[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?

Thu Jan 26 11:00:14 AKST 2017

He already stated he had a dual pack regulator on there.

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

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Ronald Van Putte <vanputter at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Maybe you should mention that you need a voltage regulator on the two
> cells tapped off the low side of the 10S pack or you'll probably fry your
> receiver and maybe your servos.
>
> Ron
>
> On Jan 26, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> You're only 25 grams over and legal at that.  One way to save 30 grams is
> to take out 1 rx battery pack and use the low side of the 10S pack and 2 of
> the cells (assuming you're running 2 5S packs) as your back up or primary
> based on what voltage you set for each one.  Then, you're at 4995 grams.
> There are lighter packs out there but there's nothing wrong with the weight
> of what you have.  This solution already gets you under 5000g and doesn't
> cost $1.00.  You only need the wire and a balance connector of an old pack.
>
> *Scott A. McHarg*
> VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
> Texas A&M University
> PPL - ASEL
> Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 1:25 PM, <blotch44026 at mypacks.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I was just wondering what I could possibly do to remove some weight from
>> an airplane (a good one) that hits the boundaries of our weight rules
>> out-of-the-box? The arguments have been folks are using heavy motors, heavy
>> wheels, heavy surface controls....etc. I placed the lightest components you
>> can purchase and I am still knocking on the door. I am wondering what guys
>> are doing?
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Scott McHarg
>> Sent: Jan 26, 2017 12:56 PM
>> To: blotch44026 at mypacks.net, General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?
>>
>> Lest we forget, Sportsman - Advanced actually has 5165 grams which was
>> increased 50 grams last year.  Masters now has 5050 grams which was also
>> adopted last year with the 1% tolerance.  I was pro weight increase until
>> we got the 1%.  Now, I must agree with Dave L.  and we did not see a growth
>> in pattern with the additional weight added this last year.  I'm not so
>> sure we would with another increase.
>>
>> Although the USA has more pattern fliers than most, if not all other
>> countries, most manufacturers do not build to our (AMA) specifications
>> (although some are doing a great job of trying to give us "what we want").
>> Manufacturers, especially in a niche market) are going to build based on
>> what can be sold to the whole world.  Plugs and molds are very expensive to
>> make, tooling is another story.  Manufacturers and those designers that
>> utilize manufacturers in other countries don't have an unlimited budget to
>> have different variants of the same model when, in reality, a small number
>> (from a manufacturing standpoint) will be sold as a whole.  All this to say
>> that we are an oddity.  The rest of the world flies introductory classes as
>> well but with the sole intent to finally be able to fly FAI.  You actually
>> have to earn that right in many places.  This is why the 110-size class has
>> come started to become popular in other parts of the world.  Fly the 110's
>> in the intro classes and then you can step up to your Formula 1 machine
>> when you earn the right.
>>
>> A.R.F. aircraft have changed our hobby largely.  We, as modelers (can we
>> really be called this anymore) are holding manufacturers responsible for
>> what we buy when we buy it.  If it's overweight, it's their fault.  When
>> you build your own, only you are held accountable.  You select the balsa,
>> you decide and the glass cloth, paint, clear coat, etc.  You actually take
>> the time to make sure it is perfect.  Now, we look for whatever the next
>> guy is flying and decide that's what we're going to use too.  We don't know
>> what kind of work Dave L., AJ, etc. has put into their A.R.F., we just make
>> the assumption that it was off the shelf so if he made weight, so should we.
>>
>> All just food for thought.
>>
>> *Scott A. McHarg*
>> VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
>> Texas A&M University
>> PPL - ASEL
>> Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:25 AM, blotch44026--- via NSRCA-discussion <
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I forgot to mention fuse weight included an Pletty Advanced
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: blotch44026--- via NSRCA-discussion
>>> Sent: Jan 26, 2017 12:19 PM
>>> To: "Dr. Mike Harrison" , General pattern discussion , 'John Fuqua' ,
>>> 'General pattern discussion'
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?
>>>
>>> Out of the box Invitation before any flights:
>>>
>>> Fuse - 3115grams (weighed with Powerbox duel receiver reg, standard
>>> landing gear, Futaba BLS451 for Rudder, stab halves with Futaba 9650's and
>>> Castle ESC 80 light, along with Falcon carbon prop light and a Falcon
>>> carbon spinner)
>>> Leftwing Panel - 359grams (wing weighed with Futaba S9551)
>>> RightWing Panel - 361grams (wing weighed with Futaba S9551)
>>> RX Batts - 2 TP 480mah - 60grams
>>> WingTube - 51grams
>>> Arming Plug 17grams
>>> Total Weight = 3963
>>>
>>> Compact 2 5000mah 1125grams
>>>
>>> Total Flying Weight=5088grams
>>>
>>> I could remove the Regulator and save 46grams
>>>
>>> Total Flying Weight=5042grams
>>>
>>> I could remove Arming plug
>>>
>>> Total Flying Weight=5025grams
>>>
>>> All of the equipment installed could be considered the higher end of the
>>> market...
>>>
>>> 500 flights and 2 landing gear repairs later - Well I have not bothered
>>> weighing it.
>>>
>>> The plane does fly very well though...
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: "Dr. Mike Harrison via NSRCA-discussion"
>>> Sent: Jan 26, 2017 11:27 AM
>>> To: 'John Fuqua' , 'General pattern discussion'
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?
>>>
>>> What I take away from here is that there are very good points by all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounc
>>> es at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *John Fuqua via NSRCA-discussion
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 26, 2017 8:26 AM
>>> *To:* 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Agree totally.   Weight is a false flag for Masters and FAI.    It made
>>> some sense to raise the weight for the lower classes as they often fly pass
>>> down previously owned planes which tend to grow in weight as they are
>>> passed around.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My fear has always been the law of unintended consequences when a
>>> radical change is made without fully appreciating the ingenuity of the
>>> pattern people.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounc
>>> es at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] *On
>>> Behalf Of *Dave Lockhart via NSRCA-discussion
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 26, 2017 7:45 AM
>>> *To:* 'General pattern discussion'
>>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IF all other things are equal, heavier does not fly better.  The “IF” is
>>> rarely (if ever) considered by proponents of raising the weight limit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IF the added weight is used to increase power, size, or performance, it
>>> is an advantage that will raise the performance (and cost) and nothing
>>> changes except the cost has increased for everyone.  The reason so many
>>> planes are close to the limits is because they have been designed for the
>>> greatest performance available within the limits, by pushing right up to
>>> the limits.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Most airplane designers have recommended equipment to complete the plane
>>> at or below the weight limit.  The electric “pigs” that won’t make the
>>> weight limit are ALL the modern day large 2M planes when equipped with the
>>> heaviest motor, heaviest motor batteries, heaviest RX/servo power supply
>>> (dual redundant everything with 10 amp magnetic switches), heaviest servos,
>>> heaviest linkages, heaviest wheels, plethora of telemetry sensors, etc.
>>> Any airplane can be made overweight.  If someone has the opinion it is ok
>>> to be less competitive for being overweight, being less competitive with a
>>> smaller plane that does make weight is pretty much the same scenario (but
>>> is legal to the letter of the rules).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don’t think we get a lot of new people flying pattern at the
>>> NATs…which…in practice is the only contest where weight is checked.  In the
>>> northeast US, any number of contests have advertised waivers of the weight
>>> limit, and in ~20 years, there have been very few overweight entrants, and
>>> I can’t think of any pattern converts as a result of waiving the weight
>>> limit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounc
>>> es at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] *On
>>> Behalf Of *Oscar via NSRCA-discussion
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:27 PM
>>> *To:* Patternpilot One <patternpilot1 at hotmail.com>; General pattern
>>> discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 😀😀😀
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 5:46 PM, Patternpilot One via NSRCA-discussion <
>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I see the potential for more people to fly pattern without the weight
>>> limit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sa.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.
>>> org>
>>> Date: 1/25/17 5:34 PM (GMT-05:00)
>>> To: Whodaddy Whodaddy <whodaddy10 at gmail.com>, General pattern
>>> discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?
>>>
>>> Hmmmm. No weight limit...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I see a new market for a full 2M wing span on bi-planes sporting a
>>> YS-300DZ twin on the horizon... vbg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>
>>> From: Whodaddy Whodaddy via NSRCA-discussion <
>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>
>>> Date: 1/25/17 4:20 PM (GMT-06:00)
>>>
>>> To: Jas S <justanotherflyr at gmail.com>, General pattern discussion <
>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not a fan of rule change for weight .. Cost is an obsolete argument blah
>>> blah blah ... Im well under with no extravagant $$$ or measures ... If
>>> manufacturers are building heavy components for their planes  and that
>>> plane is overweight then dont buy the dang thing .. There is enough
>>> information as to the dews and donts to get planes under weight and wat
>>> planes leave the factory as over weight pigs... .. I you dont pay attention
>>> its ur fault u fly a pig ... Dont change the rules cause u refuse to pay
>>> attention ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nuff said
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> G
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 12:20 PM, Jas S via NSRCA-discussion <
>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is one. The pilot with an 'over weight' can now compete at the Nats
>>>
>>> Jas iP
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion <
>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Come on now!  How can hobby shops make some $$$ on a customer who needs
>>> to “buy some lightness” if the weight limit is thrown in the trash?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I hope that all readers realize that my tongue was firmly in my cheek
>>> when I posted the above.  There is no advantage in R/C aerobatic
>>> competition for a pilot to fly a heavy airplane.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron Van Putte
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion <
>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think its time to throw the weight limit in the trash.  There is
>>> nothing keeping anyone from voluntarily spending half of a paycheck to drop
>>> a few grams.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounc
>>> es at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] *On
>>> Behalf Of *blotch44026--- via NSRCA-discussion
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:56
>>> *To:* Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com>; General pattern discussion <
>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; General pattern discussion <
>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion
>>> Sent: Jan 24, 2017 5:04 PM
>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?
>>>
>>> Does anyone know when the next rules proposal cycle begins?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it is time to stretch the weight limit to at least 4 ozs over 11
>>> lbs. for electrics in ALL the AMA classes. Tired of paying the proverbial
>>> $100 and ounce to get there. Glow setups have an advantage. No doubt in my
>>> mind.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Flame on.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20170126/cc422a1f/attachment.html>