPMs and a lot of noise to go with it. 

Ed 




From: frank 
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 7:10 AM 
To: 'General pattern discussion' 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX 



Been running an APC 3- blade (15-10) re-pitched by Dave Lockhart on my Brio for quite some time until yesterday when ?I nicked a tip on landing. I ?have ?also used an 18.1 x 10 with pretty good results. I noticed that APC also has an 18x 8 W IMAC prop and a 18x 6W 3D prop. I assume the later would be less desirable, but who knows until it?s tried. Has anyone used either and on what motor ? 

Thanks, 
Frank 


_______________________________________________ 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100320/7f9bc7ac/attachment.html>

From tschmidt at classicnet.net  Sat Mar 20 07:47:26 2010
From: tschmidt at classicnet.net (Todd Schmidt)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:47:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fort Scott Ks. D5 Pattern Primer
Message-ID: <38FB543D40A0404699426A2004600487@OwnerPC>

Our club is thinking of holding a Pattern Primer Saturday, May 15th if there is any interest.  What do you guys think?

Todd Schmidt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100320/2f8624e9/attachment.html>

From bob.lavey at cox.net  Sat Mar 20 08:15:03 2010
From: bob.lavey at cox.net (Bob Lavey)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:15:03 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fort Scott Ks. D5 Pattern Primer
In-Reply-To: <38FB543D40A0404699426A2004600487@OwnerPC>
References: <38FB543D40A0404699426A2004600487@OwnerPC>
Message-ID: <35B00F24E7EB41E29B33975FC6925C99@LAVEYFAMILYXP>

Todd, I learned a lot at the one Incheol held in Pittsburg last spring.  It
was a great to get a feel for what was expected of me and my caller at a
real contest, and it was also nice to have Steve Ford there giving us hints,
tips, pointers, and help.
 
If there's anything I can do to help out, please let me know.
 
Thanks,
Bob
 


  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Todd Schmidt
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:48 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fort Scott Ks. D5 Pattern Primer


Our club is thinking of holding a Pattern Primer Saturday, May 15th if there
is any interest.  What do you guys think?
 
Todd Schmidt

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100320/b1536eda/attachment.html>

From 1shinden at att.net  Sat Mar 20 08:24:53 2010
From: 1shinden at att.net (Mike Howard)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:24:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fort Scott Ks. D5 Pattern Primer
In-Reply-To: <38FB543D40A0404699426A2004600487@OwnerPC>
Message-ID: <938436.79281.qm@web81108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Sounds like funTodd.? I can practice taking off, which I haven't done since last year.
?
?
Mike

--- On Sat, 3/20/10, Todd Schmidt <tschmidt at classicnet.net> wrote:


From: Todd Schmidt <tschmidt at classicnet.net>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fort Scott Ks. D5 Pattern Primer
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Saturday, March 20, 2010, 3:47 PM





Our club is thinking of holding a Pattern Primer Saturday, May 15th if there is any interest.? What do you guys think?
?
Todd Schmidt
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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/20100320/812c10b3/attachment.html>

From vicenterc at comcast.net  Sat Mar 20 08:31:31 2010
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:31:31 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fort Scott Ks. D5 Pattern Primer
In-Reply-To: <445410861.878761269102685153.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <1093450100.878801269102688829.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>



Todd, 



That is a great idea.? However, t hat weekend is graduation weekend.? I won't be able to make it and probably others could have the same problem.? Can we try another weekend?? I suggest that we do a judge training that?some of the new pilots have been asking for.? What about May 22? 



We are planing to?do some?pattern primers at KCRC.? I?will?pass the information later and we can program to do it in different weekends. ? 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Todd Schmidt" <tschmidt at classicnet.net> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:47:30 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fort Scott Ks. D5 Pattern Primer 


Our club is thinking of holding a Pattern Primer Saturday, May 15th if there is any interest.? What do you guys think? 

Todd Schmidt 
_______________________________________________ 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/20100320/1a6e4024/attachment.html>

From warrior523 at mchsi.com  Sat Mar 20 09:06:31 2010
From: warrior523 at mchsi.com (Dan Curtis)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:06:31 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fort Scott Ks. D5 Pattern Primer
In-Reply-To: <38FB543D40A0404699426A2004600487@OwnerPC>
References: <38FB543D40A0404699426A2004600487@OwnerPC>
Message-ID: <3898927D08EB428E9B1C9C6BC01C3890@DanPC>

Todd,

Sounds like a plan to me.  I figure George will be coming with me also.

Pick a date.

Dan




From: Todd Schmidt 
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:47 AM
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fort Scott Ks. D5 Pattern Primer


Our club is thinking of holding a Pattern Primer Saturday, May 15th if there is any interest.  What do you guys think?

Todd Schmidt


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
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/20100320/eb11827c/attachment.html>

From jshulman at cfl.rr.com  Sat Mar 20 09:09:27 2010
From: jshulman at cfl.rr.com (JShup)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:09:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Don Atwood
In-Reply-To: <38FB543D40A0404699426A2004600487@OwnerPC>
References: <38FB543D40A0404699426A2004600487@OwnerPC>
Message-ID: <9F72983C-9176-4463-B51D-50B4ABC09385@cfl.rr.com>

Please email me jshulman at cfl.rr.com



From jgghome at comcast.net  Sat Mar 20 10:07:45 2010
From: jgghome at comcast.net (John Gayer)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:07:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fort Scott Ks. D5 Pattern Primer
In-Reply-To: <3898927D08EB428E9B1C9C6BC01C3890@DanPC>
References: <38FB543D40A0404699426A2004600487@OwnerPC>
	<3898927D08EB428E9B1C9C6BC01C3890@DanPC>
Message-ID: <4BA50EB1.9070700@comcast.net>

Does anyone have a package of information for presentation at a pattern 
primer?
What would a typical agenda consist of?
Thanks
John

Dan Curtis wrote:
> Todd,
>  
> Sounds like a plan to me.  I figure George will be coming with me also.
>  
> Pick a date.
>  
> Dan
>  
>  
>
> *From:* Todd Schmidt <mailto:tschmidt at classicnet.net>
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:47 AM
> *To:* General pattern discussion 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] Fort Scott Ks. D5 Pattern Primer
>
> Our club is thinking of holding a Pattern Primer Saturday, May 15th if 
> there is any interest.  What do you guys think?
>  
> Todd Schmidt
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100320/9f235830/attachment.html>

From frankjuliei at comcast.net  Sat Mar 20 14:12:55 2010
From: frankjuliei at comcast.net (frank)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:12:55 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX
In-Reply-To: <1533549174.861911269098959058.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <8CC964E525687B9-2728-23279@Webmail-m111.sysops.aol.com>
	<1533549174.861911269098959058.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <36F3F3B880BA4B8F855629E137D0A644@FMILaptop>

Vince,

 

A few  of the guys I fly with left the 3 blade for the 18.1 x10, which we
all know is a very good prop. I, too, used it for awhile, but found myself
returning to the 3 blade.  More than likely, I will  try to pickup another
one of Dave's re-pitched  APC  3 blade 15.75x 10.

 

Frank

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Vicente
"Vince" Bortone
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 11:29 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX

 

I have one 3 blade re-pithched.  Do you want to go back to 3b?  That is the
best for that engine.

Vicente "Vince" Bortone

----- Original Message -----
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:11:08 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX

I've used the 18x10 sport prop that Ron talks about. Still have it I think.
I used it on a 27% Xtra 300 10 years ago at least. I don't think I liked it
much from thrust generation POV and it was very heavy.

 

Frank stick with the 18.1x10. If you need a little more speed, try a
standard blade 17x12. Stay away from wide blades...they don't help much in
generating thrust. If I can find the 18x10, I'll bring it to the field today
so you can try it. 

 

Matt

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ronlock at comcast.net
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sat, Mar 20, 2010 7:36 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX

You might try an 18x10 , the one with very wide blade at hub, tapering to
point at end.  Will likely require a significant spinner cone trim.  That
prop was next best to the 3b 10p for me.
Ron Lockhart

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Alt" < <mailto:ed_alt at hotmail.com> ed_alt at hotmail.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 7:24:42 AM (GMT-0500) Auto-Detected
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX

Frank:

Don't go less than 10 pitch, you just won't have enough speed without
developing a lot of RPMs and a lot of noise to go with it.


Ed

 

From:  <mailto:frankjuliei at comcast.net> frank 

Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 7:10 AM

To:  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 'General pattern discussion' 

Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX

 

Been running an APC 3- blade (15-10) re-pitched by Dave Lockhart on my Brio
for quite some time until yesterday when  I nicked a tip on landing. I  have
also used an 18.1 x 10 with pretty good results. I noticed that APC also has
an 18x 8 W IMAC prop and a 18x 6W 3D prop. I assume the later would be less
desirable, but who knows until it's tried. Has anyone used either and on
what motor ?

 

Thanks,

Frank

  _____  

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
 <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing
list  <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing
list
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
 <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100320/ca6c0571/attachment.html>

From ronbarr at suddenlink.net  Sat Mar 20 18:14:54 2010
From: ronbarr at suddenlink.net (ronbarr)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:14:54 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] PassPort Kit or Prebuilt for Glow
References: <4B875E5E.3070309@comcast.net>,
	<7F91AEBB-CB1C-4248-8C15-4C7D234F3FB8@cox.net><SNT104-W3886A7BBC5F1D8AE54F66EBB3F0@phx.gbl>
	<000501cab711$2b8d0670$82a71350$@rr.com>
Message-ID: <11F8DA38725E4A08A33072D46C3B4073@baseunit>

 I am looking for a Passport kit preferably with Carbon Fiber nose -- can be basic kit,  ARC or other.  Please contact me privately off line.

Ron Barr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100321/5414d0b3/attachment.html>

From geobet4 at verizon.net  Sun Mar 21 14:08:23 2010
From: geobet4 at verizon.net (GEORGE KENNIE)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:08:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
Message-ID: <3F4ED3A76AB54255B1FB4523EDE29FDD@george15cf36d8>

I have a question for anyone that has the technical understanding of these matters and I hope you can help me understand my dilemma. ?

I have a 9C radio that I purchased approx 5 yrs ago and it has served me extremely well all thru that period. About a year ago, not wanting 
to be left behind, I also purchased a 2.4 module and receiver so that I could fly even though other guys were on my freq. 

I had been flying a Cermark Javelin and had gotten it trimmed to the point where I could really enjoy flying it.
For a couple of months I stopped flying the Javelin and flew a couple of foamies on 72, but ultimately I got my act together and decided to install 
the 2.4 receiver in the Javelin and go fly to my hearts content.

The subsequent flights on the Javelin did not feel like the Javelin of old, but I chalked it up to the fact that I hadn't flown the Jav for an extended 
period and had lost my feel for the plane. For some inexplicable reason the Javelin just didn't seem to lock as well as it seemed to have previously 
done.

With the passage of time I purchased a Sequence because I liked the looks of the force arrangement and figured it should fly possibly better than
the Javelin. I did a thorough job of set-up on the Sequence and I had seen some vids of other guys flying it and the performance seemed quite good
so after moving the 2.4 rcvr from the Javelin into the Sequence,  off to the field I go with great expectations,...........NOT!
After the maiden flight my reaction was,......."I'd rather fly my foamy!"

After flying yesterday, I became engrossed in a conversation with a buddy who has a dedicated 2.4 system and we got talking about the latency 
issues in the non-dedicated systems and the gears started turning in my noodle. So my question is........Am I seeing latency issues between the 
performance of my 9C on 2.4 relative to the 72 mg spectrum?
Tony?   Dave?  Earl?  Bob?   I need somebody to calm my turbulent thoughts on this matter and thanks for the help.

Georgie 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100321/3bc633b2/attachment.html>

From ruddercable at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 21 15:36:09 2010
From: ruddercable at yahoo.com (Robert Gainey)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:36:09 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <3F4ED3A76AB54255B1FB4523EDE29FDD@george15cf36d8>
References: <3F4ED3A76AB54255B1FB4523EDE29FDD@george15cf36d8>
Message-ID: <263274.79432.qm@web59607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

George

I purchased the Futaba module and reciever and have used it with my 9Z. I love it. Actually think the plane flies better. It is much smoother and responce is great. 

Haven't used it in my 9C yet, but have no reason to believe it would be any different.

Robert




________________________________
From: GEORGE KENNIE <geobet4 at verizon.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sun, March 21, 2010 6:08:03 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious


I have a question for anyone that has the technical understanding of these matters and I hope you can help me understand my dilemma. ?
?
I have a 9C radio that I purchased approx 5 yrs ago and it has served me extremely well all thru that period. About a year ago, not wanting 
to be left behind, I also purchased a 2.4 module and receiver so that I could fly even though other guys were on my freq. 
?
I had been flying a Cermark Javelin and had gotten it trimmed to the point where I could really enjoy flying it.
For a couple of months I stopped flying the Javelin and flew a couple of foamies on 72, but ultimately I got my act together and decided to install 
the 2.4 receiver in the Javelin and go fly?to my hearts content.
?
The subsequent flights on the?Javelin did not feel like the Javelin of old, but I chalked it up to the fact that I hadn't flown the Jav for an extended 
period and had lost my feel for the plane. For some inexplicable reason the Javelin just didn't seem to lock as well as it seemed to have previously 
done.
?
With the passage of time I purchased a Sequence because I liked the looks of the force arrangement and figured it should fly possibly better than
the Javelin. I did a thorough job of set-up on the Sequence and I had seen some vids of other guys flying it and the performance seemed quite good
so after moving the 2.4 rcvr from the Javelin into the Sequence,? off to the field I go with great expectations,...........NOT!
After the maiden flight my reaction was,......."I'd rather fly my foamy!"

After flying yesterday, I became engrossed in a conversation with a buddy who has a dedicated 2.4 system and we got talking about the latency 
issues in the non-dedicated systems and the gears started turning in my noodle. So my question is........Am I seeing latency issues between the 
performance of my 9C on 2.4 relative to the 72 mg spectrum?
Tony??? Dave?? Earl?? Bob??? I need somebody to calm my turbulent thoughts on this matter and thanks for the help.

Georgie?


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100321/27258f93/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Sun Mar 21 15:51:19 2010
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:51:19 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <3F4ED3A76AB54255B1FB4523EDE29FDD@george15cf36d8>
References: <3F4ED3A76AB54255B1FB4523EDE29FDD@george15cf36d8>
Message-ID: <4BA6B0F4.2020003@cox.net>

GEORGE KENNIE wrote:
> After flying yesterday, I became engrossed in a conversation with a 
> buddy who has a dedicated 2.4 system and we got talking about the latency
> issues in the non-dedicated systems and the gears started turning in 
> my noodle. So my question is........Am I seeing latency issues between 
> the
> performance of my 9C on 2.4 relative to the 72 mg spectrum?
>  

If you are using a Futaba FASST module and receives there is absolutely 
no difference between module based systems and built-in non-module. If 
you are using another after market module then you may very well be 
seeing an effect of latency. All other non-Futaba modules will not be as 
fast as the Futaba module in a Futaba radio.







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100321/a2000118/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 21 16:00:01 2010
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:00:01 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <3F4ED3A76AB54255B1FB4523EDE29FDD@george15cf36d8>
References: <3F4ED3A76AB54255B1FB4523EDE29FDD@george15cf36d8>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W295339CA38A13F52CB4BAFA0270@phx.gbl>


You might try this thread:http://rc.runryder.com/helicopter/t172571p1/
 


From: geobet4 at verizon.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:08:03 -0400
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious




I have a question for anyone that has the technical understanding of these matters and I hope you can help me understand my dilemma. ?
 
I have a 9C radio that I purchased approx 5 yrs ago and it has served me extremely well all thru that period. About a year ago, not wanting 
to be left behind, I also purchased a 2.4 module and receiver so that I could fly even though other guys were on my freq. 
 
I had been flying a Cermark Javelin and had gotten it trimmed to the point where I could really enjoy flying it.
For a couple of months I stopped flying the Javelin and flew a couple of foamies on 72, but ultimately I got my act together and decided to install 
the 2.4 receiver in the Javelin and go fly to my hearts content.
 
The subsequent flights on the Javelin did not feel like the Javelin of old, but I chalked it up to the fact that I hadn't flown the Jav for an extended 
period and had lost my feel for the plane. For some inexplicable reason the Javelin just didn't seem to lock as well as it seemed to have previously 
done.
 
With the passage of time I purchased a Sequence because I liked the looks of the force arrangement and figured it should fly possibly better than
the Javelin. I did a thorough job of set-up on the Sequence and I had seen some vids of other guys flying it and the performance seemed quite good
so after moving the 2.4 rcvr from the Javelin into the Sequence,  off to the field I go with great expectations,...........NOT!
After the maiden flight my reaction was,......."I'd rather fly my foamy!"
 
After flying yesterday, I became engrossed in a conversation with a buddy who has a dedicated 2.4 system and we got talking about the latency 
issues in the non-dedicated systems and the gears started turning in my noodle. So my question is........Am I seeing latency issues between the 
performance of my 9C on 2.4 relative to the 72 mg spectrum?
Tony?   Dave?  Earl?  Bob?   I need somebody to calm my turbulent thoughts on this matter and thanks for the help.
 
Georgie  		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/88118ba2/attachment.html>

From geobet4 at verizon.net  Sun Mar 21 17:27:45 2010
From: geobet4 at verizon.net (GEORGE KENNIE)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:27:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
References: <3F4ED3A76AB54255B1FB4523EDE29FDD@george15cf36d8>
	<BAY128-W295339CA38A13F52CB4BAFA0270@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BED980B0486A42E4A9BB308AA5CBBD99@george15cf36d8>

Wow Richard,   Kinda jaw-dropping..............Thanks everybody,  Vicente, the servos in the Sequence are brand new.

G.



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Strickland 
  To: NSRCA 
  Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 8:00 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious


  You might try this thread:http://rc.runryder.com/helicopter/t172571p1/
   

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: geobet4 at verizon.net
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:08:03 -0400
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious


  I have a question for anyone that has the technical understanding of these matters and I hope you can help me understand my dilemma. ?

  I have a 9C radio that I purchased approx 5 yrs ago and it has served me extremely well all thru that period. About a year ago, not wanting 
  to be left behind, I also purchased a 2.4 module and receiver so that I could fly even though other guys were on my freq. 

  I had been flying a Cermark Javelin and had gotten it trimmed to the point where I could really enjoy flying it.
  For a couple of months I stopped flying the Javelin and flew a couple of foamies on 72, but ultimately I got my act together and decided to install 
  the 2.4 receiver in the Javelin and go fly to my hearts content.

  The subsequent flights on the Javelin did not feel like the Javelin of old, but I chalked it up to the fact that I hadn't flown the Jav for an extended 
  period and had lost my feel for the plane. For some inexplicable reason the Javelin just didn't seem to lock as well as it seemed to have previously 
  done.

  With the passage of time I purchased a Sequence because I liked the looks of the force arrangement and figured it should fly possibly better than
  the Javelin. I did a thorough job of set-up on the Sequence and I had seen some vids of other guys flying it and the performance seemed quite good
  so after moving the 2.4 rcvr from the Javelin into the Sequence,  off to the field I go with great expectations,...........NOT!
  After the maiden flight my reaction was,......."I'd rather fly my foamy!"

  After flying yesterday, I became engrossed in a conversation with a buddy who has a dedicated 2.4 system and we got talking about the latency 
  issues in the non-dedicated systems and the gears started turning in my noodle. So my question is........Am I seeing latency issues between the 
  performance of my 9C on 2.4 relative to the 72 mg spectrum?
  Tony?   Dave?  Earl?  Bob?   I need somebody to calm my turbulent thoughts on this matter and thanks for the help.

  Georgie 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Learn More. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20100322/2f64c169/attachment.html>

From joddino at socal.rr.com  Sun Mar 21 17:53:22 2010
From: joddino at socal.rr.com (James Oddino)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:53:22 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <BED980B0486A42E4A9BB308AA5CBBD99@george15cf36d8>
References: <3F4ED3A76AB54255B1FB4523EDE29FDD@george15cf36d8>
	<BAY128-W295339CA38A13F52CB4BAFA0270@phx.gbl>
	<BED980B0486A42E4A9BB308AA5CBBD99@george15cf36d8>
Message-ID: <31D2497E-80EA-49C0-B2C8-401392856103@socal.rr.com>

I didn't want to tell you that the 9C was notorious for its latency.  Time for a new transmitter?  

I recently got the eight channel HS receiver and it sure feels good with the 14MZ module.  

Jim


On Mar 21, 2010, at 6:27 PM, GEORGE KENNIE wrote:

> Wow Richard,   Kinda jaw-dropping..............Thanks everybody,  Vicente, the servos in the Sequence are brand new.
>  
> G.
>  
>  
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Strickland
> To: NSRCA
> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 8:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
> 
> You might try this thread:http://rc.runryder.com/helicopter/t172571p1/
>  
> From: geobet4 at verizon.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:08:03 -0400
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
> 
> I have a question for anyone that has the technical understanding of these matters and I hope you can help me understand my dilemma. ?
>  
> I have a 9C radio that I purchased approx 5 yrs ago and it has served me extremely well all thru that period. About a year ago, not wanting
> to be left behind, I also purchased a 2.4 module and receiver so that I could fly even though other guys were on my freq.
>  
> I had been flying a Cermark Javelin and had gotten it trimmed to the point where I could really enjoy flying it.
> For a couple of months I stopped flying the Javelin and flew a couple of foamies on 72, but ultimately I got my act together and decided to install
> the 2.4 receiver in the Javelin and go fly to my hearts content.
>  
> The subsequent flights on the Javelin did not feel like the Javelin of old, but I chalked it up to the fact that I hadn't flown the Jav for an extended
> period and had lost my feel for the plane. For some inexplicable reason the Javelin just didn't seem to lock as well as it seemed to have previously
> done.
>  
> With the passage of time I purchased a Sequence because I liked the looks of the force arrangement and figured it should fly possibly better than
> the Javelin. I did a thorough job of set-up on the Sequence and I had seen some vids of other guys flying it and the performance seemed quite good
> so after moving the 2.4 rcvr from the Javelin into the Sequence,  off to the field I go with great expectations,...........NOT!
> After the maiden flight my reaction was,......."I'd rather fly my foamy!"
>  
> After flying yesterday, I became engrossed in a conversation with a buddy who has a dedicated 2.4 system and we got talking about the latency
> issues in the non-dedicated systems and the gears started turning in my noodle. So my question is........Am I seeing latency issues between the
> performance of my 9C on 2.4 relative to the 72 mg spectrum?
> Tony?   Dave?  Earl?  Bob?   I need somebody to calm my turbulent thoughts on this matter and thanks for the help.
>  
> Georgie 
> 
> Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Learn More.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/632547bd/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 21 18:23:58 2010
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:23:58 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <31D2497E-80EA-49C0-B2C8-401392856103@socal.rr.com>
References: <3F4ED3A76AB54255B1FB4523EDE29FDD@george15cf36d8>,
	<BAY128-W295339CA38A13F52CB4BAFA0270@phx.gbl>,
	<BED980B0486A42E4A9BB308AA5CBBD99@george15cf36d8>,
	<31D2497E-80EA-49C0-B2C8-401392856103@socal.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W1426F54DD728F9CEBF448DA0270@phx.gbl>


I asked jkos if he'd had a chance to evaluate the TM14 module in the MZ and the HS8 and no one has sent him that combo yet. If anyone with it is in his neck'o the woods I'm sure he's game...
 


From: joddino at socal.rr.com
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:53:17 -0700
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious

I didn't want to tell you that the 9C was notorious for its latency.  Time for a new transmitter?  


I recently got the eight channel HS receiver and it sure feels good with the 14MZ module.  


Jim





On Mar 21, 2010, at 6:27 PM, GEORGE KENNIE wrote:


Wow Richard,   Kinda jaw-dropping..............Thanks everybody,  Vicente, the servos in the Sequence are brand new.
 
G.
 
 
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Strickland
To: NSRCA
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious

You might try this thread:http://rc.runryder.com/helicopter/t172571p1/
 


From: geobet4 at verizon.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:08:03 -0400
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious


I have a question for anyone that has the technical understanding of these matters and I hope you can help me understand my dilemma. ?
 
I have a 9C radio that I purchased approx 5 yrs ago and it has served me extremely well all thru that period. About a year ago, not wanting
to be left behind, I also purchased a 2.4 module and receiver so that I could fly even though other guys were on my freq.
 
I had been flying a Cermark Javelin and had gotten it trimmed to the point where I could really enjoy flying it.
For a couple of months I stopped flying the Javelin and flew a couple of foamies on 72, but ultimately I got my act together and decided to install
the 2.4 receiver in the Javelin and go fly to my hearts content.
 
The subsequent flights on the Javelin did not feel like the Javelin of old, but I chalked it up to the fact that I hadn't flown the Jav for an extended
period and had lost my feel for the plane. For some inexplicable reason the Javelin just didn't seem to lock as well as it seemed to have previously
done.
 
With the passage of time I purchased a Sequence because I liked the looks of the force arrangement and figured it should fly possibly better than
the Javelin. I did a thorough job of set-up on the Sequence and I had seen some vids of other guys flying it and the performance seemed quite good
so after moving the 2.4 rcvr from the Javelin into the Sequence,  off to the field I go with great expectations,...........NOT!
After the maiden flight my reaction was,......."I'd rather fly my foamy!"
 
After flying yesterday, I became engrossed in a conversation with a buddy who has a dedicated 2.4 system and we got talking about the latency
issues in the non-dedicated systems and the gears started turning in my noodle. So my question is........Am I seeing latency issues between the
performance of my 9C on 2.4 relative to the 72 mg spectrum?
Tony?   Dave?  Earl?  Bob?   I need somebody to calm my turbulent thoughts on this matter and thanks for the help.
 
Georgie 


Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Learn More.



_______________________________________________
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
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/58ca4bba/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Sun Mar 21 19:52:13 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 03:52:13 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <3F4ED3A76AB54255B1FB4523EDE29FDD@george15cf36d8>
Message-ID: <773325.4938.qm@web1105.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

I've used a TM-8 module in my 8UAPS and have not noticed any problems with it - flies great.
?
Bob R.

--- On Sun, 3/21/10, GEORGE KENNIE <geobet4 at verizon.net> wrote:






After flying yesterday, I became engrossed in a conversation with a buddy who has a dedicated 2.4 system and we got talking about the latency issues in the non-dedicated systems and the gears started turning in my noodle. So my question is........Am I seeing latency issues between the performance of my 9C on 2.4 relative to the 72 mg spectrum?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/d609f02a/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Sun Mar 21 20:47:38 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:47:38 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <4BA6B0F4.2020003@cox.net>
Message-ID: <978029.77481.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>


--- On Sun, 3/21/10, Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:
If you are using a Futaba FASST module and receives there is absolutely no difference between module based systems and built-in non-module. If you are using another after market module then you may very well be seeing an effect of latency. All other non-Futaba modules will not be as fast as the Futaba module in a Futaba radio.
?
Actually, there are two different type of FASST modules.
?
1)?The TM-7 and TM-8 modules fit the older radios (9C included) and must use the PPM pulse train that the older 72MHz modules used.? As such, the transmitter MUST be in PPM transmission mode, so the latency can't be any better than a PPM system. (Which is actually faster than the 72MHz PCM systems from what I understand).
?
2) The 10 and 14 channel modules (10C, 12Z and 14MZ systems). These have a different means of communicating with the modules in native FASST mode, and should be no different than the non-module native 2.4g systems. The latency should be faster than the PPM pulse train used above. 
?
The link previously posted to the latency testing did not show any TM-7 or TM-8 information. I believe these are the only FASST modules that will work in the 9C under question. However, my experience with both in my 8UAPS has been positive.

Bob R.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/65da2fce/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Sun Mar 21 21:06:59 2010
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:06:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <978029.77481.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
References: <978029.77481.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4BA6FAF2.30404@cox.net>

I was trying to make the point that the Futaba FASST modules used in a 
Futaba radio do not increase the latency for any particular transmitter. 
Also, that within the Futaba line the concept of module based versus 
"native", or built in does not mean much. At least that is what I have 
been told by the tech folks in Champaign. The 12FG and 12Z with a module 
both have the same overall latency for instance.

And I have been told the same thing that the FASST module using the PPM 
stream in the older transmitters is faster than when those transmitters 
were using PCM mode. 

Bob Richards wrote:
>
>     --- On *Sun, 3/21/10, Bill's Email /<wemodels at cox.net>/* wrote:
>     If you are using a Futaba FASST module and receives there is
>     absolutely no difference between module based systems and built-in
>     non-module. If you are using another after market module then you
>     may very well be seeing an effect of latency. All other non-Futaba
>     modules will not be as fast as the Futaba module in a Futaba radio.
>
>  
> Actually, there are two different type of FASST modules.
>  
> 1) The TM-7 and TM-8 modules fit the older radios (9C included) and 
> must use the PPM pulse train that the older 72MHz modules used.  As 
> such, the transmitter MUST be in PPM transmission mode, so the latency 
> can't be any better than a PPM system. (Which is actually faster than 
> the 72MHz PCM systems from what I understand).
>  
> 2) The 10 and 14 channel modules (10C, 12Z and 14MZ systems). These 
> have a different means of communicating with the modules in native 
> FASST mode, and should be no different than the non-module native 2.4g 
> systems. The latency should be faster than the PPM pulse train used 
> above.
>  
> The link previously posted to the latency testing did not show any 
> TM-7 or TM-8 information. I believe these are the only FASST modules 
> that will work in the 9C under question. However, my experience with 
> both in my 8UAPS has been positive.
>
> Bob R.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/ad0b6366/attachment.html>

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 22 04:06:07 2010
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:06:07 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <BAY128-W295339CA38A13F52CB4BAFA0270@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <181026.75803.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Interesting study, a lot of work.

Bob Kane

getterflash at yahoo.com

--- On Sun, 3/21/10, Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
To: "NSRCA" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010, 8:00 PM




You might try this?thread:http://rc.runryder.com/helicopter/t172571p1/
?


From: geobet4 at verizon.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:08:03 -0400
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious





I have a question for anyone that has the technical understanding of these matters and I hope you can help me understand my dilemma. ?
?
I have a 9C radio that I purchased approx 5 yrs ago and it has served me extremely well all thru that period. About a year ago, not wanting 
to be left behind, I also purchased a 2.4 module and receiver so that I could fly even though other guys were on my freq. 
?
I had been flying a Cermark Javelin and had gotten it trimmed to the point where I could really enjoy flying it.
For a couple of months I stopped flying the Javelin and flew a couple of foamies on 72, but ultimately I got my act together and decided to install 
the 2.4 receiver in the Javelin and go fly?to my hearts content.
?
The subsequent flights on the?Javelin did not feel like the Javelin of old, but I chalked it up to the fact that I hadn't flown the Jav for an extended 
period and had lost my feel for the plane. For some inexplicable reason the Javelin just didn't seem to lock as well as it seemed to have previously 
done.
?
With the passage of time I purchased a Sequence because I liked the looks of the force arrangement and figured it should fly possibly better than
the Javelin. I did a thorough job of set-up on the Sequence and I had seen some vids of other guys flying it and the performance seemed quite good
so after moving the 2.4 rcvr from the Javelin into the Sequence,? off to the field I go with great expectations,...........NOT!
After the maiden flight my reaction was,......."I'd rather fly my foamy!"
?
After flying yesterday, I became engrossed in a conversation with a buddy who has a dedicated 2.4 system and we got talking about the latency 
issues in the non-dedicated systems and the gears started turning in my noodle. So my question is........Am I seeing latency issues between the 
performance of my 9C on 2.4 relative to the 72 mg spectrum?
Tony??? Dave?? Earl?? Bob??? I need somebody to calm my turbulent thoughts on this matter and thanks for the help.
?
Georgie? 		 	   		  
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Learn More. 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/20100322/8cb91b27/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Mon Mar 22 04:40:03 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:03 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <4BA6FAF2.30404@cox.net>
Message-ID: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

>>>I was trying to make the point that the Futaba FASST modules used in a Futaba radio do not increase the latency for any particular transmitter. <<<
?
Ok, I agree with that.
?
>>>Also, that within the Futaba line the concept of module based versus "native", or built in does not mean much. At least that is what I have been told by the tech folks in Champaign. The 12FG and 12Z with a module both have the same overall latency for instance.<<<
?
I think that would be true for the module based 12Z, 14MZ, and 10C, but those modules have a direct FASST interface and don't have to go through a PPM interface. However, my 8UAPS with the TM-8 FASST?I suspect would NOT be as fast as my 10C for that reason. (I may be wrong, but I would be surprised if I were). The radio will have its own latency converting the stick positions to a PPM pulse train. Then, the module will have to receive the pulse train and decode it, then convert it to the FASST protocol. So, you would have the latency already associated with the PPM system (probably 20 to 25ms minimum) and add to that the latency of the FASST (looking at the latency data posted, I would suspect a minimum of 10ms).
?
>>>And I have been told the same thing that the FASST module using the PPM stream in the older transmitters is faster than when those transmitters were using PCM mode.?<<<
?
I absolutely agree. I've always heard that the PCM method was slow. The previously posted link shows that to be true.
?
My point was that the TM-7 and TM-8 modules would likely not be as fast as a native 2.4g system.

Bob R.


--- On Mon, 3/22/10, Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:


From: Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, March 22, 2010, 1:06 AM


I was trying to make the point that the Futaba FASST modules used in a Futaba radio do not increase the latency for any particular transmitter. Also, that within the Futaba line the concept of module based versus "native", or built in does not mean much. At least that is what I have been told by the tech folks in Champaign. The 12FG and 12Z with a module both have the same overall latency for instance.

And I have been told the same thing that the FASST module using the PPM stream in the older transmitters is faster than when those transmitters were using PCM mode.? 

Bob Richards wrote: 






--- On Sun, 3/21/10, Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:
If you are using a Futaba FASST module and receives there is absolutely no difference between module based systems and built-in non-module. If you are using another after market module then you may very well be seeing an effect of latency. All other non-Futaba modules will not be as fast as the Futaba module in a Futaba radio.
?
Actually, there are two different type of FASST modules.
?
1)?The TM-7 and TM-8 modules fit the older radios (9C included) and must use the PPM pulse train that the older 72MHz modules used.? As such, the transmitter MUST be in PPM transmission mode, so the latency can't be any better than a PPM system. (Which is actually faster than the 72MHz PCM systems from what I understand).
?
2) The 10 and 14 channel modules (10C, 12Z and 14MZ systems). These have a different means of communicating with the modules in native FASST mode, and should be no different than the non-module native 2.4g systems. The latency should be faster than the PPM pulse train used above. 
?
The link previously posted to the latency testing did not show any TM-7 or TM-8 information. I believe these are the only FASST modules that will work in the 9C under question. However, my experience with both in my 8UAPS has been positive.

Bob R.

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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/20100322/809905b2/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Mon Mar 22 04:51:12 2010
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:51:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>

Bob Richards wrote:
>
>  
> I absolutely agree. I've always heard that the PCM method was slow. 
> The previously posted link shows that to be true.
>  
> My point was that the TM-7 and TM-8 modules would likely not be as 
> fast as a native 2.4g system.
>


Since there is not such thing for the older radios it is a moot point. 
And it is more to the point that the fellow who feels his 2.4 is slower 
has something else going on.

I am merely trying to keep people from getting stuck on the idea that at 
least for Futaba's current line of radios there is no difference in 
performance betweeen module based and built in RF for the FASST systems. 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/a848078f/attachment.html>

From vanputte at cox.net  Mon Mar 22 06:16:26 2010
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:16:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>
Message-ID: <2FF36DFD-8AE4-4E82-B769-02D8E340C6C8@cox.net>

OK.  I've got a question for you.  I have a Futaba 9VAP that I  
installed a Hitec 2.4 GHz module in and am using the Hitec Optima 7  
receiver.  What's the likely latency of this package?

BTW, the only reason I did the conversion is because I sell the Hitec  
2.4 GHz module/receiver package in my little hobby shop and I wanted  
to demonstrate to my customers that the package would even work in 20 
+ year old transmitters with a module.  It was a $#@! to get the 72  
MHz antenna out of the transmitter for the conversion.  By  
comparison, I did a 30 second conversion for a guy with a Futaba 9C.

Ron

On Mar 22, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Bill's Email wrote:

> Bob Richards wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I absolutely agree. I've always heard that the PCM method was  
>> slow. The previously posted link shows that to be true.
>>
>> My point was that the TM-7 and TM-8 modules would likely not be as  
>> fast as a native 2.4g system.
>
>
> Since there is not such thing for the older radios it is a moot  
> point. And it is more to the point that the fellow who feels his  
> 2.4 is slower has something else going on.
>
> I am merely trying to keep people from getting stuck on the idea  
> that at least for Futaba's current line of radios there is no  
> difference in performance betweeen module based and built in RF for  
> the FASST systems.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Mon Mar 22 06:42:51 2010
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:42:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion]  curious
In-Reply-To: <4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>



 


The original post was in '05 in that link.  He has been updating it as he gets new info.  It's worth a read--but takes a while.  Some feel the thread has contributed greatly to latency being decreased in radios across the board.  As someone pointed out "..radios got pretty damn fast pretty damn fast..."
Regarding Futaba modules--at least on the TM14, the information is sent in groups of four, so you would have minimum latency difference for example between channels 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, etc..  so it would be better to have dual elevators next to one another and possibly ailerons in one of the 1-4 groups if your transmitter has the capability to reassign channel positions.  It would also be helpful to those that have more than one servo per surface.  It's very important to the helo guys as they need the swash plate to move evenly.  Apparently not quite as noticeable in pattern.
I switched from 50mhz/5114DPS to the 2.4/TM14/6008HS combo and the best one word description I can give is "silky"--but it could be additional latency--Futaba says there should be no difference.  I think I like it--but I have to--it's what I've got! 
 
Richard
 
PS Anyone need any DPS5114s on 50mhz.?..yeah, that's what I thought...

 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850553/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/f3d26022/attachment.html>

From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Mon Mar 22 07:02:08 2010
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:02:08 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] For sale...
Message-ID: <508B5B0B539E44398FEE79D8FDAF6604@jaysdesktop>


This will be available at the Annual Grand Strand Pattern Classic (4/17) if
anyone is interested:


Partially finished Composite Aircraft Impact consisting of: 

1 - CA Impact with tail feathers finished and servos installed. Fuse half
seams are filled but need sanding

1 - OS 140RX, bench run only (spare bearings & needle included) 
3 - OS header 
4 - Bolly CF silencer 
5 - Hyde Soft mount 
6 - 2 new Futaba BLS 451 aileron mounted servos 
7 - 2 new Futaba S9650 elevator servos installed in horz stabs 
8 - 1 new Futaba S9151 rudder servo installed 
9 - New dual regulators for LiPo batteries 
10- Gator adjusters on wings and horz stabs 
11 - TT al. spinner 

Things to finish: 
- fuse seams; sand and prime 
- hatch and chin cowl latches 
- wheels 
- paint & trim 
- radio installation 
- fuel system 

Con: There is a small, 1x1, hole on the top of one of the horz stabs (don't
ask!). Composite material to repair is included.

Price:  $1400 

Contact at lightfoot at sc.rr.com or (843)821-2470

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/d3a27996/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Mon Mar 22 07:07:48 2010
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:07:48 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>
	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4BA787C3.9010206@cox.net>

I think it's amusing that a year or so ago nobody had ever even heard of 
latency. Now it is THE NUMBER ONE technical specification to consider.

Keep in mind that radio latency is one to two orders of magnitude less 
than the "human" latency (reaction time) that we must all deal with. 
That runs about 215 milliseconds on average.

Test yours:  http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php





From bob at toprudder.com  Mon Mar 22 07:21:32 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:21:32 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <2FF36DFD-8AE4-4E82-B769-02D8E340C6C8@cox.net>
Message-ID: <982295.84533.qm@web1115.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

Good question, Ron.
?
Again, it will be no faster than the inherent PPM latency, and certainly will be somewhat slower due to the PPM -> 2.4g conversion. How much slower depends on the Hitec module, which is an unknown.
?
Bob R.


--- On Mon, 3/22/10, Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:




OK.? I've got a question for you.? I have a Futaba 9VAP that I installed a Hitec 2.4 GHz module in and am using the Hitec Optima 7 receiver.? What's the likely latency of this package?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/19231d38/attachment.html>

From aircamperace at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 22 08:57:12 2010
From: aircamperace at yahoo.com (Ryan M)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:57:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted
Message-ID: <285152.80690.qm@web45004.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Wanted...2M project, crashed, etc...?Looking to upgrade to a 2M bird.

Ryan
863-258-2599



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/f3868b45/attachment.html>

From geobet4 at verizon.net  Mon Mar 22 09:14:46 2010
From: geobet4 at verizon.net (GEORGE KENNIE)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:14:46 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net> <BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <8AD81AE1EC014B7EA986DF61142631FC@george15cf36d8>

I guess my next question would be,.......Is it possible that within the spectrum of the 2.4 Ghz technology could it be that there might
 be a difference in the processing speed of the low end receivers as opposed to the higher priced units?

I do have a low end rcvr.

G. 





  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Strickland 
  To: NSRCA DISCUSSION 
  Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:42 AM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious



   
  The original post was in '05 in that link.  He has been updating it as he gets new info.  It's worth a read--but takes a while.  Some feel the thread has contributed greatly to latency being decreased in radios across the board.  As someone pointed out "..radios got pretty damn fast pretty damn fast..."
  Regarding Futaba modules--at least on the TM14, the information is sent in groups of four, so you would have minimum latency difference for example between channels 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, etc..  so it would be better to have dual elevators next to one another and possibly ailerons in one of the 1-4 groups if your transmitter has the capability to reassign channel positions.  It would also be helpful to those that have more than one servo per surface.  It's very important to the helo guys as they need the swash plate to move evenly.  Apparently not quite as noticeable in pattern.
  I switched from 50mhz/5114DPS to the 2.4/TM14/6008HS combo and the best one word description I can give is "silky"--but it could be additional latency--Futaba says there should be no difference.  I think I like it--but I have to--it's what I've got! 
   
  Richard
   
  PS Anyone need any DPS5114s on 50mhz.?..yeah, that's what I thought...



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20100322/b80ff778/attachment.html>

From Andrew.Jesky at soaringsoftware.com  Mon Mar 22 09:29:44 2010
From: Andrew.Jesky at soaringsoftware.com (Andrew Jesky)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:29:44 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] RTF Integral for sale
Message-ID: <6084008B82B59040B38447C69FF9903304D9C3EEA3@SS2.SoaringSoftware.local>

Composite ARF Integral

Hacker C50 14XL Comp Motor

Jeti Spin 99 Speed Control

Apc 21x14 prop

Black Tru-Turn spinner

Futaba 9550's on aileron, Futaba 9155 on rudder, Futaba 9650's on elevator, Jaico Regulator

This was my primary plane in Argentina (Has Offical FAI stamps)  it has roughly 400 flights on it, all servos have been replaced and are new.The airplane is in good condition. it has a few dings in it, email me for further info on these.. It is just in the basement and needs someone to fly it.
Extras include

Foam wings RTF minus servos and linkages. These were cut by mickey Lasorda from The Chicago crew. They were build and covered by Charlie WIlliams. They are very light and will save roughly 4oz over the stock wings.

2 Extra Canopies

Extra set of landing gear

RTF weight with Thunder Power 10s5000 packs was 10 pounds 12 oz with stock wings.

2200 for airplane with all listed above.

Email me with questions on the airplane at
Andrew at soaringsoftware.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/041569a5/attachment.html>

From vicenterc at comcast.net  Mon Mar 22 09:57:50 2010
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:57:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <1660944730.1493861269280276269.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <655641152.1498181269280669996.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

This is very good point.? There is another important factor that I am going to try to explain.??Someone expert in controls?can help us here.??I think that is called natural frequency of the control system.? If the the human natural frequency is close to the TX/RX combo that will be a huge problem since the? control system won't be stable.? In other worlds if the TX/RX latency is very small but the natural frequencies are close to each other it could be very bad results.? Well, I think this is very difficult to measure but I think this additional factor should be of consideration.? 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill's Email" <wemodels at cox.net> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:07:47 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious 

I think it's amusing that a year or so ago nobody had ever even heard of 
latency. Now it is THE NUMBER ONE technical specification to consider. 

Keep in mind that radio latency is one to two orders of magnitude less 
than the "human" latency (reaction time) that we must all deal with. 
That runs about 215 milliseconds on average. 

Test yours: ?http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php 




_______________________________________________ 
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/20100322/b8f9809c/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Mon Mar 22 10:21:38 2010
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:21:38 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <8AD81AE1EC014B7EA986DF61142631FC@george15cf36d8>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>, ,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>
	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>,
	<8AD81AE1EC014B7EA986DF61142631FC@george15cf36d8>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W28EB82D28B217C2A7A2D7BA0270@phx.gbl>


I think you are more likely to get better latency numbers from a matched system--but take the Futaba numbers, the 7 channel system has better--or at least as good--numbers as the more expensive systems. Maybe much less than the MZ/HS8 combo   I have a good friend who purchased one of the super cheap 2.4 module/receiver combos and he could hardly hover with it.

Craps anyone?
 RS


From: geobet4 at verizon.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:14:23 -0400
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious




I guess my next question would be,.......Is it possible that within the spectrum of the 2.4 Ghz technology could it be that there might
 be a difference in the processing speed of the low end receivers as opposed to the higher priced units?
 
I do have a low end rcvr.
 
G. 
 
 
 
 
 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Richard Strickland 
To: NSRCA DISCUSSION 
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:42 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious


 


The original post was in '05 in that link.  He has been updating it as he gets new info.  It's worth a read--but takes a while.  Some feel the thread has contributed greatly to latency being decreased in radios across the board.  As someone pointed out "..radios got pretty damn fast pretty damn fast..."
Regarding Futaba modules--at least on the TM14, the information is sent in groups of four, so you would have minimum latency difference for example between channels 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, etc..  so it would be better to have dual elevators next to one another and possibly ailerons in one of the 1-4 groups if your transmitter has the capability to reassign channel positions.  It would also be helpful to those that have more than one servo per surface.  It's very important to the helo guys as they need the swash plate to move evenly.  Apparently not quite as noticeable in pattern.
I switched from 50mhz/5114DPS to the 2.4/TM14/6008HS combo and the best one word description I can give is "silky"--but it could be additional latency--Futaba says there should be no difference.  I think I like it--but I have to--it's what I've got! 
 
Richard
 
PS Anyone need any DPS5114s on 50mhz.?..yeah, that's what I thought...




Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. 




_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850552/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/60bf36d9/attachment.html>

From drmikedds at sbcglobal.net  Mon Mar 22 10:31:40 2010
From: drmikedds at sbcglobal.net (Dr Mike)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:31:40 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted
In-Reply-To: <285152.80690.qm@web45004.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <285152.80690.qm@web45004.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002101cac9ed$e7668c10$b633a430$@net>

Ryan,

I have a beat up Osmose ready to fly but needs a bit of cosmetic work. Will
sell w or w/o servos. No engine.  YS 1.7 ready. Hyde mount.  I flew at the
nats.  Email me privately.

Mike 

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ryan M
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:57 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted

 

Wanted...2M project, crashed, etc... Looking to upgrade to a 2M bird.

 

Ryan

863-258-2599

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2763 - Release Date: 03/22/10
07:33:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/64f43821/attachment.html>

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Mon Mar 22 10:38:21 2010
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:38:21 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net> <BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

This will end up being somewhat of a shameless plug, but when we were involved in discussing features of the new Airtronics radio (SD-10G), this issues of grouping channels was a BIG deal to the glider guys.  They often have 6 and 8 servos in their wing alone, and having a small delay between some of the channels updating creates trimming issues such that they would not be able to take advantage of using separate channels if there were delays.  Having such a strong presence in the glider community, they needed to address it.  The result is that the new radio updates all 10 channels simultaneously rather than in groups of 4.   NO clue how that was pulled off technically (or how they got their speed so high) but both are clearly a result of these types of "threads" and the resulting priority that they've placed on latency concerns.

It helps that being a little late to the dance afforded them the opportunity to address those concerns.

I don't think it will be long before latency numbers are all low enough that it won't be a critical criteria, but for now it's good to see all the manufacturers taking note and making improvements with each new release.

-Mark

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<mailto: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 Richard Strickland
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:43 AM
To: NSRCA DISCUSSION
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious



The original post was in '05 in that link.  He has been updating it as he gets new info.  It's worth a read--but takes a while.  Some feel the thread has contributed greatly to latency being decreased in radios across the board.  As someone pointed out "..radios got pretty damn fast pretty damn fast..."
Regarding Futaba modules--at least on the TM14, the information is sent in groups of four, so you would have minimum latency difference for example between channels 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, etc..  so it would be better to have dual elevators next to one another and possibly ailerons in one of the 1-4 groups if your transmitter has the capability to reassign channel positions.  It would also be helpful to those that have more than one servo per surface.  It's very important to the helo guys as they need the swash plate to move evenly.  Apparently not quite as noticeable in pattern.
I switched from 50mhz/5114DPS to the 2.4/TM14/6008HS combo and the best one word description I can give is "silky"--but it could be additional latency--Futaba says there should be no difference.  I think I like it--but I have to--it's what I've got!

Richard

PS Anyone need any DPS5114s on 50mhz.?..yeah, that's what I thought...

________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850553/direct/01/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/b1d1e0ef/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Mon Mar 22 10:39:00 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:39:00 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <655641152.1498181269280669996.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <575676.90816.qm@web1116.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

I don't know about that, but I do know that if there is enough lag time you could get into PIO (pilot induced oscillation).? 
?
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/STS/HTML/EM-0084-02.html
?
It is interesting that the measured lag time in this instance is close to the human latency that Bill mentioned, so maybe you are right.
?
Bob R.


--- On Mon, 3/22/10, Vicente "Vince" Bortone <vicenterc at comcast.net> wrote:


From: Vicente "Vince" Bortone <vicenterc at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, March 22, 2010, 1:57 PM



#yiv1290572831 p {margin:0;}

This is very good point.? There is another important factor that I am going to try to explain.??Someone expert in controls?can help us here.??I think that is called natural frequency of the control system.? If the the human natural frequency is close to the TX/RX combo that will be a huge problem since the? control system won't be stable.? In other worlds if the TX/RX latency is very small but the natural frequencies are close to each other it could be very bad results.? Well, I think this is very difficult to measure but I think this additional factor should be of consideration.?

Vicente "Vince" Bortone

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill's Email" <wemodels at cox.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:07:47 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious

I think it's amusing that a year or so ago nobody had ever even heard of 
latency. Now it is THE NUMBER ONE technical specification to consider.

Keep in mind that radio latency is one to two orders of magnitude less 
than the "human" latency (reaction time) that we must all deal with. 
That runs about 215 milliseconds on average.

Test yours: ?http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php




_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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/20100322/0beea1d1/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Mon Mar 22 10:41:51 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:41:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <BAY128-W28EB82D28B217C2A7A2D7BA0270@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <3855.78302.qm@web1104.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

I heard once that the pylon racers did not use PCM due to the latency. Also, a lot used basic 4ch PPM systems, since the frame rate is shorter with fewer channels. The Ace Micropro that I mentioned earlier (which was a PPM only system) allowed you to program the number of channels transmitted. If you only transmitted 4 channels, the frame rate was much quicker.


--- On Mon, 3/22/10, Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com> wrote:


From: Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
To: "NSRCA" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, March 22, 2010, 2:21 PM




I think you are more likely to get better latency numbers from a matched system--but take the Futaba numbers, the 7 channel system has better--or at least as good--numbers as the more expensive systems.?Maybe much less than the MZ/HS8 combo???I have a?good friend?who?purchased one of the super cheap 2.4 module/receiver combos and he could hardly hover with it.
Craps anyone?
?RS


From: geobet4 at verizon.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:14:23 -0400
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious



#yiv1322204796 .ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P
{padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-top:0px;}
#yiv1322204796 .ExternalClass BODY.ecxhmmessage
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;}


I guess my next question would be,.......Is it possible that within the spectrum of the 2.4 Ghz technology could it be that there might
?be a difference in the processing speed of the low end receivers as opposed to the higher priced units?
?
I do have a low end rcvr.
?
G.?
?
?
?
?
?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Richard Strickland 
To: NSRCA DISCUSSION 
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:42 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious


?


#yiv1322204796 .ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
#yiv1322204796 .ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

The original post was in '05 in that link.? He has been updating it as he gets new info.? It's worth a read--but takes a while.? Some feel the thread has contributed greatly to latency being decreased in radios across the board.? As someone pointed out "..radios got pretty damn fast pretty damn fast..."
Regarding Futaba modules--at least on the TM14, the information is sent in groups of four, so you would have minimum latency difference for example between channels 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, etc..? so it would be better to have dual elevators next to one another and possibly ailerons in one of the 1-4 groups if your transmitter has the capability to reassign channel positions.? It would also be helpful to those that have more than one servo per surface.? It's very important to the helo guys as they need the swash plate to move evenly.? Apparently not quite as noticeable?in pattern.
I?switched from 50mhz/5114DPS to the 2.4/TM14/6008HS combo and the best one word description I can give is "silky"--but it could be additional latency--Futaba says there should be no difference.? I think I like it--but I have to--it's what I've got!?
?
Richard
?
PS Anyone need any DPS5114s on 50mhz.?..yeah, that's what I thought...




Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. 



_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. 
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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/20100322/62eac08e/attachment.html>

From burtona at atmc.net  Mon Mar 22 10:45:04 2010
From: burtona at atmc.net (Dave Burton)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:45:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <655641152.1498181269280669996.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1660944730.1493861269280276269.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<655641152.1498181269280669996.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <009901cac9ee$28d57e40$7a807ac0$@net>

Aha, this is why I can?t keep the wings level!

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 1:58 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious

 

This is very good point.  There is another important factor that I am going to try to explain.  Someone expert in controls can help us here.  I think that is called natural frequency of the control system.  If the the human natural frequency is close to the TX/RX combo that will be a huge problem since the  control system won't be stable.  In other worlds if the TX/RX latency is very small but the natural frequencies are close to each other it could be very bad results.  Well, I think this is very difficult to measure but I think this additional factor should be of consideration. 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill's Email" <wemodels at cox.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:07:47 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious

I think it's amusing that a year or so ago nobody had ever even heard of 
latency. Now it is THE NUMBER ONE technical specification to consider.

Keep in mind that radio latency is one to two orders of magnitude less 
than the "human" latency (reaction time) that we must all deal with. 
That runs about 215 milliseconds on average.

Test yours:  http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php




_______________________________________________
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: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2762 - Release Date: 03/22/10 03:33:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/3b46418c/attachment.html>

From vanputte at cox.net  Mon Mar 22 10:53:17 2010
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:53:17 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <009901cac9ee$28d57e40$7a807ac0$@net>
References: <1660944730.1493861269280276269.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<655641152.1498181269280669996.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<009901cac9ee$28d57e40$7a807ac0$@net>
Message-ID: <2DDBF7BE-7ED4-47B7-B99F-6167C4E01D28@cox.net>

Uuuuh.  Dave, I don't think that's it.

Ron

On Mar 22, 2010, at 1:33 PM, Dave Burton wrote:

> Aha, this is why I can?t keep the wings level!
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Vicente "Vince"  
> Bortone
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 1:58 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
>
>
>
> This is very good point.  There is another important factor that I  
> am going to try to explain.  Someone expert in controls can help us  
> here.  I think that is called natural frequency of the control  
> system.  If the the human natural frequency is close to the TX/RX  
> combo that will be a huge problem since the  control system won't  
> be stable.  In other worlds if the TX/RX latency is very small but  
> the natural frequencies are close to each other it could be very  
> bad results.  Well, I think this is very difficult to measure but I  
> think this additional factor should be of consideration.
>
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill's Email" <wemodels at cox.net>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:07:47 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
>
> I think it's amusing that a year or so ago nobody had ever even  
> heard of
> latency. Now it is THE NUMBER ONE technical specification to consider.
>
> Keep in mind that radio latency is one to two orders of magnitude less
> than the "human" latency (reaction time) that we must all deal with.
> That runs about 215 milliseconds on average.
>
> Test yours:  http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/ 
> index.php
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2762 - Release Date:  
> 03/22/10 03:33:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Mon Mar 22 11:32:01 2010
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:32:01 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>
	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
Message-ID: <87AD90D1DD6448AAA1051DCDBDF5482F@davedesktop>

All JR/Spektrum native systems use servo sync to simultaneously update
multiple channels/servos assigned to a specific control.

 

Regards,

 

Dave Lockhart

Team Horizon/JR/Spektrum

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 2:38 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious

 

This will end up being somewhat of a shameless plug, but when we were
involved in discussing features of the new Airtronics radio (SD-10G), this
issues of grouping channels was a BIG deal to the glider guys.  They often
have 6 and 8 servos in their wing alone, and having a small delay between
some of the channels updating creates trimming issues such that they would
not be able to take advantage of using separate channels if there were
delays.  Having such a strong presence in the glider community, they needed
to address it.  The result is that the new radio updates all 10 channels
simultaneously rather than in groups of 4.   NO clue how that was pulled off
technically (or how they got their speed so high) but both are clearly a
result of these types of "threads" and the resulting priority that they've
placed on latency concerns.

 

It helps that being a little late to the dance afforded them the opportunity
to address those concerns.   

 

I don't think it will be long before latency numbers are all low enough that
it won't be a critical criteria, but for now it's good to see all the
manufacturers taking note and making improvements with each new release.

 

-Mark

 

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 Richard
Strickland
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:43 AM
To: NSRCA DISCUSSION
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious

 


 
The original post was in '05 in that link.  He has been updating it as he
gets new info.  It's worth a read--but takes a while.  Some feel the thread
has contributed greatly to latency being decreased in radios across the
board.  As someone pointed out "..radios got pretty damn fast pretty damn
fast..."
Regarding Futaba modules--at least on the TM14, the information is sent in
groups of four, so you would have minimum latency difference for example
between channels 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, etc..  so it would be better to have dual
elevators next to one another and possibly ailerons in one of the 1-4 groups
if your transmitter has the capability to reassign channel positions.  It
would also be helpful to those that have more than one servo per surface.
It's very important to the helo guys as they need the swash plate to move
evenly.  Apparently not quite as noticeable in pattern.
I switched from 50mhz/5114DPS to the 2.4/TM14/6008HS combo and the best one
word description I can give is "silky"--but it could be additional
latency--Futaba says there should be no difference.  I think I like it--but
I have to--it's what I've got! 
 
Richard
 
PS Anyone need any DPS5114s on 50mhz.?..yeah, that's what I thought...

  _____  

Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850553/direct/01/>  now.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/ad6b1975/attachment.html>

From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Mon Mar 22 11:54:59 2010
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:54:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <655641152.1498181269280669996.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <6E941925204F49C0AE9D431B1A9890D6@jaysdesktop>

Vince, now you are really going to mess their minds up! In addition, at my
age, all natural responses are heavily dampened! lol

 

Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Vicente
"Vince" Bortone
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 1:58 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious

 

This is very good point.  There is another important factor that I am going
to try to explain.  Someone expert in controls can help us here.  I think
that is called natural frequency of the control system.  If the the human
natural frequency is close to the TX/RX combo that will be a huge problem
since the  control system won't be stable.  In other worlds if the TX/RX
latency is very small but the natural frequencies are close to each other it
could be very bad results.  Well, I think this is very difficult to measure
but I think this additional factor should be of consideration. 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill's Email" <wemodels at cox.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:07:47 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious

I think it's amusing that a year or so ago nobody had ever even heard of 
latency. Now it is THE NUMBER ONE technical specification to consider.

Keep in mind that radio latency is one to two orders of magnitude less 
than the "human" latency (reaction time) that we must all deal with. 
That runs about 215 milliseconds on average.

Test yours:  http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php




_______________________________________________
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/20100322/0b115ff0/attachment.html>

From vicenterc at comcast.net  Mon Mar 22 13:02:44 2010
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:02:44 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <972207022.1594821269291379806.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <634113759.1597731269291762900.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>



George, 



We know now the solution you need?a suppression filter integrated into the TX?control system .? If NASA did it we can do it. 



I really don't like the term PIO .? They are blaming the pilot for the controlability problem and it is not the pilot.? 


Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Richards" <bob@ toprudder .com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 1:38:57 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious 


I don't know about that, but I do know that if there is enough lag time you could get into PIO (pilot induced oscillation).? 

http :// www . dfrc . nasa .gov/Gallery/Movie/ STS /HTML/EM-0084-02. html 

It is interesting that the measured lag time in this instance is close to the human latency that Bill mentioned, so maybe you are right. 

Bob R. 


--- On Mon, 3/22/10, Vicente "Vince" Bortone < vicenterc @comcast.net> wrote: 



From: Vicente "Vince" Bortone < vicenterc @comcast.net> 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
Date: Monday, March 22, 2010, 1:57 PM 



This is very good point.? There is another important factor that I am going to try to explain.??Someone expert in controls?can help us here.??I think that is called natural frequency of the control system.? If the the human natural frequency is close to the TX/RX combo that will be a huge problem since the? control system won't be stable.? In other worlds if the TX/RX latency is very small but the natural frequencies are close to each other it could be very bad results.? Well, I think this is very difficult to measure but I think this additional factor should be of consideration.? 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill's Email" < wemodels @cox.net> 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:07:47 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious 

I think it's amusing that a year or so ago nobody had ever even heard of 
latency. Now it is THE NUMBER ONE technical specification to consider. 

Keep in mind that radio latency is one to two orders of magnitude less 
than the "human" latency (reaction time) that we must all deal with. 
That runs about 215 milliseconds on average. 

Test yours: ? http :// www . humanbenchmark .com/tests/ reactiontime /index. php 




_______________________________________________ 
NSRCA-discussion mailing list 
NSRCA-discussion at lists. nsrca .org 
http ://lists. nsrca .org/mailman/ listinfo / nsrca -discussion 

----- Inline Attachment Follows----- 


_______________________________________________ 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/8c4093d3/attachment.html>

From chuenkan at comcast.net  Mon Mar 22 13:44:58 2010
From: chuenkan at comcast.net (Phil Spelt)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:44:58 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <87AD90D1DD6448AAA1051DCDBDF5482F@davedesktop>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>
	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<87AD90D1DD6448AAA1051DCDBDF5482F@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <20100322214457.F16DF114B6@bridi.netexpress.com>

OK, Guys, I bit my tongue as long as I possibly could:  Dave's 
comment below is why I fly ONLY JR equipment -- the good stuff! lol, 
and flame suit on...

At 03:26 PM 3/22/2010, you wrote:
>All JR/Spektrum native systems use servo sync to simultaneously 
>update multiple channels/servos assigned to a specific control.
>
>Regards,
>
>Dave Lockhart
>Team Horizon/JR/Spektrum
>
>
>----------
>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
>Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 2:38 PM
>To: General pattern discussion
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
>
>This will end up being somewhat of a shameless plug, but when we 
>were involved in discussing features of the new Airtronics radio 
>(SD-10G), this issues of grouping channels was a BIG deal to the 
>glider guys.  They often have 6 and 8 servos in their wing alone, 
>and having a small delay between some of the channels updating 
>creates trimming issues such that they would not be able to take 
>advantage of using separate channels if there were delays.  Having 
>such a strong presence in the glider community, they needed to 
>address it.  The result is that the new radio updates all 10 
>channels simultaneously rather than in groups of 4.   NO clue how 
>that was pulled off technically (or how they got their speed so 
>high) but both are clearly a result of these types of "threads" and 
>the resulting priority that they've placed on latency concerns.
>
>It helps that being a little late to the dance afforded them the 
>opportunity to address those concerns.
>
>I don't think it will be long before latency numbers are all low 
>enough that it won't be a critical criteria, but for now it's good 
>to see all the manufacturers taking note and making improvements 
>with each new release.
>
>-Mark
>
>Mark Atwood
>Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
>5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
>Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
><mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>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 
>Richard Strickland
>Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:43 AM
>To: NSRCA DISCUSSION
>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
>
>
>
>The original post was in '05 in that link.  He has been updating it 
>as he gets new info.  It's worth a read--but takes a while.  Some 
>feel the thread has contributed greatly to latency being decreased 
>in radios across the board.  As someone pointed out "..radios got 
>pretty damn fast pretty damn fast..."
>Regarding Futaba modules--at least on the TM14, the information is 
>sent in groups of four, so you would have minimum latency difference 
>for example between channels 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, etc..  so it would be 
>better to have dual elevators next to one another and possibly 
>ailerons in one of the 1-4 groups if your transmitter has the 
>capability to reassign channel positions.  It would also be helpful 
>to those that have more than one servo per surface.  It's very 
>important to the helo guys as they need the swash plate to move 
>evenly.  Apparently not quite as noticeable in pattern.
>I switched from 50mhz/5114DPS to the 2.4/TM14/6008HS combo and the 
>best one word description I can give is "silky"--but it could be 
>additional latency--Futaba says there should be no difference.  I 
>think I like it--but I have to--it's what I've got!
>
>Richard
>
>PS Anyone need any DPS5114s on 50mhz.?..yeah, that's what I thought...
>
>Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. 
><http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850553/direct/01/>Sign up now.
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member  SPA--177, Board Member
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/2c4a5f01/attachment.html>

From chuenkan at comcast.net  Mon Mar 22 13:45:26 2010
From: chuenkan at comcast.net (Phil Spelt)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:45:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <6E941925204F49C0AE9D431B1A9890D6@jaysdesktop>
References: <655641152.1498181269280669996.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<6E941925204F49C0AE9D431B1A9890D6@jaysdesktop>
Message-ID: <20100322214525.BCCCF114B6@bridi.netexpress.com>

Boy, do I know THAT feeling...

At 03:54 PM 3/22/2010, you wrote:
>Vince, now you are really going to mess their minds up! In addition, 
>at my age, all natural responses are heavily dampened! lol
>
>
>Jay Marshall
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of 
>Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 1:58 PM
>To: General pattern discussion
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
>
>This is very good point.  There is another important factor that I 
>am going to try to explain.  Someone expert in controls can help us 
>here.  I think that is called natural frequency of the control 
>system.  If the the human natural frequency is close to the TX/RX 
>combo that will be a huge problem since the  control system won't be 
>stable.  In other worlds if the TX/RX latency is very small but the 
>natural frequencies are close to each other it could be very bad 
>results.  Well, I think this is very difficult to measure but I 
>think this additional factor should be of consideration.
>
>Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bill's Email" <wemodels at cox.net>
>To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:07:47 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
>
>I think it's amusing that a year or so ago nobody had ever even heard of
>latency. Now it is THE NUMBER ONE technical specification to consider.
>
>Keep in mind that radio latency is one to two orders of magnitude less
>than the "human" latency (reaction time) that we must all deal with.
>That runs about 215 milliseconds on average.
>
>Test yours:  http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member  SPA--177, Board Member
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/b0d29a05/attachment.html>

From iflyrc24 at gmail.com  Mon Mar 22 13:57:28 2010
From: iflyrc24 at gmail.com (Dowayne Gould)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:57:28 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted
In-Reply-To: <002101cac9ed$e7668c10$b633a430$@net>
References: <285152.80690.qm@web45004.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<002101cac9ed$e7668c10$b633a430$@net>
Message-ID: <af8f9c4e1003221457v4ec09e1dna3a26b68310408a5@mail.gmail.com>

Ryan
I have a PAC Rhapsody that is ready for radio install, finished, painted and
covered.  The fire wall has been set up for a YS 140 but could be changed
easy enough. Email me privately if interested
Dowayne
Iflyrc24 at gmail. com

On Mar 22, 2010 2:31 PM, "Dr Mike" <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

 Ryan,

I have a beat up Osmose ready to fly but needs a bit of cosmetic work. Will
sell w or w/o servos. No engine.  YS 1.7 ready. Hyde mount.  I flew at the
nats.  Email me privately.

Mike



*From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Ryan M
*Sent:* Monday, March 22, 2010 11:57 AM
*To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
*Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted

  Wanted...2M project, crashed, etc... Looking to upgrade to a 2M bird.
Ryan 863-258-2599  ...

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2763 - Release Date: 03/22/10
07:33:00

_______________________________________________
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/20100322/4e0bced6/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Mon Mar 22 14:10:05 2010
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:10:05 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <87AD90D1DD6448AAA1051DCDBDF5482F@davedesktop>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>, ,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>,
	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>,
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>,
	<87AD90D1DD6448AAA1051DCDBDF5482F@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W1200C49A84ECB10BB22CB4A0270@phx.gbl>


Futaba calls it 'Grouping'--but I'm not sure how the 1-4 signal works into that.  Possibly if you've 'grouped' say channel 1 and 6, one is the master and the second(6) syncs up with that and the signal that would normally drive the second is ignored.  It all seems to work pretty well.  Obviously, I could stand to do a little more research on the subject...

RS
 


From: DaveL322 at comcast.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:26:34 -0400
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious









All JR/Spektrum native systems use servo sync to simultaneously update multiple channels/servos assigned to a specific control.
 
Regards,
 
Dave Lockhart
Team Horizon/JR/Spektrum
 




From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 2:38 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
 
This will end up being somewhat of a shameless plug, but when we were involved in discussing features of the new Airtronics radio (SD-10G), this issues of grouping channels was a BIG deal to the glider guys.  They often have 6 and 8 servos in their wing alone, and having a small delay between some of the channels updating creates trimming issues such that they would not be able to take advantage of using separate channels if there were delays.  Having such a strong presence in the glider community, they needed to address it.  The result is that the new radio updates all 10 channels simultaneously rather than in groups of 4.   NO clue how that was pulled off technically (or how they got their speed so high) but both are clearly a result of these types of ?threads? and the resulting priority that they?ve placed on latency concerns.
 
It helps that being a little late to the dance afforded them the opportunity to address those concerns.   
 
I don?t think it will be long before latency numbers are all low enough that it won?t be a critical criteria, but for now it?s good to see all the manufacturers taking note and making improvements with each new release.
 
-Mark
 

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 Richard Strickland
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:43 AM
To: NSRCA DISCUSSION
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
 

 
The original post was in '05 in that link.  He has been updating it as he gets new info.  It's worth a read--but takes a while.  Some feel the thread has contributed greatly to latency being decreased in radios across the board.  As someone pointed out "..radios got pretty damn fast pretty damn fast..."
Regarding Futaba modules--at least on the TM14, the information is sent in groups of four, so you would have minimum latency difference for example between channels 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, etc..  so it would be better to have dual elevators next to one another and possibly ailerons in one of the 1-4 groups if your transmitter has the capability to reassign channel positions.  It would also be helpful to those that have more than one servo per surface.  It's very important to the helo guys as they need the swash plate to move evenly.  Apparently not quite as noticeable in pattern.
I switched from 50mhz/5114DPS to the 2.4/TM14/6008HS combo and the best one word description I can give is "silky"--but it could be additional latency--Futaba says there should be no difference.  I think I like it--but I have to--it's what I've got! 
 
Richard
 
PS Anyone need any DPS5114s on 50mhz.?..yeah, that's what I thought...



Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850553/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/516188fa/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Mon Mar 22 14:13:32 2010
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:13:32 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>
	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
Message-ID: <4BA7EB8A.7080500@cox.net>

Atwood, Mark wrote:
>
> This will end up being somewhat of a shameless plug, but when we were 
> involved in discussing features of the new Airtronics radio (SD-10G), 
> this issues of grouping channels was a BIG deal to the glider guys.  T
>


Honestly it is not that big of a deal. On a glider while we have 6 
servos (most competitive planes) they are used for flap (2), ailerons 
(2) rudder and elevator. So a group of 4 is more than adequate since 
even in a worse case the wing servos you want to have as little 
difference as possible, but I cannot ever recall any glider guy I know, 
including most of the Airtronics sponsored glider pilots, ever even talk 
about that. Trust me, I fly with these guys all the time and if they 
could rub my nose in something, they would (Airtronics guys are just 
so.... well, you know!!) :~}

Now the IMAC/giant scale/3D guys it is a HUGE deal. With 2 to 3 servos 
per surface and so on, the more channels grouped the better. And in that 
world channel grouping is a very hot topic of conversation.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/b50e44ed/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Mon Mar 22 14:15:02 2010
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:15:02 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <3855.78302.qm@web1104.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
References: <3855.78302.qm@web1104.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4BA7EBE4.6000709@cox.net>

Bob Richards wrote:
> I heard once that the pylon racers did not use PCM due to the latency. 
> Also, a lot used basic 4ch PPM systems, since the frame rate is 
> shorter with fewer channels.
>


And it is WAAAAAAAAY cheaper when you crash and total everything in the 
plane. Plus racers have a much lower need for mixing, etc. so a simple 
radio suits their application just fine.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/47e365af/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Mon Mar 22 14:24:20 2010
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:24:20 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <BAY128-W1200C49A84ECB10BB22CB4A0270@phx.gbl>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>, ,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>,
	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>,
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>,
	<87AD90D1DD6448AAA1051DCDBDF5482F@davedesktop>
	<BAY128-W1200C49A84ECB10BB22CB4A0270@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4BA7EE12.6010000@cox.net>

Richard Strickland wrote:
> Futaba calls it 'Grouping'--but I'm not sure how the 1-4 signal works 
> into that.  
 

Channel grouping on Futaba works by "grouping" channels 1 to 4, 5 to 8, 
and 10 to 12 into discrete groups which update essentially 
simultaneously. Channels 13 and 14 are simple digital ON/OFF channels. 
So anything connected within one of those 3 4-channel groups get the 
signal at the same time.

So say you had an IMAC/3D planes with 2 aileron servos per surface,  2 
elevator servos (1 per half), and 2 rudder servos plus throttle smoke 
and engine kill (optical kill switch). Your set up might look like this:

CH 1 - Left AIL
CH 2 - Left AIL
CH 3 - Right AIL
CH 4 - Right AIL

CH 5 - Left ELEV 1/2
CH 6 - Right ELEV 1/2
CH 7 - Rudder #1
CH 8 - Rudder #2

CH 9 - Throttle
CH 10 -
CH 11 -
CH 12 -

CH 13 - Kill
CH 14 - Smoke

Or any other combination you might want to get similar servos/surfaces 
grouped together. This is mostly a great benefit when using multiple 
servos on a single surface to stop them from fighting each other and 
causing power issues.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100322/503cdfcc/attachment.html>

From vanputte at cox.net  Mon Mar 22 15:33:12 2010
From: vanputte at cox.net (Ron Van Putte)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:33:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Carbon Fiber Spinners
Message-ID: <FBA570D7-3C32-49ED-BA03-214B89FCE529@cox.net>

I am currently flying an E- Genesis with a CA Models carbon fiber  
spinner, which I got from Net Box Hobbies. The spinner retails for  
about $65 and costs more after adding shipping and sales tax.

Last week I received three World Models 76 mm carbon fiber spinners  
(http://www.theworldmodels.com/para/products/search.php)  from  
AirBorne Models, U.S. distributors of World Models "stuff".  Included  
in my order were three World Models 76mm carbon fiber spinners.  They  
are physically identical to the CA Models spinners.  A single screw  
attaches the spinner to the metal backplate, like Tru Turn spinners.   
I was blown away by their quality; they are better made than the CA  
Models ones AND cost about 1/3 what the others do.

I took the three World Models spinners to the contest at Ocala, FL  
(great contest BTW), sold every one of the spinners and could have  
sold more.  I have ordered all the remaining spinners that AirBorne  
Models had in stock and have requested that they order more.

If you're flying an E-Anything and can use a 76mm carbon fiber  
spinner, I suggest that you look into the World Models ones.

Ron



From aircamperace at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 22 16:04:47 2010
From: aircamperace at yahoo.com (Ryan M)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:04:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted
In-Reply-To: <002101cac9ed$e7668c10$b633a430$@net>
References: <285152.80690.qm@web45004.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<002101cac9ed$e7668c10$b633a430$@net>
Message-ID: <592369.24347.qm@web45004.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Thanks for the offer Dr.Mike. It sounds like a great plane but probably more than I can spend at the moment.

Ryan?




________________________________
From: Dr Mike <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 2:31:35 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted


Ryan,
I have a beat up Osmose ready to fly but needs a bit of cosmetic work. Will sell w or w/o servos. No engine.? YS 1.7 ready. Hyde mount. ?I flew at the nats.? Email me privately.
Mike 
?
From:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ryan M
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:57 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted
?
Wanted...2M project, crashed, etc...?Looking to upgrade to a 2M bird.
?
Ryan
863-258-2599
?
?
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2763 - Release Date: 03/22/10 07:33:00


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/708ef191/attachment.html>

From jonlowe at aol.com  Mon Mar 22 17:31:59 2010
From: jonlowe at aol.com (Jon Lowe)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:31:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted
In-Reply-To: <002101cac9ed$e7668c10$b633a430$@net>
References: <285152.80690.qm@web45004.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<002101cac9ed$e7668c10$b633a430$@net>
Message-ID: <8CC983FB63C6D6E-F04-6606@webmail-m027.sysops.aol.com>


 Mike,
Is it the original Osmose or the Evolution?

 

Jon Lowe
 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr Mike <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, Mar 22, 2010 1:31 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted



Ryan,
I have a beat up Osmose ready to fly but needs a bit of cosmeticwork. Will sell w or w/o servos. No engine.  YS 1.7 ready. Hyde mount.  I flewat the nats.  Email me privately.
Mike 
 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ryan M
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:57 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted

 

Wanted...2M project, crashed,etc... Looking to upgrade to a 2M bird.

 

Ryan

863-258-2599

 

 
No virusfound in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2763 - Release Date: 03/22/1007:33:00

 
_______________________________________________
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/20100323/f028216f/attachment.html>

From adriancwong at earthlink.net  Mon Mar 22 17:54:11 2010
From: adriancwong at earthlink.net (adriancwong at earthlink.net)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:54:11 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Receivers for sale
Message-ID: <3882603.1269309214688.JavaMail.root@wamui-june.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

To all,

I have the following Futaba receivers for sale:-

Eight units R5114 DPS 14-Channel Synthesized Receiver on 72MHz - $130.00 each

One unit R5014 DPS 14-Channel Synthesized Receiver on 72MHz - $110.00

Two units R309 DPS 9-Channel Synthesized Receiver on 72MHz - $70.00 each

I accept paypal & will pay for UPS ground shipping within the 48 states.

Any interested party please contact me off list - adriancwong at earthlink.net

Thank you,

Adrian



From vicenterc at comcast.net  Mon Mar 22 19:38:56 2010
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 03:38:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <6E941925204F49C0AE9D431B1A9890D6@jaysdesktop>
Message-ID: <1173321917.1771781269315535184.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

Well is not only our dampening, it is the control system dampening.? That is one reason is not necesarily good to use different brands to build one system.? Because it works it does not mean that it going to work well.? I think looking only the latency is not good enough to evaluate the system.? 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jay Marshall" <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 2:54:57 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious 




Vince, now you are really going to mess their minds up! In addition, at my age, all natural responses are heavily dampened! lol 




Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message----- 
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Vicente "Vince" Bortone 
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 1:58 PM 
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious 




This is very good point.? There is another important factor that I am going to try to explain.??Someone expert in controls?can help us here.??I think that is called natural frequency of the control system.? If the the human natural frequency is close to the TX/RX combo that will be a huge problem since the? control system won't be stable.? In other worlds if the TX/RX latency is very small but the natural frequencies are close to each other it could be very bad results.? Well, I think this is very difficult to measure but I think this additional factor should be of consideration.? 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill's Email" <wemodels at cox.net> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:07:47 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious 

I think it's amusing that a year or so ago nobody had ever even heard of 
latency. Now it is THE NUMBER ONE technical specification to consider. 

Keep in mind that radio latency is one to two orders of magnitude less 
than the "human" latency (reaction time) that we must all deal with. 
That runs about 215 milliseconds on average. 

Test yours: ?http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php 




_______________________________________________ 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/cdf9936d/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Mon Mar 22 21:04:40 2010
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 05:04:40 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <4BA7EE12.6010000@cox.net>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>,
	, , <4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>, ,
	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>, ,
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>,
	, <87AD90D1DD6448AAA1051DCDBDF5482F@davedesktop>,
	<BAY128-W1200C49A84ECB10BB22CB4A0270@phx.gbl>,
	<4BA7EE12.6010000@cox.net>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W25DD4820856A6E436B4623A0260@phx.gbl>


I get the impression from re-reading a few things that you can 'group' just about any number of channel positions which would lead me to believe the 'master' takes over. But I need more input.

RS
 


Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:24:18 -0700
From: wemodels at cox.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious

Richard Strickland wrote: 


Futaba calls it 'Grouping'--but I'm not sure how the 1-4 signal works into that.   

Channel grouping on Futaba works by "grouping" channels 1 to 4, 5 to 8, and 10 to 12 into discrete groups which update essentially simultaneously. Channels 13 and 14 are simple digital ON/OFF channels. So anything connected within one of those 3 4-channel groups get the signal at the same time.

So say you had an IMAC/3D planes with 2 aileron servos per surface,  2 elevator servos (1 per half), and 2 rudder servos plus throttle smoke and engine kill (optical kill switch). Your set up might look like this:

CH 1 - Left AIL
CH 2 - Left AIL
CH 3 - Right AIL
CH 4 - Right AIL

CH 5 - Left ELEV 1/2
CH 6 - Right ELEV 1/2
CH 7 - Rudder #1
CH 8 - Rudder #2

CH 9 - Throttle
CH 10 -
CH 11 -
CH 12 - 

CH 13 - Kill
CH 14 - Smoke

Or any other combination you might want to get similar servos/surfaces grouped together. This is mostly a great benefit when using multiple servos on a single surface to stop them from fighting each other and causing power issues.




 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850553/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/afccdd19/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Mon Mar 22 21:26:04 2010
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 05:26:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <BAY128-W25DD4820856A6E436B4623A0260@phx.gbl>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>, , ,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>, ,
	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>, ,
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>,
	, <87AD90D1DD6448AAA1051DCDBDF5482F@davedesktop>,
	<BAY128-W1200C49A84ECB10BB22CB4A0270@phx.gbl>,
	<4BA7EE12.6010000@cox.net>
	<BAY128-W25DD4820856A6E436B4623A0260@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4BA850EB.50706@cox.net>

No, the Futaba FASST radios make three groups of four. What you assign 
to those channels is up to you. Servos you want to get the signal 
essentially simultaneoulsy you should put in the same group.



Richard Strickland wrote:
> I get the impression from re-reading a few things that you can 'group' 
> just about any number of channel positions which would lead me to 
> believe the 'master' takes over. But I need more input.
> RS
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/d466176c/attachment.html>

From drmikedds at sbcglobal.net  Tue Mar 23 04:35:18 2010
From: drmikedds at sbcglobal.net (Dr Mike)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:35:18 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted
In-Reply-To: <8CC983FB63C6D6E-F04-6606@webmail-m027.sysops.aol.com>
References: <285152.80690.qm@web45004.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>	<002101cac9ed$e7668c10$b633a430$@net>
	<8CC983FB63C6D6E-F04-6606@webmail-m027.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <009401caca85$45496720$cfdc3560$@net>

It is a CA models painted ready to fly that is 2 years old Osmose.

Mike 

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 8:32 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted

 

Mike,
Is it the original Osmose or the Evolution?

 

Jon Lowe

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr Mike <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, Mar 22, 2010 1:31 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted

Ryan,

I have a beat up Osmose ready to fly but needs a bit of cosmetic work. Will
sell w or w/o servos. No engine.  YS 1.7 ready. Hyde mount.  I flew at the
nats.  Email me privately.

Mike 

 

From:  <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?>
mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ryan M
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:57 AM
To:  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted

 

Wanted...2M project, crashed, etc... Looking to upgrade to a 2M bird.

 

Ryan

863-258-2599

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -  <http://www.avg.com> www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2763 - Release Date: 03/22/10
07:33:00

_______________________________________________






NSRCA-discussion mailing list






 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org






 <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion







No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2763 - Release Date: 03/22/10
19:44:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/fa23938f/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 23 06:41:39 2010
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:41:39 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <4BA850EB.50706@cox.net>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>, ,
	,,<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>,
	,,<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>,
	, , <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>,
	, , <87AD90D1DD6448AAA1051DCDBDF5482F@davedesktop>, ,
	<BAY128-W1200C49A84ECB10BB22CB4A0270@phx.gbl>, ,
	<4BA7EE12.6010000@cox.net>,
	<BAY128-W25DD4820856A6E436B4623A0260@phx.gbl>,
	<4BA850EB.50706@cox.net>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W22489F3974D67C14A1AD8EA0260@phx.gbl>


So if I plug say 6 ailerons in to channels 1-6 like the original Futaba MZ web main page shows, we would have to compensate somehow with End Point Adjustment and Servo Speed on two? That doesn't seem right.  It would seem more logical that in a non-grouped setting--but effectively grouped--like ailerons, twin elevator halves, or flaps, you would want them in the 1-4, 5-8, etc. groups--but if you are specifically 'telling' those servos "Pal, you are tied to this guy and he's the boss--you do what he does."...wouldn't the 'grouping' function operate that way?

RS
 


Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:26:03 -0700
From: wemodels at cox.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious

No, the Futaba FASST radios make three groups of four. What you assign to those channels is up to you. Servos you want to get the signal essentially simultaneoulsy you should put in the same group.



Richard Strickland wrote: 


I get the impression from re-reading a few things that you can 'group' just about any number of channel positions which would lead me to believe the 'master' takes over. But I need more input.
RS
 


 
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/dc51ff45/attachment.html>

From aabdu at sbcglobal.net  Tue Mar 23 06:59:44 2010
From: aabdu at sbcglobal.net (Anthony Abdullah)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:59:44 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX
In-Reply-To: <AE4E6873C4A143DFAE8DFCE95AF900EF@FMILaptop>
References: <AE4E6873C4A143DFAE8DFCE95AF900EF@FMILaptop>
Message-ID: <219488.15198.qm@web82103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I flew the 3 bladed repitched prop on an OS140RX with very good results. I loved how quiet it was.

I have one sitting around collecting dust if you are interested in it? I fly only electric now and have no use for it.

Anthony




________________________________
From: frank <frankjuliei at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sat, March 20, 2010 7:10:47 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] APC PROPS FOR OS 140 RX


Been running an APC 3- blade (15-10) re-pitched by Dave Lockhart on my Brio for quite some time until yesterday when ?I nicked a tip on landing. I ?have ?also used an 18.1 x 10 with pretty good results. I noticed that APC also has an 18x 8 W IMAC prop and a 18x 6W 3D prop. I assume the later would be less desirable, but who knows until it?s tried. Has anyone used either and on what motor ?
?
Thanks,
Frank
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/b12a8497/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Tue Mar 23 07:03:34 2010
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:03:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <BAY128-W22489F3974D67C14A1AD8EA0260@phx.gbl>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>, , , ,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>, , ,
	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>, , ,
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>,
	, , <87AD90D1DD6448AAA1051DCDBDF5482F@davedesktop>, ,
	<BAY128-W1200C49A84ECB10BB22CB4A0270@phx.gbl>, ,
	<4BA7EE12.6010000@cox.net>,
	<BAY128-W25DD4820856A6E436B4623A0260@phx.gbl>,
	<4BA850EB.50706@cox.net> <BAY128-W22489F3974D67C14A1AD8EA0260@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4BA8D844.4040707@cox.net>

Honestly, you've lost me. On the PPM/PCM 14MZ if you plugged 6 servos in 
and they were all assigned to aileron the servos plugged into channels 
1, 2, 3 would act together, and the servos plugged into channels 4,5,6 
would act together. Acting together here means with little or not 
noticeable latency.

The pre 2.4 14MZ grouped channels into 4 groups of three channels. The 
2.4 14MZ makes three groups of 4 channels. It is built into the radio. 
Plugging a servo into channel one and telling the radio that is aileron 
and then plugging another servo in to channel 12 and telling the radio 
that this is also aileron will result in a potential lag for the last 
servo compared to the first servo. The radio is not going to set up some 
sort of Master-slave servo/channel mix.

Again, channels 1,2,3,4 are in one group. 
Channels 5,6,7,8 are in a second group
Channels 9,10,11,12 are in a third group.

The signal will get to the servos within each of those three groups at 
essentially the same time. WHat is plugged into those channels and what 
function you have assigned those channels is irrelevant from the 
standpoint of the radio.

So say you had 4 aileron servos, 2 per wing. You plug the left wing 
servo into channels 1 and 9. You plug the right wing's servos into 
channel 2 and 10. The two servos on either aileron will not be in synch 
as far as time that they receive a signal so there may be a potential 
latency issue. In other words, the servos may "fight" each other.

Channel one is not going to "say" to channel 9 "hey I am in charge and 
take your lead from me" as far as the timing of the receipt of the 
signal to move. They will act together in the sense that they will move 
in response to the aileron command and in the same direction.


Richard Strickland wrote:
> So if I plug say 6 ailerons in to channels 1-6 like the original 
> Futaba MZ web main page shows, we would have to compensate somehow 
> with End Point Adjustment and Servo Speed on two? That doesn't seem 
> right.  It would seem more logical that in a non-grouped setting--but 
> effectively grouped--like ailerons, twin elevator halves, or flaps, 
> you would want them in the 1-4, 5-8, etc. groups--but if you are 
> specifically 'telling' those servos "Pal, you are tied to this guy and 
> he's the boss--you do what he does."...wouldn't the 'grouping' 
> function operate that way?
> RS
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/b8f2a45b/attachment.html>

From AtwoodDon at aol.com  Tue Mar 23 07:05:03 2010
From: AtwoodDon at aol.com (AtwoodDon at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:05:03 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
Message-ID: <288de.2891720c.38da3285@aol.com>

The Futaba 14MZ, 12Z and I believe the 12FG will automatically assign ports 
 (channels) for paired functions like dual elevators when you set up a new  
model.  The channels are assigned based on the configuration and are not  
necessarily the same between 2.4 and 72mhz frequencies.  The 14MZ channel  
mapping on 2.4g does not follow the sequence we have used for all these  
years.  And when you switch a current model from 72 to 2.4, the radio asks  if 
you want to change the channel groupings to match the performance template  
for that frequency.  You can answer 'no' and it will leave the channels as  
originally set up but not necessarily in the best performance mode.
 
Don
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 3/23/2010 7:41:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
pamrich47 at hotmail.com writes:

So if  I plug say 6 ailerons in to channels 1-6 like the original Futaba MZ 
web main  page shows, we would have to compensate somehow with End Point 
Adjustment and  Servo Speed on two? That doesn't seem right.  It would seem 
more  logical that in a non-grouped setting--but effectively grouped--like 
ailerons,  twin elevator halves, or flaps, you would want them in the 1-4, 5-8, 
etc.  groups--but if you are specifically 'telling' those servos "Pal, you 
are tied  to this guy and he's the boss--you do what he does."...wouldn't 
the 'grouping'  function operate that way?
RS

 
____________________________________
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:26:03 -0700
From: wemodels at cox.net
To:  nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]  curious

No, the Futaba FASST radios make three groups of four. What you  assign to 
those channels is up to you. Servos you want to get the signal  essentially 
simultaneoulsy you should put in the same  group.



Richard Strickland wrote:  
I get the impression from re-reading a few things that you can 'group' just 
 about any number of channel positions which would lead me to believe the  
'master' takes over. But I need more input.
RS

 
____________________________________



 
____________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. 
_Get started._ 
(http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_3)   =

_______________________________________________
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/20100323/e631a7bd/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Tue Mar 23 07:09:12 2010
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:09:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <288de.2891720c.38da3285@aol.com>
References: <288de.2891720c.38da3285@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4BA8D996.10301@cox.net>

That is my undertanding as well. 

AtwoodDon at aol.com wrote:
> The Futaba 14MZ, 12Z and I believe the 12FG will automatically assign 
> ports (channels) for paired functions like dual elevators when you set 
> up a new model.  The channels are assigned based on the configuration 
> and are not necessarily the same between 2.4 and 72mhz frequencies.  
> The 14MZ channel mapping on 2.4g does not follow the sequence we have 
> used for all these years.  And when you switch a current model from 72 
> to 2.4, the radio asks if you want to change the channel groupings to 
> match the performance template for that frequency.  You can answer 
> 'no' and it will leave the channels as originally set up but not 
> necessarily in the best performance mode.
>  
> Don
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/310f5d47/attachment.html>

From ron.needham at comcast.net  Tue Mar 23 07:27:09 2010
From: ron.needham at comcast.net (Ron  Needham)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:27:09 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted
In-Reply-To: <009401caca85$45496720$cfdc3560$@net>
References: <285152.80690.qm@web45004.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>	<002101cac9ed$e7668c10$b633a430$@net>	<8CC983FB63C6D6E-F04-6606@webmail-m027.sysops.aol.com>
	<009401caca85$45496720$cfdc3560$@net>
Message-ID: <001a01caca9d$4e170c50$ea4524f0$@needham@comcast.net>

Ryan - how about an Epicure II

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8guoiHf8t9g

Ron Needham

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dr Mike
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 8:35 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted

 

It is a CA models painted ready to fly that is 2 years old Osmose.

Mike 

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 8:32 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted

 

Mike,
Is it the original Osmose or the Evolution?

 

Jon Lowe

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr Mike <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, Mar 22, 2010 1:31 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted

Ryan,

I have a beat up Osmose ready to fly but needs a bit of cosmetic work. Will
sell w or w/o servos. No engine.  YS 1.7 ready. Hyde mount.  I flew at the
nats.  Email me privately.

Mike 

 

From:  <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?>
mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ryan M
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:57 AM
To:  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Project Wanted

 

Wanted...2M project, crashed, etc... Looking to upgrade to a 2M bird.

 

Ryan

863-258-2599

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -  <http://www.avg.com> www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2763 - Release Date: 03/22/10
07:33:00

_______________________________________________













 
NSRCA-discussion mailing list













 
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org













 
 <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion













 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2763 - Release Date: 03/22/10
19:44:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/fcefd08c/attachment.html>

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Tue Mar 23 07:27:24 2010
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:27:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <4BA7EB8A.7080500@cox.net>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<4BA7EB8A.7080500@cox.net>
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A829@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

Hey Bill,

I wasn't referring to multiple servos on a single control (2 elevator servos, etc) as much as mixing them to function together.  So for example when you want to reflex the trailing edge of your glider wing, you need your inner and outer Ailerons and Flaps to all move in unison.  That's going to be hard to do with the 14mz if you're asking 6 servos to move exactly together because of the way it sends the signal in groups.   I believe the ATX 10ch is the only radio currently pushing all 10 channels in parallel.   I'm sure more will be doing that soon though.  And you could be right that it was the IMAC group that pushed for that, but I did think it was glider guys and reflexing the wing in particular that drove the point home.

-Mark

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<mailto: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 Bill's Email
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 6:14 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious

Atwood, Mark wrote:
This will end up being somewhat of a shameless plug, but when we were involved in discussing features of the new Airtronics radio (SD-10G), this issues of grouping channels was a BIG deal to the glider guys.  T


Honestly it is not that big of a deal. On a glider while we have 6 servos (most competitive planes) they are used for flap (2), ailerons (2) rudder and elevator. So a group of 4 is more than adequate since even in a worse case the wing servos you want to have as little difference as possible, but I cannot ever recall any glider guy I know, including most of the Airtronics sponsored glider pilots, ever even talk about that. Trust me, I fly with these guys all the time and if they could rub my nose in something, they would (Airtronics guys are just so.... well, you know!!) :~}

Now the IMAC/giant scale/3D guys it is a HUGE deal. With 2 to 3 servos per surface and so on, the more channels grouped the better. And in that world channel grouping is a very hot topic of conversation.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/4a049032/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 23 07:38:21 2010
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:38:21 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <4BA8D844.4040707@cox.net>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>, , ,
	,,<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>, ,
	,,<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>, ,
	, , <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>,
	, , , <87AD90D1DD6448AAA1051DCDBDF5482F@davedesktop>,
	,,<BAY128-W1200C49A84ECB10BB22CB4A0270@phx.gbl>,
	, , <4BA7EE12.6010000@cox.net>, ,
	<BAY128-W25DD4820856A6E436B4623A0260@phx.gbl>, ,
	<4BA850EB.50706@cox.net>
	<BAY128-W22489F3974D67C14A1AD8EA0260@phx.gbl>,
	<4BA8D844.4040707@cox.net>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W16B9C955B8D6A444A2E52AA0260@phx.gbl>


So going back to my first sentence/example with 6 aileron servos, I would want three each in one of the three groups of four--in this case--2-4 and 5-7.  Any potential latency 'lag' would have to be compensated with servo speed, end point and sub-trim?  But probably in reality, not really noticeable.  In my mind, I am/was confusing 'grouping' and 'mixing' on how grouping works in the radio. Thanks for the clarification.

 

Richard
 


Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:03:32 -0700
From: wemodels at cox.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious

Honestly, you've lost me. On the PPM/PCM 14MZ if you plugged 6 servos in and they were all assigned to aileron the servos plugged into channels 1, 2, 3 would act together, and the servos plugged into channels 4,5,6 would act together. Acting together here means with little or not noticeable latency.

The pre 2.4 14MZ grouped channels into 4 groups of three channels. The 2.4 14MZ makes three groups of 4 channels. It is built into the radio. Plugging a servo into channel one and telling the radio that is aileron and then plugging another servo in to channel 12 and telling the radio that this is also aileron will result in a potential lag for the last servo compared to the first servo. The radio is not going to set up some sort of Master-slave servo/channel mix.

Again, channels 1,2,3,4 are in one group.  
Channels 5,6,7,8 are in a second group
Channels 9,10,11,12 are in a third group.

The signal will get to the servos within each of those three groups at essentially the same time. WHat is plugged into those channels and what function you have assigned those channels is irrelevant from the standpoint of the radio.

So say you had 4 aileron servos, 2 per wing. You plug the left wing servo into channels 1 and 9. You plug the right wing's servos into channel 2 and 10. The two servos on either aileron will not be in synch as far as time that they receive a signal so there may be a potential latency issue. In other words, the servos may "fight" each other.

Channel one is not going to "say" to channel 9 "hey I am in charge and take your lead from me" as far as the timing of the receipt of the signal to move. They will act together in the sense that they will move in response to the aileron command and in the same direction.


Richard Strickland wrote: 


So if I plug say 6 ailerons in to channels 1-6 like the original Futaba MZ web main page shows, we would have to compensate somehow with End Point Adjustment and Servo Speed on two? That doesn't seem right.  It would seem more logical that in a non-grouped setting--but effectively grouped--like ailerons, twin elevator halves, or flaps, you would want them in the 1-4, 5-8, etc. groups--but if you are specifically 'telling' those servos "Pal, you are tied to this guy and he's the boss--you do what he does."...wouldn't the 'grouping' function operate that way?
RS
 



 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/5ba201af/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Tue Mar 23 07:41:26 2010
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:41:26 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A829@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>	<4BA7EB8A.7080500@cox.net>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A829@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
Message-ID: <4BA8E124.3080902@cox.net>

Atwood, Mark wrote:
>
> Hey Bill,
>
>  
>
> I wasn't referring to multiple servos on a single control (2 elevator 
> servos, etc) as much as mixing them to function together.  So for 
> example when you want to reflex the trailing edge of your glider wing, 
> you need your inner and outer Ailerons and Flaps to all move in 
> unison.  That's going to be hard to do with the 14mz if you're asking 
> 6 servos to move exactly together because of the way it sends the 
> signal in groups.  
>

Actually it is no issue at all with the 14MZ, at least not that I have 
noticed on any of the 7 or 8 thermal duration/F3J gliders that I have 
used it in. Keep in mind that 6-servo wings are rather uncommon. The 
most common set up uses 4 servos, one aileron and one flap per wing half.





 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/bdc5853f/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Tue Mar 23 07:46:39 2010
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:46:39 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <BAY128-W16B9C955B8D6A444A2E52AA0260@phx.gbl>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>, , , , ,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>, , , ,
	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>, , , ,
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>,
	, , , <87AD90D1DD6448AAA1051DCDBDF5482F@davedesktop>, , ,
	<BAY128-W1200C49A84ECB10BB22CB4A0270@phx.gbl>, , ,
	<4BA7EE12.6010000@cox.net>, ,
	<BAY128-W25DD4820856A6E436B4623A0260@phx.gbl>, ,
	<4BA850EB.50706@cox.net>	<BAY128-W22489F3974D67C14A1AD8EA0260@phx.gbl>,
	<4BA8D844.4040707@cox.net>
	<BAY128-W16B9C955B8D6A444A2E52AA0260@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4BA8E25E.5070300@cox.net>

Richard Strickland wrote:
> So going back to my first sentence/example with 6 aileron servos, I 
> would want three each in one of the three groups of four--in this 
> case--2-4 and 5-7.  Any potential latency 'lag' would have to be 
> compensated with servo speed, end point and sub-trim?  But probably in 
> reality, not really noticeable.  In my mind, I am/was confusing 
> 'grouping' and 'mixing' on how grouping works in the radio. Thanks for 
> the clarification.
>  
> Richard


Using your example the servos connected together on the same surface are 
going to move in unison (or so close that you cannot tell they are not). 
Regardless of grouping you will still use the radio to fine tune the 
center and end points for each servo connected to the same surface. 
Servo speed you will likely not have to worry about.

Latency does not affect centering or end points. It affects the "when" 
of servo movement. Within the same group the servos all get the "when" 
command at the same time.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/17b36c0b/attachment.html>

From chuenkan at comcast.net  Tue Mar 23 08:27:16 2010
From: chuenkan at comcast.net (Phil Spelt)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:27:16 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <BAY128-W16B9C955B8D6A444A2E52AA0260@phx.gbl>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>
	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<87AD90D1DD6448AAA1051DCDBDF5482F@davedesktop>
	<BAY128-W1200C49A84ECB10BB22CB4A0270@phx.gbl>
	<4BA7EE12.6010000@cox.net>
	<BAY128-W25DD4820856A6E436B4623A0260@phx.gbl>
	<4BA850EB.50706@cox.net>
	<BAY128-W22489F3974D67C14A1AD8EA0260@phx.gbl>
	<4BA8D844.4040707@cox.net>
	<BAY128-W16B9C955B8D6A444A2E52AA0260@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20100323162715.BC53E1167E@bridi.netexpress.com>

Why would it not work to put 4 aileron servos in one group, and 2 
spoileron servos in another group?  I can't imagine that a very 
slight delay between ailerons and "flaps" would matter...

At 11:38 AM 3/23/2010, you wrote:
>So going back to my first sentence/example with 6 aileron servos, I 
>would want three each in one of the three groups of four--in this 
>case--2-4 and 5-7.  Any potential latency 'lag' would have to be 
>compensated with servo speed, end point and sub-trim?  But probably 
>in reality, not really noticeable.  In my mind, I am/was confusing 
>'grouping' and 'mixing' on how grouping works in the radio. Thanks 
>for the clarification.
>
>Richard
>
>
>----------
>Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:03:32 -0700
>From: wemodels at cox.net
>To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
>
>Honestly, you've lost me. On the PPM/PCM 14MZ if you plugged 6 
>servos in and they were all assigned to aileron the servos plugged 
>into channels 1, 2, 3 would act together, and the servos plugged 
>into channels 4,5,6 would act together. Acting together here means 
>with little or not noticeable latency.
>
>The pre 2.4 14MZ grouped channels into 4 groups of three channels. 
>The 2.4 14MZ makes three groups of 4 channels. It is built into the 
>radio. Plugging a servo into channel one and telling the radio that 
>is aileron and then plugging another servo in to channel 12 and 
>telling the radio that this is also aileron will result in a 
>potential lag for the last servo compared to the first servo. The 
>radio is not going to set up some sort of Master-slave servo/channel mix.
>
>Again, channels 1,2,3,4 are in one group.
>Channels 5,6,7,8 are in a second group
>Channels 9,10,11,12 are in a third group.
>
>The signal will get to the servos within each of those three groups 
>at essentially the same time. WHat is plugged into those channels 
>and what function you have assigned those channels is irrelevant 
>from the standpoint of the radio.
>
>So say you had 4 aileron servos, 2 per wing. You plug the left wing 
>servo into channels 1 and 9. You plug the right wing's servos into 
>channel 2 and 10. The two servos on either aileron will not be in 
>synch as far as time that they receive a signal so there may be a 
>potential latency issue. In other words, the servos may "fight" each other.
>
>Channel one is not going to "say" to channel 9 "hey I am in charge 
>and take your lead from me" as far as the timing of the receipt of 
>the signal to move. They will act together in the sense that they 
>will move in response to the aileron command and in the same direction.
>
>
>Richard Strickland wrote:
>So if I plug say 6 ailerons in to channels 1-6 like the original 
>Futaba MZ web main page shows, we would have to compensate somehow 
>with End Point Adjustment and Servo Speed on two? That doesn't seem 
>right.  It would seem more logical that in a non-grouped 
>setting--but effectively grouped--like ailerons, twin elevator 
>halves, or flaps, you would want them in the 1-4, 5-8, etc. 
>groups--but if you are specifically 'telling' those servos "Pal, you 
>are tied to this guy and he's the boss--you do what he 
>does."...wouldn't the 'grouping' function operate that way?
>RS
>
>
>----------
>
>
>
>----------
>Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more 
>from your inbox. 
><http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_2>Sign 
>up now.
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member  SPA--177, Board Member
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/c65d1a94/attachment.html>

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Tue Mar 23 08:29:47 2010
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:29:47 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <4BA8E124.3080902@cox.net>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<4BA7EB8A.7080500@cox.net>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A829@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<4BA8E124.3080902@cox.net>
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A82D@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

Figures I'd end up with a more complicated one to learn on.  I have an Escape as my first F3J plane and it's a 6 servo wing.

At the end of the day I'd be curious to know if anyone can really "feel" the difference that is being discussed here on any of the radio systems.   Slow latency is one thing, but this channel group delay is extremely small...hard for me to believe it's noticeable for 99.9999% of uses, and of the remaining 1 in a million use cases, how many people have the skill to detect it?

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<mailto: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 Bill's Email
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 11:41 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious

Atwood, Mark wrote:
Hey Bill,

I wasn't referring to multiple servos on a single control (2 elevator servos, etc) as much as mixing them to function together.  So for example when you want to reflex the trailing edge of your glider wing, you need your inner and outer Ailerons and Flaps to all move in unison.  That's going to be hard to do with the 14mz if you're asking 6 servos to move exactly together because of the way it sends the signal in groups.

Actually it is no issue at all with the 14MZ, at least not that I have noticed on any of the 7 or 8 thermal duration/F3J gliders that I have used it in. Keep in mind that 6-servo wings are rather uncommon. The most common set up uses 4 servos, one aileron and one flap per wing half.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/e3c002fb/attachment.html>

From Andrew.Jesky at soaringsoftware.com  Tue Mar 23 08:33:16 2010
From: Andrew.Jesky at soaringsoftware.com (Andrew Jesky)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:33:16 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A82D@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<4BA7EB8A.7080500@cox.net>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A829@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<4BA8E124.3080902@cox.net>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A82D@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
Message-ID: <6084008B82B59040B38447C69FF9903304D9C3EEDF@SS2.SoaringSoftware.local>

I'm with you on this one Mark, I could notice the latency a little bit in some systems but the servo grouping is nothing that I can tell. I think the guys that really see this are the heli guys. I have talked to many of them and they do tend to tell me they can "feel" the difference. They are using much more servo throw all the time between positive and negative collective as well as cyclic.

Andrew

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: 2010/03/23 12:30 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious

Figures I'd end up with a more complicated one to learn on.  I have an Escape as my first F3J plane and it's a 6 servo wing.

At the end of the day I'd be curious to know if anyone can really "feel" the difference that is being discussed here on any of the radio systems.   Slow latency is one thing, but this channel group delay is extremely small...hard for me to believe it's noticeable for 99.9999% of uses, and of the remaining 1 in a million use cases, how many people have the skill to detect it?

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<mailto: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 Bill's Email
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 11:41 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious

Atwood, Mark wrote:
Hey Bill,

I wasn't referring to multiple servos on a single control (2 elevator servos, etc) as much as mixing them to function together.  So for example when you want to reflex the trailing edge of your glider wing, you need your inner and outer Ailerons and Flaps to all move in unison.  That's going to be hard to do with the 14mz if you're asking 6 servos to move exactly together because of the way it sends the signal in groups.

Actually it is no issue at all with the 14MZ, at least not that I have noticed on any of the 7 or 8 thermal duration/F3J gliders that I have used it in. Keep in mind that 6-servo wings are rather uncommon. The most common set up uses 4 servos, one aileron and one flap per wing half.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/104b000d/attachment.html>

From AtwoodDon at aol.com  Tue Mar 23 08:33:17 2010
From: AtwoodDon at aol.com (AtwoodDon at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:33:17 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
Message-ID: <4dab8.f5733d6.38da4736@aol.com>

exactly, theory vs actuality.......  I know I wouldn't be able to tell  the 
difference.
 
Don
 
 
In a message dated 3/23/2010 9:29:55 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
atwoodm at paragon-inc.com writes:

 
Figures  I?d end up with a more complicated one to learn on.  I have an 
Escape as  my first F3J plane and it?s a 6 servo wing.    
At  the end of the day I?d be curious to know if anyone can really ?feel? 
the  difference that is being discussed here on any of the radio  systems.   
Slow latency is one thing, but this channel group delay  is extremely small?
hard for me to believe it?s noticeable for 99.9999% of  uses, and of the 
remaining 1 in a million use cases, how many people have the  skill to detect 
it? 
 
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_ (mailto: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 Bill's  Email
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 11:41 AM
To: General  pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]  curious

Atwood, Mark wrote:  
Hey  Bill, 
I  wasn?t referring to multiple servos on a single control (2 elevator 
servos,  etc) as much as mixing them to function together.  So for example when  
you want to reflex the trailing edge of your glider wing, you need your 
inner  and outer Ailerons and Flaps to all move in unison.  That?s going to be  
hard to do with the 14mz if you?re asking 6 servos to move exactly together 
 because of the way it sends the signal in groups.     

Actually it is no issue at all with the 14MZ, at least  not that I have 
noticed on any of the 7 or 8 thermal duration/F3J gliders that  I have used it 
in. Keep in mind that 6-servo wings are rather uncommon. The  most common 
set up uses 4 servos, one aileron and one flap per wing half.  








_______________________________________________
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/20100323/8cb06d4e/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Tue Mar 23 08:41:41 2010
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:41:41 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A82D@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>	<4BA7EB8A.7080500@cox.net>	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A829@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>	<4BA8E124.3080902@cox.net>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A82D@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
Message-ID: <4BA8EF3F.1030604@cox.net>

Atwood, Mark wrote:
>
> Figures I'd end up with a more complicated one to learn on.  I have an 
> Escape as my first F3J plane and it's a 6 servo wing.  
>
>  
>
> At the end of the day I'd be curious to know if anyone can really 
> "feel" the difference that is being discussed here on any of the radio 
> systems.   Slow latency is one thing, but this channel group delay is 
> extremely small...hard for me to believe it's noticeable for 99.9999% 
> of uses, and of the remaining 1 in a million use cases, how many 
> people have the skill to detect it?
>


On the Escape you want to get the two ailerons on each wing half working 
close together. The flaps are less of an issue as far as "synching" with 
the aileron. If using aileron to flap mixing (flaperons) you are not 
going to have as much flaperon throw as aileron in the first place so 
any mismatches are irrelevant. On a 14MZ I would put all 4 aileron 
servos in one group, both flap servos in a second group along with 
rudder and elevator. But even then it would not make much of a difference.

The only time I worry about the grouping is if I am going to have two or 
more servos attached to the same surface, or on surface that really need 
to act in unison like split elevators. If you notice any trim issues due 
to the grouping or even system latency on a F3J/TD plane then you are a 
pretty special guy. I hnag around some of the better soaring pilots in 
the US and the world and this is not a common topic of discussion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/01757bec/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Tue Mar 23 08:45:04 2010
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:45:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <6084008B82B59040B38447C69FF9903304D9C3EEDF@SS2.SoaringSoftware.local>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>	<4BA7EB8A.7080500@cox.net>	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A829@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>	<4BA8E124.3080902@cox.net>	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A82D@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<6084008B82B59040B38447C69FF9903304D9C3EEDF@SS2.SoaringSoftware.local>
Message-ID: <4BA8F00E.6040407@cox.net>

Andrew Jesky wrote:
>
> I'm with you on this one Mark, I could notice the latency a little bit 
> in some systems but the servo grouping is nothing that I can tell. I 
> think the guys that really see this are the heli guys. I have talked 
> to many of them and they do tend to tell me they can "feel" the 
> difference. They are using much more servo throw all the time between 
> positive and negative collective as well as cyclic.
>
>  
>
> Andrew
>
>  
>


Andrew is right, this all got started with the heli guys who flew CCPM. 
On a big plane grouping is noce just to minimize servo stress and 
current draw, but it is not something you are going to feel while 
flying. And in a glider the only thing I ever work hard on matching is 
that the flap throw is matched through the entire range of movement.

Like I said, a couple of years ago nobody even heard of latency, now it 
is the Holy Grail.





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/fe469fca/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 23 09:15:21 2010
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:15:21 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <4BA8F00E.6040407@cox.net>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>, ,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>
	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<4BA7EB8A.7080500@cox.net>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A829@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<4BA8E124.3080902@cox.net>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A82D@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>,
	<6084008B82B59040B38447C69FF9903304D9C3EEDF@SS2.SoaringSoftware.local>,
	<4BA8F00E.6040407@cox.net>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W25A81538E2E7FF48928644A0260@phx.gbl>



 "...a couple of years ago nobody even heard of latency, now it is the Holy Grail."

 

But since it's been brought up--might as well take best advantage what's already there to use.  Age and Treachery only goes so far....

 

RS






 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850552/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/bc24f813/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Tue Mar 23 10:03:11 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:03:11 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <4BA7EB8A.7080500@cox.net>
Message-ID: <747288.3935.qm@web1107.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

It is never an issue with me. I use Hitec servos so I can program each to the correct center and endpoints (can do the same with JR servos and a matchbox). I plug all my servos into a power expander so all servos on one surface plug into one channel on the receiver, the way it should be IMHO. Makes things simpler when programming the radio.? In fact I can swap out one transmitter for another very simply, and use my old 7UAP with a TM-8 module if I want.

Bob R.

--- On Mon, 3/22/10, Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:



Now the IMAC/giant scale/3D guys it is a HUGE deal. With 2 to 3 servos per surface and so on, the more channels grouped the better. And in that world channel grouping is a very hot topic of conversation.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/a89a4f5e/attachment.html>

From wemodels at cox.net  Tue Mar 23 10:08:25 2010
From: wemodels at cox.net (Bill's Email)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:08:25 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <747288.3935.qm@web1107.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
References: <747288.3935.qm@web1107.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4BA90397.4090803@cox.net>

Just a different method to achieve the same goal.




Bob Richards wrote:
> It is never an issue with me. I use Hitec servos so I can program each 
> to the correct center and endpoints (can do the same with JR servos 
> and a matchbox). I plug all my servos into a power expander so all 
> servos on one surface plug into one channel on the receiver, the way 
> it should be IMHO. Makes things simpler when programming the radio.  
> In fact I can swap out one transmitter for another very simply, and 
> use my old 7UAP with a TM-8 module if I want.
> Bob R.
>
> --- On *Mon, 3/22/10, Bill's Email /<wemodels at cox.net>/* wrote:
>
>
>     Now the IMAC/giant scale/3D guys it is a HUGE deal. With 2 to 3
>     servos per surface and so on, the more channels grouped the
>     better. And in that world channel grouping is a very hot topic of
>     conversation.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/2f944893/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Tue Mar 23 10:13:34 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:13:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <4BA7EBE4.6000709@cox.net>
Message-ID: <657375.79791.qm@web1109.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

Well, yeah, there is that.? :-)

--- On Mon, 3/22/10, Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:



And it is WAAAAAAAAY cheaper when you crash and total everything in the plane. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/e0bf251d/attachment.html>

From atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Tue Mar 23 11:05:44 2010
From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com (Atwood, Mark)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:05:44 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
In-Reply-To: <4BA8F00E.6040407@cox.net>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<4BA7EB8A.7080500@cox.net>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A829@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<4BA8E124.3080902@cox.net>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A82D@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<6084008B82B59040B38447C69FF9903304D9C3EEDF@SS2.SoaringSoftware.local>
	<4BA8F00E.6040407@cox.net>
Message-ID: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A841@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>

All of this seems very reminiscent of CD's first coming to the market.

New technology invariably brings a shift in the metrics and specs that we use to evaluate it.  So yes, Latency is the new holy grail, but that's probably accurate.

Quick rewind.  Prior to CDs, shopping for stereo equipment was all about reading the specs, Total harmonic distortion, Signal to Noise ratios, blah blah.  Good specs (for the most part) meant good sound.  And as with all multi component systems, quality depended on the lowest quality component in the system.  A great amp was only as good as the speakers it was driving...and so forth.

Then came Compact Discs, and initially, people were still looking at Signal to Noise ratios on CD players.  It took a few years before it set in that the signal to noise ratio was SO high (unlike a phono or tape deck) that even the crappiest CD players had Signal to Noise ratios that were far superior to anything the human ear could hear and THD that was for all purposes, zero.   On the other hand, new specs DID add value.  Sampling rate, digital to analog conversion rates, etc, became the new measures by which to purchase.    As these have evolved, even those became meaningless to all but the extreme audiophile as again, even the cheapest players had specs that exceeded our ability to hear the difference.

We have the same phenomenon occurring in our hobby.    Latency is a new measure for all intents and purposes, since in there was little variability in the PPM and AM days.

I would argue to all that resolutions above 512, and certainly above 1024, are no longer the weakest component in the system.  Slop in our servo gears and  control linkages, even the best ball bearing ones, still exceed that of a single point of resolution at 1024.    That's good news.   Just like with CD's, it means even the less expensive radios now have resolution that exceeds our needs.

Latency has become a concern only because the early versions of 2.4 had some high latency.  I can NOT knock pioneers who pave the way for the rest to follow and improve on.   We only have faster systems because they brought the first "slow" ones to market and gave us a starting point.

But we're quickly approaching the point where IMHO, latency will be just as irrelevant as resolution in that all the systems will be faster than we're able to perceive and discern any difference.

Yeah, there will always be those that purchase on the technical superiority of a product, but practically speaking, they'll be equals.

Ok, that's my $0.02

I think I'll go play an album...

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<mailto: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 Bill's Email
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 12:45 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious

Andrew Jesky wrote:
I'm with you on this one Mark, I could notice the latency a little bit in some systems but the servo grouping is nothing that I can tell. I think the guys that really see this are the heli guys. I have talked to many of them and they do tend to tell me they can "feel" the difference. They are using much more servo throw all the time between positive and negative collective as well as cyclic.

Andrew



Andrew is right, this all got started with the heli guys who flew CCPM. On a big plane grouping is noce just to minimize servo stress and current draw, but it is not something you are going to feel while flying. And in a glider the only thing I ever work hard on matching is that the flap throw is matched through the entire range of movement.

Like I said, a couple of years ago nobody even heard of latency, now it is the Holy Grail.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/3f8c7feb/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 23 11:33:13 2010
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:33:13 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
In-Reply-To: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A841@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>, ,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>
	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>,
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>,
	<4BA7EB8A.7080500@cox.net>,
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A829@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>,
	<4BA8E124.3080902@cox.net>,
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A82D@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>,
	<6084008B82B59040B38447C69FF9903304D9C3EEDF@SS2.SoaringSoftware.local>,
	<4BA8F00E.6040407@cox.net>,
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A841@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W176449DE3C51DD84AB4FB3A0260@phx.gbl>



 


I think I?ll go play an album?
 

Mark
 
 
On your DaVinci?
 
RS 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/3de3b3b5/attachment.html>

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 23 11:38:59 2010
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:38:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
In-Reply-To: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A841@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
Message-ID: <300293.70528.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

I still play LP's . . . . . . none of that chopped-up digital for me, analog forever !!!!!

Bob Kane

getterflash at yahoo.com

--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 3:05 PM




 
 






All of this seems very reminiscent of CD?s first coming to
the market. 

 ? 

New technology invariably brings a shift in the metrics and
specs that we use to evaluate it.? So yes, Latency is the new holy grail,
but that?s probably accurate. 

 ? 

Quick rewind.? Prior to CDs, shopping for stereo equipment
was all about reading the specs, Total harmonic distortion, Signal to Noise
ratios, blah blah.? Good specs (for the most part) meant good sound.?
And as with all multi component systems, quality depended on the lowest quality
component in the system.? A great amp was only as good as the speakers it
was driving?and so forth. 

 ? 

Then came Compact Discs, and initially, people were still looking
at Signal to Noise ratios on CD players.? It took a few years before it
set in that the signal to noise ratio was SO high (unlike a phono or tape deck)
that even the crappiest CD players had Signal to Noise ratios that were far
superior to anything the human ear could hear and THD that was for all
purposes, zero.?? On the other hand, new specs DID add value.? Sampling
rate, digital to analog conversion rates, etc, became the new measures by which
to purchase.??? As these have evolved, even those became
meaningless to all but the extreme audiophile as again, even the cheapest
players had specs that exceeded our ability to hear the difference. 

 ? 

We have the same phenomenon occurring in our hobby.???
Latency is a new measure for all intents and purposes, since in there was
little variability in the PPM and AM days.??  

 ? 

I would argue to all that resolutions above 512, and certainly
above 1024, are no longer the weakest component in the system. ?Slop in
our servo gears and ?control linkages, even the best ball bearing ones,
still exceed that of a single point of resolution at 1024.???
That?s good news.?? Just like with CD?s, it means even
the less expensive radios now have resolution that exceeds our needs.?  

 ? 

Latency has become a concern only because the early versions of
2.4 had some high latency.? I can NOT knock pioneers who pave the way for
the rest to follow and improve on.?? We only have faster systems because
they brought the first ?slow? ones to market and gave us a starting
point. 

 ? 

But we?re quickly approaching the point where IMHO, latency
will be just as irrelevant as resolution in that all the systems will be faster
than we?re able to perceive and discern any difference. 

 ? 

Yeah, there will always be those that purchase on the technical
superiority of a product, but practically speaking, they?ll be
equals.?? ?? 

 ? 

Ok, that?s my $0.02 

 ? 

I think I?ll go play an album? 

 ? 



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 Bill's
Email

Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 12:45 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious 





 ? 

Andrew Jesky wrote:  

I?m with you on this one Mark, I could notice the latency
a little bit in some systems but the servo grouping is nothing that I can tell.
I think the guys that really see this are the heli guys. I have talked to many
of them and they do tend to tell me they can ?feel? the difference.
They are using much more servo throw all the time between positive and negative
collective as well as cyclic.  

? 

Andrew 

? 





Andrew is right, this all got started with the heli guys who flew CCPM. On a
big plane grouping is noce just to minimize servo stress and current draw, but
it is not something you are going to feel while flying. And in a glider the
only thing I ever work hard on matching is that the flap throw is matched
through the entire range of movement.



Like I said, a couple of years ago nobody even heard of latency, now it is the
Holy Grail.









 



 


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/20100323/4f24357b/attachment.html>

From chuenkan at comcast.net  Tue Mar 23 11:45:57 2010
From: chuenkan at comcast.net (Phil Spelt)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:45:57 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
In-Reply-To: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A841@PEVM01.paragon-
	inc.com>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>
	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<4BA7EB8A.7080500@cox.net>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A829@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<4BA8E124.3080902@cox.net>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A82D@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<6084008B82B59040B38447C69FF9903304D9C3EEDF@SS2.SoaringSoftware.local>
	<4BA8F00E.6040407@cox.net>
	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A841@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
Message-ID: <20100323194557.83C0C11681@bridi.netexpress.com>

GREAT analysis, Mark!  Thanks...obviously, I agree!

At 03:05 PM 3/23/2010, you wrote:
>Content-Language: en-US
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> 
>boundary="_000_99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A841PEVM01paragon_"
>
>All of this seems very reminiscent of CD?s first coming to the market.
>
>New technology invariably brings a shift in the 
>metrics and specs that we use to evaluate 
>it.  So yes, Latency is the new holy grail, but that?s probably accurate.
>
>Quick rewind.  Prior to CDs, shopping for stereo 
>equipment was all about reading the specs, Total 
>harmonic distortion, Signal to Noise ratios, 
>blah blah.  Good specs (for the most part) meant 
>good sound.  And as with all multi component 
>systems, quality depended on the lowest quality 
>component in the system.  A great amp was only 
>as good as the speakers it was driving
and so forth.
>
>Then came Compact Discs, and initially, people 
>were still looking at Signal to Noise ratios on 
>CD players.  It took a few years before it set 
>in that the signal to noise ratio was SO high 
>(unlike a phono or tape deck) that even the 
>crappiest CD players had Signal to Noise ratios 
>that were far superior to anything the human ear 
>could hear and THD that was for all purposes, 
>zero.   On the other hand, new specs DID add 
>value.  Sampling rate, digital to analog 
>conversion rates, etc, became the new measures 
>by which to purchase.    As these have evolved, 
>even those became meaningless to all but the 
>extreme audiophile as again, even the cheapest 
>players had specs that exceeded our ability to hear the difference.
>
>We have the same phenomenon occurring in our 
>hobby.    Latency is a new measure for all 
>intents and purposes, since in there was little 
>variability in the PPM and AM days.
>
>I would argue to all that resolutions above 512, 
>and certainly above 1024, are no longer the 
>weakest component in the system.  Slop in our 
>servo gears and  control linkages, even the best 
>ball bearing ones, still exceed that of a single 
>point of resolution at 1024.    That?s good 
>news.   Just like with CD?s, it means even the 
>less expensive radios now have resolution that exceeds our needs.
>
>Latency has become a concern only because the 
>early versions of 2.4 had some high latency.  I 
>can NOT knock pioneers who pave the way for the 
>rest to follow and improve on.   We only have 
>faster systems because they brought the first 
>?slow? ones to market and gave us a starting point.
>
>But we?re quickly approaching the point where 
>IMHO, latency will be just as irrelevant as 
>resolution in that all the systems will be 
>faster than we?re able to perceive and discern any difference.
>
>Yeah, there will always be those that purchase 
>on the technical superiority of a product, but 
>practically speaking, they?ll be equals.
>
>Ok, that?s my $0.02
>
>I think I?ll go play an album

>
>Mark Atwood
>Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
>5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
>Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
><mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>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 Bill's Email
>Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 12:45 PM
>To: General pattern discussion
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
>
>Andrew Jesky wrote:
>I?m with you on this one Mark, I could notice 
>the latency a little bit in some systems but the 
>servo grouping is nothing that I can tell. I 
>think the guys that really see this are the heli 
>guys. I have talked to many of them and they do 
>tend to tell me they can ?feel? the difference. 
>They are using much more servo throw all the 
>time between positive and negative collective as well as cyclic.
>
>Andrew
>
>
>
>Andrew is right, this all got started with the 
>heli guys who flew CCPM. On a big plane grouping 
>is noce just to minimize servo stress and 
>current draw, but it is not something you are 
>going to feel while flying. And in a glider the 
>only thing I ever work hard on matching is that 
>the flap throw is matched through the entire range of movement.
>
>Like I said, a couple of years ago nobody even 
>heard of latency, now it is the Holy Grail.
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member  SPA--177, Board Member
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/10d7dfd8/attachment.html>

From ejhaury at comcast.net  Tue Mar 23 11:57:12 2010
From: ejhaury at comcast.net (Earl Haury)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:57:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <3F4ED3A76AB54255B1FB4523EDE29FDD@george15cf36d8>
References: <3F4ED3A76AB54255B1FB4523EDE29FDD@george15cf36d8>
Message-ID: <D0A88D71903A4CE5A02269826AAA313D@EarlPC>

Hi Georgie

Sorry for the late reply, I've been very busy the last few days. Thanks for starting an interesting thread regarding the latency item. I have a suspicion that the installation of 2.4mHz equipment may not be your problem. Your 5 year old TX, has been idle for a couple of months as I understand your post. It's entirely possible that your problem is simply worn TX stick pots that have had a chance to rot a little while not being used. These things will sneak up on one much like worn servo pots and ruin the "feel" of any airplane. Might be worth a look.

Good luck

Earl
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: GEORGE KENNIE 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 5:08 PM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious


  I have a question for anyone that has the technical understanding of these matters and I hope you can help me understand my dilemma. ?

  I have a 9C radio that I purchased approx 5 yrs ago and it has served me extremely well all thru that period. About a year ago, not wanting 
  to be left behind, I also purchased a 2.4 module and receiver so that I could fly even though other guys were on my freq. 

  I had been flying a Cermark Javelin and had gotten it trimmed to the point where I could really enjoy flying it.
  For a couple of months I stopped flying the Javelin and flew a couple of foamies on 72, but ultimately I got my act together and decided to install 
  the 2.4 receiver in the Javelin and go fly to my hearts content.

  The subsequent flights on the Javelin did not feel like the Javelin of old, but I chalked it up to the fact that I hadn't flown the Jav for an extended 
  period and had lost my feel for the plane. For some inexplicable reason the Javelin just didn't seem to lock as well as it seemed to have previously 
  done.

  With the passage of time I purchased a Sequence because I liked the looks of the force arrangement and figured it should fly possibly better than
  the Javelin. I did a thorough job of set-up on the Sequence and I had seen some vids of other guys flying it and the performance seemed quite good
  so after moving the 2.4 rcvr from the Javelin into the Sequence,  off to the field I go with great expectations,...........NOT!
  After the maiden flight my reaction was,......."I'd rather fly my foamy!"

  After flying yesterday, I became engrossed in a conversation with a buddy who has a dedicated 2.4 system and we got talking about the latency 
  issues in the non-dedicated systems and the gears started turning in my noodle. So my question is........Am I seeing latency issues between the 
  performance of my 9C on 2.4 relative to the 72 mg spectrum?
  Tony?   Dave?  Earl?  Bob?   I need somebody to calm my turbulent thoughts on this matter and thanks for the help.

  Georgie 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20100323/39232bca/attachment.html>

From chuenkan at comcast.net  Tue Mar 23 12:08:54 2010
From: chuenkan at comcast.net (Phil Spelt)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:08:54 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
In-Reply-To: <300293.70528.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A841@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>
	<300293.70528.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20100323200854.1586A1167C@bridi.netexpress.com>

Interesting, Bob.  My "little" brother is 'Ultra 
Fidelis' in Milwaukee, WI, and I remember 
discussing with him about CDs and LPs, many years 
ago.  He argued, at the time, that ANY TIME you 
convert from one system to another 
(live-->analog-->HiFi-->ear, or 
live-->analog-->digital-->analog-->HiFi-->ear) 
you lose some information, so the final product 
will NEVER be as good as the original, and will 
be worse with digital recording.  He also said 
that, because of the mechanical components, a CD 
player would NEVER cost less than about 
$350.00.  Well, he still sells vacuum tubes and 
vinyl, but HE listens to CDs and DVDs...go 
figure!!!  Any of you guys with deep pockets who 
love great music, Jon travels around the country 
installing top-line audio and visual equipment -- 
http://www.ultrafi.com/  a shameless plug. :-)

At 03:38 PM 3/23/2010, you wrote:
>I still play LP's . . . . . . none of that 
>chopped-up digital for me, analog forever !!!!!
>
>Bob Kane
>getterflash at yahoo.com
>
>--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
>
>From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
>To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 3:05 PM
>
>All of this seems very reminiscent of CD???s first coming to the market.
>
>
>
>New technology invariably brings a shift in the 
>metrics and specs that we use to evaluate 
>it.  So yes, Latency is the new holy grail, but that???s probably accurate.
>
>
>
>Quick rewind.  Prior to CDs, shopping for stereo 
>equipment was all about reading the specs, Total 
>harmonic distortion, Signal to Noise ratios, 
>blah blah.  Good specs (for the most part) meant 
>good sound.  And as with all multi component 
>systems, quality depended on the lowest quality 
>component in the system.  A great amp was only 
>as good as the speakers it was driving
and so forth.
>
>
>
>Then came Compact Discs, and initially, people 
>were still looking at Signal to Noise ratios on 
>CD players.  It took a few years before it set 
>in that the signal to noise ratio was SO high 
>(unlike a phono or tape deck) that even the 
>crappiest CD players had Signal to Noise ratios 
>that were far superior to anything the human ear 
>could hear and THD that was for all purposes, 
>zero.   On the other hand, new specs DID add 
>value.  Sampling rate, digital to analog 
>conversion rates, etc, became the new measures 
>by which to purchase.    As these have evolved, 
>even those became meaningless to all but the 
>extreme audiophile as again, even the cheapest 
>players had specs that exceeded our ability to hear the difference.
>
>
>
>We have the same phenomenon occurring in our 
>hobby.    Latency is a new measure for all 
>intents and purposes, since in there was little 
>variability in the PPM and AM days.
>
>
>
>I would argue to all that resolutions above 512, 
>and certainly above 1024, are no longer the 
>weakest component in the system.  Slop in our 
>servo gears and  control linkages, even the best 
>ball bearing ones, still exceed that of a single 
>point of resolution at 1024.    That???s good 
>news.   Just like with CD???s, it means even the 
>less expensive radios now have resolution that exceeds our needs.
>
>
>
>Latency has become a concern only because the 
>early versions of 2.4 had some high latency.  I 
>can NOT knock pioneers who pave the way for the 
>rest to follow and improve on.   We only have 
>faster systems because they brought the first 
>???slow??? ones to market and gave us a starting point.
>
>
>
>But we???re quickly approaching the point where 
>IMHO, latency will be just as irrelevant as 
>resolution in that all the systems will be 
>faster than we???re able to perceive and discern any difference.
>
>
>
>Yeah, there will always be those that purchase 
>on the technical superiority of a product, but 
>practically speaking, they???ll be equals.
>
>
>
>Ok, that???s my $0.02
>
>
>
>I think I???ll go play an album

>
>
>
>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 Bill's Email
>Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 12:45 PM
>To: General pattern discussion
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
>
>
>
>Andrew Jesky wrote:
>
>I???m with you on this one Mark, I could notice 
>the latency a little bit in some systems but the 
>servo grouping is nothing that I can tell. I 
>think the guys that really see this are the heli 
>guys. I have talked to many of them and they do 
>tend to tell me they can ???feel??? the 
>difference. They are using much more servo throw 
>all the time between positive and negative collective as well as cyclic.
>
>
>
>Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>Andrew is right, this all got started with the 
>heli guys who flew CCPM. On a big plane grouping 
>is noce just to minimize servo stress and 
>current draw, but it is not something you are 
>going to feel while flying. And in a glider the 
>only thing I ever work hard on matching is that 
>the flap throw is matched through the entire range of movement.
>
>Like I said, a couple of years ago nobody even 
>heard of latency, now it is the Holy Grail.
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>_______________________________________________
>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

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member  SPA--177, Board Member
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/84de02fa/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Tue Mar 23 12:22:46 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:22:46 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
In-Reply-To: <300293.70528.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <667617.74132.qm@web1109.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

Yeah, but if you are REALLY a purist, you will use a tube amp!!
?
:-)
?
Bob R.


--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> wrote:







I still play LP's . . . . . . none of that chopped-up digital for me, analog forever !!!!!

?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/b14d990f/attachment.html>

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 23 12:36:38 2010
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:36:38 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
In-Reply-To: <667617.74132.qm@web1109.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <246146.97897.qm@web113302.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

I do . . . . .? Dynaco PAS3 preamp into a pair of Dynaco MKIII's.? I rebuilt them myself in the mid 90's, still going strong.

Bob Kane

getterflash at yahoo.com

--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com> wrote:

From: Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 4:22 PM

Yeah, but if you are REALLY a purist, you will use a tube amp!!
?
:-)
?
Bob R.


--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> wrote:







I still play LP's . . . . . . none of that chopped-up digital for me, analog forever !!!!!

?
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/20100323/3758c4de/attachment.html>

From kysung at comcast.net  Tue Mar 23 12:42:30 2010
From: kysung at comcast.net (kysung at comcast.net)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:42:30 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
In-Reply-To: <246146.97897.qm@web113302.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1477436664.1625261269376949677.JavaMail.root@sz0097a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>



I do too...SET amp with RCA 45 triode. 






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Kane" <getterflash at yahoo.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 1:36:37 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs... 

I do . . . . .? Dynaco PAS3 preamp into a pair of Dynaco MKIII's.? I rebuilt them myself in the mid 90's, still going strong. 

Bob Kane 
getterflash at yahoo.com 

--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com> wrote: 



From: Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com> 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs... 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 4:22 PM 



Yeah, but if you are REALLY a purist, you will use a tube amp!! 

:-) 

Bob R. 


--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> wrote: 




I still play LP's . . . . . . none of that chopped-up digital for me, analog forever !!!!! 


-----Inline Attachment Follows----- 


_______________________________________________ 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/8d0ef010/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Tue Mar 23 12:44:51 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:44:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
In-Reply-To: <246146.97897.qm@web113302.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7906.77980.qm@web1111.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

LOL! I should have known!! :-)

--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> wrote:








I do . . . . .? Dynaco PAS3 preamp into a pair of Dynaco MKIII's.? I rebuilt them myself in the mid 90's, still going strong.

Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com

--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com> wrote:


From: Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 4:22 PM







Yeah, but if you are REALLY a purist, you will use a tube amp!!
?
:-)
?
Bob R.


--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> wrote:







I still play LP's . . . . . . none of that chopped-up digital for me, analog forever !!!!!

?
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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/20100323/1271e7d7/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Tue Mar 23 12:51:00 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:51:00 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
In-Reply-To: <1477436664.1625261269376949677.JavaMail.root@sz0097a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <321890.78575.qm@web1103.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

So, do you guys still fly Kraft radios on 27 MHz?? Or is 2.4ghz where you draw the line??
?
BTW, in electronics class I learned amplifier theory with tube amps. Of course, I would not be able to draw a tube circuit now if my life depended on it. :-(
?
Bob R

--- On Tue, 3/23/10, kysung at comcast.net <kysung at comcast.net> wrote:


From: kysung at comcast.net <kysung at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 4:42 PM



#yiv743597021 p {margin:0;}


I do too...SET amp with RCA 45 triode.
?
?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Kane" <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 1:36:37 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...





I do . . . . .? Dynaco PAS3 preamp into a pair of Dynaco MKIII's.? I rebuilt them myself in the mid 90's, still going strong.

Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com

--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com> wrote:


From: Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 4:22 PM







Yeah, but if you are REALLY a purist, you will use a tube amp!!
?
:-)
?
Bob R.


--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> wrote:







I still play LP's . . . . . . none of that chopped-up digital for me, analog forever !!!!!

?
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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/20100323/31011fe6/attachment.html>

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 23 13:01:37 2010
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:01:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
In-Reply-To: <7906.77980.qm@web1111.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <465011.14106.qm@web113303.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

The hardest part of the rebuild was finding a shop to re-chrome the chassis. There are not many small shops left.? Tubes are easier to find now (and cheaper) than they were in the mid-90's.


Bob Kane

getterflash at yahoo.com

--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com> wrote:

From: Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 4:44 PM

LOL! I should have known!! :-)

--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> wrote:








I do . . . . .? Dynaco PAS3 preamp into a pair of Dynaco MKIII's.? I rebuilt them myself in the mid 90's, still going strong.

Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com

--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com> wrote:


From: Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 4:22 PM







Yeah, but if you are REALLY a purist, you will use a tube amp!!
?
:-)
?
Bob R.


--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> wrote:







I still play LP's . . . . . . none of that chopped-up digital for me, analog forever !!!!!

?
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/20100323/4e912409/attachment.html>

From getterflash at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 23 13:07:13 2010
From: getterflash at yahoo.com (Bob Kane)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:07:13 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
In-Reply-To: <20100323200854.1586A1167C@bridi.netexpress.com>
Message-ID: <16747.58774.qm@web113311.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

I do have a CD player plugged into the preamp, and when I do live recording I use a digital recorder.


Bob Kane

getterflash at yahoo.com

--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Phil Spelt <chuenkan at comcast.net> wrote:

From: Phil Spelt <chuenkan at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 4:08 PM


 
Interesting, Bob.? My "little" brother is
'Ultra Fidelis' in Milwaukee, WI, and I remember discussing with him
about CDs and LPs, many years ago.? He argued, at the time, that ANY
TIME you convert from one system to another
(live-->analog-->HiFi-->ear, or
live-->analog-->digital-->analog-->HiFi-->ear) you lose
some information, so the final product will NEVER be as good as the
original, and will be worse with digital recording.? He also said
that, because of the mechanical components, a CD player would NEVER cost
less than about $350.00.? Well, he still sells vacuum tubes and
vinyl, but HE listens to CDs and DVDs...go figure!!!? Any of you
guys with deep pockets who love great music, Jon travels around the
country installing top-line audio and visual equipment --

http://www.ultrafi.com/? a shameless plug.  :-)


At 03:38 PM 3/23/2010, you wrote:

I still play LP's . . . . . .
none of that chopped-up digital for me, analog forever !!!!!


Bob Kane

getterflash at yahoo.com


--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Atwood, Mark
<atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:





From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>


Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...


To: "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>


Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 3:05 PM



All of this seems very reminiscent of CD???s first coming to the
market.



?



New technology invariably brings a shift in the metrics and specs
that we use to evaluate it.? So yes, Latency is the new holy grail,
but that???s probably accurate.



?



Quick rewind.? Prior to CDs, shopping for stereo equipment was
all about reading the specs, Total harmonic distortion, Signal to Noise
ratios, blah blah.? Good specs (for the most part) meant good
sound.? And as with all multi component systems, quality depended on
the lowest quality component in the system.? A great amp was only as
good as the speakers it was driving?and so forth.



?



Then came Compact Discs, and initially, people were still looking at
Signal to Noise ratios on CD players.? It took a few years before it
set in that the signal to noise ratio was SO high (unlike a phono or tape
deck) that even the crappiest CD players had Signal to Noise ratios that
were far superior to anything the human ear could hear and THD that was
for all purposes, zero.?? On the other hand, new specs DID add
value.? Sampling rate, digital to analog conversion rates, etc,
became the new measures by which to purchase.??? As these
have evolved, even those became meaningless to all but the extreme
audiophile as again, even the cheapest players had specs that exceeded
our ability to hear the difference.



?



We have the same phenomenon occurring in our hobby.???
Latency is a new measure for all intents and purposes, since in there was
little variability in the PPM and AM days.?? 



?



I would argue to all that resolutions above 512, and certainly above
1024, are no longer the weakest component in the system.? Slop in
our servo gears and? control linkages, even the best ball bearing
ones, still exceed that of a single point of resolution at
1024.??? That???s good news.?? Just like with
CD???s, it means even the less expensive radios now have resolution that
exceeds our needs.? 



?



Latency has become a concern only because the early versions of 2.4
had some high latency.? I can NOT knock pioneers who pave the way
for the rest to follow and improve on.?? We only have faster
systems because they brought the first ???slow??? ones to market and gave
us a starting point.



?



But we???re quickly approaching the point where IMHO, latency will be
just as irrelevant as resolution in that all the systems will be faster
than we???re able to perceive and discern any difference.



?



Yeah, there will always be those that purchase on the technical
superiority of a product, but practically speaking, they???ll be
equals.???? 



?



Ok, that???s my $0.02



?



I think I???ll go play an album?



?



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
Bill's Email


Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 12:45 PM


To: General pattern discussion


Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious



?



Andrew Jesky wrote: 



I???m with you on this one Mark, I could notice the latency a little
bit in some systems but the servo grouping is nothing that I can tell. I
think the guys that really see this are the heli guys. I have talked to
many of them and they do tend to tell me they can ???feel??? the
difference. They are using much more servo throw all the time between
positive and negative collective as well as cyclic. 



?



Andrew



?






Andrew is right, this all got started with the heli guys who flew
CCPM. On a big plane grouping is noce just to minimize servo stress and
current draw, but it is not something you are going to feel while flying.
And in a glider the only thing I ever work hard on matching is that the
flap throw is matched through the entire range of movement.



Like I said, a couple of years ago nobody even heard of latency, now
it is the Holy Grail.









-----Inline Attachment Follows-----



_______________________________________________


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
 
-->
There are only two
types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.


Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio
Control Society, Inc.

?????? URL:

http://www.kcrctn.com

AMA--1294,? Scientific Leader Member? SPA--177, Board
Member

????? My URL:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/

????? (865) 435-1476 v? (865) 604-0541
c  

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/20100323/0f39bfeb/attachment.html>

From geobet4 at verizon.net  Tue Mar 23 13:12:51 2010
From: geobet4 at verizon.net (GEORGE KENNIE)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:12:51 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
References: <3F4ED3A76AB54255B1FB4523EDE29FDD@george15cf36d8>
	<D0A88D71903A4CE5A02269826AAA313D@EarlPC>
Message-ID: <40805980DF8D4E1CAC4C608861C8FDF4@george15cf36d8>

Thanks Earl, I always get a great responce from you. Hope all is well with you.

Georgie
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Earl Haury 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 3:56 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious


  Hi Georgie

  Sorry for the late reply, I've been very busy the last few days. Thanks for starting an interesting thread regarding the latency item. I have a suspicion that the installation of 2.4mHz equipment may not be your problem. Your 5 year old TX, has been idle for a couple of months as I understand your post. It's entirely possible that your problem is simply worn TX stick pots that have had a chance to rot a little while not being used. These things will sneak up on one much like worn servo pots and ruin the "feel" of any airplane. Might be worth a look.

  Good luck

  Earl
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: GEORGE KENNIE 
    To: General pattern discussion 
    Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 5:08 PM
    Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious


    I have a question for anyone that has the technical understanding of these matters and I hope you can help me understand my dilemma. ?

    I have a 9C radio that I purchased approx 5 yrs ago and it has served me extremely well all thru that period. About a year ago, not wanting 
    to be left behind, I also purchased a 2.4 module and receiver so that I could fly even though other guys were on my freq. 

    I had been flying a Cermark Javelin and had gotten it trimmed to the point where I could really enjoy flying it.
    For a couple of months I stopped flying the Javelin and flew a couple of foamies on 72, but ultimately I got my act together and decided to install 
    the 2.4 receiver in the Javelin and go fly to my hearts content.

    The subsequent flights on the Javelin did not feel like the Javelin of old, but I chalked it up to the fact that I hadn't flown the Jav for an extended 
    period and had lost my feel for the plane. For some inexplicable reason the Javelin just didn't seem to lock as well as it seemed to have previously 
    done.

    With the passage of time I purchased a Sequence because I liked the looks of the force arrangement and figured it should fly possibly better than
    the Javelin. I did a thorough job of set-up on the Sequence and I had seen some vids of other guys flying it and the performance seemed quite good
    so after moving the 2.4 rcvr from the Javelin into the Sequence,  off to the field I go with great expectations,...........NOT!
    After the maiden flight my reaction was,......."I'd rather fly my foamy!"

    After flying yesterday, I became engrossed in a conversation with a buddy who has a dedicated 2.4 system and we got talking about the latency 
    issues in the non-dedicated systems and the gears started turning in my noodle. So my question is........Am I seeing latency issues between the 
    performance of my 9C on 2.4 relative to the 72 mg spectrum?
    Tony?   Dave?  Earl?  Bob?   I need somebody to calm my turbulent thoughts on this matter and thanks for the help.

    Georgie 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    _______________________________________________
    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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/60937403/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Tue Mar 23 14:49:56 2010
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:49:56 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
In-Reply-To: <4BA8F00E.6040407@cox.net>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>	<4BA7EB8A.7080500@cox.net>	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A829@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>	<4BA8E124.3080902@cox.net>	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A82D@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com><6084008B82B59040B38447C69FF9903304D9C3EEDF@SS2.SoaringSoftware.local>
	<4BA8F00E.6040407@cox.net>
Message-ID: <987C7127CD37461990ACBF7EE5CF3D56@davedesktop>

Bill wrote -

Like I said, a couple of years ago nobody even heard of latency, now it is
the Holy Grail.

 

I might be in the minority, but latency was most certainly an issue with
some of the early PCM radios (which were SLOW, compared to a good FM set).

 

So far as the latency in recent times, it was noticeable with early 2.4
sets..and even some relatively modern sets I find difficult to fly because
of the variation in latency (differential between minimum response time and
maximum response time).  Most of the modern radios are fast enough that the
latency is not an issue, and whatever latency there is can be pretty easily
adjusted too, if it is consistent.

 

Regards,

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill's Email
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 12:45 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious

 

Andrew Jesky wrote: 

I'm with you on this one Mark, I could notice the latency a little bit in
some systems but the servo grouping is nothing that I can tell. I think the
guys that really see this are the heli guys. I have talked to many of them
and they do tend to tell me they can "feel" the difference. They are using
much more servo throw all the time between positive and negative collective
as well as cyclic. 

 

Andrew

 



Andrew is right, this all got started with the heli guys who flew CCPM. On a
big plane grouping is noce just to minimize servo stress and current draw,
but it is not something you are going to feel while flying. And in a glider
the only thing I ever work hard on matching is that the flap throw is
matched through the entire range of movement.

Like I said, a couple of years ago nobody even heard of latency, now it is
the Holy Grail.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/f5f121ed/attachment.html>

From pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net  Tue Mar 23 18:32:18 2010
From: pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net (Ihncheol Park)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:32:18 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Castle Field Programmer & Castle Link
In-Reply-To: <987C7127CD37461990ACBF7EE5CF3D56@davedesktop>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>	<4BA7EB8A.7080500@cox.net>	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A829@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>	<4BA8E124.3080902@cox.net>	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A82D@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com><6084008B82B59040B38447C69FF9903304D9C3EEDF@SS2.SoaringSoftware.local>	<4BA8F00E.6040407@cox.net>
	<987C7127CD37461990ACBF7EE5CF3D56@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <01c901cacafa$386469e0$a92d3da0$@net>

Does anyone have experience with Castle Creations' Field Programmer?

Can you compare the differences between the standard PC Castle Link and
Field Programmer?

 

Thanks,

 

Ihncheol 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100324/2e838eb5/attachment.html>

From love2flypattern at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 23 18:45:59 2010
From: love2flypattern at yahoo.com (Jarvis Johnson)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:45:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Castle Field Programmer & Castle Link
In-Reply-To: <01c901cacafa$386469e0$a92d3da0$@net>
Message-ID: <782190.86149.qm@web52702.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

The PC offers,?you more set up's, for your ESC

--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Ihncheol Park <pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


From: Ihncheol Park <pnahobbies at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Castle Field Programmer & Castle Link
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 7:32 PM








Does anyone have experience with Castle Creations? Field Programmer?
Can you compare the differences between the standard PC Castle Link and Field Programmer?
?
Thanks,
?
Ihncheol 
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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/20100324/213ca787/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Tue Mar 23 19:02:23 2010
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 03:02:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Castle Field Programmer & Castle Link
In-Reply-To: <01c901cacafa$386469e0$a92d3da0$@net>
References: <93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>,
	<4BA767B2.9010802@cox.net>	<BAY128-W71BBC37AC85DFFAE39C7AA0270@phx.gbl>	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A7F5@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>	<4BA7EB8A.7080500@cox.net>	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A829@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com>	<4BA8E124.3080902@cox.net>	<99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A82D@PEVM01.paragon-inc.com><6084008B82B59040B38447C69FF9903304D9C3EEDF@SS2.SoaringSoftware.local>	<4BA8F00E.6040407@cox.net><987C7127CD37461990ACBF7EE5CF3D56@davedesktop>
	<01c901cacafa$386469e0$a92d3da0$@net>
Message-ID: <47D53B6700834C1F8B19D0D14790DCF9@davedesktop>

The Castle Link is the interface to the PC which allows all software
settings in the ESC to be programmed.  The Field Programmer can be used as a
Castle Link.  The Field Programmer additionally allows most of the software
settings to be changed without a PC.  More advanced/detailed settings still
need to be done on the PC.  Settings that can be changed with the Field
Programmer are listed on the Castle site -

http://www.castlecreations.com/products/field_link.html

 

Regards,

 

Dave Lockhart

Team Castle Creations

 

 

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ihncheol Park
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:32 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Castle Field Programmer & Castle Link

 

Does anyone have experience with Castle Creations' Field Programmer?

Can you compare the differences between the standard PC Castle Link and
Field Programmer?

 

Thanks,

 

Ihncheol 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100324/bcc72a50/attachment.html>

From lodomjr at verizon.net  Fri Mar 26 03:45:30 2010
From: lodomjr at verizon.net (Larry Odom)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:45:30 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] test
Message-ID: <JGECJPKHFCGHOPOLPIAHOEEKCEAA.lodomjr@verizon.net>

Just testing to see if the list is working.  

Larry

From pcosky at comcast.net  Fri Mar 26 04:17:37 2010
From: pcosky at comcast.net (Pete Cosky)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:17:37 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] test
Message-ID: <20100326121736.BE6EB11625@bridi.netexpress.com>

It is

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Odom <lodomjr at verizon.net>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 7:45 AM
To: NSRCA <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] test

Just testing to see if the list is working.  

Larry
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From iflyrc24 at gmail.com  Fri Mar 26 05:03:35 2010
From: iflyrc24 at gmail.com (Dowayne Gould)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:03:35 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] News letter articles
Message-ID: <af8f9c4e1003260603r3ce08a0etf1c94ea8e9007c0d@mail.gmail.com>

I have been asked of I could submit a beginers pattern article for the club
news letter and web site. Since I am not any kind of writer is there a good
source for such an article?
Thanks
Dowayne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100326/fc321d78/attachment.html>

From humptybump at sbcglobal.net  Fri Mar 26 05:07:59 2010
From: humptybump at sbcglobal.net (Richard Lewis)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:07:59 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] News letter articles
In-Reply-To: <af8f9c4e1003260603r3ce08a0etf1c94ea8e9007c0d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <af8f9c4e1003260603r3ce08a0etf1c94ea8e9007c0d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <597558.60247.qm@web80508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

You can look here...

http://pages.suddenlink.net/donramsey/

Don has alot of good articles on his site.? The "Max Points in Sportsman" article is really good.? Also if you look in the Building/Flying/Engine techniques section there are some other nice items that may be of interest to a beginner.

Richard




________________________________
From: Dowayne Gould <iflyrc24 at gmail.com>
To: NSRCA <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Fri, March 26, 2010 8:03:34 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] News letter articles


I have been asked of I could submit a beginers pattern article for the club news letter and web site. Since I am not any kind of writer is there a good source for such an article?
Thanks
Dowayne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100326/479665fd/attachment.html>

From ldiamond at diamondrc.com  Fri Mar 26 06:20:53 2010
From: ldiamond at diamondrc.com (ldiamond at diamondrc.com)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:20:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] News letter articles
Message-ID: <48546.29824.qm@web1107.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

Dowayne,
?
When I get home tonight I will forward you a copy of what I submitted for our News Letter. Keep in mind that I'm doing a series to address our upcoming Pattern Contest in July.
?
Most of it is cut and paste from the NSRCA websight or rule book. I offer a couple of my thoughts as well.
?
I'll send the first two news letter installments if you want.

Actually sending it on the discussion group could get me some feedback and allow me to correct mis-statements...Or perhaps earn a spot in the K-Factor for the News Letter series...
?
Larry Diamond
NSRCA 3083


--- On Fri, 3/26/10, Dowayne Gould <iflyrc24 at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Dowayne Gould <iflyrc24 at gmail.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] News letter articles
To: "NSRCA" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Friday, March 26, 2010, 9:03 AM



I have been asked of I could submit a beginers pattern article for the club news letter and web site. Since I am not any kind of writer is there a good source for such an article?
Thanks
Dowayne
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


From jaqfly at prodigy.net  Fri Mar 26 06:28:23 2010
From: jaqfly at prodigy.net (Jim Quinn)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:28:23 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] News letter articles
In-Reply-To: <48546.29824.qm@web1107.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
References: <48546.29824.qm@web1107.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <612963.86375.qm@web83307.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Larry Kauffman, the D2 DVP, has written some good stuff in the last few issues of the K Factor.
I'm sure Chris would welcome a series?introducing pilots to the joys of precision aerobatic flight.
?Jim Quinn 




________________________________
From: "ldiamond at diamondrc.com" <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Fri, March 26, 2010 10:20:50 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] News letter articles

Dowayne,
?
When I get home tonight I will forward you a copy of what I submitted for our News Letter. Keep in mind that I'm doing a series to address our upcoming Pattern Contest in July.
?
Most of it is cut and paste from the NSRCA websight or rule book. I offer a couple of my thoughts as well.
?
I'll send the first two news letter installments if you want.

Actually sending it on the discussion group could get me some feedback and allow me to correct mis-statements...Or perhaps earn a spot in the K-Factor for the News Letter series...
?
Larry Diamond
NSRCA 3083


--- On Fri, 3/26/10, Dowayne Gould <iflyrc24 at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Dowayne Gould <iflyrc24 at gmail.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] News letter articles
To: "NSRCA" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Friday, March 26, 2010, 9:03 AM



I have been asked of I could submit a beginers pattern article for the club news letter and web site. Since I am not any kind of writer is there a good source for such an article?
Thanks
Dowayne
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100326/9ce0fedc/attachment.html>

From perkinsrx at centurytel.net  Fri Mar 26 20:24:58 2010
From: perkinsrx at centurytel.net (Eddie Batchelor P.D.)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 04:24:58 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] News letter articles
In-Reply-To: <612963.86375.qm@web83307.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <48546.29824.qm@web1107.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
	<612963.86375.qm@web83307.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BBD92A00F6A04ADEBAF7D27FB467E033@EddieLapTopPC>

Several years ago when I first became Secretary of our club Eric Henderson gave me an article written by himself with permission to print it.
my current computer is several computers later( due mostly to fault of the user :-) ) so I'll have to see if I can locate it again.  But it was quite good and broken up into a couple of segments to make a series of articles thus not being too lengthy.

Although it is serveral years old , I'm sure it wouldn't take much updating to be current.

I'll let you know soon as I find it.

Eddie
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jim Quinn 
  To: ldiamond at diamondrc.com ; General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 9:28 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] News letter articles


  Larry Kauffman, the D2 DVP, has written some good stuff in the last few issues of the K Factor.
  I'm sure Chris would welcome a series introducing pilots to the joys of precision aerobatic flight.
   
  Jim Quinn 





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: "ldiamond at diamondrc.com" <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>
  To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  Sent: Fri, March 26, 2010 10:20:50 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] News letter articles

  Dowayne,
   
  When I get home tonight I will forward you a copy of what I submitted for our News Letter. Keep in mind that I'm doing a series to address our upcoming Pattern Contest in July.
   
  Most of it is cut and paste from the NSRCA websight or rule book. I offer a couple of my thoughts as well.
   
  I'll send the first two news letter installments if you want.

  Actually sending it on the discussion group could get me some feedback and allow me to correct mis-statements...Or perhaps earn a spot in the K-Factor for the News Letter series...
   
  Larry Diamond
  NSRCA 3083


  --- On Fri, 3/26/10, Dowayne Gould <iflyrc24 at gmail.com> wrote:


  From: Dowayne Gould <iflyrc24 at gmail.com>
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] News letter articles
  To: "NSRCA" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  Date: Friday, March 26, 2010, 9:03 AM



  I have been asked of I could submit a beginers pattern article for the club news letter and web site. Since I am not any kind of writer is there a good source for such an article?
  Thanks
  Dowayne
  -----Inline Attachment Follows-----


  _______________________________________________
  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100327/a905f427/attachment.html>

From ldiamond at diamondrc.com  Sat Mar 27 22:02:53 2010
From: ldiamond at diamondrc.com (ldiamond at diamondrc.com)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 06:02:53 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Laminated Calling Cards
Message-ID: <395005.56591.qm@web1113.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

I'm looking to see if folks are interested in laminated calling cards. For a sample copy of Sportsman follow the link below:

http://www.diamondrc.com/Calling_Cards/DiamondRC_Calling_Cards.htm

For AMA Classes the wording will be exactly as stated in the rule book. It will include the Maneuver #, Description, and K-Factor.

For FAI the wording will be exactly as stated on the NSRCA site for FAI "P" and "F". It will include the Maneuver #, and Description.

Size of the calling card is 4 x 6. Calling cards will be printed on one side and will be made of Card Stock and 5mil Thermal Lamination w/ rounded corners.

$3.00 each includes shipping (1st Class Postage in US):

Contest Year - 2010
Sportsman
Intermediate
Advanced
Masters
FAI "P"
FAI "F"

4 x 6 Custom Calling Cards $5.00ea (Different colors, wording, custom freestyle schedule, etc...)

If interested, please e-mail me off line.

Larry Diamond
NSRCA 3083
ldiamond at diamondrc.com






From ldiamond at diamondrc.com  Sun Mar 28 06:18:55 2010
From: ldiamond at diamondrc.com (ldiamond at diamondrc.com)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 14:18:55 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Laminated Calling Cards (actual size) -
	Update
Message-ID: <160021.31825.qm@web1105.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

I just measured the laminating stock. It is actually 3-1/2 x 5-1/2...

I was also told that the link to the sample card didn't work. This should be fixed now...

Larry

--- On Sun, 3/28/10, ldiamond at diamondrc.com <ldiamond at diamondrc.com> wrote:

> From: ldiamond at diamondrc.com <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>
> Subject: Laminated Calling Cards
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Sunday, March 28, 2010, 2:02 AM
> I'm looking to see if folks are
> interested in laminated calling cards. For a sample copy of
> Sportsman follow the link below:
> 
> http://www.diamondrc.com/Calling_Cards/DiamondRC_Calling_Cards.htm
> 
> For AMA Classes the wording will be exactly as stated in
> the rule book. It will include the Maneuver #, Description,
> and K-Factor.
> 
> For FAI the wording will be exactly as stated on the NSRCA
> site for FAI "P" and "F". It will include the Maneuver #,
> and Description.
> 
> Size of the calling card is 4 x 6. Calling cards will be
> printed on one side and will be made of Card Stock and 5mil
> Thermal Lamination w/ rounded corners.
> 
> $3.00 each includes shipping (1st Class Postage in US):
> 
> Contest Year - 2010
> Sportsman
> Intermediate
> Advanced
> Masters
> FAI "P"
> FAI "F"
> 
> 4 x 6 Custom Calling Cards $5.00ea (Different colors,
> wording, custom freestyle schedule, etc...)
> 
> If interested, please e-mail me off line.
> 
> Larry Diamond
> NSRCA 3083
> ldiamond at diamondrc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


From billt2 at verizon.net  Sun Mar 28 10:25:09 2010
From: billt2 at verizon.net (EDWARD THOMPSON)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:25:09 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] test
Message-ID: <6C19BFAA667642A6BB65E5CE35FB1C83@Owner>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100328/4eeccacd/attachment.html>

From billglaze at bellsouth.net  Sun Mar 28 11:22:12 2010
From: billglaze at bellsouth.net (Bill Glaze)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:22:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Laminated Calling Cards (actual size) -Update
References: <160021.31825.qm@web1105.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <D6DEB57F2D5C439E9E116B59D84D12CB@glazecstp32xp>

Still can't get the link to work--at least for me.
Bill Glaze
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Laminated Calling Cards (actual 
size) -Update


>I just measured the laminating stock. It is actually 3-1/2 x 5-1/2...
>
> I was also told that the link to the sample card didn't work. This should 
> be fixed now...
>
> Larry
>
> --- On Sun, 3/28/10, ldiamond at diamondrc.com <ldiamond at diamondrc.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> From: ldiamond at diamondrc.com <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>
>> Subject: Laminated Calling Cards
>> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: Sunday, March 28, 2010, 2:02 AM
>> I'm looking to see if folks are
>> interested in laminated calling cards. For a sample copy of
>> Sportsman follow the link below:
>>
>> http://www.diamondrc.com/Calling_Cards/DiamondRC_Calling_Cards.htm
>>
>> For AMA Classes the wording will be exactly as stated in
>> the rule book. It will include the Maneuver #, Description,
>> and K-Factor.
>>
>> For FAI the wording will be exactly as stated on the NSRCA
>> site for FAI "P" and "F". It will include the Maneuver #,
>> and Description.
>>
>> Size of the calling card is 4 x 6. Calling cards will be
>> printed on one side and will be made of Card Stock and 5mil
>> Thermal Lamination w/ rounded corners.
>>
>> $3.00 each includes shipping (1st Class Postage in US):
>>
>> Contest Year - 2010
>> Sportsman
>> Intermediate
>> Advanced
>> Masters
>> FAI "P"
>> FAI "F"
>>
>> 4 x 6 Custom Calling Cards $5.00ea (Different colors,
>> wording, custom freestyle schedule, etc...)
>>
>> If interested, please e-mail me off line.
>>
>> Larry Diamond
>> NSRCA 3083
>> ldiamond at diamondrc.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 


From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 28 11:22:30 2010
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:22:30 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] test
In-Reply-To: <6C19BFAA667642A6BB65E5CE35FB1C83@Owner>
References: <6C19BFAA667642A6BB65E5CE35FB1C83@Owner>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W130D36B18FF17C66C250F2A0210@phx.gbl>


works
 


From: billt2 at verizon.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 14:24:53 -0400
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] test




  		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100328/79c2031d/attachment.html>

From tkeithblack at gmail.com  Sun Mar 28 12:45:34 2010
From: tkeithblack at gmail.com (Keith Black)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 20:45:34 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] This guy would be a great pattern judge
Message-ID: <77f26e411003281345i2929d934m2985c1a9a7308bc5@mail.gmail.com>

http://home.comcast.net/~steveham21/turbo.mpg

From burtona at atmc.net  Sun Mar 28 13:24:04 2010
From: burtona at atmc.net (Dave Burton)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 21:24:04 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] This guy would be a great pattern judge
In-Reply-To: <77f26e411003281345i2929d934m2985c1a9a7308bc5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <77f26e411003281345i2929d934m2985c1a9a7308bc5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002501cacebd$03f5c660$0be15320$@net>

I know that guy. He wrote the judging guides!

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Keith Black
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 4:46 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] This guy would be a great pattern judge

http://home.comcast.net/~steveham21/turbo.mpg
_______________________________________________
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: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2775 - Release Date: 03/28/10
02:32:00


From kthompson56 at satx.rr.com  Sun Mar 28 13:40:46 2010
From: kthompson56 at satx.rr.com (Ken Thompson)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 21:40:46 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] This guy would be a great pattern judge
References: <77f26e411003281345i2929d934m2985c1a9a7308bc5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54019AB125704A3D9AA51B3C09448761@kenpc>

Now that's some funny stuff...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Black" <tkeithblack at gmail.com>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 3:45 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] This guy would be a great pattern judge


> http://home.comcast.net/~steveham21/turbo.mpg
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

From geobet4 at verizon.net  Sun Mar 28 14:17:08 2010
From: geobet4 at verizon.net (GEORGE KENNIE)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:17:08 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] This guy would be a great pattern judge
References: <77f26e411003281345i2929d934m2985c1a9a7308bc5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B6B3001691EA41A289349869F6ABCF61@george15cf36d8>

He became my number one student in my last pattern class just last year.




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Black" <tkeithblack at gmail.com>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 4:45 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] This guy would be a great pattern judge


> http://home.comcast.net/~steveham21/turbo.mpg
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

From jlachow at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 28 16:50:50 2010
From: jlachow at hotmail.com (Joe Lachowski)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:50:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] For Sale - Cellpro 10S computer interface
Message-ID: <SNT104-W5304499FDA4F027F9DC73DBB200@phx.gbl>


For Sale, Cellpro 10S Charger computer interface and software. 

 

$15 shipped CONUS
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100329/e933a2bd/attachment.html>

From rcmaster199 at aol.com  Mon Mar 29 06:20:15 2010
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com (rcmaster199 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:20:15 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use
In-Reply-To: <395005.56591.qm@web1113.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
References: <395005.56591.qm@web1113.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8CC9D620AD23CEC-1B14-4D46@webmail-m094.sysops.aol.com>



Hey folks,

I need some MG Digital Servos to use on the 78" Xtra. These need to have at least 100 in-ozs of torque and I prefer at least 0.15 sec transits. I've looked at Airtronics and JR.....For cored servos prices are not too bad but for coreless, prices are too high. I prefer coreless. 

Would someone with experience with the other brands shed some light on this? I'd like reasonably priced (50-70$ as opposed to 120$), metal geared servos with torque and speed shown above. I started to look at Hitec but I understand these need some kind of programmer!? The need is 4 at about 100 in-ozs and 1 at about 170 in-ozs

Thanks

Matt Kebabjian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100329/25bed992/attachment.html>

From ldiamond at diamondrc.com  Mon Mar 29 06:34:27 2010
From: ldiamond at diamondrc.com (ldiamond at diamondrc.com)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:34:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Laminated Call Cards
In-Reply-To: <160021.31825.qm@web1105.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <488782.94834.qm@web1107.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

I?m shipping, I have sold 12 cards so far for various Pattern classes. They have either been delivered or will be shipped today.

This started with me wanting a laminated call card, so I bought the equipment and made one. I thought it was pretty cool, so I decided to make it easy for others to get one as well. I may branch out into IMAC Call Cards as well. I don?t know what folks want for IMAC, perhaps the Aresti diagram on the back.

AMA Call Cards are posted on the following link. Sportsman, Intermediate, and Advanced will be printed on one side. Masters is printed on front and back (single card sheet) to remain in the 3-?  x 5-? size.

http://www.diamondrc.com/Calling_Cards/DiamondRC_Calling_Cards.htm

For FAI the wording will be exactly as stated on the NSRCA site for FAI "P" and "F". I will try to get them posted tonight.

Calling cards are printed on card stock and laminated with 5mil Thermal Lamination w/ rounded corners. Nominal 3/8? laminated edge. Feels very durable and fits in the back pocket (normal size pocket that is...vbg).

$3.00 each includes shipping (1st Class Postage in US):

Custom Calling Cards $5.00ea (Different colors, wording, freestyle schedule, etc...)

If interested, please e-mail me off line. Or click the order link on the web-site to send me an e-mail.

Paypal or check is fine?

Larry Diamond
NSRCA 3083
ldiamond at diamondrc.com


From duane.e.beck at comcast.net  Mon Mar 29 06:40:11 2010
From: duane.e.beck at comcast.net (Duane Beck)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:40:11 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use
In-Reply-To: <1314243290.2628791269873445358.JavaMail.root@sz0056a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <1990750973.2630151269873610126.JavaMail.root@sz0056a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>

I have not used these particular servos, but it looks like the Hyperion Atlas DM20X TMD meets your specs.  $48 each.
http://www.allerc.com/product_info.php?cPath=40&products_id=3958
Speed: 0.16/0.13 sec (4.8/6.0V)
Torque: 8.0/9.5 (Kg*cm), 111/132 (oz*in)
Size: 40.0 x 19.5 x 36.5 mm, 1.58 x 0.77 x 1.44 in

If you want to program the servo (not required), the USB cable is $18 and software download is free.
http://www.allerc.com/product_info.php?cPath=40&products_id=3091

Duane

> From: rcmaster199 at aol.com
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:19:56 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use
>
> Hey folks,
> ?
> I need some MG Digital Servos to use on the 78" Xtra. These need to
> have at least 100 in-ozs of torque and I prefer at least 0.15 sec
> transits. I've looked at Airtronics and JR.....For cored servos prices
> are not too bad but for coreless, prices are too high. I prefer
> coreless.
> ?
> Would someone with?experience with the other brands shed some light on
> this? I'd like reasonably priced (50-70$ as opposed to 120$), metal
> geared servos with torque and speed shown above. I started to look at
> Hitec but I understand these need some kind of programmer!? The need
> is 4 at about 100 in-ozs and 1 at about 170 in-ozs
> ?
> Thanks
> ?
> Matt Kebabjian 

From humptybump at sbcglobal.net  Mon Mar 29 06:54:07 2010
From: humptybump at sbcglobal.net (Richard Lewis)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:54:07 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use
In-Reply-To: <8CC9D620AD23CEC-1B14-4D46@webmail-m094.sysops.aol.com>
References: <395005.56591.qm@web1113.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
	<8CC9D620AD23CEC-1B14-4D46@webmail-m094.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <60481.70436.qm@web80504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hitec does not require the programmer....It is?an optional item that can be used to tailor the servo to a particular application.? Out of the box, they are just like any other servo.

I borrowed a Hitec programmer once for?to reverse the direction of a Hitec servo in a y-harnessed dual elevator setup.

Richard




________________________________
From: "rcmaster199 at aol.com" <rcmaster199 at aol.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Mon, March 29, 2010 9:19:56 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use


Hey folks,

I need some MG Digital Servos to use on the 78" Xtra. These need to have at least 100 in-ozs of torque and I prefer at least 0.15 sec transits. I've looked at Airtronics and JR.....For cored servos prices are not too bad but for coreless, prices are too high. I prefer coreless. 

Would someone with?experience with the other brands shed some light on this? I'd like reasonably priced (50-70$ as opposed to 120$), metal geared servos with torque and speed shown above. I started to look at Hitec but I understand these need some kind of programmer!? The need is 4 at about 100 in-ozs and 1 at about 170 in-ozs

Thanks

Matt Kebabjian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100329/4cfdbb09/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Mon Mar 29 07:06:12 2010
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:06:12 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use
In-Reply-To: <8CC9D620AD23CEC-1B14-4D46@webmail-m094.sysops.aol.com>
References: <395005.56591.qm@web1113.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>
	<8CC9D620AD23CEC-1B14-4D46@webmail-m094.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <0594BE63447A42729EA248E29744EFDC@davedesktop>

Matt,

 

I put a little bit of flight time on an EF 78" Extra electric 2 weekends ago
(It has 8711 HVs running on unregulated 5 cell Nimh - so figure 400 oz/in
and 0.15 sec - definitely overkill).  My personal opinion is that 100 oz/in
of digital torque is fine for elevator (2 servos), but more like 150 oz for
ailerons (2 servos) and 200 oz for rudder, especially if you are going to
have 3D throws.

 

Spektrum has some relatively new servos -

6010 is $40, metal gear, 100 oz/in, 0.14 sec

6030 is $85, titanium gear, 278, 0.15 sec

6040 is $80, titanium gear, 167, 0.08 sec

 

I used some of the 821 "standard" servos (composite gear, 88, 0.15) on the
ailerons of my 120 mph Sundowner and they are solid (not fast, but solid).

 

I've been flying a 65" Vyper from 3DHobby, and the first few flights were
with JR 8717 on the ailerons, and then some JR 8411sa's, and now I have some
Spektrum 6030s to try (next time the weather clears).  The 8717s draw a lot
of current, but have absolutely stunning performance - very stable roll
trim, smooth response for pattern stuff, and very positive/crisp for snaps
and 3D work (and yes, pricey at $140, but I think an example of getting more
performance for more $$$).

 

 Regards,

 

Dave Lockhart

Team Horizon/JR/Spektrum

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:20 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use

 


Hey folks,

 

I need some MG Digital Servos to use on the 78" Xtra. These need to have at
least 100 in-ozs of torque and I prefer at least 0.15 sec transits. I've
looked at Airtronics and JR.....For cored servos prices are not too bad but
for coreless, prices are too high. I prefer coreless. 

 

Would someone with experience with the other brands shed some light on this?
I'd like reasonably priced (50-70$ as opposed to 120$), metal geared servos
with torque and speed shown above. I started to look at Hitec but I
understand these need some kind of programmer!? The need is 4 at about 100
in-ozs and 1 at about 170 in-ozs

 

Thanks

 

Matt Kebabjian

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100329/cd5ad6bd/attachment.html>

From bob at toprudder.com  Mon Mar 29 07:24:52 2010
From: bob at toprudder.com (Bob Richards)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:24:52 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use
In-Reply-To: <0594BE63447A42729EA248E29744EFDC@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <482616.25559.qm@web1116.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>

FWIW, Robert Vess has a 50cc 3DHS Extra with the Spektrum 6030s and loves them. I would lean towards trying those.

--- On Mon, 3/29/10, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:





Spektrum has some relatively new servos ?
6010 is $40, metal gear, 100 oz/in, 0.14 sec
6030 is $85, titanium gear, 278, 0.15 sec
6040 is $80, titanium gear, 167, 0.08 sec
?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100329/35120b0c/attachment.html>

From rcmaster199 at aol.com  Mon Mar 29 07:53:27 2010
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com (rcmaster199 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:53:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use
In-Reply-To: <0594BE63447A42729EA248E29744EFDC@davedesktop>
References: <395005.56591.qm@web1113.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com><8CC9D620AD23CEC-1B14-4D46@webmail-m094.sysops.aol.com>
	<0594BE63447A42729EA248E29744EFDC@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <8CC9D6F0EB20698-1B14-66D3@webmail-m094.sysops.aol.com>


Those are pretty good specs Dave, Thanks. Wished they made the 6010 in a coreless config. The other two seem very sporty, except the 6040 is out of stock. Nevertheless, at 0.08/167, probably worth the wait.

And thanks to all who responded.

Matt




-----Original Message-----
From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, Mar 29, 2010 11:00 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use



Matt,
 
I put a little bit of flight time on an EF 78? Extra electric 2 weekends ago (It has 8711 HVs running on unregulated 5 cell Nimh ? so figure 400 oz/in and 0.15 sec ? definitely overkill).  My personal opinion is that 100 oz/in of digital torque is fine for elevator (2 servos), but more like 150 oz for ailerons (2 servos) and 200 oz for rudder, especially if you are going to have 3D throws.
 
Spektrum has some relatively new servos ?
6010 is $40, metal gear, 100 oz/in, 0.14 sec
6030 is $85, titanium gear, 278, 0.15 sec
6040 is $80, titanium gear, 167, 0.08 sec
 
I used some of the 821 ?standard? servos (composite gear, 88, 0.15) on the ailerons of my 120 mph Sundowner and they are solid (not fast, but solid).
 
I?ve been flying a 65? Vyper from 3DHobby, and the first few flights were with JR 8717 on the ailerons, and then some JR 8411sa?s, and now I have some Spektrum 6030s to try (next time the weather clears).  The 8717s draw a lot of current, but have absolutely stunning performance ? very stable roll trim, smooth response for pattern stuff, and very positive/crisp for snaps and 3D work (and yes, pricey at $140, but I think an example of getting more performance for more $$$).
 
 Regards,
 
Dave Lockhart
Team Horizon/JR/Spektrum
 


From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:20 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use

 


Hey folks,

 

I need some MG Digital Servos to use on the 78" Xtra. These need to have at least 100 in-ozs of torque and I prefer at least 0.15 sec transits. I've looked at Airtronics and JR.....For cored servos prices are not too bad but for coreless, prices are too high. I prefer coreless. 

 

Would someone with experience with the other brands shed some light on this? I'd like reasonably priced (50-70$ as opposed to 120$), metal geared servos with torque and speed shown above. I started to look at Hitec but I understand these need some kind of programmer!? The need is 4 at about 100 in-ozs and 1 at about 170 in-ozs

 

Thanks

 

Matt Kebabjian


_______________________________________________
SRCA-discussion mailing list
SRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
ttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100329/2815a575/attachment.html>

From rcmaster199 at aol.com  Mon Mar 29 07:55:10 2010
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com (rcmaster199 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:55:10 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use
In-Reply-To: <0594BE63447A42729EA248E29744EFDC@davedesktop>
References: <395005.56591.qm@web1113.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com><8CC9D620AD23CEC-1B14-4D46@webmail-m094.sysops.aol.com>
	<0594BE63447A42729EA248E29744EFDC@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <8CC9D6F4F7CAA08-1B14-6748@webmail-m094.sysops.aol.com>

What was your impression of the Extar? Please send me a PM





-----Original Message-----
From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, Mar 29, 2010 11:00 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use



Matt,
 
I put a little bit of flight time on an EF 78? Extra electric 2 weekends ago (It has 8711 HVs running on unregulated 5 cell Nimh ? so figure 400 oz/in and 0.15 sec ? definitely overkill).  My personal opinion is that 100 oz/in of digital torque is fine for elevator (2 servos), but more like 150 oz for ailerons (2 servos) and 200 oz for rudder, especially if you are going to have 3D throws.
 
Spektrum has some relatively new servos ?
6010 is $40, metal gear, 100 oz/in, 0.14 sec
6030 is $85, titanium gear, 278, 0.15 sec
6040 is $80, titanium gear, 167, 0.08 sec
 
I used some of the 821 ?standard? servos (composite gear, 88, 0.15) on the ailerons of my 120 mph Sundowner and they are solid (not fast, but solid).
 
I?ve been flying a 65? Vyper from 3DHobby, and the first few flights were with JR 8717 on the ailerons, and then some JR 8411sa?s, and now I have some Spektrum 6030s to try (next time the weather clears).  The 8717s draw a lot of current, but have absolutely stunning performance ? very stable roll trim, smooth response for pattern stuff, and very positive/crisp for snaps and 3D work (and yes, pricey at $140, but I think an example of getting more performance for more $$$).
 
 Regards,
 
Dave Lockhart
Team Horizon/JR/Spektrum
 


From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:20 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use

 


Hey folks,

 

I need some MG Digital Servos to use on the 78" Xtra. These need to have at least 100 in-ozs of torque and I prefer at least 0.15 sec transits. I've looked at Airtronics and JR.....For cored servos prices are not too bad but for coreless, prices are too high. I prefer coreless. 

 

Would someone with experience with the other brands shed some light on this? I'd like reasonably priced (50-70$ as opposed to 120$), metal geared servos with torque and speed shown above. I started to look at Hitec but I understand these need some kind of programmer!? The need is 4 at about 100 in-ozs and 1 at about 170 in-ozs

 

Thanks

 

Matt Kebabjian


_______________________________________________
SRCA-discussion mailing list
SRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
ttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100329/631a53a8/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Mon Mar 29 08:38:50 2010
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:38:50 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use
In-Reply-To: <8CC9D6F0EB20698-1B14-66D3@webmail-m094.sysops.aol.com>
References: <395005.56591.qm@web1113.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com><8CC9D620AD23CEC-1B14-4D46@webmail-m094.sysops.aol.com><0594BE63447A42729EA248E29744EFDC@davedesktop>
	<8CC9D6F0EB20698-1B14-66D3@webmail-m094.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <540B53D204A24617BE9DC55651D654C9@davedesktop>

Matt,

 

I presume you are interested in coreless for the same reasons coreless were
a big improvement when they first hit the market?  I've run quite a few
digital servos, and while most are coreless, I can't say that the cored
digitals I used seemed to suffer in any way that I would attribute to the
cored motors.

 

Regards,

 

Dave

 

 

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 11:53 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use

 

Those are pretty good specs Dave, Thanks. Wished they made the 6010 in a
coreless config. The other two seem very sporty, except the 6040 is out of
stock. Nevertheless, at 0.08/167, probably worth the wait.

 

And thanks to all who responded.

Matt

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, Mar 29, 2010 11:00 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use

Matt,

 

I put a little bit of flight time on an EF 78" Extra electric 2 weekends ago
(It has 8711 HVs running on unregulated 5 cell Nimh - so figure 400 oz/in
and 0.15 sec - definitely overkill).  My personal opinion is that 100 oz/in
of digital torque is fine for elevator (2 servos), but more like 150 oz for
ailerons (2 servos) and 200 oz for rudder, especially if you are going to
have 3D throws.

 

Spektrum has some relatively new servos -

6010 is $40, metal gear, 100 oz/in, 0.14 sec

6030 is $85, titanium gear, 278, 0.15 sec

6040 is $80, titanium gear, 167, 0.08 sec

 

I used some of the 821 "standard" servos (composite gear, 88, 0.15) on the
ailerons of my 120 mph Sundowner and they are solid (not fast, but solid).

 

I've been flying a 65" Vyper from 3DHobby, and the first few flights were
with JR 8717 on the ailerons, and then some JR 8411sa's, and now I have some
Spektrum 6030s to try (next time the weather clears).  The 8717s draw a lot
of current, but have absolutely stunning performance - very stable roll
trim, smooth response for pattern stuff, and very positive/crisp for snaps
and 3D work (and yes, pricey at $140, but I think an example of getting more
performance for more $$$).

 

 Regards,

 

Dave Lockhart

Team Horizon/JR/Spektrum

 

  _____  

From:  <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?>
mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
<mailto:rcmaster199 at aol.com> rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:20 AM
To:  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use

 


Hey folks,

 

I need some MG Digital Servos to use on the 78" Xtra. These need to have at
least 100 in-ozs of torque and I prefer at least 0.15 sec transits. I've
looked at Airtronics and JR.....For cored servos prices are not too bad but
for coreless, prices are too high. I prefer coreless. 

 

Would someone with experience with the other brands shed some light on this?
I'd like reasonably priced (50-70$ as opposed to 120$), metal geared servos
with torque and speed shown above. I started to look at Hitec but I
understand these need some kind of programmer!? The need is 4 at about 100
in-ozs and 1 at about 170 in-ozs

 

Thanks

 

Matt Kebabjian

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
 <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100329/d3b04b2b/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Mon Mar 29 08:44:27 2010
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:44:27 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use
In-Reply-To: <8CC9D6F4F7CAA08-1B14-6748@webmail-m094.sysops.aol.com>
References: <395005.56591.qm@web1113.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com><8CC9D620AD23CEC-1B14-4D46@webmail-m094.sysops.aol.com><0594BE63447A42729EA248E29744EFDC@davedesktop>
	<8CC9D6F4F7CAA08-1B14-6748@webmail-m094.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <BF15068EEE65492886636DABD4AEE4FC@davedesktop>

Matt (and all),

 

I really need to get more time on it.  It was a bit windy, and I really only
flew the plane about 3 minutes.  Basic impression was that it is very
versatile, smooth, and easy to fly.  I didn't check trim critically, but it
surely has no bad habits, and minimal coupling (if any).  Not fast
(downlines or top end speed) as would be expected, but not power hungry
either.  The plane belongs to Lee Morey, and he was getting through the
Advanced sequence with a 20x13E on the Power160 at 175 meters for about 3300
mah.  I don't think this plane has been weighed, but it is probably around
12.5 lbs with 5300s and 2 1350 Nimh RX packs.

 

Regards,

 

Dave

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 11:55 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use

 

What was your impression of the Extar? Please send me a PM

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, Mar 29, 2010 11:00 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use

Matt,

 

I put a little bit of flight time on an EF 78" Extra electric 2 weekends ago
(It has 8711 HVs running on unregulated 5 cell Nimh - so figure 400 oz/in
and 0.15 sec - definitely overkill).  My personal opinion is that 100 oz/in
of digital torque is fine for elevator (2 servos), but more like 150 oz for
ailerons (2 servos) and 200 oz for rudder, especially if you are going to
have 3D throws.

 

Spektrum has some relatively new servos -

6010 is $40, metal gear, 100 oz/in, 0.14 sec

6030 is $85, titanium gear, 278, 0.15 sec

6040 is $80, titanium gear, 167, 0.08 sec

 

I used some of the 821 "standard" servos (composite gear, 88, 0.15) on the
ailerons of my 120 mph Sundowner and they are solid (not fast, but solid).

 

I've been flying a 65" Vyper from 3DHobby, and the first few flights were
with JR 8717 on the ailerons, and then some JR 8411sa's, and now I have some
Spektrum 6030s to try (next time the weather clears).  The 8717s draw a lot
of current, but have absolutely stunning performance - very stable roll
trim, smooth response for pattern stuff, and very positive/crisp for snaps
and 3D work (and yes, pricey at $140, but I think an example of getting more
performance for more $$$).

 

 Regards,

 

Dave Lockhart

Team Horizon/JR/Spektrum

 

  _____  

From:  <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?>
mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
<mailto:rcmaster199 at aol.com> rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:20 AM
To:  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use

 


Hey folks,

 

I need some MG Digital Servos to use on the 78" Xtra. These need to have at
least 100 in-ozs of torque and I prefer at least 0.15 sec transits. I've
looked at Airtronics and JR.....For cored servos prices are not too bad but
for coreless, prices are too high. I prefer coreless. 

 

Would someone with experience with the other brands shed some light on this?
I'd like reasonably priced (50-70$ as opposed to 120$), metal geared servos
with torque and speed shown above. I started to look at Hitec but I
understand these need some kind of programmer!? The need is 4 at about 100
in-ozs and 1 at about 170 in-ozs

 

Thanks

 

Matt Kebabjian

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
 <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100329/20e71254/attachment.html>

From vicenterc at comcast.net  Mon Mar 29 17:57:07 2010
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:57:07 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use
In-Reply-To: <1653610587.4550291269914175958.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <1875242746.4550661269914226110.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>



Dave, 



What motor are you using?? I am building one.? I am planing to use 9411 on elevators (max ~20-25 degrees).? 8411?on ailerons (max?15-20 degrees) and 8611 on rudder? (max ~35-40) degrees.? Using the Scorpion F3A motor.?? I think I should be fine with this se t up for IMAC .? Any suggestions welcome.? ? ? 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave" <DaveL322 at comcast.net> 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:00:32 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use 




Matt, 



I put a little bit of flight time on an EF 78? Extra electric 2 weekends ago (It has 8711 HVs running on unregulated 5 cell Nimh ? so figure 400 oz/in and 0.15 sec ? definitely overkill). ?My personal opinion is that 100 oz/in of digital torque is fine for elevator (2 servos), but more like 150 oz for ailerons (2 servos) and 200 oz for rudder, especially if you are going to have 3D throws. 



Spektrum has some relatively new servos ? 

6010 is $40, metal gear, 100 oz/in, 0.14 sec 

6030 is $85, titanium gear, 278, 0.15 sec 

6040 is $80, titanium gear, 167, 0.08 sec 



I used some of the 821 ?standard? servos (composite gear, 88, 0.15) on the ailerons of my 120 mph Sundowner and they are solid (not fast, but solid). 



I?ve been flying a 65? Vyper from 3DHobby, and the first few flights were with JR 8717 on the ailerons, and then some JR 8411sa?s, and now I have some Spektrum 6030s to try (next time the weather clears). ?The 8717s draw a lot of current, but have absolutely stunning performance ? very stable roll trim, smooth response for pattern stuff, and very positive/crisp for snaps and 3D work (and yes, pricey at $140, but I think an example of getting more performance for more $$$). 



?Regards, 



Dave Lockhart 

Team Horizon/JR/Spektrum 






From: nsrca -discussion-bounces at lists. nsrca .org [mailto: nsrca -discussion-bounces at lists. nsrca .org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com 
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:20 AM 
To: nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use 





Hey folks, 





I need some MG Digital Servos to use on the 78" Xtra. These need to have at least 100 in-ozs of torque and I prefer at least 0.15 sec transits. I've looked at Airtronics and JR.....For cored servos prices are not too bad but for coreless, prices are too high. I prefer coreless. 





Would someone with?experience with the other brands shed some light on this? I'd like reasonably priced (50-70$ as opposed to 120$), metal geared servos with torque and speed shown above. I started to look at Hitec but I understand these need some kind of programmer!? The need is 4 at about 100 in-ozs and 1 at about 170 in-ozs 





Thanks 





Matt Kebabjian 
_______________________________________________ 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/20100330/90c459c0/attachment.html>

From DaveL322 at comcast.net  Mon Mar 29 19:39:32 2010
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net (Dave)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 03:39:32 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use
In-Reply-To: <1875242746.4550661269914226110.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1653610587.4550291269914175958.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<1875242746.4550661269914226110.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <0A2E351CC7224F59932BC8DC6C4484DE@davedesktop>

Hi Vince,

 

I think the servos you listed are fine.

 

The plane belongs to a friend of mine (Lee Morey), and he is using an Eflite
Power 160 which is doing a nice job.  I think the Scorpion F3A will do well
also, but from some of the data posted on the RCG thread for the EF 78"
Extra, it sounds like the motor might spin up pretty good and draw a lot of
amps on typical pattern props.  I'd start with something lighter..like a
20x11 or thereabouts.

 

Regards,

 

Dave 

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Vicente
"Vince" Bortone
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 9:57 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use

 

Dave,

 

What motor are you using?  I am building one.  I am planing to use 9411 on
elevators (max ~20-25 degrees).  8411 on ailerons (max 15-20 degrees) and
8611 on rudder  (max ~35-40) degrees.  Using the Scorpion F3A motor.   I
think I should be fine with this set up for IMAC.  Any suggestions welcome.


Vicente "Vince" Bortone

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave" <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:00:32 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use

Matt,

 

I put a little bit of flight time on an EF 78" Extra electric 2 weekends ago
(It has 8711 HVs running on unregulated 5 cell Nimh - so figure 400 oz/in
and 0.15 sec - definitely overkill).  My personal opinion is that 100 oz/in
of digital torque is fine for elevator (2 servos), but more like 150 oz for
ailerons (2 servos) and 200 oz for rudder, especially if you are going to
have 3D throws.

 

Spektrum has some relatively new servos -

6010 is $40, metal gear, 100 oz/in, 0.14 sec

6030 is $85, titanium gear, 278, 0.15 sec

6040 is $80, titanium gear, 167, 0.08 sec

 

I used some of the 821 "standard" servos (composite gear, 88, 0.15) on the
ailerons of my 120 mph Sundowner and they are solid (not fast, but solid).

 

I've been flying a 65" Vyper from 3DHobby, and the first few flights were
with JR 8717 on the ailerons, and then some JR 8411sa's, and now I have some
Spektrum 6030s to try (next time the weather clears).  The 8717s draw a lot
of current, but have absolutely stunning performance - very stable roll
trim, smooth response for pattern stuff, and very positive/crisp for snaps
and 3D work (and yes, pricey at $140, but I think an example of getting more
performance for more $$$).

 

 Regards,

 

Dave Lockhart

Team Horizon/JR/Spektrum

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:20 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use

 


Hey folks,

 

I need some MG Digital Servos to use on the 78" Xtra. These need to have at
least 100 in-ozs of torque and I prefer at least 0.15 sec transits. I've
looked at Airtronics and JR.....For cored servos prices are not too bad but
for coreless, prices are too high. I prefer coreless. 

 

Would someone with experience with the other brands shed some light on this?
I'd like reasonably priced (50-70$ as opposed to 120$), metal geared servos
with torque and speed shown above. I started to look at Hitec but I
understand these need some kind of programmer!? The need is 4 at about 100
in-ozs and 1 at about 170 in-ozs

 

Thanks

 

Matt Kebabjian


_______________________________________________ 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/20100330/2aca5bc4/attachment.html>

From vicenterc at comcast.net  Tue Mar 30 07:59:06 2010
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:59:06 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use
In-Reply-To: <0A2E351CC7224F59932BC8DC6C4484DE@davedesktop>
Message-ID: <22036575.4734621269964746097.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>



Hi Dave, 



Good that you told me about the motor.? I will check the amps before flying. 



Thanks, 



Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave" <DaveL322 at comcast.net> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:33:53 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use 




Hi Vince, 



I think the servos you listed are fine. 



The plane belongs to a friend of mine (Lee Morey), and he is using an Eflite Power 160 which is doing a nice job. ?I think the Scorpion F3A will do well also, but from some of the data posted on the RCG thread for the EF 78? Extra, it sounds like the motor might spin up pretty good and draw a lot of amps on typical pattern props. ?I?d start with something lighter?.like a 20x11 or thereabouts. 



Regards, 



Dave 






From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Vicente "Vince" Bortone 
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 9:57 PM 
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use 




Dave, 



What motor are you using?? I am building one.? I am planing to use 9411 on elevators (max ~20-25 degrees).? 8411?on ailerons (max?15-20 degrees) and 8611 on rudder? (max ~35-40) degrees.? Using the Scorpion F3A motor.?? I think I should be fine with this se t up for IMAC.? Any suggestions welcome.? ? ? 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave" <DaveL322 at comcast.net> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:00:32 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use 

Matt, 



I put a little bit of flight time on an EF 78? Extra electric 2 weekends ago (It has 8711 HVs running on unregulated 5 cell Nimh ? so figure 400 oz/in and 0.15 sec ? definitely overkill). ?My personal opinion is that 100 oz/in of digital torque is fine for elevator (2 servos), but more like 150 oz for ailerons (2 servos) and 200 oz for rudder, especially if you are going to have 3D throws. 



Spektrum has some relatively new servos ? 

6010 is $40, metal gear, 100 oz/in, 0.14 sec 

6030 is $85, titanium gear, 278, 0.15 sec 

6040 is $80, titanium gear, 167, 0.08 sec 



I used some of the 821 ?standard? servos (composite gear, 88, 0.15) on the ailerons of my 120 mph Sundowner and they are solid (not fast, but solid). 



I?ve been flying a 65? Vyper from 3DHobby, and the first few flights were with JR 8717 on the ailerons, and then some JR 8411sa?s, and now I have some Spektrum 6030s to try (next time the weather clears). ?The 8717s draw a lot of current, but have absolutely stunning performance ? very stable roll trim, smooth response for pattern stuff, and very positive/crisp for snaps and 3D work (and yes, pricey at $140, but I think an example of getting more performance for more $$$). 



?Regards, 



Dave Lockhart 

Team Horizon/JR/Spektrum 






From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com 
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:20 AM 
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] MG Servos to use 





Hey folks, 





I need some MG Digital Servos to use on the 78" Xtra. These need to have at least 100 in-ozs of torque and I prefer at least 0.15 sec transits. I've looked at Airtronics and JR.....For cored servos prices are not too bad but for coreless, prices are too high. I prefer coreless. 





Would someone with?experience with the other brands shed some light on this? I'd like reasonably priced (50-70$ as opposed to 120$), metal geared servos with torque and speed shown above. I started to look at Hitec but I understand these need some kind of programmer!? The need is 4 at about 100 in-ozs and 1 at about 170 in-ozs 





Thanks 





Matt Kebabjian 


_______________________________________________ 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100330/98fe4dfb/attachment.html>

From lightfoot at sc.rr.com  Tue Mar 30 11:30:30 2010
From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com (Jay Marshall)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:30:30 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] BM V2 Kit For Sale
Message-ID: <CDFE32A87F7E453E81886FECF4BBFA9C@jaysdesktop>


I have a Black Magic V2 kit for sale for $300. Wings, fuse. cores and tail
feathers are sheeted. Tail feathers also glassed. Fuse. Construction 75%
complete. Available at Grand Strand Pattern Classic.


 

 

Jay Marshall 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100330/ed5245e3/attachment.html>

From wilsorc at gmail.com  Tue Mar 30 14:40:21 2010
From: wilsorc at gmail.com (Bob Wilson)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 22:40:21 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Perry VP30 Pump
Message-ID: <888fdd981003301540j190cdbeeyf3866e383c73d247@mail.gmail.com>

I have a VP30  Perry pump on my O.S. 1.60.  Unfortunately, I've messed
around with the adjustment screw and now have no clue where it was set
originally.  Anyone have an idea how far out from the base the screw is set
from the factory?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100330/c2bda6dc/attachment.html>

From vicenterc at comcast.net  Tue Mar 30 15:32:45 2010
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:32:45 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Perry VP30 Pump
In-Reply-To: <337621985.4956591269991904895.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <1591139433.4957091269991964773.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>



Hi Bob, 



?I remember this range?1/8" - 5/32".??I could be wrong since it has been a long time.? Let's see other recommendations .? 



Good luck, 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Wilson" < wilsorc @ gmail .com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:40:19 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Perry VP30 Pump 

I have a VP30? Perry pump on my O.S. 1.60.? Unfortunately, I've messed around with the adjustment screw and now have no clue where it was set originally.? Anyone have an idea how far out from the base the screw is set from the factory? 

_______________________________________________ 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/20100330/5f3b4563/attachment.html>

From wilsorc at gmail.com  Tue Mar 30 15:46:13 2010
From: wilsorc at gmail.com (Bob Wilson)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:46:13 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Perry VP30 Pump
In-Reply-To: <1591139433.4957091269991964773.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <337621985.4956591269991904895.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<1591139433.4957091269991964773.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <888fdd981003301646h66212b7dsd8a32fd4356d7d9c@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Vince.  The adjustment screw on my pump is hanging out about 1/4"
from the base...maybe more.  That just doesn't seem right.  But, if I try to
screw it in with the engine running it loads up and dies.  With it set the
way it is, the engine runs pretty good with the needle valve 3/4 open...but,
that doesn't seem right either.

Another thing I'm worried about is fuel continuing to drip out of the carb
when the engine is *not* running.

I'm probably going to have to suck in it and buy a new pump.

Are you going to make "The Fat Lake Pattern Rendezvous" this year (June
31-August 1)?  It's going to be bigger and better.  That is if it doesn't
rain again...ha!

Bob

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Vicente "Vince" Bortone <
vicenterc at comcast.net> wrote:

> Hi Bob,
>
>
>
>  I remember this range 1/8" - 5/32".  I could be wrong since it has been a
> long time.  Let's see other recommendations.
>
>
>
> Good luck,
>
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Wilson" <wilsorc at gmail.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:40:19 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Perry VP30 Pump
>
> I have a VP30  Perry pump on my O.S. 1.60.  Unfortunately, I've messed
> around with the adjustment screw and now have no clue where it was set
> originally.  Anyone have an idea how far out from the base the screw is set
> from the factory?
>
> _______________________________________________ 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100330/564b7ff8/attachment.html>

From jnhiller at earthlink.net  Tue Mar 30 16:11:32 2010
From: jnhiller at earthlink.net (J N Hiller)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:11:32 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Perry VP30 Pump
In-Reply-To: <888fdd981003301540j190cdbeeyf3866e383c73d247@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <HDEBJEADHEDJKKHHCEKPCEDEFDAA.jnhiller@earthlink.net>

Bob I have a new VP-30 which hasn't been run yet and the adjusting screw is
.140" approximately in the center of the range Vince remembered. This is the
new style pump with a setscrew rather than the older hex head adjusting
screw.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bob Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 3:40 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Perry VP30 Pump

I have a VP30  Perry pump on my O.S. 1.60.  Unfortunately, I've messed
around with the adjustment screw and now have no clue where it was set
originally.  Anyone have an idea how far out from the base the screw is set
from the factory?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100331/eb364752/attachment.html>

From vicenterc at comcast.net  Tue Mar 30 17:44:00 2010
From: vicenterc at comcast.net (Vicente "Vince" Bortone)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:44:00 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Perry VP30 Pump
In-Reply-To: <888fdd981003301646h66212b7dsd8a32fd4356d7d9c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1834207848.5011721269999838366.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>



Hi Bob, 



Did you check bearings?? Usually that is the very first problem to check when using the OS 160.? After the long winter that could be the problem.? If you feel any play when putting some pressure on the tip of the prop is time for new bearings. 



I am not sure now if I will be able to go to your contest.? For sure we had a great time and we?will try again.??? 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Wilson" < wilsorc @ gmail .com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:46:12 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Perry VP30 Pump 

Thanks Vince.? The adjustment screw on my pump is hanging out about 1/4" from the base...maybe more.? That just doesn't seem right.? But, if I try to screw it in with the engine running it loads up and dies.? With it set the way it is, the engine runs pretty good with the needle valve 3/4 open...but, that doesn't seem right either. 

Another thing I'm worried about is fuel continuing to drip out of the carb when the engine is not running. 

I'm probably going to have to suck in it and buy a new pump. 

Are you going to make "The Fat Lake Pattern Rendezvous" this year (June 31-August 1)?? It's going to be bigger and better.? That is if it doesn't rain again...ha! 

Bob 


On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Vicente "Vince" Bortone < vicenterc @comcast.net > wrote: 






Hi Bob, 



?I remember this range?1/8" - 5/32".??I could be wrong since it has been a long time.? Let's see other recommendations.? 



Good luck, 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Wilson" < wilsorc @ gmail .com > 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org > 
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:40:19 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Perry VP30 Pump 

I have a VP30? Perry pump on my O.S. 1.60.? Unfortunately, I've messed around with the adjustment screw and now have no clue where it was set originally.? Anyone have an idea how far out from the base the screw is set from the factory? 

_______________________________________________ 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100331/22f38c3f/attachment.html>

From pamrich47 at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 30 20:34:24 2010
From: pamrich47 at hotmail.com (Richard Strickland)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 04:34:24 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Perry VP30 Pump
In-Reply-To: <888fdd981003301646h66212b7dsd8a32fd4356d7d9c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <337621985.4956591269991904895.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>,
	<1591139433.4957091269991964773.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>,
	<888fdd981003301646h66212b7dsd8a32fd4356d7d9c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY128-W15F7F0C67F155DC5D2B619A01E0@phx.gbl>


Man that is one long contest...
 


Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:46:12 -0500
From: wilsorc at gmail.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Perry VP30 Pump

Thanks Vince.  The adjustment screw on my pump is hanging out about 1/4" from the base...maybe more.  That just doesn't seem right.  But, if I try to screw it in with the engine running it loads up and dies.  With it set the way it is, the engine runs pretty good with the needle valve 3/4 open...but, that doesn't seem right either.

Another thing I'm worried about is fuel continuing to drip out of the carb when the engine is not running.

I'm probably going to have to suck in it and buy a new pump.

Are you going to make "The Fat Lake Pattern Rendezvous" this year (June 31-August 1)?  It's going to be bigger and better.  That is if it doesn't rain again...ha!

Bob


On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Vicente "Vince" Bortone <vicenterc at comcast.net> wrote:




Hi Bob,

 

 I remember this range 1/8" - 5/32".  I could be wrong since it has been a long time.  Let's see other recommendations.  

 

Good luck,

Vicente "Vince" Bortone





----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Wilson" <wilsorc at gmail.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:40:19 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Perry VP30 Pump

I have a VP30  Perry pump on my O.S. 1.60.  Unfortunately, I've messed around with the adjustment screw and now have no clue where it was set originally.  Anyone have an idea how far out from the base the screw is set from the factory?

_______________________________________________ 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

 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100331/b4ee89f0/attachment.html>

From wilsorc at gmail.com  Wed Mar 31 03:18:19 2010
From: wilsorc at gmail.com (Bob Wilson)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:18:19 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Perry VP30 Pump
In-Reply-To: <BAY128-W15F7F0C67F155DC5D2B619A01E0@phx.gbl>
References: <337621985.4956591269991904895.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<1591139433.4957091269991964773.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<888fdd981003301646h66212b7dsd8a32fd4356d7d9c@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY128-W15F7F0C67F155DC5D2B619A01E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <m2j888fdd981003310418h7355e7dfk141250107c947e4@mail.gmail.com>

OOOPS...The contest date for the Fat Lake Pattern Rendezvous is JULY
31-August 1...not June 31.  I guess I had a case of happy fingers.

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Richard Strickland
<pamrich47 at hotmail.com>wrote:

>  Man that is one long contest...
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:46:12 -0500
> From: wilsorc at gmail.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Perry VP30 Pump
>
>
> Thanks Vince.  The adjustment screw on my pump is hanging out about 1/4"
> from the base...maybe more.  That just doesn't seem right.  But, if I try to
> screw it in with the engine running it loads up and dies.  With it set the
> way it is, the engine runs pretty good with the needle valve 3/4 open...but,
> that doesn't seem right either.
>
> Another thing I'm worried about is fuel continuing to drip out of the carb
> when the engine is *not* running.
>
> I'm probably going to have to suck in it and buy a new pump.
>
> Are you going to make "The Fat Lake Pattern Rendezvous" this year (June
> 31-August 1)?  It's going to be bigger and better.  That is if it doesn't
> rain again...ha!
>
> Bob
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Vicente "Vince" Bortone <
> vicenterc at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>  Hi Bob,
>
>  I remember this range 1/8" - 5/32".  I could be wrong since it has been a
> long time.  Let's see other recommendations.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Wilson" <wilsorc at gmail.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:40:19 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Perry VP30 Pump
>
> I have a VP30  Perry pump on my O.S. 1.60.  Unfortunately, I've messed
> around with the adjustment screw and now have no clue where it was set
> originally.  Anyone have an idea how far out from the base the screw is set
> from the factory?
>
> _______________________________________________ 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Get
> started.<http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_3>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100331/1874c4d0/attachment.html>

From chuenkan at comcast.net  Wed Mar 31 03:39:16 2010
From: chuenkan at comcast.net (Phil Spelt)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:39:16 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Perry VP30 Pump
In-Reply-To: <BAY128-W15F7F0C67F155DC5D2B619A01E0@phx.gbl>
References: <337621985.4956591269991904895.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<1591139433.4957091269991964773.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<888fdd981003301646h66212b7dsd8a32fd4356d7d9c@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY128-W15F7F0C67F155DC5D2B619A01E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20100331113912.EC26611645@bridi.netexpress.com>

Surely, there will be 2 days in the month of July that will be clear 
and flyable????

That is why I TRY to proof-read before I hit "Send" -- lol

At 12:34 AM 3/31/2010, you wrote:
>Man that is one long contest...
>
>
>----------
>
>
>Are you going to make "The Fat Lake Pattern Rendezvous" this year 
>(June 31-August 1)?  It's going to be bigger and better.  That is if 
>it doesn't rain again...ha!
>
>Bob
>
>On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Vicente "Vince" Bortone 
><<mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net>vicenterc at comcast.net> wrote:
>Hi Bob,
>
>  I remember this range 1/8" - 5/32".  I could be wrong since it has 
> been a long time.  Let's see other recommendations.
>
>Good luck,
>
>Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob Wilson" <<mailto:wilsorc at gmail.com>wilsorc at gmail.com>
>To: "General pattern discussion" 
><<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:40:19 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Perry VP30 Pump
>
>I have a VP30  Perry pump on my O.S. 1.60.  Unfortunately, I've 
>messed around with the adjustment screw and now have no clue where 
>it was set originally.  Anyone have an idea how far out from the 
>base the screw is set from the factory?
>
>_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion 
>mailing list 
><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
>----------
>The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your 
>inbox. 
><http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_3>Get 
>started.
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member  SPA--177, Board Member
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100331/985c9e69/attachment.html>

From billpritch at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 31 15:10:40 2010
From: billpritch at yahoo.com (Bill Pritchett)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:10:40 -0000
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Larry DIamond - calling cards
Message-ID: <212261.76640.qm@web65108.mail.ac2.yahoo.com>

All - I read Larry's offer to make up some cards as most of you did and ordered of bunch of them for all classes.  I'm planning on giving them to every member of my local club.  Anyway, they're great quality and Larry delivered them as promised and as priced.
No, I was not compensated for this message......lmao

Here's his email if anyone else would like to get some:
ldiamond at diamondrc.com

Bill

 Bill Pritchett
Souled Out Entertainment
www.souledoutentertainment.biz
765-744-9322
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100331/32ff57c8/attachment.html>