[NSRCA-discussion] HV pack question about Nats voltage checks.

Sat Jun 13 16:57:25 AKDT 2020

“but this one goes to 11….” he says channeling his inner Nigel Tufnel…..

From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> On Behalf Of mups53 via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2020 8:55 PM
To: Jon Dieringer <jon at dieringerfamily.com>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] HV pack question about Nats voltage checks.

Yup.

Buts it's an 11......

 It's one better.

 Mike

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: Jon Dieringer <jon at dieringerfamily.com <mailto:jon at dieringerfamily.com> > 

Date: 6/13/20 7:08 PM (GMT-06:00) 

To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >, mups53 <mups53 at gmail.com <mailto:mups53 at gmail.com> > 

Cc: Jas S <justanotherflyr at gmail.com <mailto:justanotherflyr at gmail.com> > 

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] HV pack question about Nats voltage checks. 

45/11 is only 4.09 V/cell. 46.2V is 11x4.2V

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 6:03 PM mups53 via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> > wrote:

45 volts equals an 11s. A six and a five.

Hmmmm.

 New KV requirements right?

 Mike

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: Jas S via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> > 

Date: 6/13/20 2:29 PM (GMT-06:00) 

To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> > 

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] HV pack question about Nats voltage checks. 

F3A is 42.56v

Jas iP

On Jun 13, 2020, at 8:50 AM, Tjpritchett via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> > wrote:

This year the rules have changed. 45 volts is the limit.  It was written to allow HV packs. Here’s the amendment in the 2020 AMA comp regs.....

4.1. Propulsion source limitations

Any suitable propulsion source may be used except those requiring solid expendable propellants, gaseous fuels (at room temperature and atmospheric pressure) or liquefied gaseous fuels. Electrically-powered model aircraft are limited to a maximum of 45.0 volts for the propulsion circuit, measured prior to flight while the competitor is in the ready box. A tolerance of 1% will be allowed for possible inconsistencies in measurement instruments and measurement operator error for battery voltage. A CD may waive all or some of the requirements for voltage measurement if not practical.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 13, 2020, at 8:46 AM, mups53 via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> > wrote:

At the Nats last year it was 42.999999. In Masters.

Mike

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: Jas S via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> > 

Date: 6/13/20 6:37 AM (GMT-06:00) 

To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> > 

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] HV pack question about Nats voltage checks. 

I believe F3A is still at 4.25v or 4.28v? It’s still early so I may be off 

Jas iP

On Jun 13, 2020, at 12:19 AM, Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> > wrote:

Battery checks on the flight line are really a waste of time. I did the checks at the 2011 Worlds in Muncie. A random cell count is all that is needed just to make sure no one is using 11 or higher cell count packs. HV packs are now legal too.

Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986>  for Windows 10

From: mups53 via NSRCA-discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 8:21 PM
To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] HV pack question about Nats voltage checks.

So here it goes.

This has been wearing on me since the Nats last year.

 Let me start by saying that I market the 5S HV packs. A 10S pack is capable of charging to 43.5 volts. The rules say the legal limit is 42.99 volts. Capacity increases on the 5100 10S in the neighborhood of 500 mAh with the added volt. That's consistent and quantifiable on my Power Lab chargers. So the added capacity is significant. In my case needed because I had a weight issue and was using the lighter 5100 packs instead of the 5800 packs I normally like in competition.

 So here's the issue. At the Nats HV pack users were identified and voltage checked before each flight. Non HV pack users no check needed. The ID process was to look at the label on the packs. So I have labels for our packs that say they are HV. I also have labels laying around that don't say HV. Albeit they say Gator Power packs instead of Power Unlimited HV. Anyone could easily dupe the system by putting a false label on an HV pack if that's the only criteria in place.

 In fairness I believe all packs should get checked on the ready box. Every single fliers packs or don't check any. Or we could use an honor system which by all means I and I hope others would adhere to thus eliminating the need to check.

 I hope to hear opinions on this and that it changes how it's being handled now.

Thanks, Mike Mueller 

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

_______________________________________________
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 <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 <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 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-- 

Thanks,
Jon

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20200614/8650e4b9/attachment.html>