[NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

[Anthony Romano]

Also change many people charging system as well.


________________________________
From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of Robert Campbell via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 11:50 AM
To: General pattern discussion; S. McNickle
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A


This change will drive motor manufacturers to develop lower kV motors to effectively use the power.  The lower kV motors will need larger props to take advantage of the higher torque.  This will mean taller landing gear to accommodate the larger props.

That's just a quick and dirty on the Ripple effect a change to 12S will cause.

Rob

On Nov 10, 2016 10:40 AM, "S. McNickle via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
There was some discussion of this topic at the D4 championships and Brenner Sharp said the change would likely require some re-design of his contra drive.  I think it's important to research all the unintended consequences.

Scott

________________________________
From: "Andrew Jesky via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
To: "Keith Hoard" <klhoard at outlook.com<mailto:klhoard at outlook.com>>, "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 10:54:41 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

I have been testing 12s for the past few years and really think it has potential. Keeping output power the same the efficiency is what you gain.  Keeping the same weight in packs I've gone to 12s4600's. Running a 21.5x13 prop on a 188kv motor I'm drawing 59amps, my batteries come down after 7:30 flights at 3.81-3.82 per cell.
The key with going to 12 cells IMO is not getting more power but increasing longevity of the batteries as they are not being pushed as hard.

Andrew

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 10, 2016, at 8:41 AM, Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

Since the “Upper Classes” want this change, then I’m sure it will happen.

-Keith Hoard
-klhoard at outlook.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%28440%29%20229-2502>
c.  (216) 316-2489<tel:%28216%29%20316-2489>
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

_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20161110/07f2fe4a/attachment.html>