[NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

[Anthony Romano]

As much as I enjoy a good arc I feel the opposite. Just as has been pointed out with the history of the displacement rules most feel there is no such thing as too much horsepower. I really doubt anyone would just stick with the same power output. This also would require different KV motors, props, etc. As our airplanes continue to grow and the weight limit becomes less of a concern more power would certainly be welcome and start to change design parameters.


Would the AMA classes want to follow suit? If this is such an advantage the other classes would want to be involved as well. What about the F3A pilot who flies masters at a contest when there are no F3A contestants?


The other problem with this becomes the sound rule since most set ups E or glow are on the edge anyway. Since sound testing is so horribly inconsistent due to many local factor this will just expand the cheating that already happens.

Anthony


________________________________
From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of Stuart Chale via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 10:33 AM
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" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
To: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com><mailto:anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto: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/bd833d26/attachment.html>