[NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model - RESUBMITTED
Charlie Barrera
charliebarrera at consolidated.net
Wed Dec 5 20:00:34 AKST 2012
I was using a APC 20.5 X 12WE prop. I had previously used a Falcon V2 21 X
14. I had flown with the Falcon a couple of times. I used the APC after
noticing the Falcon had delaminated on the leading edge. The difference in
weight was substantial - the Falcon prop weighed 72g vs. the APC was around
120g (I never weighed it but immediately noticed the difference). The
difference in the rotating mass (the propeller disc) produced greater
rotational forces. If you can imagine a small gyroscope spinning in your
hand, when you move it perpendicular to its rotating axis, you get a force
that is at a right angle to the axis. This is the force that the fuselage
must absorb. When I powered up and increased the roll rate for the turn to
downwind, the structure failed. I had seen several WindS Pro's fly with
Q80's nose mounted with no rear brace. There were no problems that I heard
of. When it failed on me, I had an ahah moment and should have known better.
I have written an article for the K Factor.
Charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
nsrca-discussion-request at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 3:00 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: NSRCA-discussion Digest, Vol 85, Issue 5
Send NSRCA-discussion mailing list submissions to
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
nsrca-discussion-request at lists.nsrca.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
nsrca-discussion-owner at lists.nsrca.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of NSRCA-discussion digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model - RESUBMITTED
(mike mueller)
2. 2M Monolog YS Setup (Larry Diamond)
3. Re: Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model - RESUBMITTED
(PhilS.)
4. Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model - RESUBMITTED
(Bob Kane)
5. Re: Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model - RESUBMITTED
(mike mueller)
6. Re: Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model- RESUBMITTED
(ehaury)
7. December Kfactor (Scott McHarg)
8. Re: December Kfactor (Michael S. Harrison)
9. Re: December Kfactor (Keith Hoard)
10. Re: Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model- RESUBMITTED
(Bob Kane)
11. Re: Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model- RESUBMITTED
(Chris)
12. Re: Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model- RESUBMITTED
(Verne Koester)
13. Re: Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model- RESUBMITTED
(Larry Diamond)
14. Re: Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model- RESUBMITTED
(Peter Vogel)
15. Re: Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model- RESUBMITTED
(Chris)
16. Re: Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model- RESUBMITTED
(Verne Koester)
17. Re: Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model- RESUBMITTED
(mike mueller)
18. Re: Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model- RESUBMITTED
(=?utf-8?B?RGF2ZUwzMjJAY29tY2FzdC5uZXQ=?=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 13:35:20 -0800 (PST)
From: mike mueller <mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>
To: Generalpatterndiscussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model - RESUBMITTED
Message-ID:
<1354656920.51525.YahooMailNeo at web39404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Say what?
"a large reactionary force called gyroscopic precession"
?I feel infinitlty smarter
?Is it violent warble?
?What prop were you running????
?Mike
________________________________
From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: "vicenterc at comcast.net" <vicenterc at comcast.net>; General pattern
discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
The Q80 has a large?diameter?rotating mass, and it brings with it a large
reactionary force called gyroscopic precession when it is spinning. ?In
laymen terms it will strongly resist changing direction in yaw or pitch. ?A
rear brace would help keep this force in check.?
?
Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com
________________________________
From: "vicenterc at comcast.net" <vicenterc at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
I understand that a rear brace is a must for this motor.?
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: "Charlie Barrera" <charliebarrera at consolidated.net>
Sender: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 07:02:47
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Reply-To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
??? RESUBMITTED
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.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/20121204/3a55
7f03/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 14:08:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Larry Diamond <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Monolog YS Setup
Message-ID:
<1354658903.98856.YahooMailNeo at web5704.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Looking to see if somebody has a 2M Monolog with a YS DZ setup.
?
Please?send me some pics off line if you can?
?
Or your thoughts... :)
?
Larry Diamond
ldiamond at diamondrc.com
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 19:52:16 -0500
From: "PhilS." <chuenkan at comcast.net>
To: mike mueller <mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>, General pattern
discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model - RESUBMITTED
Message-ID: <50BE9AC0.9050702 at comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
Hmmmm..."...large _/reactionary/_ force..." is that a Tea Party force?? lol
On 12/4/2012 4:35 PM, mike mueller wrote:
> Say what?
> "a large reactionary force called gyroscopic precession"
> I feel infinitlty smarter
> Is it violent warble?
> What prop were you running????
> Mike
>
> *From:* Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
> *To:* "vicenterc at comcast.net" <vicenterc at comcast.net>; General pattern
> discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the
> Model - RESUBMITTED
>
> The Q80 has a large diameter rotating mass, and it brings with it a
> large reactionary force called gyroscopic precession when it is
> spinning. In laymen terms it will strongly resist changing direction
> in yaw or pitch. A rear brace would help keep this force in check.
>
>
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> *From:* "vicenterc at comcast.net" <vicenterc at comcast.net>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:27 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the
> Model - RESUBMITTED
>
> I understand that a rear brace is a must for this motor.
>
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Charlie Barrera" <charliebarrera at consolidated.net
> <mailto:charliebarrera at consolidated.net>>
> Sender: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 07:02:47
> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> Reply-To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
> RESUBMITTED
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
--
Phil Spelt, KCRC President
AMA 1294 Scientific Leader Member
SPA 177 Board Member
(865) 435-1476v, (865) 604-0541c
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20121204/f2dc
0c66/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 05:07:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: Generalpatterndiscussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model - RESUBMITTED
Message-ID:
<1354712830.61172.YahooMailNeo at web113313.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Charlie was spot on with his comment on torque, but there are two torque
vectors at work, the first is the obvious force required to turn the prop
and the "equal but opposite" torque the motor transmits to it's mount. If
that was all we had to worry about, the single mount would probably be fine.
But there is the other torque (gyroscopic precession) ?resulting from
attempting to move a rotating mass in the pitch or yaw axis. ?Here is a good
youtube video demonstrating the effect . .. . ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty9QSiVC2g0
?
Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com
________________________________
From: mike mueller <mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>
To: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
Say what?
"a large reactionary force called gyroscopic precession"
?I feel infinitlty smarter
?Is it violent warble?
?What prop were you running????
?Mike
From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: "vicenterc at comcast.net" <vicenterc at comcast.net>; General pattern
discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
The Q80 has a large?diameter?rotating mass, and it brings with it a large
reactionary force called gyroscopic precession when it is spinning. ?In
laymen terms it will strongly resist changing direction in yaw or pitch. ?A
rear brace would help keep this force in check.?
?
Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com
From: "vicenterc at comcast.net" <vicenterc at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
I understand that a rear brace is a must for this motor.?
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From:
"Charlie Barrera" <charliebarrera at consolidated.net>
Sender: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 07:02:47
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Reply-To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
???
RESUBMITTED
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.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/20121205/49fe
5fbd/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 06:26:45 -0800 (PST)
From: mike mueller <mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>
To: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>, General pattern discussion
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model - RESUBMITTED
Message-ID:
<1354717605.90912.YahooMailNeo at web39405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Very cool video. I've learned a lot of neat things watching Youtube video's.
Thanks Bob
________________________________
From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: Generalpatterndiscussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 7:07 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
Charlie was spot on with his comment on torque, but there are two torque
vectors at work, the first is the obvious force required to turn the prop
and the "equal but opposite" torque the motor transmits to it's mount. If
that was all we had to worry about, the single mount would probably be fine.
But there is the other torque (gyroscopic precession) ?resulting from
attempting to move a rotating mass in the pitch or yaw axis. ?Here is a good
youtube video demonstrating the effect . .. . ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty9QSiVC2g0
Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com
________________________________
From: mike mueller <mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>
To: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
Say what?
"a large reactionary force called gyroscopic precession"
?I feel infinitlty smarter
?Is it violent warble?
?What prop were you running????
?Mike
________________________________
From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: "vicenterc at comcast.net" <vicenterc at comcast.net>; General pattern
discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
The Q80 has a large?diameter?rotating mass, and it brings with it a large
reactionary force called gyroscopic precession when it is spinning. ?In
laymen terms it will strongly resist changing direction in yaw or pitch. ?A
rear brace would help keep this force in check.?
?
Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com
________________________________
From: "vicenterc at comcast.net" <vicenterc at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
I understand that a rear brace is a must for this motor.?
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: "Charlie Barrera" <charliebarrera at consolidated.net>
Sender: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 07:02:47
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Reply-To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
??? RESUBMITTED
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.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/20121205/9a8e
9947/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 10:02:34 -0600
From: "ehaury" <ejhaury at comcast.net>
To: "mike mueller" <mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>, "General pattern
discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model- RESUBMITTED
Message-ID: <387E7BAD4DE944C390623886E20D28F8 at EarlPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I don't know what caused Charlie's failure, we've discussed possibilities -
obviously forces occurred that were beyond what the structure could handle.
Torque & precession have been with us since we stuck engines & props on the
front of airplanes. They really haven't changed much with the advent of E
power - actually went down with the use of lighter props.
I'd just like to offer that the Hacker Q80 design doesn't change much. The
rotating outer member (Q80-14) weighs about 100g and rotates up to 7K rpm
with an 1 1/2" radius. The rotor in a C50 also weighs around 100g, but it
rotates up to 40K rpm on a 3/8" radius. The latter, with the gearbox, can
probably apply torque quicker than the outie. Most other popular outrunners
fall somewhere between these. (Be neat if someone actually made the calcs.)
I've lots of flights with the Q80-11 without issue (the Q80-14 is less
powerful). It is firmly front mounted with also a solid rear mount. I think
we all know the importance of a nose ring on a YS and there's been no
success running inrunners without a rear support. While some have had
success running the Q without a rear support (bet the prop was light), these
things really need a more sturdy rear support (or very stout front mnt /
fuse nose) than may be obvious.
Essentially something slightly different that adds to the learning curve,
hopefully Charlie's experience and these discussions will prevent further
occurrences.
Earl
----- Original Message -----
From: mike mueller
To: Bob Kane ; General pattern discussion
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model- RESUBMITTED
Very cool video. I've learned a lot of neat things watching Youtube
video's. Thanks Bob
From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: Generalpatterndiscussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 7:07 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
Charlie was spot on with his comment on torque, but there are two torque
vectors at work, the first is the obvious force required to turn the prop
and the "equal but opposite" torque the motor transmits to it's mount. If
that was all we had to worry about, the single mount would probably be fine.
But there is the other torque (gyroscopic precession) resulting from
attempting to move a rotating mass in the pitch or yaw axis. Here is a good
youtube video demonstrating the effect . .. .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty9QSiVC2g0
Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com
From: mike mueller <mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>
To: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
Say what?
"a large reactionary force called gyroscopic precession"
I feel infinitlty smarter
Is it violent warble?
What prop were you running????
Mike
From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: "vicenterc at comcast.net" <vicenterc at comcast.net>; General pattern
discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
The Q80 has a large diameter rotating mass, and it brings with it a large
reactionary force called gyroscopic precession when it is spinning. In
laymen terms it will strongly resist changing direction in yaw or pitch. A
rear brace would help keep this force in check.
Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com
From: "vicenterc at comcast.net" <vicenterc at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
I understand that a rear brace is a must for this motor.
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: "Charlie Barrera" <charliebarrera at consolidated.net>
Sender: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 07:02:47
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Reply-To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.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 message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2634/5437 - Release Date: 12/04/12
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20121205/46d2
e93e/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 10:06:37 -0600
From: Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] December Kfactor
Message-ID:
<CALDH1Uo8PH-mjtv5RgaATt-T0g6+QJtH2eJTniLNiCuM7dnRKg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
The December issue of our Kfactor is now available for download at
www.nsrca.us. Please remember to click on each ad of our advertisers as
they have the ability to track where the click came from. Each click helps
make sure they know their advertising dollars are working for them. Every
click helps! The links are embedded in the pdf so there's nothing to type.
Just point and click!
For those of you who are getting a weird title when you open the Kfactor on
a tablet, iPad or smartphone, I have figured out what the cause of it is
with the help of Peter Vogel. That shouldn't be the case anymore.
Thank you,
--
*Scott A. McHarg*
Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20121205/8e8e
135f/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:06:46 -0600
From: "Michael S. Harrison" <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net>
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] December Kfactor
Message-ID: <005a01cdd30a$e978e380$bc6aaa80$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
thanks,
you can do me strictly email. I don't really want the paper one.
mike
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Scott McHarg
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 10:07 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] December Kfactor
The December issue of our Kfactor is now available for download at
www.nsrca.us. Please remember to click on each ad of our advertisers as
they have the ability to track where the click came from. Each click helps
make sure they know their advertising dollars are working for them. Every
click helps! The links are embedded in the pdf so there's nothing to type.
Just point and click!
For those of you who are getting a weird title when you open the Kfactor on
a tablet, iPad or smartphone, I have figured out what the cause of it is
with the help of Peter Vogel. That shouldn't be the case anymore.
Thank you,
--
Scott A. McHarg
Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20121205/2249
7a98/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 17:17:21 +0000
From: Keith Hoard <khoard at gmail.com>
To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] December Kfactor
Message-ID: <2928297149156282153 at unknownmsgid>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Me Two!!
Sent from Windows Mail
*From:* Michael S. Harrison
*Sent:* ?December? ?5?, ?2012 ?11?:?06? ?AM
*To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
*Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] December Kfactor
thanks,****
you can do me strictly email. I don't really want the paper one.****
mike ****
** **
*From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Scott McHarg
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2012 10:07 AM
*To:* General pattern discussion
*Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] December Kfactor****
** **
The December issue of our Kfactor is now available for download at
www.nsrca.us. Please remember to click on each ad of our advertisers as
they have the ability to track where the click came from. Each click helps
make sure they know their advertising dollars are working for them. Every
click helps! The links are embedded in the pdf so there's nothing to type.
Just point and click!****
** **
For those of you who are getting a weird title when you open the Kfactor on
a tablet, iPad or smartphone, I have figured out what the cause of it is
with the help of Peter Vogel. That shouldn't be the case anymore.****
** **
Thank you,
****
** **
--
*Scott A. McHarg*
Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure****
_______________________________________________
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/20121205/5582
294b/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 09:38:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model- RESUBMITTED
Message-ID:
<1354729102.3541.YahooMailNeo at web113313.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Great observations. ?I am curious about the numbers myself, maybe in my
spare time (ha!) I'll pull out my old physics books and crunch some
numbers.?
?
Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com
________________________________
From: ehaury <ejhaury at comcast.net>
To: mike mueller <mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>; General pattern discussion
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED
I don't know what caused Charlie's failure, we've
discussed possibilities - obviously forces occurred that were beyond what
the
structure could handle.
?
Torque & precession have been with us since we stuck
engines & props on the front of airplanes. They really haven't changed much
with the advent of E power - actually went down with the use of lighter
props.
?
I'd just like to offer that the Hacker Q80 design doesn't
change much. The rotating outer member (Q80-14) weighs about 100g?and
rotates up to 7K rpm with an 1 1/2" radius. The rotor in a C50 also weighs
around 100g, but it rotates up to 40K rpm on a 3/8" radius. The latter, with
the
gearbox, can probably apply torque quicker than the outie. Most other
popular
outrunners fall somewhere between these. (Be neat if someone actually made
the
calcs.)
?
I've lots of flights with the Q80-11 without issue (the
Q80-14 is less powerful). It is firmly front mounted with also a solid rear
mount. I think we all know the importance of a nose ring on a YS and there's
been no success running inrunners without a rear support. While some have
had
success running the Q without a rear support (bet the prop was light), these
things really need a more sturdy rear support (or very stout front mnt /
fuse
nose) than may be obvious.
?
Essentially something slightly different that adds to the
learning curve, hopefully Charlie's experience and these discussions will
prevent further occurrences.
?
Earl
----- Original Message -----
>From: mike mueller
>To: Bob Kane ; General pattern discussion
>Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 8:26 AM
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model- RESUBMITTED
>
>
>Very cool video. I've learned a lot of neat things watching Youtube
video's. Thanks Bob
>
>
>
>From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
>To: Generalpatterndiscussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 7:07 AM
>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
>
>
>Charlie was spot on with his comment on torque, but there are two torque
vectors at work, the first is the obvious force required to turn the prop
and the "equal but opposite" torque the motor transmits to it's mount. If
that was all we had to worry about, the single mount would probably be
fine. But there is the other torque (gyroscopic precession) ?resulting from
attempting to move a rotating mass in the pitch or yaw axis. ?Here is a
good youtube video demonstrating the effect . .. . ?
>
>
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty9QSiVC2g0
>
>
>
>?
>Bob Kane
>getterflash at yahoo.com
>
>From: mike mueller <mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>
>To: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 4:34 PM
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
>
>
>Say what?
>"a large reactionary force called gyroscopic precession"
>?I feel infinitlty smarter
>?Is it violent warble?
>?What prop were you running????
>?Mike
>
>
>From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
>To: "vicenterc at comcast.net" <vicenterc at comcast.net>; General pattern
discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54 AM
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
>
>
>The Q80 has a large?diameter?rotating mass, and it brings with it a large
reactionary force called gyroscopic precession when it is spinning. ?In
laymen terms it will strongly resist changing direction in yaw or pitch. ?A
rear brace would help keep this force in check.?
>
>
>
>?
>Bob Kane
>getterflash at yahoo.com
>
>From: "vicenterc at comcast.net" <vicenterc at comcast.net>
>To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:27 AM
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
>
>I understand that a rear brace is a must for
this motor.?
>
>Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>Sent via BlackBerry by
AT&T
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "Charlie Barrera" <charliebarrera at consolidated.net>
>Sender: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>Date:
Tue, 4 Dec 2012 07:02:47
>To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Reply-To:
General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Subject:
[NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model
-
>???
RESUBMITTED
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.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 message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus
Database: 2634/5437 - Release Date: 12/04/12
_______________________________________________
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/20121205/cc6d
f6fe/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 12:50:20 -0500
From: Chris <cjm767driver at hotmail.com>
To: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>, General pattern discussion
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model- RESUBMITTED
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP4777014E8EB96D123EC2E8083460 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
Early in the electric transition, many of us found out the hard way that
nose mounted outrunners without a rear support would lead to structural
failures with nearly 100% certainty. My nose mounted Genesis lasted 1
1/2 flights before failure. Others had many more flights but even the
best cases I know of had nose structure stresses and cracking due to the
unsupported nose mounting. Jerry Budd and I did a lot of testing and
posting about this issue back in 2006 or 2007. Newer designs have
reinforced noses which help but bottom line, don't nose mount an
electric motor without rear support. It "might" last 1 or 500 flights
but 501 won't be as successful.
Chris
On 12/5/2012 12:38 PM, Bob Kane wrote:
> Great observations. I am curious about the numbers myself, maybe in
> my spare time (ha!) I'll pull out my old physics books and crunch some
> numbers.
>
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* ehaury <ejhaury at comcast.net>
> *To:* mike mueller <mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>; General pattern
> discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 5, 2012 11:02 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of
> the Model- RESUBMITTED
>
> I don't know what caused Charlie's failure, we've discussed
> possibilities - obviously forces occurred that were beyond what the
> structure could handle.
> Torque & precession have been with us since we stuck engines & props
> on the front of airplanes. They really haven't changed much with the
> advent of E power - actually went down with the use of lighter props.
> I'd just like to offer that the Hacker Q80 design doesn't change much.
> The rotating outer member (Q80-14) weighs about 100g and rotates up to
> 7K rpm with an 1 1/2" radius. The rotor in a C50 also weighs around
> 100g, but it rotates up to 40K rpm on a 3/8" radius. The latter, with
> the gearbox, can probably apply torque quicker than the outie. Most
> other popular outrunners fall somewhere between these. (Be neat if
> someone actually made the calcs.)
> I've lots of flights with the Q80-11 without issue (the Q80-14 is less
> powerful). It is firmly front mounted with also a solid rear mount. I
> think we all know the importance of a nose ring on a YS and there's
> been no success running inrunners without a rear support. While some
> have had success running the Q without a rear support (bet the prop
> was light), these things really need a more sturdy rear support (or
> very stout front mnt / fuse nose) than may be obvious.
> Essentially something slightly different that adds to the learning
> curve, hopefully Charlie's experience and these discussions will
> prevent further occurrences.
> Earl
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* mike mueller <mailto:mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>
> *To:* Bob Kane <mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com> ; General pattern
> discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2012 8:26 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose
> of the Model- RESUBMITTED
>
> Very cool video. I've learned a lot of neat things watching
> Youtube video's. Thanks Bob
>
> *From:* Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com
> <mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com>>
> *To:* Generalpatterndiscussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 5, 2012 7:07 AM
> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of
> the Model - RESUBMITTED
>
> Charlie was spot on with his comment on torque, but there are two
> torque vectors at work, the first is the obvious force required to
> turn the prop and the "equal but opposite" torque the motor
> transmits to it's mount. If that was all we had to worry about,
> the single mount would probably be fine. But there is the other
> torque (gyroscopic precession) resulting from attempting to move
> a rotating mass in the pitch or yaw axis. Here is a good youtube
> video demonstrating the effect . .. .
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty9QSiVC2g0
>
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> *From:* mike mueller <mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>
> *To:* Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 4, 2012 4:34 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of
> the Model - RESUBMITTED
>
> Say what?
> "a large reactionary force called gyroscopic precession"
> I feel infinitlty smarter
> Is it violent warble?
> What prop were you running????
> Mike
>
> *From:* Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
> *To:* "vicenterc at comcast.net" <vicenterc at comcast.net>; General
> pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of
> the Model - RESUBMITTED
>
> The Q80 has a large diameter rotating mass, and it brings with it
> a large reactionary force called gyroscopic precession when it is
> spinning. In laymen terms it will strongly resist changing
> direction in yaw or pitch. A rear brace would help keep this
> force in check.
>
>
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> *From:* "vicenterc at comcast.net" <vicenterc at comcast.net>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:27 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of
> the Model - RESUBMITTED
>
> I understand that a rear brace is a must for this motor.
>
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Charlie Barrera" <charliebarrera at consolidated.net
> <mailto:charliebarrera at consolidated.net>>
> Sender: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 07:02:47
> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> Reply-To: General pattern discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
> RESUBMITTED
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>
> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2634/5437 - Release Date:
> 12/04/12
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121205/a3c8
1e25/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 13:16:26 -0500
From: "Verne Koester" <verne at twmi.rr.com>
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model- RESUBMITTED
Message-ID: <000c01cdd314$a43277f0$ec9767d0$@twmi.rr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I agree with Chris. I've personally had thousands of flights with nose
mounted motors with rear supports and never had so much as a hint of
failure. If you count all the flights I've seen Andrew fly with his nose
mounted, rear supported motors as well as countless others at the practice
field and on the contest trail, the number probably reaches into the tens of
thousands.
The only time I've ever witnessed a catastrophic motor induced fuselage
failure was while I was judging an FAI pilot flying an Axi-equipped Smaragd
a few years back. Following a turnaround, there was a short, deep, rumbling
sound that sounded a little like flutter with heavy bass followed by the
departure of the motor and a significant section of the nose of the fuse.
The motor was nose mounted and had no rear support.
My best guess, and it is just a guess, was that the prop arc coupled with
the forces of the looping turnaround, set up a harmonic, or flutter if you
will, that the fuse couldn't contain. The rumble was very brief before it
came apart.
I have no engineering data to report, just practical experience. A nose
mounted motor without a rear support is a disaster about to happen. As Chris
said, it's just a matter of when.
Verne Koester
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Chris
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 12:50 PM
To: Bob Kane; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED
Early in the electric transition, many of us found out the hard way that
nose mounted outrunners without a rear support would lead to structural
failures with nearly 100% certainty. My nose mounted Genesis lasted 1 1/2
flights before failure. Others had many more flights but even the best
cases I know of had nose structure stresses and cracking due to the
unsupported nose mounting. Jerry Budd and I did a lot of testing and
posting about this issue back in 2006 or 2007. Newer designs have
reinforced noses which help but bottom line, don't nose mount an electric
motor without rear support. It "might" last 1 or 500 flights but 501 won't
be as successful.
Chris
On 12/5/2012 12:38 PM, Bob Kane wrote:
Great observations. I am curious about the numbers myself, maybe in my
spare time (ha!) I'll pull out my old physics books and crunch some numbers.
Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com
_____
From: ehaury <mailto:ejhaury at comcast.net> <ejhaury at comcast.net>
To: mike mueller <mailto:mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>
<mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>; General pattern discussion
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED
I don't know what caused Charlie's failure, we've discussed possibilities -
obviously forces occurred that were beyond what the structure could handle.
Torque & precession have been with us since we stuck engines & props on the
front of airplanes. They really haven't changed much with the advent of E
power - actually went down with the use of lighter props.
I'd just like to offer that the Hacker Q80 design doesn't change much. The
rotating outer member (Q80-14) weighs about 100g and rotates up to 7K rpm
with an 1 1/2" radius. The rotor in a C50 also weighs around 100g, but it
rotates up to 40K rpm on a 3/8" radius. The latter, with the gearbox, can
probably apply torque quicker than the outie. Most other popular outrunners
fall somewhere between these. (Be neat if someone actually made the calcs.)
I've lots of flights with the Q80-11 without issue (the Q80-14 is less
powerful). It is firmly front mounted with also a solid rear mount. I think
we all know the importance of a nose ring on a YS and there's been no
success running inrunners without a rear support. While some have had
success running the Q without a rear support (bet the prop was light), these
things really need a more sturdy rear support (or very stout front mnt /
fuse nose) than may be obvious.
Essentially something slightly different that adds to the learning curve,
hopefully Charlie's experience and these discussions will prevent further
occurrences.
Earl
----- Original Message -----
From: mike mueller <mailto:mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>
To: Bob Kane <mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com> ; General pattern discussion
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED
Very cool video. I've learned a lot of neat things watching Youtube video's.
Thanks Bob
From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: Generalpatterndiscussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 7:07 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
Charlie was spot on with his comment on torque, but there are two torque
vectors at work, the first is the obvious force required to turn the prop
and the "equal but opposite" torque the motor transmits to it's mount. If
that was all we had to worry about, the single mount would probably be fine.
But there is the other torque (gyroscopic precession) resulting from
attempting to move a rotating mass in the pitch or yaw axis. Here is a good
youtube video demonstrating the effect . .. .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty9QSiVC2g0
Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com
From: mike mueller <mailto:mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>
<mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>
To: Bob Kane <mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com> <getterflash at yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
Say what?
"a large reactionary force called gyroscopic precession"
I feel infinitlty smarter
Is it violent warble?
What prop were you running????
Mike
From: Bob Kane <mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com> <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: <mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net> "vicenterc at comcast.net"
<mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net> <vicenterc at comcast.net>; General pattern
discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
The Q80 has a large diameter rotating mass, and it brings with it a large
reactionary force called gyroscopic precession when it is spinning. In
laymen terms it will strongly resist changing direction in yaw or pitch. A
rear brace would help keep this force in check.
Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com
From: <mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net> "vicenterc at comcast.net"
<mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net> <vicenterc at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
I understand that a rear brace is a must for this motor.
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: "Charlie Barrera" <charliebarrera at consolidated.net>
Sender: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 07:02:47
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Reply-To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.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 message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2634/5437 - Release Date: 12/04/12
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.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/20121205/c255
ef73/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:30:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Larry Diamond <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model- RESUBMITTED
Message-ID:
<1354735810.46115.YahooMailNeo at web5715.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
As somebody who is trying to get back into Pattern and those like me that
have Zero experience with high power electric setups, is there an article or
a something posted that we can reference?
?
Maybe something on the NSRCA Website that can be accessed by all under Tips
an Set Up...Yada Yada Yada...
?
Larry Diamond
________________________________
From: Verne Koester <verne at twmi.rr.com>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED
I agree with Chris. I?ve personally had thousands of flights with nose
mounted motors with rear supports and never had so much as a hint of
failure. If you count all the flights I?ve seen Andrew fly with his nose
mounted, rear supported motors as well as countless others at the practice
field and on the contest trail, the number probably reaches into the tens of
thousands.
?
The only time I?ve ever witnessed a catastrophic motor induced fuselage
failure was while I was judging an FAI pilot flying an Axi-equipped Smaragd
a few years back. Following a turnaround, there was a short, deep, rumbling
sound that sounded a little like flutter with heavy bass followed by the
departure of the motor and a significant section of the nose of the fuse.
The motor was nose mounted and had no rear support.
?
My best guess, and it is just a guess, ?was that the prop arc coupled with
the forces of the looping turnaround, set up a harmonic, or flutter if you
will, that the fuse couldn?t contain. The rumble was very brief before it
came apart.
?
I have no engineering data to report, just practical experience. A nose
mounted motor without a rear support is a disaster about to happen. As Chris
said, it?s just a matter of when.
?
Verne Koester
?
From:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Chris
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 12:50 PM
To: Bob Kane; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED
?
Early in the electric transition, many of us found out the hard way that
nose mounted outrunners without a rear support would lead to structural
failures with nearly 100% certainty.? My nose mounted Genesis lasted 1 1/2
flights before failure.? Others had many more flights but even the best
cases I know of had nose structure stresses and cracking due to the
unsupported nose mounting.? Jerry Budd and I did a lot of testing and
posting about this issue back in 2006 or 2007.? Newer designs have
reinforced noses which help but bottom line, don't nose mount an electric
motor without rear support. It "might" last 1 or 500 flights but 501 won't
be as successful.
Chris
On 12/5/2012 12:38 PM, Bob Kane wrote:
Great observations. ?I am curious about the numbers myself, maybe in my
spare time (ha!) I'll pull out my old physics books and crunch some
numbers.?
>?
>Bob Kane
>getterflash at yahoo.com
>
>________________________________
>
>From:ehaury mailto:ejhaury at comcast.net
>To: mike mueller mailto:mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com; General pattern
discussion mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 11:02 AM
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model- RESUBMITTED
>?
>I don't know what caused Charlie's failure, we've discussed possibilities -
obviously forces occurred that were beyond what the structure could handle.
>?
>Torque & precession have been with us since we stuck engines & props on the
front of airplanes. They really haven't changed much with the advent of E
power - actually went down with the use of lighter props.
>?
>I'd just like to offer that the Hacker Q80 design doesn't change much. The
rotating outer member (Q80-14) weighs about 100g?and rotates up to 7K rpm
with an 1 1/2" radius. The rotor in a C50 also weighs around 100g, but it
rotates up to 40K rpm on a 3/8" radius. The latter, with the gearbox, can
probably apply torque quicker than the outie. Most other popular outrunners
fall somewhere between these. (Be neat if someone actually made the calcs.)
>?
>I've lots of flights with the Q80-11 without issue (the Q80-14 is less
powerful). It is firmly front mounted with also a solid rear mount. I think
we all know the importance of a nose ring on a YS and there's been no
success running inrunners without a rear support. While some have had
success running the Q without a rear support (bet the prop was light), these
things really need a more sturdy rear support (or very stout front mnt /
fuse nose) than may be obvious.
>?
>Essentially something slightly different that adds to the learning curve,
hopefully Charlie's experience and these discussions will prevent further
occurrences.
>?
>Earl
>----- Original Message -----
>>From:mike mueller
>>To:Bob Kane ; General pattern discussion
>>Sent:Wednesday, December 05, 2012 8:26 AM
>>Subject:Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model- RESUBMITTED
>>?
>>Very cool video. I've learned a lot of neat things watching Youtube
video's. Thanks Bob
>>?
>>From:Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
>>To: Generalpatterndiscussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 7:07 AM
>>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
>>?
>>Charlie was spot on with his comment on torque, but there are two torque
vectors at work, the first is the obvious force required to turn the prop
and the "equal but opposite" torque the motor transmits to it's mount. If
that was all we had to worry about, the single mount would probably be fine.
But there is the other torque (gyroscopic precession) ?resulting from
attempting to move a rotating mass in the pitch or yaw axis. ?Here is a good
youtube video demonstrating the effect . .. . ?
>>?
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty9QSiVC2g0
>>?
>>?
>>Bob Kane
>>getterflash at yahoo.com
>>From:mike mueller mailto:mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com
>>To: Bob Kane mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 4:34 PM
>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
>>?
>>Say what?
>>"a large reactionary force called gyroscopic precession"
>>?I feel infinitlty smarter
>>?Is it violent warble?
>>?What prop were you running????
>>?Mike
>>?
>>From:Bob Kane mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com
>>To: mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net; General
pattern discussion mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54 AM
>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
>>?
>>The Q80 has a large?diameter?rotating mass, and it brings with it a large
reactionary force called gyroscopic precession when it is spinning. ?In
laymen terms it will strongly resist changing direction in yaw or pitch. ?A
rear brace would help keep this force in check.?
>>?
>>
>>?
>>Bob Kane
>>getterflash at yahoo.com
>>From:mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net
>>To: General pattern discussion mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:27 AM
>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
>>
>>I understand that a rear brace is a must for this motor.?
>>
>>Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>>Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: "Charlie Barrera" <charliebarrera at consolidated.net>
>>Sender: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 07:02:47
>>To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>Reply-To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
>>??? RESUBMITTED
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>_______________________________________________
>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>?
>>?
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>http://lists.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 message.
>>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com/
>>Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2634/5437 - Release Date: 12/04/12
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.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/20121205/262b
7ae7/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 12:04:26 -0800
From: Peter Vogel <vogel.peter at gmail.com>
To: Larry Diamond <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>, General pattern
discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model- RESUBMITTED
Message-ID:
<CAGBB6kKdcMhZOW39R8B7yQB8T=gOTNV+axnvtFuZOmnpDSFR2g at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
This would be an *excellent* topic for an article in the K-factor!
(hint, hint)
Peter+
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Larry Diamond
<ldiamond at diamondrc.com>wrote:
> As somebody who is trying to get back into Pattern and those like me that
> have Zero experience with high power electric setups, is there an article
> or a something posted that we can reference?
>
> Maybe something on the NSRCA Website that can be accessed by all under
> Tips an Set Up...Yada Yada Yada...
>
> Larry Diamond
>
> *From:* Verne Koester <verne at twmi.rr.com>
>
> *To:* 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 5, 2012 12:16 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
> Model- RESUBMITTED
>
> I agree with Chris. I?ve personally had thousands of flights with nose
> mounted motors with rear supports and never had so much as a hint of
> failure. If you count all the flights I?ve seen Andrew fly with his nose
> mounted, rear supported motors as well as countless others at the practice
> field and on the contest trail, the number probably reaches into the tens
> of thousands.
>
> The only time I?ve ever witnessed a catastrophic motor induced fuselage
> failure was while I was judging an FAI pilot flying an Axi-equipped
Smaragd
> a few years back. Following a turnaround, there was a short, deep,
rumbling
> sound that sounded a little like flutter with heavy bass followed by the
> departure of the motor and a significant section of the nose of the fuse.
> The motor was nose mounted and had no rear support.
>
> My best guess, and it is just a guess, was that the prop arc coupled with
> the forces of the looping turnaround, set up a harmonic, or flutter if you
> will, that the fuse couldn?t contain. The rumble was very brief before it
> came apart.
>
> I have no engineering data to report, just practical experience. A nose
> mounted motor without a rear support is a disaster about to happen. As
> Chris said, it?s just a matter of when.
>
> Verne Koester
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Chris
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2012 12:50 PM
> *To:* Bob Kane; General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
> Model- RESUBMITTED
>
> Early in the electric transition, many of us found out the hard way that
> nose mounted outrunners without a rear support would lead to structural
> failures with nearly 100% certainty. My nose mounted Genesis lasted 1 1/2
> flights before failure. Others had many more flights but even the best
> cases I know of had nose structure stresses and cracking due to the
> unsupported nose mounting. Jerry Budd and I did a lot of testing and
> posting about this issue back in 2006 or 2007. Newer designs have
> reinforced noses which help but bottom line, don't nose mount an electric
> motor without rear support. It "might" last 1 or 500 flights but 501 won't
> be as successful.
>
> Chris
> On 12/5/2012 12:38 PM, Bob Kane wrote:
>
> Great observations. I am curious about the numbers myself, maybe in my
> spare time (ha!) I'll pull out my old physics books and crunch some
> numbers.
>
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> *From:* ehaury mailto:ejhaury at comcast.net <ejhaury at comcast.net>
> *To:* mike mueller
mailto:mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com<mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>;
> General pattern discussion
mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 5, 2012 11:02 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
> Model- RESUBMITTED
>
> I don't know what caused Charlie's failure, we've discussed
> possibilities - obviously forces occurred that were beyond what the
> structure could handle.
>
> Torque & precession have been with us since we stuck engines & props on
> the front of airplanes. They really haven't changed much with the advent
of
> E power - actually went down with the use of lighter props.
>
> I'd just like to offer that the Hacker Q80 design doesn't change much.
> The rotating outer member (Q80-14) weighs about 100g and rotates up to 7K
> rpm with an 1 1/2" radius. The rotor in a C50 also weighs around 100g, but
> it rotates up to 40K rpm on a 3/8" radius. The latter, with the gearbox,
> can probably apply torque quicker than the outie. Most other popular
> outrunners fall somewhere between these. (Be neat if someone actually made
> the calcs.)
>
> I've lots of flights with the Q80-11 without issue (the Q80-14 is less
> powerful). It is firmly front mounted with also a solid rear mount. I
think
> we all know the importance of a nose ring on a YS and there's been no
> success running inrunners without a rear support. While some have had
> success running the Q without a rear support (bet the prop was light),
> these things really need a more sturdy rear support (or very stout front
> mnt / fuse nose) than may be obvious.
>
> Essentially something slightly different that adds to the learning
> curve, hopefully Charlie's experience and these discussions will prevent
> further occurrences.
>
> Earl
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* mike mueller <mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>
> *To:* Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> ; General pattern
discussion<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2012 8:26 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
> Model- RESUBMITTED
>
> Very cool video. I've learned a lot of neat things watching Youtube
> video's. Thanks Bob
>
> *From:* Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
> *To:* Generalpatterndiscussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 5, 2012 7:07 AM
> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model
> - RESUBMITTED
>
> Charlie was spot on with his comment on torque, but there are two
> torque vectors at work, the first is the obvious force required to turn
the
> prop and the "equal but opposite" torque the motor transmits to it's
mount.
> If that was all we had to worry about, the single mount would probably be
> fine. But there is the other torque (gyroscopic precession) resulting
from
> attempting to move a rotating mass in the pitch or yaw axis. Here is a
> good youtube video demonstrating the effect . .. .
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty9QSiVC2g0
>
>
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> *From:* mike mueller
mailto:mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com<mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>
> *To:* Bob Kane mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com <getterflash at yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 4, 2012 4:34 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model
> - RESUBMITTED
>
> Say what?
> "a large reactionary force called gyroscopic precession"
> I feel infinitlty smarter
> Is it violent warble?
> What prop were you running????
> Mike
>
> *From:* Bob Kane mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com <getterflash at yahoo.com>
> *To:* mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net <vicenterc at comcast.net>
> mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net <vicenterc at comcast.net>; General pattern
> discussion
mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model
> - RESUBMITTED
>
> The Q80 has a large diameter rotating mass, and it brings with it a
> large reactionary force called gyroscopic precession when it is spinning.
> In laymen terms it will strongly resist changing direction in yaw or
> pitch. A rear brace would help keep this force in check.
>
>
>
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> *From:* mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net <vicenterc at comcast.net>
> mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net <vicenterc at comcast.net>
> *To:* General pattern discussion
mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:27 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model
> - RESUBMITTED
>
> I understand that a rear brace is a must for this motor.
>
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Charlie Barrera" <charliebarrera at consolidated.net>
> Sender: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 07:02:47
> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Reply-To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
> RESUBMITTED
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.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 message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com/
>
> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2634/5437 - Release Date: 12/04/12
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
--
Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20121205/9234
69d4/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:04:30 -0500
From: Chris <cjm767driver at hotmail.com>
To: Larry Diamond <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>, General pattern
discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model- RESUBMITTED
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP689E212EB4AE9E54443DC583460 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
Larry,
A rear mounted outrunner (on a firewall) or a nose mounted outrunner or
inrunner with rear support are all safe ways to go. Find your budget and
get suggestions of combos that are currently ( that's funny) in use and
are successful and copy the working setup EXACTLY. 99.99% of problems
from new electric guys are when they start experimenting or want to try
something different - don't. Just copy what works and you will have
success, and please don't rely on the many faceless experts on RCU etc.
Guys on this thread like Earl and Verne and Mike have tons of experience
and can lead you to a working setup from day 1.
Electric is not that difficult at all but you need to learn a new
language and that takes a while so rely on any good teacher here on the
list.
Chris
On 12/5/2012 2:30 PM, Larry Diamond wrote:
> As somebody who is trying to get back into Pattern and those like me
> that have Zero experience with high power electric setups, is there an
> article or a something posted that we can reference?
> Maybe something on the NSRCA Website that can be accessed by all under
> Tips an Set Up...Yada Yada Yada...
> Larry Diamond
>
> *From:* Verne Koester <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> *To:* 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 5, 2012 12:16 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of
> the Model- RESUBMITTED
>
> I agree with Chris. I've personally had thousands of flights with nose
> mounted motors with rear supports and never had so much as a hint of
> failure. If you count all the flights I've seen Andrew fly with his
> nose mounted, rear supported motors as well as countless others at the
> practice field and on the contest trail, the number probably reaches
> into the tens of thousands.
> The only time I've ever witnessed a catastrophic motor induced
> fuselage failure was while I was judging an FAI pilot flying an
> Axi-equipped Smaragd a few years back. Following a turnaround, there
> was a short, deep, rumbling sound that sounded a little like flutter
> with heavy bass followed by the departure of the motor and a
> significant section of the nose of the fuse. The motor was nose
> mounted and had no rear support.
> My best guess, and it is just a guess, was that the prop arc coupled
> with the forces of the looping turnaround, set up a harmonic, or
> flutter if you will, that the fuse couldn't contain. The rumble was
> very brief before it came apart.
> I have no engineering data to report, just practical experience. A
> nose mounted motor without a rear support is a disaster about to
> happen. As Chris said, it's just a matter of when.
> Verne Koester
> *From:*nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Chris
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2012 12:50 PM
> *To:* Bob Kane; General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of
> the Model- RESUBMITTED
> Early in the electric transition, many of us found out the hard way
> that nose mounted outrunners without a rear support would lead to
> structural failures with nearly 100% certainty. My nose mounted
> Genesis lasted 1 1/2 flights before failure. Others had many more
> flights but even the best cases I know of had nose structure stresses
> and cracking due to the unsupported nose mounting. Jerry Budd and I
> did a lot of testing and posting about this issue back in 2006 or
> 2007. Newer designs have reinforced noses which help but bottom line,
> don't nose mount an electric motor without rear support. It "might"
> last 1 or 500 flights but 501 won't be as successful.
>
> Chris
> On 12/5/2012 12:38 PM, Bob Kane wrote:
>
> Great observations. I am curious about the numbers myself, maybe
> in my spare time (ha!) I'll pull out my old physics books and
> crunch some numbers.
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com <mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com>
> *From:*ehaury mailto:ejhaury at comcast.net
> *To:* mike mueller mailto:mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com; General
> pattern discussion mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 5, 2012 11:02 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose
> of the Model- RESUBMITTED
> I don't know what caused Charlie's failure, we've discussed
> possibilities - obviously forces occurred that were beyond what
> the structure could handle.
> Torque & precession have been with us since we stuck engines &
> props on the front of airplanes. They really haven't changed much
> with the advent of E power - actually went down with the use of
> lighter props.
> I'd just like to offer that the Hacker Q80 design doesn't change
> much. The rotating outer member (Q80-14) weighs about 100g and
> rotates up to 7K rpm with an 1 1/2" radius. The rotor in a C50
> also weighs around 100g, but it rotates up to 40K rpm on a 3/8"
> radius. The latter, with the gearbox, can probably apply torque
> quicker than the outie. Most other popular outrunners fall
> somewhere between these. (Be neat if someone actually made the calcs.)
> I've lots of flights with the Q80-11 without issue (the Q80-14 is
> less powerful). It is firmly front mounted with also a solid rear
> mount. I think we all know the importance of a nose ring on a YS
> and there's been no success running inrunners without a rear
> support. While some have had success running the Q without a rear
> support (bet the prop was light), these things really need a more
> sturdy rear support (or very stout front mnt / fuse nose) than may
> be obvious.
> Essentially something slightly different that adds to the learning
> curve, hopefully Charlie's experience and these discussions will
> prevent further occurrences.
> Earl
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:*mike mueller <mailto:mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>
> *To:*Bob Kane <mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com> ; General pattern
> discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:*Wednesday, December 05, 2012 8:26 AM
> *Subject:*Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the
> Nose of the Model- RESUBMITTED
> Very cool video. I've learned a lot of neat things watching
> Youtube video's. Thanks Bob
> *From:*Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com
> <mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com>>
> *To:* Generalpatterndiscussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 5, 2012 7:07 AM
> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose
> of the Model - RESUBMITTED
> Charlie was spot on with his comment on torque, but there are
> two torque vectors at work, the first is the obvious force
> required to turn the prop and the "equal but opposite" torque
> the motor transmits to it's mount. If that was all we had to
> worry about, the single mount would probably be fine. But
> there is the other torque (gyroscopic precession) resulting
> from attempting to move a rotating mass in the pitch or yaw
> axis. Here is a good youtube video demonstrating the effect .
> .. .
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty9QSiVC2g0
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com <mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com>
> *From:*mike mueller mailto:mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com
> *To:* Bob Kane mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 4, 2012 4:34 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose
> of the Model - RESUBMITTED
> Say what?
> "a large reactionary force called gyroscopic precession"
> I feel infinitlty smarter
> Is it violent warble?
> What prop were you running????
> Mike
> *From:*Bob Kane mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com
> *To:* mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net
> mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net; General pattern discussion
> mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose
> of the Model - RESUBMITTED
> The Q80 has a large diameter rotating mass, and it brings with
> it a large reactionary force called gyroscopic precession when
> it is spinning. In laymen terms it will strongly resist
> changing direction in yaw or pitch. A rear brace would help
> keep this force in check.
>
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com <mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com>
> *From:*mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:27 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose
> of the Model - RESUBMITTED
>
> I understand that a rear brace is a must for this motor.
>
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Charlie Barrera" <charliebarrera at consolidated.net
> <mailto:charliebarrera at consolidated.net>>
> Sender: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 07:02:47
> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> Reply-To: General pattern discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the
> Model -
> RESUBMITTED
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com/
> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2634/5437 - Release
> Date: 12/04/12
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20121205/b3ee
7726/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:05:34 -0500
From: "Verne Koester" <verne at twmi.rr.com>
To: "'Larry Diamond'" <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>, "'General pattern
discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model- RESUBMITTED
Message-ID: <000601cdd323$e29c42a0$a7d4c7e0$@twmi.rr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Larry,
I think what must of us have done is to copy what was successful for someone
else. There are lots of build articles on RC Universe in the pattern and
electric pattern forums. Pick a plane, pick a motor, or some combination of
the two and read. To my knowledge, there?s no single source point of
information. Once you?ve narrowed down your choice, inquire right here and
I?m sure you?ll get all the info you want or need.
Verne
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Larry Diamond
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 2:30 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED
As somebody who is trying to get back into Pattern and those like me that
have Zero experience with high power electric setups, is there an article or
a something posted that we can reference?
Maybe something on the NSRCA Website that can be accessed by all under Tips
an Set Up...Yada Yada Yada...
Larry Diamond
From: Verne Koester <verne at twmi.rr.com>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED
I agree with Chris. I?ve personally had thousands of flights with nose
mounted motors with rear supports and never had so much as a hint of
failure. If you count all the flights I?ve seen Andrew fly with his nose
mounted, rear supported motors as well as countless others at the practice
field and on the contest trail, the number probably reaches into the tens of
thousands.
The only time I?ve ever witnessed a catastrophic motor induced fuselage
failure was while I was judging an FAI pilot flying an Axi-equipped Smaragd
a few years back. Following a turnaround, there was a short, deep, rumbling
sound that sounded a little like flutter with heavy bass followed by the
departure of the motor and a significant section of the nose of the fuse.
The motor was nose mounted and had no rear support.
My best guess, and it is just a guess, was that the prop arc coupled with
the forces of the looping turnaround, set up a harmonic, or flutter if you
will, that the fuse couldn?t contain. The rumble was very brief before it
came apart.
I have no engineering data to report, just practical experience. A nose
mounted motor without a rear support is a disaster about to happen. As Chris
said, it?s just a matter of when.
Verne Koester
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Chris
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 12:50 PM
To: Bob Kane; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED
Early in the electric transition, many of us found out the hard way that
nose mounted outrunners without a rear support would lead to structural
failures with nearly 100% certainty. My nose mounted Genesis lasted 1 1/2
flights before failure. Others had many more flights but even the best
cases I know of had nose structure stresses and cracking due to the
unsupported nose mounting. Jerry Budd and I did a lot of testing and
posting about this issue back in 2006 or 2007. Newer designs have
reinforced noses which help but bottom line, don't nose mount an electric
motor without rear support. It "might" last 1 or 500 flights but 501 won't
be as successful.
Chris
On 12/5/2012 12:38 PM, Bob Kane wrote:
Great observations. I am curious about the numbers myself, maybe in my
spare time (ha!) I'll pull out my old physics books and crunch some numbers.
Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com
From: ehaury mailto:ejhaury at comcast.net
To: mike mueller mailto:mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com; General pattern
discussion mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED
I don't know what caused Charlie's failure, we've discussed possibilities -
obviously forces occurred that were beyond what the structure could handle.
Torque & precession have been with us since we stuck engines & props on the
front of airplanes. They really haven't changed much with the advent of E
power - actually went down with the use of lighter props.
I'd just like to offer that the Hacker Q80 design doesn't change much. The
rotating outer member (Q80-14) weighs about 100g and rotates up to 7K rpm
with an 1 1/2" radius. The rotor in a C50 also weighs around 100g, but it
rotates up to 40K rpm on a 3/8" radius. The latter, with the gearbox, can
probably apply torque quicker than the outie. Most other popular outrunners
fall somewhere between these. (Be neat if someone actually made the calcs.)
I've lots of flights with the Q80-11 without issue (the Q80-14 is less
powerful). It is firmly front mounted with also a solid rear mount. I think
we all know the importance of a nose ring on a YS and there's been no
success running inrunners without a rear support. While some have had
success running the Q without a rear support (bet the prop was light), these
things really need a more sturdy rear support (or very stout front mnt /
fuse nose) than may be obvious.
Essentially something slightly different that adds to the learning curve,
hopefully Charlie's experience and these discussions will prevent further
occurrences.
Earl
----- Original Message -----
From: mike mueller <mailto:mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>
To: Bob Kane <mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com> ; General pattern discussion
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED
Very cool video. I've learned a lot of neat things watching Youtube video's.
Thanks Bob
From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: Generalpatterndiscussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 7:07 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
Charlie was spot on with his comment on torque, but there are two torque
vectors at work, the first is the obvious force required to turn the prop
and the "equal but opposite" torque the motor transmits to it's mount. If
that was all we had to worry about, the single mount would probably be fine.
But there is the other torque (gyroscopic precession) resulting from
attempting to move a rotating mass in the pitch or yaw axis. Here is a good
youtube video demonstrating the effect . .. .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty9QSiVC2g0
Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com
From: mike mueller mailto:mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com
To: Bob Kane mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
Say what?
"a large reactionary force called gyroscopic precession"
I feel infinitlty smarter
Is it violent warble?
What prop were you running????
Mike
From: Bob Kane mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com
To: mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net; General
pattern discussion mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
The Q80 has a large diameter rotating mass, and it brings with it a large
reactionary force called gyroscopic precession when it is spinning. In
laymen terms it will strongly resist changing direction in yaw or pitch. A
rear brace would help keep this force in check.
Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com
From: mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net
To: General pattern discussion mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
I understand that a rear brace is a must for this motor.
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: "Charlie Barrera" <charliebarrera at consolidated.net>
Sender: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 07:02:47
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Reply-To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.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 message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com/
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2634/5437 - Release Date: 12/04/12
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.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/20121205/a2dd
fbaf/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 12:17:00 -0800 (PST)
From: mike mueller <mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model- RESUBMITTED
Message-ID:
<1354738620.55213.YahooMailNeo at web39404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
There's an old thread on RCU starting on page 37 that discusses this in
length
http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7hayqb9Q6XkA85dXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1MjF1cTg
5BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1NNRTE0NV8yMTU-/SIG=12i3ovjq4/EXP=1354
766898/**http%3a//www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_5004679/mpage_38/key_/tm.htm
?
I think it's a violent warble much like a shimmy in a loose?front tire when
you hit a certain speed (been there done that a long time ago in a 56 Ford
station wagon)?or a flutter in an aileron. Once the harmonic is set into
action it's steps up in intensity exponentially.
?I've thought in the past that thin floopy long props contribute to the
problem because they can go into a dynamic inbalance.. I think stiff props
work better.
?But if you read the thread the smart people shot me down.
?Bottom line...... support the rear of a front mount.
?M?
________________________________
From: Verne Koester <verne at twmi.rr.com>
To: 'Larry Diamond' <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>; 'General pattern discussion'
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED
Larry,
I think what must of us have done is to copy what was successful for someone
else. There are lots of build articles on RC Universe in the pattern and
electric pattern forums. Pick a plane, pick a motor, or some combination of
the two and read. To my knowledge, there?s no single source point of
information. Once you?ve narrowed down your choice, inquire right here and
I?m sure you?ll get all the info you want or need.
?
Verne
?
From:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Larry Diamond
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 2:30 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED
?
As somebody who is trying to get back into Pattern and those like me that
have Zero experience with high power electric setups, is there an article or
a something posted that we can reference?
?
Maybe something on the NSRCA Website that can be accessed by all under Tips
an Set Up...Yada Yada Yada...
?
Larry Diamond
?
From:Verne Koester <verne at twmi.rr.com>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED
?
I agree with Chris. I?ve personally had thousands of flights with nose
mounted motors with rear supports and never had so much as a hint of
failure. If you count all the flights I?ve seen Andrew fly with his nose
mounted, rear supported motors as well as countless others at the practice
field and on the contest trail, the number probably reaches into the tens of
thousands.
?
The only time I?ve ever witnessed a catastrophic motor induced fuselage
failure was while I was judging an FAI pilot flying an Axi-equipped Smaragd
a few years back. Following a turnaround, there was a short, deep, rumbling
sound that sounded a little like flutter with heavy bass followed by the
departure of the motor and a significant section of the nose of the fuse.
The motor was nose mounted and had no rear support.
?
My best guess, and it is just a guess, ?was that the prop arc coupled with
the forces of the looping turnaround, set up a harmonic, or flutter if you
will, that the fuse couldn?t contain. The rumble was very brief before it
came apart.
?
I have no engineering data to report, just practical experience. A nose
mounted motor without a rear support is a disaster about to happen. As Chris
said, it?s just a matter of when.
?
Verne Koester
?
From:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Chris
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 12:50 PM
To: Bob Kane; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED
?
Early in the electric transition, many of us found out the hard way that
nose mounted outrunners without a rear support would lead to structural
failures with nearly 100% certainty.? My nose mounted Genesis lasted 1 1/2
flights before failure.? Others had many more flights but even the best
cases I know of had nose structure stresses and cracking due to the
unsupported nose mounting.? Jerry Budd and I did a lot of testing and
posting about this issue back in 2006 or 2007.? Newer designs have
reinforced noses which help but bottom line, don't nose mount an electric
motor without rear support. It "might" last 1 or 500 flights but 501 won't
be as successful.
Chris
On 12/5/2012 12:38 PM, Bob Kane wrote:
Great observations. ?I am curious about the numbers myself, maybe in my
spare time (ha!) I'll pull out my old physics books and crunch some
numbers.?
>?
>Bob Kane
>getterflash at yahoo.com
>From:ehaury mailto:ejhaury at comcast.net
>To: mike mueller mailto:mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com; General pattern
discussion mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 11:02 AM
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model- RESUBMITTED
>?
>I don't know what caused Charlie's failure, we've discussed possibilities -
obviously forces occurred that were beyond what the structure could handle.
>?
>Torque & precession have been with us since we stuck engines & props on the
front of airplanes. They really haven't changed much with the advent of E
power - actually went down with the use of lighter props.
>?
>I'd just like to offer that the Hacker Q80 design doesn't change much. The
rotating outer member (Q80-14) weighs about 100g?and rotates up to 7K rpm
with an 1 1/2" radius. The rotor in a C50 also weighs around 100g, but it
rotates up to 40K rpm on a 3/8" radius. The latter, with the gearbox, can
probably apply torque quicker than the outie. Most other popular outrunners
fall somewhere between these. (Be neat if someone actually made the calcs.)
>?
>I've lots of flights with the Q80-11 without issue (the Q80-14 is less
powerful). It is firmly front mounted with also a solid rear mount. I think
we all know the importance of a nose ring on a YS and there's been no
success running inrunners without a rear support. While some have had
success running the Q without a rear support (bet the prop was light), these
things really need a more sturdy rear support (or very stout front mnt /
fuse nose) than may be obvious.
>?
>Essentially something slightly different that adds to the learning curve,
hopefully Charlie's experience and these discussions will prevent further
occurrences.
>?
>Earl
>----- Original Message -----
>>From:mike mueller
>>To:Bob Kane ; General pattern discussion
>>Sent:Wednesday, December 05, 2012 8:26 AM
>>Subject:Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model- RESUBMITTED
>>?
>>Very cool video. I've learned a lot of neat things watching Youtube
video's. Thanks Bob
>>?
>>From:Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
>>To: Generalpatterndiscussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 7:07 AM
>>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
>>?
>>Charlie was spot on with his comment on torque, but there are two torque
vectors at work, the first is the obvious force required to turn the prop
and the "equal but opposite" torque the motor transmits to it's mount. If
that was all we had to worry about, the single mount would probably be fine.
But there is the other torque (gyroscopic precession) ?resulting from
attempting to move a rotating mass in the pitch or yaw axis. ?Here is a good
youtube video demonstrating the effect . .. . ?
>>?
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty9QSiVC2g0
>>?
>>?
>>Bob Kane
>>getterflash at yahoo.com
>>From:mike mueller mailto:mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com
>>To: Bob Kane mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 4:34 PM
>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
>>?
>>Say what?
>>"a large reactionary force called gyroscopic precession"
>>?I feel infinitlty smarter
>>?Is it violent warble?
>>?What prop were you running????
>>?Mike
>>?
>>From:Bob Kane mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com
>>To: mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net; General
pattern discussion mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54 AM
>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
>>?
>>The Q80 has a large?diameter?rotating mass, and it brings with it a large
reactionary force called gyroscopic precession when it is spinning. ?In
laymen terms it will strongly resist changing direction in yaw or pitch. ?A
rear brace would help keep this force in check.?
>>?
>>
>>?
>>Bob Kane
>>getterflash at yahoo.com
>>From:mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net
>>To: General pattern discussion mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:27 AM
>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
>>
>>I understand that a rear brace is a must for this motor.?
>>
>>Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>>Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: "Charlie Barrera" <charliebarrera at consolidated.net>
>>Sender: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 07:02:47
>>To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>Reply-To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
>>??? RESUBMITTED
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>_______________________________________________
>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>?
>>?
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>http://lists.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 message.
>>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com/
>>Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2634/5437 - Release Date: 12/04/12
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
?
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.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/20121205/c89a
872b/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:17:20 -0500
From: "=?utf-8?B?RGF2ZUwzMjJAY29tY2FzdC5uZXQ=?="
<DaveL322 at comcast.net>
To: "=?utf-8?B?R2VuZXJhbCBwYXR0ZXJuIGRpc2N1c3Npb24=?="
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model- RESUBMITTED
Message-ID: <20121205201730.E3304114E0 at bridi.netexpress.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Might I humbly suggest the "project pattern" series ongoing in flying
models. ;)
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my HTC EVO 4G LTE exclusively from Sprint
----- Reply message -----
From: "Verne Koester" <verne at twmi.rr.com>
To: "'Larry Diamond'" <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>, "'General pattern
discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED
Date: Wed, Dec 5, 2012 15:05
Larry,I think what must of us have done is to copy what was successful for
someone else. There are lots of build articles on RC Universe in the pattern
and electric pattern forums. Pick a plane, pick a motor, or some combination
of the two and read. To my knowledge, there?s no single source point of
information. Once you?ve narrowed down your choice, inquire right here and
I?m sure you?ll get all the info you want or need. Verne From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Larry Diamond
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 2:30 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED As somebody who is trying to get back into Pattern and those
like me that have Zero experience with high power electric setups, is there
an article or a something posted that we can reference? Maybe something on
the NSRCA Website that can be accessed by all under Tips an Set Up...Yada
Yada Yada... Larry Diamond From: Verne Koester <verne at twmi.rr.com>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED I agree with Chris. I?ve personally had thousands of flights
with nose mounted motors with rear supports and never had so much as a hint
of failure. If you count all the flights I?ve seen Andrew fly with his nose
mounted, rear supported motors as well as countless others at the practice
field and on the contest trail, the number probably reaches into the tens of
thousands. The only time I?ve ever witnessed a catastrophic motor induced
fuselage failure was while I was judging an FAI pilot flying an Axi-equipped
Smaragd a few years back. Following a turnaround, there was a short, deep,
rumbling sound that sounded a little like flutter with heavy bass followed
by the departure of the motor and a significant section of the nose of the
fuse. The motor was nose mounted and had no rear support. My best guess,
and it is just a guess, was that the prop arc coupled with the forces of
the loopin!
g turnaround, set up a harmonic, or flutter if you will, that the fuse
couldn?t contain. The rumble was very brief before it came apart. I have no
engineering data to report, just practical experience. A nose mounted motor
without a rear support is a disaster about to happen. As Chris said, it?s
just a matter of when. Verne Koester From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Chris
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 12:50 PM
To: Bob Kane; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED Early in the electric transition, many of us found out the hard
way that nose mounted outrunners without a rear support would lead to
structural failures with nearly 100% certainty. My nose mounted Genesis
lasted 1 1/2 flights before failure. Others had many more flights but even
the best cases I know of had nose structure stresses and cracking due to the
unsupported nose mounting. Jerry Budd and I did a lot of testing and
posting about this issue back in 2006 or 2007. Newer designs have
reinforced noses which help but bottom line, don't nose mount an electric
motor without rear support. It "might" last 1 or 500 flights but 501 won't
be as successful.
ChrisOn 12/5/2012 12:38 PM, Bob Kane wrote:Great observations. I am curious
about the numbers myself, maybe in my spare time (ha!) I'll pull out my old
physics books and crunch some numbers. Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.comFrom: ehaury mailto:ejhaury at comcast.net
To: mike mueller mailto:mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com; General pattern
discussion mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model-
RESUBMITTED I don't know what caused Charlie's failure, we've discussed
possibilities - obviously forces occurred that were beyond what the
structure could handle. Torque & precession have been with us since we stuck
engines & props on the front of airplanes. They really haven't changed much
with the advent of E power - actually went down with the use of lighter
props. I'd just like to offer that the Hacker Q80 design doesn't change
much. The rotating outer member (Q80-14) weighs about 100g and rotates up to
7K rpm with an 1 1/2" radius. The rotor in a C50 also weighs around 100g,
but it rotates up to 40K rpm on a 3/8" radius. The latter, with the gearbox,
can probably apply torque quicker than the outie. Most other popular
outrunners fall somewhere between these. (Be neat if someone actually made
the calcs.) I've lots of flights with the Q80-11 without issue (the Q80-14
is less powerful). It is fir!
m ly front mounted with also a solid rear mount. I think we all know the
importance of a nose ring on a YS and there's been no success running
inrunners without a rear support. While some have had success running the Q
without a rear support (bet the prop was light), these things really need a
more sturdy rear support (or very stout front mnt / fuse nose) than may be
obvious. Essentially something slightly different that adds to the learning
curve, hopefully Charlie's experience and these discussions will prevent
further occurrences. Earl----- Original Message ----- From: mike mueller To:
Bob Kane ; General pattern discussion Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012
8:26 AMSubject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the
Model- RESUBMITTED Very cool video. I've learned a lot of neat things
watching Youtube video's. Thanks Bob From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: Generalpatterndiscussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 7:07 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED Charlie was spot on with his comment on torque, but there are
two torque vectors at work, the first is the obvious force required to turn
the prop and the "equal but opposite" torque the motor transmits to it's
mount. If that was all we had to worry about, the single mount would
probably be fine. But there is the other torque (gyroscopic precession)
resulting from attempting to move a rotating mass in the pitch or yaw axis.
Here is a good youtube video demonstrating the effect . ... .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty9QSiVC2g0 Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.comFrom: mike mueller mailto:mikemueller at f3aunlimited.com
To: Bob Kane mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED Say what?"a large reactionary force called gyroscopic
precession" I feel infinitlty smarter Is it violent warble? What prop were
you running???? Mike From: Bob Kane mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com
To: mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net; General
pattern discussion mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED The Q80 has a large diameter rotating mass, and it brings with
it a large reactionary force called gyroscopic precession when it is
spinning. In laymen terms it will strongly resist changing direction in yaw
or pitch. A rear brace would help keep this force in check.
Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.comFrom: mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net
mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net
To: General pattern discussion mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
I understand that a rear brace is a must for this motor.
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: "Charlie Barrera" <charliebarrera at consolidated.net>
Sender: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 07:02:47
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Reply-To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Serious Torque on the Nose of the Model -
RESUBMITTED
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.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 message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com/
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2634/5437 - Release Date: 12/04/12
_______________________________________________
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 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/20121205/762c
63cb/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
End of NSRCA-discussion Digest, Vol 85, Issue 5
***********************************************
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list