[NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

[wayg2013 at gmail.com]

And wing area....  my bipe has 1450 sq inches, more then capable of handling larger batteries, if I could. 
Perhaps a higher weight limit if you carry more sq. in. 

From: Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion 
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 12:27 PM
To: Dave Burton ; General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

Two meters by two meters is constrained by wingspan and fuse length aka x and y axis.  What the 2M rule doesn't take into consideration is the z axis.  Have you not noticed the gain in fuselage height?

Scott A. McHarg

VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
Texas A&M University
PPL - ASEL
Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Dave Burton via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

  Let's cut cost and increase participation by reducing to 8S rather than 12S. Airplanes will be smaller and cheaper, batteries will be cheaper, and we won't have to worry about the weight limit. We won't have to worry about the 2M  biplanes that will be bigger (the logic of that argument about the weight limit gives me a migraine trying to understand how 2 meters becomes bigger).

  Dave



  From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill Pritchett via NSRCA-discussion
  Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 12:08 PM
  To: Atwood, Mark; Andrew Jesky; General pattern discussion; General pattern discussion
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A



  +1

  Adding the option of 12S is about efficiency, being nice to your batteries....  

  Bill




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: "Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  To: Andrew Jesky <andrewjesky at gmail.com>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
  Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 5:28 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A



  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



  Paragon Consulting, Inc.

  5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124

  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> 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






------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13405 - Release Date: 11/13/16


  _______________________________________________
  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/20161114/f54e2ea7/attachment.html>