[NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

Fri Nov 11 13:28:31 AKST 2016

To Andrew’s point, power is already unlimited in our rules.  Glow is not constrained, only E-power.  So while normally I’m a staunch opponent to any rule change that will alter the designs of our planes and thus obsolete everything and increase costs, I don’t think supporting 12S does that.

Power is not currently limited, so allowing 12s doesn’t change the available power.  It merely allows those flying electric to do so more efficiently.  And yes… A YS200 will likely  support even larger Bipes if they can build them and make weight.

MARK ATWOOD
o.  (440) 229-2502
c.  (216) 316-2489
e.  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

Paragon Consulting, Inc.
5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>

<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
Powering The Digital Experience

On Nov 11, 2016, at 5:11 PM, Andrew Jesky via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

Then cap the wattage we can reach, But don't worry when YS comes out with there 200 that won't allow the pattern planes to grow as long as there under 5000 without fuel right? 🤔

Andrew

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 11, 2016, at 2:35 PM, Phil via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

Is it called a Prius, Keith??  LOL

 Phil Spelt, KCRC Emeritus
 AMA 1294, Scientific Leader Member
 SPA L-18, Board Member
 Oliver Springs, TN  (865) 435-1476v  (865) 604-0541c

________________________________
Wait till y’all see my 75S-350Mah setup . . .

-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 Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 15:15
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

No!  We can’t use 12S battery packs.  We can’t be trusted around 12S battery packs!  We are being protected from ourselves.  Just do what you’re told and everything will be fine.

RVP

On Nov 11, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

Why not just get rid of the battery size requirement, then you don’t have to worry about it.  (Same with weight)

Once we’ve all invested in new 12S equipment (or quit pattern), then 14S will become all the rage.

Perhaps some of y’all missed it this week, but the wave of the future is less regulation, not more.

-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: Friday, November 11, 2016 12:39
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

I am not sure that you can get much bigger as long as you keep the 11 pound weight limit.  Remove the weight limit and yes biplanes will get bigger.

On 11/11/2016 1:13 PM, S. McNickle via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but rather than going easy on a 12s setup, won't we just find a way to run the crap out of it (bigger props, for example) to power bigger, more expensive airplanes if that gives a competitive advantage?
Scott

________________________________
From: "Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
To: "Mark Hunt" <flyintexanmark at gmail.com><mailto:flyintexanmark at gmail.com>, "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>, "Ron Hansen" <rcpilot at wowway.com><mailto:rcpilot at wowway.com>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 12:17:45 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

I don't think the issue is about what's required. I read it as the exploitation of a 12s rule that will result in design changes and drive cost higher as the hunt continues to gain a competitive advantage .

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Mark Hunt via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: 11/11/16 10:51 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com><mailto:rcpilot at wowway.com>, General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

I'm not understanding what significant design changes would be required to the airframe to take advantage of this change?

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:45 AM, Ron Hansen via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

I don’t understand how this rule change won’t affect the AMA classes.  Most planes are designed to satisfy FAI not masters.  So all future planes designed would be around 12S rather than 10S making the plane selection for AMA even smaller.  This could also result in longer more complicated sequences.  Bad idea unless we are going to make the same change for AMA classes.

Ron

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf Of cahochhalter via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 1:51 PM
To: Jeff and Claire; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

Yes, but we need fai to pass it first, then get ama to approve.

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Jeff and Claire via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
Date: 11/10/16 12:38 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: 'Bill Pritchett' <billpritch at yahoo.com<mailto:billpritch at yahoo.com>>, 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>, 'Andrew Jesky' <andrewjesky at gmail.com<mailto:andrewjesky at gmail.com>>, 'Keith Hoard' <klhoard at outlook.com<mailto:klhoard at outlook.com>>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A
Looks like there would need to be a rule change to run 12s in an AMA class.  Current rule says "Electrically-powered model aircraft are limited to a maximum of 42.56 volts..."
Jeff Worsham

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill Pritchett via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 11:01 AM
To: Andrew Jesky; Keith Hoard; General pattern discussion; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

I think a source of universal pride among the pattern community is the positive ripple effect that development of our gear over the years has provided the entire model aviation community.  This discussion is simply about the continued development of a power system...the evolution of electric power.  I don't think this would have any significant real or implied effect on any AMA class.  On the other hand, those that choose to try something new no doubt will - that's how it's always worked.  How many folks in AMA classes fly YS-185s?  That's a choice available to all of us right now.....  Our 10S setup is great and should/will continue to be the standard for a long, long time - yet not a reason to stifle development.
Bill
________________________________
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 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

By changing the KV to spin the same prop at the same rpm as the 10 cell setup there isn't much that changes in the feel. I have hundreds of flights on the 12s setup, and the power output is no different as well as the torque. Heck if anyone wants to try the 12 cell setup and has there model setup for a Q80xs let me know. I'd be more than happy to let you see what you think.

Andrew

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 10, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
I think it takes more than 12S to do that, Chuck . . .

-Keith Hoard
-klhoard at outlook.com<mailto:klhoard at outlook.com>

. .. [snip].. . . Kv is easily adjusted by changing the wind.

Chuck

_______________________________________________
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

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 14421 (20161110) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

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

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 14422 (20161110) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

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

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 14422 (20161110) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

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

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

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

_______________________________________________

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20161111/b022f933/attachment.html>