<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
All I want is a little 'elbow room' in the weight department--a few ounces and ALL my stuff in ANY combination would make it--even with a minor prang or two.<BR>
I still feel this was a fairly arbitrary decision to weigh WITH power batteries--could have just as well gone the other way...<BR>RS <BR>> From: jshulman@cfl.rr.com<BR>> To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:27:49 -0400<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>> <BR>> I think we should wait until the electrics are built to light in the wrong areas and watch it implode in flight and cause damage to <BR>> whatever. Then maybe we can get a little more room for electrics in the weight department.<BR>> <BR>> Regards,<BR>> Jason<BR>> www.shulmanaviation.com<BR>> www.composite-arf.com<BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "mike mueller" <mups1953@yahoo.com><BR>> To: <jpavlick@idseng.com>; "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:20 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I think the proposal is a tweak not a reinvention of the wheel. It would be better that the cheaper options can be used and the <BR>> planes can be made a little stronger. Mike<BR>> <BR>> --- On Wed, 6/3/09, John Pavlick <jpavlick@idseng.com> wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > From: John Pavlick <jpavlick@idseng.com><BR>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> > Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 3:11 PM<BR>> > Oops I misread the<BR>> > description. Sorry.<BR>> ><BR>> > John Pavlick<BR>> ><BR>> > --- On Wed, 6/3/09, John Pavlick<BR>> > <jpavlick@idseng.com> wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > From: John Pavlick <jpavlick@idseng.com><BR>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>> > To: "General pattern discussion"<BR>> > <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> > Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 4:08 PM<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > So then electric planes will need to have the motor<BR>> > and batteries removed when they're weighed?<BR>> ><BR>> > John Pavlick<BR>> ><BR>> > --- On Wed, 6/3/09, verne@twmi.rr.com<BR>> > <verne@twmi.rr.com> wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > From: verne@twmi.rr.com <verne@twmi.rr.com><BR>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>> > To: "General pattern discussion"<BR>> > <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> > Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 3:54 PM<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Mike,<BR>> > I mis-spoke and hopefully my correction made it on the<BR>> > list. I meant ELECTRIC Black Magic. I know you and Dean have<BR>> > pulled it off in Zen-like fashion. I'm not aware of any<BR>> > others, though I'm sure you'll correct me shortly.<BR>> > The point is that most guys won't be able to pull it off<BR>> > or will have enough self-doubts to even try. That leaves<BR>> > them with Sparks, Integrals, Prestiges, Abbras and a few<BR>> > more that may or not be obtainable in a reasonable time<BR>> > frame. And most of those won't make weight with a<BR>> > combination of less-expensive (spelled heavier) motors and<BR>> > battery packs. Many that do would become instantly obsolete<BR>> > if any significant repair such as torn-out landing gear<BR>> > enters the equation. What I'm going to propose is to<BR>> > take the motor batteries (not Rx battery) out of the<BR>> > equation and require a weight significantly lighter than a<BR>> > glow plane (my preliminary research indicates 8.7 pounds<BR>> > which is 2-1/4 pounds lighter than a<BR>> > glow plane). This isn't really my idea. I've just<BR>> > worked<BR>> > up what I believe to be a solution to comments<BR>> > I've been hearing on the contest trail for a few years<BR>> > now. Everybody has the right to an opinion on it and should<BR>> > make their feelings known to their respective AMA Contest<BR>> > Board rep when the time comes.<BR>> ><BR>> > Verne<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > ---- Mike Hester <kerlock@comcast.net><BR>> > wrote:<BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> > > Verne you're pretty much talking about just about<BR>> > everybody flying pattern.<BR>> > > Even a lot of the sponsored guys don't get nearly<BR>> > as much help as one would<BR>> > > think (you've been around Andrew and others so<BR>> > this is pretty common<BR>> > > knowledge). Very very few get a lot of support. Most<BR>> > of us pay through the<BR>> > > nose to compete. Honestly one of the things I wanted<BR>> > to do was make it a<BR>> > > little cheaper if you're<BR>> > willing to do the work on it, but even then it's<BR>> > > not "cheap". if there's a real answer I<BR>> > don't know what it is.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > What I can answer is the Black Magic question, because<BR>> > you asked =) As far<BR>> > > as I know, better than 90-95% of them made weight<BR>> > right off the table. The<BR>> > > ones who didn't, you can usually find a common<BR>> > denominator somewhere that<BR>> > > had they done it different, they wouldn't have<BR>> > been overweight. At least the<BR>> > > few I am aware of. But almost all of them that I am<BR>> > aware of that are flying<BR>> > > made it the first time. Some are even lighter than I<BR>> > have yet achieved. I<BR>> > > know of a few exceptions but don't know of any<BR>> > that didn't make it<BR>> > > eventually after some tweaking. If you follow the<BR>> > directions to the letter<BR>> > > and never get complacent, you'll make it. Usually<BR>> > with room to spare. In<BR>> > > almost every case the extra weight was picked up on<BR>> > the finish/paint, or in<BR>> ><BR>> > > the selection and methods of sheeting. I don't<BR>> > know personally of anyone who<BR>> > > didn't make it easily on the second attept.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > So, it can be done. But I won't kid you, it's<BR>> > a lot of work. The reward IMHO<BR>> > > is the durability. I am still amazed at how much these<BR>> > things can take<BR>> > > before they break! (I thought Archie's was toast<BR>> > for sure last year at<BR>> > > Cincy!)<BR>> > ><BR>> > > LOL Zen building....ok, I won't argue that, me and<BR>> > Dean do have that<BR>> > > mindset. We actually enjoy the process. It's not<BR>> > work (unless it isn't<BR>> > > mine). We know we're the minority as far as that<BR>> > goes. Most people just want<BR>> > > to fly, NOW. But I enjoy the shop stuff as much as the<BR>> > flying.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > I really don't know of many planes that<BR>> > "can't" make weight under the<BR>> > > current rules. Some are just easier than others. But<BR>> > just for the record,<BR>> > > the Black Magics have a pretty good track record<BR>> > overall, thus far. But they<BR>> > > aren't for everyone. There are plenty of composite<BR>> > planes that can easily<BR>> > > make weight. Although you sort of get what you get,<BR>> > and hope it's light<BR>> > > enough in almost all cases. The only way to totally<BR>> > avoid that is to do it<BR>> > > all yourself. And although there are a suprising<BR>> > number of people who will,<BR>> > > a lot can't, or won't.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > FWIW the future is looking better than ever, across<BR>> > the board. Equipment is<BR>> > > better and more reliable, newer airframes are SOLID<BR>> > and the quality is<BR>> > > getting better, the only thing not getting better is<BR>> > the price tag.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > -Mike<BR>> > ><BR>> > > ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> > > From: <verne@twmi.rr.com><BR>> > > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:45 PM<BR>> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> > > > Arch,<BR>> > > > How many Black Magics are out there that made<BR>> > weight by someone who built<BR>> > > > one the first time, or even the second? I know<BR>> > Mike and Dean can do it,<BR>> > > > that's what I meant by the "building<BR>> > skills of Zen". What I'm talking<BR>> > > > about and who I'm listening to are the<BR>> > totally unsponsored guys who can't<BR>> > > > just pick up the phone and get something right<BR>> > now because of their<BR>> > > > reputation and also have to pay full price for<BR>> > everything. This isn't a<BR>> > > > shot at anyone who has any level of sponsorship.<BR>> > I fall into that category<BR>> > > > myself. I'm just hearing a lot of frustration<BR>> > on the contest trail<BR>> > and<BR>> > > > have been for a couple of years.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Verne<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > ---- Archie Stafford <astafford@swtexas.net><BR>> > wrote:<BR>> > > >> I agree with Jon and Dave. Getting rid<BR>> > of the weight limit or even<BR>> > > >> changing<BR>> > > >> it is a bad idea. The price of<BR>> > batteries keeps dropping. PATTERN IS<BR>> > > >> NEVER<BR>> > > >> GOING TO BE CHEAP, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE WANT<BR>> > IT TO BE. It is always<BR>> > > >> going<BR>> > > >> to be expensive to go to contests, so saving<BR>> > 100-200 on a set of<BR>> > > >> batteries<BR>> > > >> is offset by the other costs associated with<BR>> > it. There are airframes out<BR>> > > >> there that you could use heavy packs and<BR>> > still be under weight. Dave<BR>> > > >> Lockhart is under 10lbs<BR>> > flying electric, so he could definitely go with<BR>> > > >> significantly heavier batteries. I know<BR>> > that there is a set of Black<BR>> > > >> Magics<BR>> > > >> that are easily under using about the<BR>> > heaviest electric setup known now<BR>> > > >> and<BR>> > > >> it is still legal. There are options<BR>> > out there without changing the<BR>> > > >> rules.<BR>> > > >> It wasn't that many years ago people<BR>> > swore you couldn't build the large 2<BR>> > > >> meter stuff under 11 lbs, now there are full<BR>> > built up balsa kits coming<BR>> > > >> in<BR>> > > >> at 9.5lbs. It can be done even with the<BR>> > heavier electric stuff.<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> Arch<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> -----Original Message-----<BR>> > > >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]<BR>> > On Behalf Of Jon Lowe<BR>> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:19 PM<BR>> > > >> To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> Amen. The theory was, when they went to<BR>> > 2 meters, unlimited engines<BR>> > > >> and 11 lbs that things would get cheaper<BR>> > because they could use larger,<BR>> > > >> less finicky engines than the .61's at<BR>> > the time. Yeah, right. My YS<BR>> > > >> is fuel injected, supercharged, CDI, and<BR>> > running on 30%. The planes<BR>> > > >> will<BR>> > change to fit ANY new rules,and cost will likely rise<BR>> > along with<BR>> > > >> it.<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> My attitude is that both fuel and electric<BR>> > airplanes are weighed<BR>> > > >> without fuel. My fuel weighs a lot,<BR>> > electric fuel doesn't weigh<BR>> > > >> anything. Electrics just<BR>> > have a heavy fuel tank. They are at a<BR>> > > >> definite advantage in many cases because they<BR>> > never weigh more than 11<BR>> > > >> lbs in flight, while a fuel airplane often<BR>> > does.<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> Dave is right, the cost curve is starting to<BR>> > favor electrics, assuming<BR>> > > >> you have no current investment in either<BR>> > technology. The Zippy packs<BR>> > > >> will get better and better, and the cost of<BR>> > electric continues to come<BR>> > > >> down. Go to hobbycity.com and look<BR>> > around at their motors, speed<BR>> > > >> controllers, batteries and chargers if you<BR>> > don't<BR>> > believe me. The only<BR>> > > >> advantage for me right now with YS's<BR>> > other than the fact I have<BR>> > > >> invested in them, is that I get get two<BR>> > practice sequences per flight.<BR>> > > >> Plus, they don't try to burn my house<BR>> > down. ;)<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> Jon Lowe<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> -----Original Message-----<BR>> > > >> From: Dave <DaveL322@comcast.net><BR>> > > >> To: 'General pattern discussion'<BR>> > <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> > > >> Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:57 pm<BR>> > > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > ><BR>> > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> <96 db, <2M, <11 lbs, and it is<BR>> > legal. Your challenge is to meet those<BR>> > > >> specs with whatever equipment you choose.<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> Raise any of those limits, and the cost and<BR>> > complexity of pattern goes<BR>> > > >> up.<BR>> > > >> If you think what pattern needs is more cost<BR>> > and complexity, submit the<BR>> > > >> proposal. And as Duane notes, the new<BR>> > breed of monoplanes will obsolete<BR>> > > >> your DA-50 Bipe.<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> Regards,<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> Dave<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> -----Original Message-----<BR>> > > >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]<BR>> > On Behalf Of J N<BR>> > > >> Hiller<BR>> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM<BR>> > > >> To: General pattern discussion<BR>> > > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> I was thinking pattern legal DA-50.<BR>> > > >> Jim<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> -----Original Message-----<BR>> > > >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]On<BR>> > Behalf Of Duane Beck<BR>> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June<BR>> > 03, 2009 10:06 AM<BR>> > > >> To: General pattern discussion<BR>> > > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> http://www.mini-iac.com/<BR>> > > >> DA-50's and larger biplanes very<BR>> > common. Have at it. :-)<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> Duane<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> > > >> From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller@earthlink.net><BR>> > > >> To: jpavlick@idseng.com,<BR>> > "General pattern discussion"<BR>> > > >> <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12:21 PM GMT<BR>> > -05:00 US/Canada Eastern<BR>> > > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> Interesting discussion. I always felt the<BR>> > weight limit replaced the<BR>> > > >> displacement limit prevent the use of very<BR>> > large engines.<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> Remove it now and we will see DA-50 or larger<BR>> > biplanes. I have wanted to<BR>> > > >> build one for a long time.<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> Bring it on.<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> Jim Hiller<BR>> > > >><BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > > >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > > >> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > > >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > > >> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > > >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > > >> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > > >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > > >> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > > >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > > >> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > > > _______________________________________________<BR>> > > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > > > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> ><BR>> > ><BR>> > > _______________________________________________<BR>> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> ><BR>> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----<BR>> ><BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR><br /><hr />Insert movie times and more without leaving HotmailŪ. <a href='http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009' target='_new'>See how.</a></body>
</html>