[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal Cycle?
John Gayer
west.engineering at comcast.net
Thu Jan 26 13:45:21 AKST 2017
However you do need the mating connector to the balance connector on the
battery, not the balance connector off an old battery.
On 1/26/2017 1:06 PM, Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
> You are right! I missed that.
>
> However, how about using dual 2S-850 LiFe packs and a regulator would
> not be necessary.
>
> Ron
>
>> On Jan 26, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>>
>> 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 <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces 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
>>> <mailto: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-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto: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-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:patternpilot1 at hotmail.com>>; General
>>> pattern discussion
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>>> Date: 1/25/17 5:34 PM (GMT-05:00)
>>> To: Whodaddy Whodaddy
>>> <whodaddy10 at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:whodaddy10 at gmail.com>>, General
>>> pattern discussion
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>>>
>>> Date: 1/25/17 4:20 PM (GMT-06:00)
>>>
>>> To: Jas S <justanotherflyr at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:justanotherflyr at gmail.com>>,
>>> General pattern discussion
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto: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 $$$ or measures ... If
>>> manufacturers are building heavy
>>> components for their planes and that
>>> plane is overweight then dont buy the
>>> dang thing .. There is enough
>>> information as to the dews and donts to
>>> get planes under weight and wat planes
>>> leave the factory as over weight pigs...
>>> .. I you dont pay attention its ur fault
>>> u fly a pig ... Dont change the rules
>>> cause u refuse to pay attention ...
>>>
>>> Nuff said
>>>
>>> G
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 12:20 PM, Jas S via
>>> NSRCA-discussion
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is one. The pilot with an
>>> 'over weight' can now compete at the
>>> Nats
>>>
>>> Jas iP
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Ronald
>>> Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Come on now! How can hobby
>>> shops make some $$$ 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
>>> <mailto: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-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:jlachow at hotmail.com>>;
>>> General pattern discussion
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>;
>>> General pattern discussion
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> <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
>>> <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
>>> <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
>>> <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
>>> <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
>>> <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
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170126/54ff0233/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list