[NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

[Keith Hoard]

Since the "Upper Classes" want this change, then I'm sure it will happen.

 

-Keith Hoard

-klhoard at outlook.com

 

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Stuart Chale via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 09:34
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

 

Unlike removing the weight limit (which I think would obsolete current
equipment) it is not as clear to me that going to 12S would.  We still have
the 5Kg weight to limit plane growth.  So if it would make it easier not to
burn up battery packs, and or produce more power if wanted or longer flight
times then it seems like a good change.  

I do have a 12S heli and although 10S makes a nice snap when connected, 12S
is a real manly snap/spark when connected :)

Stuart

 

On 11/10/2016 10:11 AM, Bill Pritchett via NSRCA-discussion wrote:

I think adding 12S makes sense - it would have zero impact on anyone flying
an AMA class so there's nothing to buy.  Those in FAI would have the
opportunity to fly F without trashing batteries all the time.  I'm all for
it and suggest that if others agree we let our opinions be known as Mark
suggests.  The F3C precedent is worth noting, but there are very real and
practical (unique to us) reasons to pursue this in F3A.  

Bill


  _____  


From: "Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion"
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
To: Anthony Romano  <mailto:anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
<anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>; General pattern discussion
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] CIAM meeting in Muncie

 

Well..  At face value, much like the F3C community (already running 12S),
the higher voltage allows you to produce the same wattage with a lower amp
draw.  More efficient on the batteries, and everything runs much cooler
which is better on the motors, batteries and ESC's.   

 

The concern of course is that it potentially allows for more power if you
chose to still pull the high current.  The proponent argument is that power
is currently unbound (on the glow side) and we're not seeing any changes to
designs and this would allow much more efficient systems.

 

 

If there is a strong feeling about this, comments from the community really
can drive the issue (in either direction).

 

-M

 

 

MARK ATWOOD

o.  (440) 229-2502

c.  (216) 316-2489

e.  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com

 

Paragon Consulting, Inc.

5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124

www.paragon-inc.com

 

Powering The Digital Experience

 

On Nov 10, 2016, at 9:39 AM, Anthony Romano via NSRCA-discussion
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

 

What does that do for us?

 


  _____  


From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf
of cahochhalter via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 8:58 AM
To: art zap; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] CIAM meeting in Muncie 

 

Please propose 12s power setup.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

 

 






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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20161110/a6bef676/attachment.html>