View Poll Results: A poll
Voters: 103. You may not vote on this poll
How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
01-01-2012, 11:01 AM
#101
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ossining,
NY
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
Here's some more.
Throw your $250 HiMaxx motor away and replace it with a $700 Pletty
Throw away your standard size digital servos and replace with Mid size or mini digitals
Throw away your Castle HV ESC and replace it with a YGE or Schulze
Throw away you aluminum or fiberglass landing gear and replace with CF
Throw away your 2600 mah receiver pack that you can fly all day with and replace with a 350 mah pack that you can fly 2-3 flights with.
There's more but I'm tired!
Throw your $250 HiMaxx motor away and replace it with a $700 Pletty
Throw away your standard size digital servos and replace with Mid size or mini digitals
Throw away your Castle HV ESC and replace it with a YGE or Schulze
Throw away you aluminum or fiberglass landing gear and replace with CF
Throw away your 2600 mah receiver pack that you can fly all day with and replace with a 350 mah pack that you can fly 2-3 flights with.
There's more but I'm tired!
A few significant things I did to reduce the weight of my Sickle:
I used the CF Nomex honeycomb and CF end-grain balsa sandwich material for, respectively, the rudder servo/mid-ship brace area, and for the firewall for my Himax 6330-210. This sounds like one of those big-ticket items compared to the usual lite ply that guys often use, but in fact the honeycomb stuff cost only $21 for a 1 ft square and the end-grain balsa stuff was $15 for a 6"x1ft piece. It took only half a sheet of each, so it cost about $18 or so for a material that potentially saved several ounces. I can't give an exact number because nobody replied when I asked for a weight check on the lite ply, and of course we all had to design our own and place them where we judged best in the fuse, so the weight would have varied somewhat no matter what material was being used.
However, I consider that a relatively cheap upgrade. I saved more weight on my "custom" (sort-of) 2-56 Dubro ball links mated to small CF tubes with threaded 2-56 ends using unwaxed dental floss with a few drops of CA. I don't know the weight savings, but suffice to say these are VERY light linkages compared to many, and they have held up well for more than 300 flights.
I removed a lot of the metal bits from the tailwheel and used a small, drilled-out 1/4-20 nylon bolt with a hole drilled down the center to mount it in the rudder post. I think it would have weighed about 19 grams unmodified, but about 10 grams afterward.
Another significant weight savings came from wiring the batteries in series instead of using a series harness. Again, I don't know the weight of a series harness, but it is quite a lot.
I used a cheap and light GP e-spinner. I cut off the excess wire between the motor and ESC leads, and could have saved some more weight by simply soldering the ESC and motor leads instead of using bullet connectors.
I used the switched Tech-Aero dual reg and 2 350mah Rx batteries. Total weight for batts, regs and switch was something like 90 grams. Also, I can safely get 8-10 flights with these Rx batteries.
And I used a lighter coated steel cable for the rudder pull-pull and used no hardware at all to attach the cable to the rudder horns.
These are things that I did to keep the plane weight down, and at the end of the process the plane weighed about 10lb-7oz AUW with Zippys. This with a cheap Himax, a CC 85HV to go along with the cheap batteries.
It leaves me to wonder how many of these cheap or no-cost measures were used by guys whose Sickles were flirting with or were over the 5kg mark.
01-01-2012, 12:06 PM
#102
My Feedback: (45)
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
ORIGINAL: rix
I agree the PB's are a slight weight penalty but they sure give me the warm and fuzzy's every time I take flight.[8D]
I agree the PB's are a slight weight penalty but they sure give me the warm and fuzzy's every time I take flight.[8D]
Arch
01-01-2012, 12:09 PM
#103
My Feedback: (45)
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
ORIGINAL: burtona
Here's some more.
Throw your $250 HiMaxx motor away and replace it with a $700 Pletty
Throw away your standard size digital servos and replace with Mid size or mini digitals
Throw away your Castle HV ESC and replace it with a YGE or Schulze
Throw away you aluminum or fiberglass landing gear and replace with CF
Throw away your 2600 mah receiver pack that you can fly all day with and replace with a 350 mah pack that you can fly 2-3 flights with.
There's more but I'm tired!
ORIGINAL: rix
Trimming weight is easy to do. Throw your good performing $15 APC away and replace it with a $90 job. Throw your $4 spinner away and replace it with a $130 one. Throw your good carbon fiber wing tube away and spend another $50 or so on a lighter one..etc.
Trimming weight is easy to do. Throw your good performing $15 APC away and replace it with a $90 job. Throw your $4 spinner away and replace it with a $130 one. Throw your good carbon fiber wing tube away and spend another $50 or so on a lighter one..etc.
Throw your $250 HiMaxx motor away and replace it with a $700 Pletty
Throw away your standard size digital servos and replace with Mid size or mini digitals
Throw away your Castle HV ESC and replace it with a YGE or Schulze
Throw away you aluminum or fiberglass landing gear and replace with CF
Throw away your 2600 mah receiver pack that you can fly all day with and replace with a 350 mah pack that you can fly 2-3 flights with.
There's more but I'm tired!
I use dual 350mah packs with Ed's dual reg setup and can EASILY fly 12 flights on them. If you are using more than 80mah per flight on an electric then something is binding. Also, at the NATS, you only fly twice a day, so fly with the heavy pack all you want, and then for the NATS put in a lighter one and get rid of several ounces. As I said above, you can easily run the ICE 80HV lite for our purposes. Actually my ICE 80 Lite is running slightly cooler on my winds as it sits right in the main airflow on the bottom of the chin.
Arch
01-01-2012, 12:55 PM
#104
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bolivia, NC
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
Arch, you are correct in that there are a number of things you can change out and save weight and get other benefits sometimes.
But, you are always spending more money to replace them. And for what benefit?
In my case and 95% of the other pattern flyers it's not going to improve my finishing position anywhere. Most of us can fly a 5Kg plane as well as we can fly a 5.1Kg plane. All it does for us is drive up the cost, and we are handicapped by flying a heavier plane. If I make a choice to save a few bucks at the expense of a weight handicap, what's wrong with that? I know there are lots of ways to make weight with most any plane if we do the work and spend the money. But I can't understand why anyone would care if I or anyone else choses to fly a heavier plane. I think it's mostly a case of taking the "We've always done it this way" approach rather than applying some logical thought to the issue.
But, you are always spending more money to replace them. And for what benefit?
In my case and 95% of the other pattern flyers it's not going to improve my finishing position anywhere. Most of us can fly a 5Kg plane as well as we can fly a 5.1Kg plane. All it does for us is drive up the cost, and we are handicapped by flying a heavier plane. If I make a choice to save a few bucks at the expense of a weight handicap, what's wrong with that? I know there are lots of ways to make weight with most any plane if we do the work and spend the money. But I can't understand why anyone would care if I or anyone else choses to fly a heavier plane. I think it's mostly a case of taking the "We've always done it this way" approach rather than applying some logical thought to the issue.
01-01-2012, 01:58 PM
#105
Senior Member
My Feedback: (25)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
ORIGINAL: burtona
Here's some more.
Throw your $250 HiMaxx motor away and replace it with a $700 Pletty
Throw away your standard size digital servos and replace with Mid size or mini digitals
Throw away your Castle HV ESC and replace it with a YGE or Schulze
Throw away you aluminum or fiberglass landing gear and replace with CF
Throw away your 2600 mah receiver pack that you can fly all day with and replace with a 350 mah pack that you can fly 2-3 flights with.
There's more but I'm tired!
Here's some more.
Throw your $250 HiMaxx motor away and replace it with a $700 Pletty
Throw away your standard size digital servos and replace with Mid size or mini digitals
Throw away your Castle HV ESC and replace it with a YGE or Schulze
Throw away you aluminum or fiberglass landing gear and replace with CF
Throw away your 2600 mah receiver pack that you can fly all day with and replace with a 350 mah pack that you can fly 2-3 flights with.
There's more but I'm tired!
First of all, there is no $700.00 Plettenberg. They have always been $515.00 for the 30-10 EVO, and the most expensive one is Advance 30-10 EVO which is $559.00. The least expensive is the Xtra 25-12, which is $509.00. I couldn’t easily find specs on the Plettenberg motors, although I know that 2Sunny did an experiment where he put an Xtra 25-12 in his E-Motion with what I recall was good success and ended up being quite a bit lighter.
For grins, the 30-10 EVO is 19.4 oz (550g) at a cost of $515.00, the 30-10 is 18.4 oz (530g) with a cost of $499.99, the 30-9 EVO II is 19.9 oz (565g) with a cost of $515.00 and the Advance 30-10 EVO is 21.0 oz (595g) with a cost of $559.00. The Xtra 25-12 is 17.5 oz (495g) and is $509.00.
The Hacker Q80 11S and 13S weigh 22.7oz (644g) with a price of $569.99 and the Q80 is much heavier at 35.0 oz (992g, or 20% of your total weight allowance for your airplane!) is $579.99. The Q60 is another popular option, and is 20.7 oz (587g) and is $537.99.
For inrunners, the C50 series is 18.6 oz (527g) and they are $499.99. The C50 Comp series weighs 18.4oz (523g) but they are $799.99.
The Neu F3A motor is 18oz (510g) and is $524.99.
The Himax HC6330-200 weighs 22.4oz (634g) and is $249.99. The 210 weighs 21.5 oz (610g), and is $279.99.
My point is, is that there is no strong correlation between cost and weight. There DOES tend to be a correlation between cost and quality/service, but not weight. The real weight jump comes when you go to an inrunner versus an outrunner, and yes, they are more expensive than the cheapest motor you can get away with in pattern.
2. Throw away your standard size digital servos and replace with Mid size or mini digitals.
First of all, I would sell a servo to help defray the cost of replacement.
Good luck trying to shoehorn an 8411 into a stab half or in the rear fuselage of most F3A airplanes without a myriad of other consequences, namely putting the battery tray in front of your spinner to try and get the batteries far enough forward to get the airplane to balance with them back there. 3421s are half the weight, so if you ran 8411s in the tail, you’d look at needing to add around 6 oz to the nose to compensate, if you can’t move anything further forward. That’s an instance where you are pretty much stuck with using mini servos. Or you could go with pull-pull on the elevators with a single 8411 (it’s been done successfully in F3A with a 3421 on pull-pull).
I have used (and like using) 9411s on ailerons. They are lighter, and fit better in wing panels than standard size servos. If you have a thicker wing, you can get a way with using the standard size servos, but 5/16†is a big difference in height. Some wings can’t handle that. Your airframe size probably dictates your servo choices more than weight. I’m pretty sure Dave Lockhart uses 8411s on his ailerons, and he has some of the lightest airplanes around. One of the people in the top 5 at the WC this year used 8411s on his ailerons, and he made weight.
3. Throw away your Castle HV ESC and replace it with a YGE or Schulze
The weight of the Schulze 32.90KA is around 100g with a cost of $385.00 (IIRC, they have been discontinued and I believe that’s what I paid for mine)
The weight of the Jeti Opto 90 is around 90g, with a cost of $220.00
The Jeti Spin 99 is 100g with a cost of $275.00
The weight of the CC Phoenix ICE HV V2 is 120g (with wires) with a cost of $161.00.
The weight of the YGE is 90 with a cost of $315.00.
I added the with wires weight of the CC because that’s the only ESC that I could find that had the published weights with and without wires, and I presumed that the others were with wire weights since the weight for the CC without wires is quite a bit less than the others. That being said, you have the option to trim most of the wire away when you are installing the ESC to end up with one that is around 85g ready to run. I have exact length leads in all of my airplanes, and it’s amazing what you can pull out with just three strands of 26AWG wire over five servos in a sport airplanes. The most I’ve pulled out is 22g from a H9 Tribute, just in excess lengths of servo wires. Imagine wire that’s twice that size. The Castle, incidentally is the cheapest option, and will not be obscenely heavier than the others. The other side of this is that the Schulze is the most expensive controller, and is one of the heaviest. This would be an instance where you would have determined whether the proportional brake could be justified by the extra weight and cost. Again, research. If you assume that because something is twice as expensive that it is going to be light, then you are sadly mistaken.
4. Throw away you aluminum or fiberglass landing gear and replace with CF.
What pattern airplanes nowadays come with aluminum of fiberglass gear? The Focus did and the Brio FG kit did. CF has pretty much become the standard, even with the less expensive options. Poor argument.
5. Throw away your 2600 mah receiver pack that you can fly all day with and replace with a 350 mah pack that you can fly 2-3 flights with.
When did you start flying electric? Someone who has been around the hobby for a long time should know better than most that you should replace battery packs every few years. When was the last time you bought a 2600mAh pack? Was it about the time you built your last glow pattern plane? I don’t know how to really respond to that because I don’t know why anyone would put that unnecessary weight in their airplane. Have you checked to see how many mAh you’re putting in your pack after you fly for a full day? Electric airplanes pull about 50mAh for each flight flying the F3A sequence (or at least they were when I was flying a bunch this spring). 10 flights a day is 500 mAh. You can get a 900mAh 2S Thunder Power pack for $20.00 MAP which is between $14.00 and $24.00 (almost half or more than half) of the MAP of the batteries that I would assume you’re referencing.
It’s easier (and cheaper!!) to save 10 grams in 15 places than it is to save 150 grams in one place. Spending more money on the big parts expecting to save significant weight is foolish and will likely yield a heavy airplane. It’s not ALL about motor/ESC/radio selection- there are many more components that make up an airplane that all weigh something. Do something about those before you resolve yourself to paying more money for components that may or may not bring your flying weight to where it needs to be. This is the part where the scenario of a self-audit comes in to play. Ask yourself “Why am I using 8-32 x 1†screws with a lock nut on the back side of my blind nuts to secure my landing gear when 4-40 x ¾ screws directly into blind nuts with loctite is plenty?†If your answer is “Because I’ve always done it that wayâ€, then that is an appropriate means of changing your building habits. To me, that is more relevant than the argument of asking why the 5kg rule is in place and try to change that.
I’ll say it again, caveat emptor, and do your research before you start to give people your credit card number.
One other stupid question, but do any of the people that have problems with the weight limit use lead to balance their airplanes, or is balance achieved with component selection? It’s a dumb question, I know, but quite relevant to this discussion.
Also, Joe, it would be interesting to see this poll mailed/e-mailed to NSRCA members and people that have flown at the NATS in the last few years to see what the responses would be. I would like to know if the numbers would be any different than what are expressed here.
I’m sorry, but I am not convinced that being light costs more money. It causes extreme disturbances to synapses thinking of ways to be lighter. It’s more time consuming to make a nice fillet around a firewall than it is to leave that 30 grams of glue blobbed around there. It’s a little messy to trim a 3/8†wide section of flange off of your canopy and fuselage where it’s not necessary. But more expensive? Higher technology? I don’t buy it.
01-01-2012, 03:04 PM
#106
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bolivia, NC
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
ORIGINAL: Ryan Smith
1. Throw your $250 HiMaxx motor away and replace it with a $700 Pletty
First of all, there is no $700.00 Plettenberg. They have always been $515.00 for the 30-10 EVO, and the most expensive one is Advance 30-10 EVO which is $559.00. The least expensive is the Xtra 25-12, which is $509.00. I couldn’t easily find specs on the Plettenberg motors, although I know that 2Sunny did an experiment where he put an Xtra 25-12 in his E-Motion with what I recall was good success and ended up being quite a bit lighter.
For grins, the 30-10 EVO is 19.4 oz (550g) at a cost of $515.00, the 30-10 is 18.4 oz (530g) with a cost of $499.99, the 30-9 EVO II is 19.9 oz (565g) with a cost of $515.00 and the Advance 30-10 EVO is 21.0 oz (595g) with a cost of $559.00. The Xtra 25-12 is 17.5 oz (495g) and is $509.00.
The Hacker Q80 11S and 13S weigh 22.7oz (644g) with a price of $569.99 and the Q80 is much heavier at 35.0 oz (992g, or 20% of your total weight allowance for your airplane!) is $579.99. The Q60 is another popular option, and is 20.7 oz (587g) and is $537.99.
For inrunners, the C50 series is 18.6 oz (527g) and they are $499.99. The C50 Comp series weighs 18.4oz (523g) but they are $799.99.
The Neu F3A motor is 18oz (510g) and is $524.99.
The Himax HC6330-200 weighs 22.4oz (634g) and is $249.99. The 210 weighs 21.5 oz (610g), and is $279.99.
My point is, is that there is no strong correlation between cost and weight. There DOES tend to be a correlation between cost and quality/service, but not weight. The real weight jump comes when you go to an inrunner versus an outrunner, and yes, they are more expensive than the cheapest motor you can get away with in pattern.
2. Throw away your standard size digital servos and replace with Mid size or mini digitals.
First of all, I would sell a servo to help defray the cost of replacement.
Good luck trying to shoehorn an 8411 into a stab half or in the rear fuselage of most F3A airplanes without a myriad of other consequences, namely putting the battery tray in front of your spinner to try and get the batteries far enough forward to get the airplane to balance with them back there. 3421s are half the weight, so if you ran 8411s in the tail, you’d look at needing to add around 6 oz to the nose to compensate, if you can’t move anything further forward. That’s an instance where you are pretty much stuck with using mini servos. Or you could go with pull-pull on the elevators with a single 8411 (it’s been done successfully in F3A with a 3421 on pull-pull).
I have used (and like using) 9411s on ailerons. They are lighter, and fit better in wing panels than standard size servos. If you have a thicker wing, you can get a way with using the standard size servos, but 5/16†is a big difference in height. Some wings can’t handle that. Your airframe size probably dictates your servo choices more than weight. I’m pretty sure Dave Lockhart uses 8411s on his ailerons, and he has some of the lightest airplanes around. One of the people in the top 5 at the WC this year used 8411s on his ailerons, and he made weight.
3. Throw away your Castle HV ESC and replace it with a YGE or Schulze
The weight of the Schulze 32.90KA is around 100g with a cost of $385.00 (IIRC, they have been discontinued and I believe that’s what I paid for mine)
The weight of the Jeti Opto 90 is around 90g, with a cost of $220.00
The Jeti Spin 99 is 100g with a cost of $275.00
The weight of the CC Phoenix ICE HV V2 is 120g (with wires) with a cost of $161.00.
The weight of the YGE is 90 with a cost of $315.00.
I added the with wires weight of the CC because that’s the only ESC that I could find that had the published weights with and without wires, and I presumed that the others were with wire weights since the weight for the CC without wires is quite a bit less than the others. That being said, you have the option to trim most of the wire away when you are installing the ESC to end up with one that is around 85g ready to run. I have exact length leads in all of my airplanes, and it’s amazing what you can pull out with just three strands of 26AWG wire over five servos in a sport airplanes. The most I’ve pulled out is 22g from a H9 Tribute, just in excess lengths of servo wires. Imagine wire that’s twice that size. The Castle, incidentally is the cheapest option, and will not be obscenely heavier than the others. The other side of this is that the Schulze is the most expensive controller, and is one of the heaviest. This would be an instance where you would have determined whether the proportional brake could be justified by the extra weight and cost. Again, research. If you assume that because something is twice as expensive that it is going to be light, then you are sadly mistaken.
4. Throw away you aluminum or fiberglass landing gear and replace with CF.
What pattern airplanes nowadays come with aluminum of fiberglass gear? The Focus did and the Brio FG kit did. CF has pretty much become the standard, even with the less expensive options. Poor argument.
5. Throw away your 2600 mah receiver pack that you can fly all day with and replace with a 350 mah pack that you can fly 2-3 flights with.
When did you start flying electric? Someone who has been around the hobby for a long time should know better than most that you should replace battery packs every few years. When was the last time you bought a 2600mAh pack? Was it about the time you built your last glow pattern plane? I don’t know how to really respond to that because I don’t know why anyone would put that unnecessary weight in their airplane. Have you checked to see how many mAh you’re putting in your pack after you fly for a full day? Electric airplanes pull about 50mAh for each flight flying the F3A sequence (or at least they were when I was flying a bunch this spring). 10 flights a day is 500 mAh. You can get a 900mAh 2S Thunder Power pack for $20.00 MAP which is between $14.00 and $24.00 (almost half or more than half) of the MAP of the batteries that I would assume you’re referencing.
It’s easier (and cheaper!!) to save 10 grams in 15 places than it is to save 150 grams in one place. Spending more money on the big parts expecting to save significant weight is foolish and will likely yield a heavy airplane. It’s not ALL about motor/ESC/radio selection- there are many more components that make up an airplane that all weigh something. Do something about those before you resolve yourself to paying more money for components that may or may not bring your flying weight to where it needs to be. This is the part where the scenario of a self-audit comes in to play. Ask yourself “Why am I using 8-32 x 1†screws with a lock nut on the back side of my blind nuts to secure my landing gear when 4-40 x ¾ screws directly into blind nuts with loctite is plenty?†If your answer is “Because I’ve always done it that wayâ€, then that is an appropriate means of changing your building habits. To me, that is more relevant than the argument of asking why the 5kg rule is in place and try to change that.
I’ll say it again, caveat emptor, and do your research before you start to give people your credit card number.
One other stupid question, but do any of the people that have problems with the weight limit use lead to balance their airplanes, or is balance achieved with component selection? It’s a dumb question, I know, but quite relevant to this discussion.
Also, Joe, it would be interesting to see this poll mailed/e-mailed to NSRCA members and people that have flown at the NATS in the last few years to see what the responses would be. I would like to know if the numbers would be any different than what are expressed here.
I’m sorry, but I am not convinced that being light costs more money. It causes extreme disturbances to synapses thinking of ways to be lighter. It’s more time consuming to make a nice fillet around a firewall than it is to leave that 30 grams of glue blobbed around there. It’s a little messy to trim a 3/8†wide section of flange off of your canopy and fuselage where it’s not necessary. But more expensive? Higher technology? I don’t buy it.
ORIGINAL: burtona
Here's some more.
Throw your $250 HiMaxx motor away and replace it with a $700 Pletty
Throw away your standard size digital servos and replace with Mid size or mini digitals
Throw away your Castle HV ESC and replace it with a YGE or Schulze
Throw away you aluminum or fiberglass landing gear and replace with CF
Throw away your 2600 mah receiver pack that you can fly all day with and replace with a 350 mah pack that you can fly 2-3 flights with.
There's more but I'm tired!
Here's some more.
Throw your $250 HiMaxx motor away and replace it with a $700 Pletty
Throw away your standard size digital servos and replace with Mid size or mini digitals
Throw away your Castle HV ESC and replace it with a YGE or Schulze
Throw away you aluminum or fiberglass landing gear and replace with CF
Throw away your 2600 mah receiver pack that you can fly all day with and replace with a 350 mah pack that you can fly 2-3 flights with.
There's more but I'm tired!
First of all, there is no $700.00 Plettenberg. They have always been $515.00 for the 30-10 EVO, and the most expensive one is Advance 30-10 EVO which is $559.00. The least expensive is the Xtra 25-12, which is $509.00. I couldn’t easily find specs on the Plettenberg motors, although I know that 2Sunny did an experiment where he put an Xtra 25-12 in his E-Motion with what I recall was good success and ended up being quite a bit lighter.
For grins, the 30-10 EVO is 19.4 oz (550g) at a cost of $515.00, the 30-10 is 18.4 oz (530g) with a cost of $499.99, the 30-9 EVO II is 19.9 oz (565g) with a cost of $515.00 and the Advance 30-10 EVO is 21.0 oz (595g) with a cost of $559.00. The Xtra 25-12 is 17.5 oz (495g) and is $509.00.
The Hacker Q80 11S and 13S weigh 22.7oz (644g) with a price of $569.99 and the Q80 is much heavier at 35.0 oz (992g, or 20% of your total weight allowance for your airplane!) is $579.99. The Q60 is another popular option, and is 20.7 oz (587g) and is $537.99.
For inrunners, the C50 series is 18.6 oz (527g) and they are $499.99. The C50 Comp series weighs 18.4oz (523g) but they are $799.99.
The Neu F3A motor is 18oz (510g) and is $524.99.
The Himax HC6330-200 weighs 22.4oz (634g) and is $249.99. The 210 weighs 21.5 oz (610g), and is $279.99.
My point is, is that there is no strong correlation between cost and weight. There DOES tend to be a correlation between cost and quality/service, but not weight. The real weight jump comes when you go to an inrunner versus an outrunner, and yes, they are more expensive than the cheapest motor you can get away with in pattern.
2. Throw away your standard size digital servos and replace with Mid size or mini digitals.
First of all, I would sell a servo to help defray the cost of replacement.
Good luck trying to shoehorn an 8411 into a stab half or in the rear fuselage of most F3A airplanes without a myriad of other consequences, namely putting the battery tray in front of your spinner to try and get the batteries far enough forward to get the airplane to balance with them back there. 3421s are half the weight, so if you ran 8411s in the tail, you’d look at needing to add around 6 oz to the nose to compensate, if you can’t move anything further forward. That’s an instance where you are pretty much stuck with using mini servos. Or you could go with pull-pull on the elevators with a single 8411 (it’s been done successfully in F3A with a 3421 on pull-pull).
I have used (and like using) 9411s on ailerons. They are lighter, and fit better in wing panels than standard size servos. If you have a thicker wing, you can get a way with using the standard size servos, but 5/16†is a big difference in height. Some wings can’t handle that. Your airframe size probably dictates your servo choices more than weight. I’m pretty sure Dave Lockhart uses 8411s on his ailerons, and he has some of the lightest airplanes around. One of the people in the top 5 at the WC this year used 8411s on his ailerons, and he made weight.
3. Throw away your Castle HV ESC and replace it with a YGE or Schulze
The weight of the Schulze 32.90KA is around 100g with a cost of $385.00 (IIRC, they have been discontinued and I believe that’s what I paid for mine)
The weight of the Jeti Opto 90 is around 90g, with a cost of $220.00
The Jeti Spin 99 is 100g with a cost of $275.00
The weight of the CC Phoenix ICE HV V2 is 120g (with wires) with a cost of $161.00.
The weight of the YGE is 90 with a cost of $315.00.
I added the with wires weight of the CC because that’s the only ESC that I could find that had the published weights with and without wires, and I presumed that the others were with wire weights since the weight for the CC without wires is quite a bit less than the others. That being said, you have the option to trim most of the wire away when you are installing the ESC to end up with one that is around 85g ready to run. I have exact length leads in all of my airplanes, and it’s amazing what you can pull out with just three strands of 26AWG wire over five servos in a sport airplanes. The most I’ve pulled out is 22g from a H9 Tribute, just in excess lengths of servo wires. Imagine wire that’s twice that size. The Castle, incidentally is the cheapest option, and will not be obscenely heavier than the others. The other side of this is that the Schulze is the most expensive controller, and is one of the heaviest. This would be an instance where you would have determined whether the proportional brake could be justified by the extra weight and cost. Again, research. If you assume that because something is twice as expensive that it is going to be light, then you are sadly mistaken.
4. Throw away you aluminum or fiberglass landing gear and replace with CF.
What pattern airplanes nowadays come with aluminum of fiberglass gear? The Focus did and the Brio FG kit did. CF has pretty much become the standard, even with the less expensive options. Poor argument.
5. Throw away your 2600 mah receiver pack that you can fly all day with and replace with a 350 mah pack that you can fly 2-3 flights with.
When did you start flying electric? Someone who has been around the hobby for a long time should know better than most that you should replace battery packs every few years. When was the last time you bought a 2600mAh pack? Was it about the time you built your last glow pattern plane? I don’t know how to really respond to that because I don’t know why anyone would put that unnecessary weight in their airplane. Have you checked to see how many mAh you’re putting in your pack after you fly for a full day? Electric airplanes pull about 50mAh for each flight flying the F3A sequence (or at least they were when I was flying a bunch this spring). 10 flights a day is 500 mAh. You can get a 900mAh 2S Thunder Power pack for $20.00 MAP which is between $14.00 and $24.00 (almost half or more than half) of the MAP of the batteries that I would assume you’re referencing.
It’s easier (and cheaper!!) to save 10 grams in 15 places than it is to save 150 grams in one place. Spending more money on the big parts expecting to save significant weight is foolish and will likely yield a heavy airplane. It’s not ALL about motor/ESC/radio selection- there are many more components that make up an airplane that all weigh something. Do something about those before you resolve yourself to paying more money for components that may or may not bring your flying weight to where it needs to be. This is the part where the scenario of a self-audit comes in to play. Ask yourself “Why am I using 8-32 x 1†screws with a lock nut on the back side of my blind nuts to secure my landing gear when 4-40 x ¾ screws directly into blind nuts with loctite is plenty?†If your answer is “Because I’ve always done it that wayâ€, then that is an appropriate means of changing your building habits. To me, that is more relevant than the argument of asking why the 5kg rule is in place and try to change that.
I’ll say it again, caveat emptor, and do your research before you start to give people your credit card number.
One other stupid question, but do any of the people that have problems with the weight limit use lead to balance their airplanes, or is balance achieved with component selection? It’s a dumb question, I know, but quite relevant to this discussion.
Also, Joe, it would be interesting to see this poll mailed/e-mailed to NSRCA members and people that have flown at the NATS in the last few years to see what the responses would be. I would like to know if the numbers would be any different than what are expressed here.
I’m sorry, but I am not convinced that being light costs more money. It causes extreme disturbances to synapses thinking of ways to be lighter. It’s more time consuming to make a nice fillet around a firewall than it is to leave that 30 grams of glue blobbed around there. It’s a little messy to trim a 3/8†wide section of flange off of your canopy and fuselage where it’s not necessary. But more expensive? Higher technology? I don’t buy it.
01-01-2012, 06:28 PM
#108
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Miami,
FL
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
In technical point of view, weight is the product of mass and gravitational acceleration. Mass is also the factor of energy. Therefore using this simple analysis, the heavier the aircraft is the greater the external force or energy required to change the aircraft into displacement.
The aircraft has more resistance to wind so it's more solid in the air. It has also more resistance to internal input changes like acceleration and aerial maneuvers. However since it's energy related, the solution is also energy but I think due to fair rules of pattern flying restriction is necessary.
The aircraft has more resistance to wind so it's more solid in the air. It has also more resistance to internal input changes like acceleration and aerial maneuvers. However since it's energy related, the solution is also energy but I think due to fair rules of pattern flying restriction is necessary.
01-01-2012, 08:02 PM
#109
My Feedback: (42)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Randolph,
NJ
Posts: 878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
ORIGINAL: rctech2k7
In technical point of view, weight is the product of mass and gravitational acceleration. Mass is also the factor of energy. Therefore using this simple analysis, the heavier the aircraft is the greater the external force or energy required to change the aircraft into displacement.
The aircraft has more resistance to wind so it's more solid in the air. It has also more resistance to internal input changes like acceleration and aerial maneuvers. However since it's energy related, the solution is also energy but I think due to fair rules of pattern flying restriction is necessary.
In technical point of view, weight is the product of mass and gravitational acceleration. Mass is also the factor of energy. Therefore using this simple analysis, the heavier the aircraft is the greater the external force or energy required to change the aircraft into displacement.
The aircraft has more resistance to wind so it's more solid in the air. It has also more resistance to internal input changes like acceleration and aerial maneuvers. However since it's energy related, the solution is also energy but I think due to fair rules of pattern flying restriction is necessary.
I've made a previous post about how heavy winds can cause issues with heavier models due to the way that we will typically manage those conditions by flying faster and bigger.Yes, you can add in a bigger "energy source" in the nose, along with even more weight that goes with that bigger energy source, and then you also have to find a way to dissipate that extra energy when coming downhill. Draggier, bigger, heavier airframe maybe? Seems like a visious cycle, i.e., a flawed approach.
I haven't yet heard anyone explain any real advantage of a heavier model, other than the percieved advantage that it is less affected by gusts.
01-02-2012, 07:20 AM
#110
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
Excellent posts on tips to save weight. Here are some more.
1. CC HV80 ESC. The four metal screws holding the two halves of the case together can be removed. Use a piece of tape instead.
2. The steal version of the prop adapter for Neu F3A motor is heavy and can be modified. Cut off any excessive length of it.
3. Tail mounted servos can share common positive and negative wires.
4. Use of 2mm carbon rods and matching 2mm clevises for all servo linkage (e powered pattern planes). JB weld the rod to clevises.
5. Wing mount nuts sometime can be bulky. Drill a couple lightening holes.
1. CC HV80 ESC. The four metal screws holding the two halves of the case together can be removed. Use a piece of tape instead.
2. The steal version of the prop adapter for Neu F3A motor is heavy and can be modified. Cut off any excessive length of it.
3. Tail mounted servos can share common positive and negative wires.
4. Use of 2mm carbon rods and matching 2mm clevises for all servo linkage (e powered pattern planes). JB weld the rod to clevises.
5. Wing mount nuts sometime can be bulky. Drill a couple lightening holes.
01-02-2012, 09:08 PM
#111
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Miami,
FL
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
ORIGINAL: NJRCFLYER2
A heavier model may have a little more resistance to gusts. It doesn't help at all with steady state wind or gradually changing wind conditions. It is a part of the moving mass of air, and if uncorrected, its path will be affected by it just as much as the lighter model, excepting during the fleeting moments when rapid changes in wind speed/direction occur. Said differently, all that the heavier model accomplishes is to slow the rate of change in response to air mass changes in direction and/or velocity. If I'm not mistaken, the rules say that you should ignore gust induced bobbles, provided that they are immediately corrected. The judge may not ignore geometric and track defects that are caused by allowing the model to move with the air mass. IF we can all judge this way, then I guess we can stop arguing about heavier is an advantage? (Yeah, right!)
I've made a previous post about how heavy winds can cause issues with heavier models due to the way that we will typically manage those conditions by flying faster and bigger. Yes, you can add in a bigger ''energy source'' in the nose, along with even more weight that goes with that bigger energy source, and then you also have to find a way to dissipate that extra energy when coming downhill. Draggier, bigger, heavier airframe maybe? Seems like a visious cycle, i.e., a flawed approach.
I haven't yet heard anyone explain any real advantage of a heavier model, other than the percieved advantage that it is less affected by gusts.
ORIGINAL: rctech2k7
In technical point of view, weight is the product of mass and gravitational acceleration. Mass is also the factor of energy. Therefore using this simple analysis, the heavier the aircraft is the greater the external force or energy required to change the aircraft into displacement.
The aircraft has more resistance to wind so it's more solid in the air. It has also more resistance to internal input changes like acceleration and aerial maneuvers. However since it's energy related, the solution is also energy but I think due to fair rules of pattern flying restriction is necessary.
In technical point of view, weight is the product of mass and gravitational acceleration. Mass is also the factor of energy. Therefore using this simple analysis, the heavier the aircraft is the greater the external force or energy required to change the aircraft into displacement.
The aircraft has more resistance to wind so it's more solid in the air. It has also more resistance to internal input changes like acceleration and aerial maneuvers. However since it's energy related, the solution is also energy but I think due to fair rules of pattern flying restriction is necessary.
I've made a previous post about how heavy winds can cause issues with heavier models due to the way that we will typically manage those conditions by flying faster and bigger. Yes, you can add in a bigger ''energy source'' in the nose, along with even more weight that goes with that bigger energy source, and then you also have to find a way to dissipate that extra energy when coming downhill. Draggier, bigger, heavier airframe maybe? Seems like a visious cycle, i.e., a flawed approach.
I haven't yet heard anyone explain any real advantage of a heavier model, other than the percieved advantage that it is less affected by gusts.
We know that most high wind comes with gust and if happen to be a constant wind, you're right, the light aircraft or any aircraft can compensate with the use of its power. However due to the large surfaces aircraft has more prone to high dynamic forces. I've seen in most windy airshow that scale and sports aircraft dominates the show but the same pilot who also flew his trainer alike has difficulty. I got a chance to help an owner to pick the debris of his down aircraft and found a major part very light, like no weight. Imagine for any reason a high performance aircraft has difficulty on wind penetration, how much more the light aircraft would be. I understand your concern but so far we don't have super heavy duty but light materials these days, heavy duty or high strength construction comes with weight but if we have the aircraft would become over power and aircraft has no chance to store energy.
01-02-2012, 09:52 PM
#112
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ossining,
NY
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
ORIGINAL: nonstoprc
Excellent posts on tips to save weight. Here are some more.
1. CC HV80 ESC. The four metal screws holding the two halves of the case together can be removed. Use a piece of tape instead.
2. The steal version of the prop adapter for Neu F3A motor is heavy and can be modified. Cut off any excessive length of it.
3. Tail mounted servos can share common positive and negative wires.
4. Use of 2mm carbon rods and matching 2mm clevises for all servo linkage (e powered pattern planes). JB weld the rod to clevises.
5. Wing mount nuts sometime can be bulky. Drill a couple lightening holes.
Excellent posts on tips to save weight. Here are some more.
1. CC HV80 ESC. The four metal screws holding the two halves of the case together can be removed. Use a piece of tape instead.
2. The steal version of the prop adapter for Neu F3A motor is heavy and can be modified. Cut off any excessive length of it.
3. Tail mounted servos can share common positive and negative wires.
4. Use of 2mm carbon rods and matching 2mm clevises for all servo linkage (e powered pattern planes). JB weld the rod to clevises.
5. Wing mount nuts sometime can be bulky. Drill a couple lightening holes.
So, what do we have? A few posts detailing specific ways to reduce airframe weight at little or no cost, or by selecting components based upon actual weight and not price (which is in many cases less expensive AND weighs less), and.... the sound of crickets on an early autumn evening....
01-02-2012, 11:48 PM
#113
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Charlotte,
NC
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
I agree, good advice on saving weight and I now know why very few ask the question as to why a rule requires it.
01-03-2012, 12:31 AM
#114
Senior Member
My Feedback: (25)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
The same way the rule requires that you be under two meters.
Honestly, this is the one major rule that has not changed since the inception of pattern. Displacement was increased, and size was increased. I'm not sure about sound, but I would guess it's been around for about the same amount of time as the weight rule. Why has this single rule got a bug up so many people's butts? I've been doing some more thinking about the weight rule elimination and what it could possibly bring to the table. I don't think Bob was very far off with his prediction of an AW 50cc Ultimate being a legal airplane, at least for a first generation. Even setup for gas, those are not cheap. Electric would be even worse.
rix, it's taken me a while to figure out who you are. I'm almost positive that we never met, as I started flying pattern in 2005. What did your airplanes typically weigh back when you were flying pattern before? What sort of equipment were you running back in those days? Has it been since you started dabbling back into it that you've been having weight problems? Did you by chance take weights of your airframe components before you started building to see where they measured up?
Honestly, this is the one major rule that has not changed since the inception of pattern. Displacement was increased, and size was increased. I'm not sure about sound, but I would guess it's been around for about the same amount of time as the weight rule. Why has this single rule got a bug up so many people's butts? I've been doing some more thinking about the weight rule elimination and what it could possibly bring to the table. I don't think Bob was very far off with his prediction of an AW 50cc Ultimate being a legal airplane, at least for a first generation. Even setup for gas, those are not cheap. Electric would be even worse.
rix, it's taken me a while to figure out who you are. I'm almost positive that we never met, as I started flying pattern in 2005. What did your airplanes typically weigh back when you were flying pattern before? What sort of equipment were you running back in those days? Has it been since you started dabbling back into it that you've been having weight problems? Did you by chance take weights of your airframe components before you started building to see where they measured up?
01-03-2012, 02:55 AM
#116
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: ToowoombaQLD, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
15 Posts
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
Hmmmm, piped OS 55cc petrol two-stroke single OR all the top IC pilots using 60cc YS flat twin, supercharged, nitro burning four-strokes???
How has the two-stroke vs four stroke war ended up so far?
People drooling over the 1.40RX and it's EFI brother 10-15 years ago probably would have laughed at the suggestion that they'ed now be obsolete to a YS four-stroke that's struggling to maintain market share against electric planes......
How has the two-stroke vs four stroke war ended up so far?
People drooling over the 1.40RX and it's EFI brother 10-15 years ago probably would have laughed at the suggestion that they'ed now be obsolete to a YS four-stroke that's struggling to maintain market share against electric planes......
01-03-2012, 05:14 AM
#117
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ossining,
NY
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
I don't think Bob was very far off with his prediction of an AW 50cc Ultimate being a legal airplane, at least for a first generation. Even setup for gas, those are not cheap. Electric would be even worse.
Some folks do not seem to grasp the concept that eliminating the weight limit will NOT make it cheaper and will NOT somehow mysteriously create some sort of competitive parity.
01-03-2012, 05:30 AM
#118
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ossining,
NY
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
ORIGINAL: rix
I agree, good advice on saving weight and I now know why very few ask the question as to why a rule requires it.
I agree, good advice on saving weight and I now know why very few ask the question as to why a rule requires it.
Go ahead and fly your (totally unnecessarily) overweight bird at local contests, but don't go chewing on Archie's leg if you don't make weight at the Nats because he's already made it clear that weight checks will be a priority.
5115. There's your goal.
01-03-2012, 05:40 AM
#119
Senior Member
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
ORIGINAL: cmoulder
And, since lighter would STILL fly better even with this set-up, we'd instantly be 'back to the races' all over again with a whole new batch of exotic and even more expensive components, and then the same people would be complaining about it, and also pushing to eliminate the noise rule.
Some folks do not seem to grasp the concept that eliminating the weight limit will NOT make it cheaper and will NOT somehow mysteriously create some sort of competitive parity.
I don't think Bob was very far off with his prediction of an AW 50cc Ultimate being a legal airplane, at least for a first generation. Even setup for gas, those are not cheap. Electric would be even worse.
Some folks do not seem to grasp the concept that eliminating the weight limit will NOT make it cheaper and will NOT somehow mysteriously create some sort of competitive parity.
Take one of these new bipes and adapt a piped 50cc class gas engine on it. The DLE is super cheap and can be lightened considerably. I've done it and it works. With proper set-up, noise doesn't have to be greater than current stuff. I've done that too....
"Lightness" is a mind set. That mind set often leads to ingenious ways of taking weight off. Wish it were that easy with body weight. (VBG)
01-03-2012, 05:43 AM
#120
Senior Member
My Feedback: (25)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
Matt,
All that takes work, planning, and forethought. We need an out of the box solution that costs little to nothing and can be hacked together with junk that you can buy at any swap shop. Haven't you been paying attention?!
All that takes work, planning, and forethought. We need an out of the box solution that costs little to nothing and can be hacked together with junk that you can buy at any swap shop. Haven't you been paying attention?!
01-03-2012, 05:48 AM
#121
Senior Member
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
ORIGINAL: Ryan Smith
Matt,
Haven't you been paying attention?!
Matt,
Haven't you been paying attention?!
01-03-2012, 05:52 AM
#122
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ossining,
NY
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
Take one of these new bipes and adapt a piped 50cc class gas engine on it. The DLE is super cheap and can be lightened considerably. I've done it and it works. With proper set-up, noise doesn't have to be greater than current stuff. I've done that too....
01-03-2012, 06:52 AM
#123
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
50cc gas for pattern? Even with a soft mount, I imagine that the vibrations will be strong enough that you need to beef up the airframe, linkages etc. also do not forget the heavy big prop. Doubt such a combo could meet the weight rule.
01-03-2012, 07:12 AM
#124
Senior Member
My Feedback: (25)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
ORIGINAL: bjr_93tz
Hmmmm, piped OS 55cc petrol two-stroke single OR all the top IC pilots using 60cc YS flat twin, supercharged, nitro burning four-strokes???
Hmmmm, piped OS 55cc petrol two-stroke single OR all the top IC pilots using 60cc YS flat twin, supercharged, nitro burning four-strokes???
But some real options for 50cc motors are DA 50R for $549.99, DLE 55 for $369.99, OS GT55 for $649.99 or BME 50 for $514.00.
No $250.00 option here. And you'll need two batteries, instead of one pesky 900mAh one.
01-03-2012, 08:00 AM
#125
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ossining,
NY
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: How weight affects YOUR participation at NATS
And that's with a noisy side-dump exhaust.
How much for an exhaust that would pass dB check? Priced an ES 50G pipe lately... and a header?? They don't give those away either. How much are those little mini-cans?
Oh, I forgot... easy, cheap solution... get rid of the noise rule as well. Problem solved.
How much for an exhaust that would pass dB check? Priced an ES 50G pipe lately... and a header?? They don't give those away either. How much are those little mini-cans?
Oh, I forgot... easy, cheap solution... get rid of the noise rule as well. Problem solved.