[NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

Mon Nov 14 19:20:53 AKST 2016

Watts checking at competitions would be a PITA compared to a voltage check.
Perhaps the CIAM should address(and reduce) the power requirements of 
new F and unknown sequences for F3A.

The rest of us tend to have max power dialed back a bit.

John

On 11/14/2016 7:05 PM, cahochhalter via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
> Maybe if we promise.
>
> What if we limit watts? But 12s.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Dave Lockhart via NSRCA-discussion 
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: 11/14/16 7:20 PM (GMT-06:00)
> To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A
>
> Below is a partial snip of a thread earlier this year on the F3A 
> discussion list.
>
> The long and the short of it is that going from 10S to 12S might help 
> in the short term, but, will be yet another round of escalation in the 
> long term.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
> *From:*F3A-Discussion [mailto:f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us] *On 
> Behalf Of *Dave Lockhart via F3A-Discussion
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 8:20 PM
> *To:* 'Atwood, Mark' <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com 
> <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>>; f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us 
> <mailto:f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us>
> *Subject:* Re: [F3A-Discussion] Rule proposals
>
> I’ve been flying pattern since the early 1980s….and have come to be 
> fond of a couple answers to one question –
>
> Q – How much power is enough?
>
> A – Way too much.
>
> A – More.
>
> A – I’ll let you know when I find it.
>
> In the last 30 years of pattern history, the power used has always 
> been the most available.  Zero exceptions.
>
> The history of power limits as it were –
>
> Max engine size – 60 cubic in – everyone ran 60s with pipes (and many 
> pushed high nitro low oil fuels for more power).
>
> Max engines size – 60 2C or 120 4C.  This was to allow more diversity, 
> lower noise, “friendlier” power, etc.  Didn’t happen – everyone ended 
> up running more expensive 120 4Cs (and many pushed high nitro for more 
> power).
>
> Unlimited engine size - Again, to allow more diversity, lower stressed 
> powerplants, cheaper cost, etc.  Didn’t happen (again)  – everyone ran 
> a limited number of purpose built more expensive 2C and engines (and 
> many pushed high nitro for more power).
>
> Specific YS evolution – 120, 120AC, 120SC, 140, 140L, 140DZ, 160, 175, 
> 185…….and running 30% nitro the entire history.
>
> Specific Electric evolution – (really the batteries) – ThunderPower 
> 10s4p8000 4-6C, TP10s4p5300 10-12C, TP10s2p5400 18-20C, then several 
> generations of 25C up to the current ProLite X (and similar offerings 
> from other brands).  The promise of every successive generation was 
> more power, lower operating temps, and longer lifecycles.  In just 
> about every instance, more power was realized (and used)….and 
> operating temps and lifecycles were not dramatically changed (since 
> about generation 4 of about 8 generations).
>
> Any time the opportunity to escalate power (and costs) was available, 
> it happened.
>
> All of Mark’s points are valid IF the power level remains CONSTANT.  
> IF the power level INCREASES (and it will), the advantages Mark notes 
> will not be realized…..but the detriments will be – increased cost to 
> change motors, chargers, and lipos, and a reduced secondary market to 
> which the 10S setups can be “recycled”.
>
> The nature of competition is to push the envelope and exploit any 
> possible competitive advantage.  12S will be a competitive advantage, 
> and the power level will go up.  I see no reason why the historical 
> trend of pattern and/or competitive nature will change.  Given a 
> suitable transition period, the power systems will all be 12S, and 
> just as stressed as they are now with 10S.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
> *From:*Atwood, Mark [mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 2:44 PM
> *To:* DaveL322 <DaveL322 at comcast.net <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>>; 
> f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us <mailto:f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us>
> *Cc:* Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com 
> <mailto:derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>>; Ramsey Don <donramsey at gmail.com 
> <mailto:donramsey at gmail.com>>
> *Subject:* Re: [F3A-Discussion] Rule proposals
>
> So to chime in here…
>
> Yes, Amps kill… but the body has natural impedance that requires 
> sufficient voltage to push through it.  Right now if you accidentally 
> short a 10S pack, (and I’m guessing many of us have) we don’t feel the 
> jolt even though over 200amps have likely passed, but rather we 
> typically just get burned on the skin (and melt a connector).  This is 
> because the resistance in your skin prevents the amperage from 
> traveling through you.  50V won’t meaningfully impact that.  Yes, it’s 
> an increase, but not a dangerous one.   It’s pretty universally 
> accepted that 50v DC is safe at any amperage (from it being lethal) up 
> to and including putting electrodes under the skin.  Not something I’d 
> advise trying.
>
> There are a number of strong upsides to this. We currently run our 
> equipment very hard, and very hot.  Up-ing the voltage by 20% would 
> significantly reduce both and significantly increase the efficiency 
> and tolerance of the systems in play.   Weight would not be impacted 
> as you would run lower capacity, higher voltage cells that would weigh 
> roughly the same, but run cooler, last longer, and provide equal or 
> longer flight times.
>
> The clear downside as mentioned would be a bit of retooling for those 
> that want to change.   Motor’s have to be wound differently, so a 12S 
> Pletty is different from a 10S Pletty, though it’s the same motor 
> casing and such, so it would be plug n play in the airframes.
>
> Batteries we buy pretty steadily just like we did fuel… so I would 
> imagine most would simply replace motors when they put together new 
> airplanes and phase in new batteries as a result.  Charges would 
> indeed be a brand new expense if you don’t currently have a charger 
> that can handle 12S (many do as F3C and many others already run 12S.)
>
> Overall I would be interested in this simply due to the current 
> excessive wear on our equipment from the high amperage loads and heat. 
>  Running 55amps vs 70amps reduces the strain on everything all the way 
> down to the gauge of wire we run.
>
> *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/>
>
> *Powering The Digital Experience*
>
> *From:*DaveL322 [mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net]
> *Sent:* Friday, November 11, 2016 1:25 PM
> *To:* S. McNickle <nelson_jett at comcast.net>; General pattern 
> discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; Larry Diamond 
> <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>
> *Cc:* Hansen, Ron <rcpilot at wowway.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A
>
> 100% correct.
>
> I previously made a lengthy post to the F3A mailing list and will 
> repost to this list when I am home after the weekend (f3p contest).
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
> Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note5.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161115/f5fa4c4f/attachment.html>