[NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

Tue Nov 15 06:29:45 AKST 2016

I liked the direction you moved the conversation John.
Personally I enjoy trying to learn and perfect the F maneuvers, so wouldn't
ask for lower power maneuvers.
To me, the big problem with the F17 sequence is the Energy needed.  If they
would just shorten it by a couple of figures, my batteries would be a whole
lot happier.
Dan

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:20 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> 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> <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>
> <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
> <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>;
> 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
> <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 2:44 PM
> *To:* DaveL322 <DaveL322 at comcast.net>; f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us
> *Cc:* Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>; Ramsey Don <
> 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
>
>
>
> *Paragon Consulting, Inc.*
>
> 5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
>
> www.paragon-inc.com
>
>
>
> *Powering The Digital Experience*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* DaveL322 [mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net <DaveL322 at comcast.net>]
> *Sent:* Friday, November 11, 2016 1:25 PM
> *To:* S. McNickle <nelson_jett at comcast.net> <nelson_jett at comcast.net>;
> General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; Larry Diamond <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>
> <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>
> *Cc:* Hansen, Ron <rcpilot at wowway.com> <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 listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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/20161115/c455da51/attachment.html>