<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Eventually I think pattern will be all
electric, but this is still a ways off. Electric car development will utilize
battery technology that we can eventually use. This will be billions in
development-good thing the US car industry has such an efficient, reliable
finance partner.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Changing the rules like Dave says will
quickly be behind the curve. Besides, eliminating the weight limit will
result in Biplanes going to Triplanes. Everyone knows that Triplanes
score better than Biplanes. Then comes Quadwings, on and on. <br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Gray Fowler<br>
Senior Principal Chemical Engineer<br>
Radomes and Specialty Apertures<br>
Technical Staff Composites Engineering<br>
Raytheon</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Dave" <DaveL322@comcast.net></b>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">06/03/2009 12:51 PM</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></font></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><verne@twmi.rr.com>, "'General
pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Verne,<br>
<br>
You probably want to keep the mah limit at 5300....because at a 5S<br>
configuration, that is the maximum size allowed by TSA for airline travel<br>
(based on watts, equivalent lithium content, etc.....5s5300 works out to
be<br>
98.5% of what is allowed, based on nominal voltage of 3.7 per cell).<br>
<br>
The price of motors and batteries is rapidly dropping....by the time you<br>
would get a rule proposal completed, approved, and in place, technology
will<br>
have solved the problem. What will not change is the price of the
top end<br>
electric and glow setups - they will always be expensive, as that is the<br>
nature of the latest/greatest/best.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Dave<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: verne@twmi.rr.com [mailto:verne@twmi.rr.com] <br>
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:59 PM<br>
To: General pattern discussion<br>
Cc: Dave<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<br>
<br>
Yes, the goal is to make it cheaper. What I'm trying to do is take the<br>
weight of the batteries out of the equation just like fuel is. With rare<br>
exception, cheaper batteries equals more weight. The reason for including
a<br>
mah restriction (probably 6000mah as rated by the mfg) is to keep things<br>
under control and avoid someone taking advantage with larger batteries.
What<br>
I'm hearing out of my district is guys wanting to try electric and getting<br>
scared off with the high cost of kits, batteries, and motors that will
make<br>
weight. I'm well aware that the Prestige, Spark, Integral, and a few others<br>
can make weight with the right batteries and motor. I'm also aware of what<br>
that costs. My goal is to make it possible for someone to build a Black<br>
Magic without the building skills of Zen that'll make weight with an Axi
and<br>
Zippy packs.<br>
<br>
Verne<br>
<br>
<br>
---- Dave <DaveL322@comcast.net> wrote: <br>
> Verne,<br>
> <br>
> If you goal is to make pattern cheaper, I'm all for that (and the
most<br>
> expensive setup right now is a YS CDI setup), but I can't see how
a<br>
proposal<br>
> based on your description can effectively accomplish that.<br>
> <br>
> Is the goal to reduce cost of the electric (which I can argue is cheaper<br>
> than glow at the top levels of each) or to make electric and glow<br>
airplanes<br>
> have the same cost for equal performance? As electric technology
rapidly<br>
> advances, any proposal based on current day planes will be obsolete
by the<br>
> time it in place.<br>
> <br>
> Limits on pack mah will certainly add to the complexity of tech<br>
inspections<br>
> of planes....to say nothing of the fact that all "20C" lipos
do not weigh<br>
> the same thing, and all batteries of a marked capacity are not the
same<br>
> either - the door will be wide open for "creative" labeling
of mah<br>
capacity<br>
> on batteries.<br>
> <br>
> Just as there are examples of overweight glow planes (I do hope you
are<br>
> getting weights on glow planes as well during your surveys???), there
are<br>
> overweight examples of electrics - neither should be accommodated
by a<br>
> change in the rules. Each competitor should evaluate the rules,
and<br>
prepare<br>
> to compete with whatever setup best suits there budget, time, resources,<br>
and<br>
> is within the RULES.<br>
> <br>
> Electric may cost more upfront, but it is rapidly getting cheaper
(and<br>
glow<br>
> is getting more expensive). The big hurdle for electric right
now is that<br>
> all the costs are upfront, making it expensive to enter.<br>
> <br>
> Regards,<br>
> <br>
> Dave<br>
> <br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<br>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of<br>
> verne@twmi.rr.com<br>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:52 AM<br>
> To: General pattern discussion<br>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight<br>
> <br>
> Bill,<br>
> I've been working up an AMA rules proposal to address that very issue.<br>
> Unfortunately, it won't be up for vote by the contest board anytime
soon.<br>
In<br>
> the meantime, there's one area you didn't mention in the glow to electric<br>
> comparison and that's that an electric plane doesn't need as much
internal<br>
> reinforcement because there's virtually no vibrational effects to
contend<br>
> with that you do with glow. That equates to lighter airframes being<br>
> acceptable as well as small, light, lipo packs to power the Rx and
servos.<br>
> An 8 minute e-flight typically uses about 50 mah. The same flight
in glow<br>
is<br>
> typically 200+ mah. All that aside, most electric pilots will tell
you<br>
that<br>
> making weight in electric is generally a pretty expensive proposition
with<br>
a<br>
> limited number of 2 meter planes available that are usually vacuum-bagged<br>
> composite affairs. In addition, your best chances for making weight
will<br>
> also necessitate the lightest and generally most expensive motors
and<br>
> batteries. There are exceptio<br>
> ns, and I'm sure we're about to hear about most of them, but
I'll be able<br>
> to point to just as many examples of guys that fly overweight at local<br>
> contests where they know they won't be weighed and the only thing
they're<br>
> really guilty of is not spending the extra money that the lightest<br>
batteries<br>
> and motors cost. In every other way, the planes they're flying are
the<br>
same<br>
> as the ones they're competing against. The proposal I'm working on
is not<br>
> self-serving because my planes make weight, but getting there is both
too<br>
> expensive and unreasonable, in my opinion. My proposal won't be to
allow<br>
> electric planes to weigh more, it'll require that they weigh less,
but<br>
> without the "fuel". The proposal will take into account
that electric<br>
motors<br>
> are inherently lighter than their glow counterparts as well as the
reduced<br>
> structural requirements. It will limit the mah of permissible packs
to<br>
> control that end of the equation and there's already a voltage limit
on<br>
the<br>
> books which is fine as it <br>
> stands. I'm currently doing survey work at the contests I go
to to see<br>
> where everybody is at weight-wise and will post my proposal on this
list<br>
> soon. After that, it's up to all concerned to voice their opinions
to<br>
their<br>
> respective Contest Board reps.<br>
> <br>
> Verne Koester<br>
> AMA District 7 <br>
> Contest Board<br>
> ---- Bill's Email <wemodels@cox.net> wrote: <br>
> > I am certain this has been beaten to death while I was
off doing other <br>
> > things, but can anyone explain this:<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > Rule 4.3: Weight and Size. No model may weigh more than five
(5) <br>
> > kilograms (11 pounds) gross, but excluding fuel, ready for takeoff.
<br>
> > Electric models are weighed with batteries.<br>
> > <br>
> > Why can't an electric "deduct" the equivalent of 16
ounces of fuel?? Is<br>
<br>
> > a plane without fuel rally "ready for takeoff"??<br>
> > <br>
> > I know it is likely a direct copy of the FAI rule, but it makes
no <br>
> > logical sense. IC powered planes are weighed without fuel and
can weigh <br>
> > right at 11 pounds. Add fuel and it could add another 10 to 12
ounces of<br>
<br>
> > weight. That's OK. But if an electric with batteries weight <br>
> > 11.0000000000000001 pounds it is overweight by the rules.<br>
> > <br>
> > Put another way, what does a YS and full fuel weigh compared
to a <br>
> > motor+ESC+batteries?<br>
> > <br>
> > Hacker C50 14XL = 18.2 ounces<br>
> > Hacker Spin 99 ESC = 3.7 ounces<br>
> > 10S packs = +/- 43 to 46 ounces<br>
> > <br>
> > Weight w/o batteries = 21.9<br>
> > AUW w/batteries = 66.9 ounces<br>
> > <br>
> > YS 1.70 = 33.6 ounces (955 grams)<br>
> > AUW with tank and fuel = 45 ounces +/-<br>
> > <br>
> > So I can see an argument that the electrics have a weight
advantage <br>
> > when it comes to just the motor and ESC. But with "fuel"
electric is at <br>
> > a 20 ounce disadvantage.<br>
> > <br>
> > So if I build a plane for electric I need to build it 20 plus
ounces <br>
> > lighter than if I was going to put a nitro motor in it. How does
that <br>
> > make sense. I know I am missing something important here, so
educate me.<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>
> 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>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>
<br>
The following line is added for your protection and will be used for analysis
if this message is reported as spam:<br>
<br>
(Raytheon Analysis: IP=209.112.194.3; e-from=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org;
from=DaveL322@comcast.net; date=Jun 3, 2009 5:51:29 PM; subject=Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Weight)<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>