Pattern Rules Proposals
01-31-2012 | 03:54 PM
#226
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
Again, why do we not treat our CB like 11 electorate votes and they represent the district. They vote as our district wants not as they personally feel.
What if one board member hates electric, he could not want to pass a weight rule because of a personal bias....
I would hope that this could lead to a well rounded and fair process, this could even be used for sequences....
Chuck
What if one board member hates electric, he could not want to pass a weight rule because of a personal bias....
I would hope that this could lead to a well rounded and fair process, this could even be used for sequences....
Chuck
01-31-2012 | 07:40 PM
#227
My Feedback: (10)
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Collierville,
TN
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
.
If any of y'all been following the discussion on the NSRCA list, it wasn't the weight limit that killed pattern participation, it was going to turnaround. So . . . . whatcha want to bet that changing the weight limit will have ZERO effect on participation?
.
I've always been an advocate of getting rid of the turnaround maneuvers in Sportsman. It's only a barrier to entry for the club flyer or someone who has to learn on their own with only the rule book to go by. For the guys moving up (once we get them hooked), they can jump straight to Intermediate and get all of the turnaround they want. As it is now, a sport flier that wants to dip his toe in the pattern pond and can't figure out or have a plane that can do a turnaround maneuver just goes elsewhere.
.
<br type="_moz"/>
If any of y'all been following the discussion on the NSRCA list, it wasn't the weight limit that killed pattern participation, it was going to turnaround. So . . . . whatcha want to bet that changing the weight limit will have ZERO effect on participation?
.
I've always been an advocate of getting rid of the turnaround maneuvers in Sportsman. It's only a barrier to entry for the club flyer or someone who has to learn on their own with only the rule book to go by. For the guys moving up (once we get them hooked), they can jump straight to Intermediate and get all of the turnaround they want. As it is now, a sport flier that wants to dip his toe in the pattern pond and can't figure out or have a plane that can do a turnaround maneuver just goes elsewhere.
.
<br type="_moz"/>
02-01-2012 | 02:34 AM
#228
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Agawam,
MA
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: RC_Pattern_Flyer
Again, why do we not treat our CB like 11 electorate votes and they represent the district. They vote as our district wants not as they personally feel.
What if one board member hates electric, he could not want to pass a weight rule because of a personal bias....
I would hope that this could lead to a well rounded and fair process, this could even be used for sequences....
Chuck
Again, why do we not treat our CB like 11 electorate votes and they represent the district. They vote as our district wants not as they personally feel.
What if one board member hates electric, he could not want to pass a weight rule because of a personal bias....
I would hope that this could lead to a well rounded and fair process, this could even be used for sequences....
Chuck
Just as with judging, CB members are provided with criteria by which to evaluate proposals:
When evaluating proposals, the following must be carefully scrutinized.
• Safety - Will changes introduce unnecessary risks or reduce the overall level of safety? If the overall safety of the proposal could be compromised, the issue will be forwarded to the Safety Committee through the technical director.
• Manufacturing - Will current equipment tend to be made obsolete?
• Protests - Will the change tend to eliminate a source of protests at meets or are protests more likely?
• Model Processing Time - Will the change tend to increase or decrease the time required to process models for competition?
• Designs - Will the competitor be given more or less freedom of choice in design?
• Contests - Will the effort required to conduct a contest be increased or decreased?
• Present Models - Will a modeler be able to effectively compete using current models or not?
• Effect on Competition - Will the net effect of the proposed change, if passed, be to promote fairness and to encourage contest participation?
And finally, one member cannot affect a change; you’d need 5 electric haters to fail the proposal.
02-01-2012 | 07:53 AM
#230
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Denham Springs, LA
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: Ryan Smith
I would much rather see something similar to what you just proposed, Scott.
I do think it's stupid that we weigh electric airplanes with batteries and glow airplanes without fuel.
I would much rather see something similar to what you just proposed, Scott.
I do think it's stupid that we weigh electric airplanes with batteries and glow airplanes without fuel.
(couldn't resist
)Brian
p.s. I actually favor some variant of this rule, but obviously, just dropping the weight to 4100g will give electrics an immediate monopoly. I'd favor dropping electrics to 4100g and leaving glow as is.....
02-01-2012 | 09:08 AM
#232
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ossining,
NY
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
Or simply extend the 5115g limit to Masters and be done with it.
There are more and more options coming out every month for lightweight electric airframes with composite fuses and built-up wings/stabs (a la Sickle, Nuance), all of which make weight easily with economical components. My Sickle weighs in at 10 lb 8 oz with a Himax motor and CC Phx 85HV, APC prop and Zippy batts. The older e-conversions (like Brio) are at the end of their service lives anyway, and any still out there can make 11 lb 4 oz easily. Vanquish, Monolog and (hopefully soon) the 2M Osiris are some even less expensive options.
If the goal is to keep it cheap and competitive - and not to ignite a technology race - why jack the limit up to 11 lb 14.4 oz (5.4 kg)?
There are more and more options coming out every month for lightweight electric airframes with composite fuses and built-up wings/stabs (a la Sickle, Nuance), all of which make weight easily with economical components. My Sickle weighs in at 10 lb 8 oz with a Himax motor and CC Phx 85HV, APC prop and Zippy batts. The older e-conversions (like Brio) are at the end of their service lives anyway, and any still out there can make 11 lb 4 oz easily. Vanquish, Monolog and (hopefully soon) the 2M Osiris are some even less expensive options.
If the goal is to keep it cheap and competitive - and not to ignite a technology race - why jack the limit up to 11 lb 14.4 oz (5.4 kg)?
02-01-2012 | 09:51 AM
#233
Senior Member
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: cmoulder
Or simply extend the 5115g limit to Masters and be done with it.
There are more and more options coming out every month for lightweight electric airframes with composite fuses and built-up wings/stabs (a la Sickle, Nuance), all of which make weight easily with economical components. My Sickle weighs in at 10 lb 8 oz with a Himax motor and CC Phx 85HV, APC prop and Zippy batts. The older e-conversions (like Brio) are at the end of their service lives anyway, and any still out there can make 11 lb 4 oz easily. Vanquish, Monolog and (hopefully soon) the 2M Osiris are some even less expensive options.
If the goal is to keep it cheap and competitive - and not to ignite a technology race - why jack the limit up to 11 lb 14.4 oz (5.4 kg)?
Or simply extend the 5115g limit to Masters and be done with it.
There are more and more options coming out every month for lightweight electric airframes with composite fuses and built-up wings/stabs (a la Sickle, Nuance), all of which make weight easily with economical components. My Sickle weighs in at 10 lb 8 oz with a Himax motor and CC Phx 85HV, APC prop and Zippy batts. The older e-conversions (like Brio) are at the end of their service lives anyway, and any still out there can make 11 lb 4 oz easily. Vanquish, Monolog and (hopefully soon) the 2M Osiris are some even less expensive options.
If the goal is to keep it cheap and competitive - and not to ignite a technology race - why jack the limit up to 11 lb 14.4 oz (5.4 kg)?
I like the 10 pound 20 ounce limit if I had a vote. Hell I'd vote yes for the 10 pound 30 ounce limit too. That weight flies fine on current airframes
02-01-2012 | 12:55 PM
#234
My Feedback: (46)
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bridgewater,
NJ
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: cmoulder
Or simply extend the 5115g limit to Masters and be done with it.
There are more and more options coming out every month for lightweight electric airframes with composite fuses and built-up wings/stabs (a la Sickle, Nuance), all of which make weight easily with economical components. My Sickle weighs in at 10 lb 8 oz with a Himax motor and CC Phx 85HV, APC prop and Zippy batts. The older e-conversions (like Brio) are at the end of their service lives anyway, and any still out there can make 11 lb 4 oz easily. Vanquish, Monolog and (hopefully soon) the 2M Osiris are some even less expensive options.
If the goal is to keep it cheap and competitive - and not to ignite a technology race - why jack the limit up to 11 lb 14.4 oz (5.4 kg)?
Or simply extend the 5115g limit to Masters and be done with it.
There are more and more options coming out every month for lightweight electric airframes with composite fuses and built-up wings/stabs (a la Sickle, Nuance), all of which make weight easily with economical components. My Sickle weighs in at 10 lb 8 oz with a Himax motor and CC Phx 85HV, APC prop and Zippy batts. The older e-conversions (like Brio) are at the end of their service lives anyway, and any still out there can make 11 lb 4 oz easily. Vanquish, Monolog and (hopefully soon) the 2M Osiris are some even less expensive options.
If the goal is to keep it cheap and competitive - and not to ignite a technology race - why jack the limit up to 11 lb 14.4 oz (5.4 kg)?
Check the AMA site. I put in a proposal that will probably not pass, but hey, what the heck. My proposal eliminates weight for sportsman and makes it 5200 grams for the other AMA classes. At 5200 grams more battery/electric motor choices and more IC engine choices become feasible at lower cost. Personally, I will stick with the F3A limits.
02-01-2012 | 01:23 PM
#235
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ossining,
NY
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
Check the AMA site. I put in a proposal that will probably not pass, but hey, what the heck. My proposal eliminates weight for sportsman and makes it 5200 grams for the other AMA classes. At 5200 grams more battery/electric motor choices and more IC engine choices become feasible at lower cost. Personally, I will stick with the F3A limits.
I couldn't get the Sickle over 5kg if I tried.
02-01-2012 | 01:28 PM
#236
Senior Member
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: cmoulder
Sounds like a winner.
I couldn't get the Sickle over 5kg if I tried.
Check the AMA site. I put in a proposal that will probably not pass, but hey, what the heck. My proposal eliminates weight for sportsman and makes it 5200 grams for the other AMA classes. At 5200 grams more battery/electric motor choices and more IC engine choices become feasible at lower cost. Personally, I will stick with the F3A limits.
I couldn't get the Sickle over 5kg if I tried.
02-01-2012 | 01:29 PM
#237
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ossining,
NY
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: MTK
Put a brick in it
ORIGINAL: cmoulder
Sounds like a winner.
I couldn't get the Sickle over 5kg if I tried.
Check the AMA site. I put in a proposal that will probably not pass, but hey, what the heck. My proposal eliminates weight for sportsman and makes it 5200 grams for the other AMA classes. At 5200 grams more battery/electric motor choices and more IC engine choices become feasible at lower cost. Personally, I will stick with the F3A limits.
I couldn't get the Sickle over 5kg if I tried.
02-01-2012 | 02:16 PM
#238
Senior Member
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: cmoulder
Or maybe a DLE 55?
ORIGINAL: MTK
Put a brick in it
ORIGINAL: cmoulder
Sounds like a winner.
I couldn't get the Sickle over 5kg if I tried.
Check the AMA site. I put in a proposal that will probably not pass, but hey, what the heck. My proposal eliminates weight for sportsman and makes it 5200 grams for the other AMA classes. At 5200 grams more battery/electric motor choices and more IC engine choices become feasible at lower cost. Personally, I will stick with the F3A limits.
I couldn't get the Sickle over 5kg if I tried.
Ha...You wish
02-01-2012 | 04:10 PM
#239
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ossining,
NY
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
Check the AMA site. I put in a proposal that will probably not pass, but hey, what the heck. My proposal eliminates weight for sportsman and makes it 5200 grams for the other AMA classes. At 5200 grams more battery/electric motor choices and more IC engine choices become feasible at lower cost. Personally, I will stick with the F3A limits.
02-01-2012 | 04:14 PM
#240
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ossining,
NY
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
Ha...You wish
Can't wait to see that bad boy airborne.[8D]
02-01-2012 | 06:27 PM
#241
Senior Member
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: cmoulder
[link=http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/RCA13-1Lachowski.pdf]Link.[/link]
Check the AMA site. I put in a proposal that will probably not pass, but hey, what the heck. My proposal eliminates weight for sportsman and makes it 5200 grams for the other AMA classes. At 5200 grams more battery/electric motor choices and more IC engine choices become feasible at lower cost. Personally, I will stick with the F3A limits.
I didn't realize you cared after all!! I'm all chalked up.....LOL
02-01-2012 | 06:39 PM
#242
Senior Member
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: cmoulder
Following the [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10317499/mpage_4/key_/tm.htm]Delta development[/link] closely, my friend!
Can't wait to see that bad boy airborne.[8D]
Ha...You wish
Can't wait to see that bad boy airborne.[8D]
Man the YS dudes have it so good with everything available for a price. All I need is a stinking header that will fit right. Just don't have the equipment to make one the way I want and at the right weight. Doing it with stone knives and bear claws.
I have the canopy and chin cowl fully fitted but not quite done. Part of the header is exposed and needs a cowl of its own.
02-01-2012 | 11:21 PM
#243
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Denham Springs, LA
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
Not picking on you, Matt, it's just a good place to weigh in.... I've heard people say, C'mon, I'd love to fly against you with your 13 pound airplane. Tell ya what folks, anybody wants to make it a bet, and I'm game. Within reason; I'm not gonna beat Arch, Frack or Chip. BUT, I'll build up a 1250sqin wing for the Shinden and away we go. You need about 90 squares per pound, give or take, and just jacking up the weight limit will not affect performance by itself appreciably. I'd need to keep the power on a bit more a la' ballistic pattern of the 80's. Might use a gas engine, even. Raise it to 15 lb, and I'll build a 1450sqin wing and use a DA. All within 2m X 2m. A full 15 lb limit will probably put the EP's at a disadvantage again, though.
Brian
Brian
ORIGINAL: MTK
Maybe even the Extreme Flight Extra except with pattern sized wings and stabs from the Vansquish.....
I like the 10 pound 20 ounce limit if I had a vote. Hell I'd vote yes for the 10 pound 30 ounce limit too. That weight flies fine on current airframes
ORIGINAL: cmoulder
Or simply extend the 5115g limit to Masters and be done with it.
There are more and more options coming out every month for lightweight electric airframes with composite fuses and built-up wings/stabs (a la Sickle, Nuance), all of which make weight easily with economical components. My Sickle weighs in at 10 lb 8 oz with a Himax motor and CC Phx 85HV, APC prop and Zippy batts. The older e-conversions (like Brio) are at the end of their service lives anyway, and any still out there can make 11 lb 4 oz easily. Vanquish, Monolog and (hopefully soon) the 2M Osiris are some even less expensive options.
If the goal is to keep it cheap and competitive - and not to ignite a technology race - why jack the limit up to 11 lb 14.4 oz (5.4 kg)?
Or simply extend the 5115g limit to Masters and be done with it.
There are more and more options coming out every month for lightweight electric airframes with composite fuses and built-up wings/stabs (a la Sickle, Nuance), all of which make weight easily with economical components. My Sickle weighs in at 10 lb 8 oz with a Himax motor and CC Phx 85HV, APC prop and Zippy batts. The older e-conversions (like Brio) are at the end of their service lives anyway, and any still out there can make 11 lb 4 oz easily. Vanquish, Monolog and (hopefully soon) the 2M Osiris are some even less expensive options.
If the goal is to keep it cheap and competitive - and not to ignite a technology race - why jack the limit up to 11 lb 14.4 oz (5.4 kg)?
I like the 10 pound 20 ounce limit if I had a vote. Hell I'd vote yes for the 10 pound 30 ounce limit too. That weight flies fine on current airframes
02-02-2012 | 03:28 AM
#244
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Agawam,
MA
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: protectedpilot
Not picking on you, Matt, it's just a good place to weigh in.... I've heard people say, C'mon, I'd love to fly against you with your 13 pound airplane. Tell ya what folks, anybody wants to make it a bet, and I'm game. Within reason; I'm not gonna beat Arch, Frack or Chip. BUT, I'll build up a 1250sqin wing for the Shinden and away we go. You need about 90 squares per pound, give or take, and just jacking up the weight limit will not affect performance by itself appreciably. I'd need to keep the power on a bit more a la' ballistic pattern of the 80's. Might use a gas engine, even. Raise it to 15 lb, and I'll build a 1450sqin wing and use a DA. All within 2m X 2m. A full 15 lb limit will probably put the EP's at a disadvantage again, though.
Brian
Not picking on you, Matt, it's just a good place to weigh in.... I've heard people say, C'mon, I'd love to fly against you with your 13 pound airplane. Tell ya what folks, anybody wants to make it a bet, and I'm game. Within reason; I'm not gonna beat Arch, Frack or Chip. BUT, I'll build up a 1250sqin wing for the Shinden and away we go. You need about 90 squares per pound, give or take, and just jacking up the weight limit will not affect performance by itself appreciably. I'd need to keep the power on a bit more a la' ballistic pattern of the 80's. Might use a gas engine, even. Raise it to 15 lb, and I'll build a 1450sqin wing and use a DA. All within 2m X 2m. A full 15 lb limit will probably put the EP's at a disadvantage again, though.
Brian
• Manufacturing - Will current equipment tend to be made obsolete?
• Present Models - Will a modeler be able to effectively compete using current models or not?
• Effect on Competition - Will the net effect of the proposed change, if passed, be to promote fairness and to encourage contest participation?
One question is where does this end? Last rule cycle we got 115gms for development classes. This cycle people are asking for 200 or 500 through Masters. Next cycle it will be 6.5Kg and 51v like F3C. Now we've dramatically changed the event (and really driven up cost! ...although batteries should just about be free by 2015
)
02-02-2012 | 04:58 AM
#245
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ossining,
NY
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
And with that weighty scenario, we need to flag some of the criteria for more careful consideration:
• Manufacturing - Will current equipment tend to be made obsolete?
• Present Models - Will a modeler be able to effectively compete using current models or not?
• Effect on Competition - Will the net effect of the proposed change, if passed, be to promote fairness and to encourage contest participation?
One question is where does this end? Last rule cycle we got 115gms for development classes. This cycle people are asking for 200 or 500 through Masters. Next cycle it will be 6.5Kg and 51v like F3C. Now we've dramatically changed the event (and really driven up cost! ...although batteries should just about be free by 2015 )
• Manufacturing - Will current equipment tend to be made obsolete?
• Present Models - Will a modeler be able to effectively compete using current models or not?
• Effect on Competition - Will the net effect of the proposed change, if passed, be to promote fairness and to encourage contest participation?
One question is where does this end? Last rule cycle we got 115gms for development classes. This cycle people are asking for 200 or 500 through Masters. Next cycle it will be 6.5Kg and 51v like F3C. Now we've dramatically changed the event (and really driven up cost! ...although batteries should just about be free by 2015 )
Rubber, meet road.[&o]
I read on the Nuance thread (one of them) that AJ's Nuance weighs 4565g (~10 lb 1oz). Next thing you know we'll have guys demanding a minimum weight.
And when the Lithium-Air batteries hit the market a few years hence, that will present a new dilemma.
02-02-2012 | 06:01 AM
#246
My Feedback: (90)
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
From Lachowski's weight change petition posted on AMA Site:
"here is currently a very limited number of choices of internal combustion motors available for pattern use. Increasing the weight limit by 200 grams will allow for the inclusion of various gasoline motors with the added impact of reduced operational costs that gasoline affords over methanol based fuels. In addition, the increased weight allowance will give electric flyers increased choices in available battery technology and motors. The trend in battery technology is a higher “C” rating with heavier weight. There is a very limited number of choices available in lighter battery technology that meets current needs. Increasing the weight limit will allow for the use of the heavier higher “C” rated batteries. This too will have the added impact of reduced operational costs. The weight restriction for Sportsman should be removed since it is a provisional class where most Contest Directors opt to eliminate or modify the weight requirement to encourage participation. These changes will allow flyers the ability to have a broader choice of airframes if they choose. With these changes, airframe choices will no longer be limited to pattern specific designs at all levels except F3A. In addition, the need for expensive carbon fiber spinners and props will be at the pilots option instead of being an expensive requirement with airframes that are marginal in making weight under the current rules. Gasoline engines have been proven to be a viable option by some people already ,but it requires some creativity(machining, etc,) to get the weight under the current rules."
My understanding is that
1. 20c 5s 5000mah packs have been on market at least for 5 years and the pricing trend is steady and even downward. The choice and availabilitybof of such batteries are plenty;
2. Carbon fiber spinners at knock-off price are available on the market;
3. Expensive F3A spinners, whether carbon fiber or aluminum, are built with extra features, such as cutouts for forced ventilations, or short in height thus help meet the 2m rule;
4. Other than being lighter, carbon fiber props are much more rigid and durable than those made with traditional material. There is actually a cost saving using a carbon fiber prop over long run for extra benefits;
5. Techniques/tricks exist to trim off extra weight to meet the current weight rule, from existing planes WITHOUT $$$, as documented in this and other threads.
Seems that the reasons to have a weight increase, at least from E-power perspective, are not adequate?
"here is currently a very limited number of choices of internal combustion motors available for pattern use. Increasing the weight limit by 200 grams will allow for the inclusion of various gasoline motors with the added impact of reduced operational costs that gasoline affords over methanol based fuels. In addition, the increased weight allowance will give electric flyers increased choices in available battery technology and motors. The trend in battery technology is a higher “C” rating with heavier weight. There is a very limited number of choices available in lighter battery technology that meets current needs. Increasing the weight limit will allow for the use of the heavier higher “C” rated batteries. This too will have the added impact of reduced operational costs. The weight restriction for Sportsman should be removed since it is a provisional class where most Contest Directors opt to eliminate or modify the weight requirement to encourage participation. These changes will allow flyers the ability to have a broader choice of airframes if they choose. With these changes, airframe choices will no longer be limited to pattern specific designs at all levels except F3A. In addition, the need for expensive carbon fiber spinners and props will be at the pilots option instead of being an expensive requirement with airframes that are marginal in making weight under the current rules. Gasoline engines have been proven to be a viable option by some people already ,but it requires some creativity(machining, etc,) to get the weight under the current rules."
My understanding is that
1. 20c 5s 5000mah packs have been on market at least for 5 years and the pricing trend is steady and even downward. The choice and availabilitybof of such batteries are plenty;
2. Carbon fiber spinners at knock-off price are available on the market;
3. Expensive F3A spinners, whether carbon fiber or aluminum, are built with extra features, such as cutouts for forced ventilations, or short in height thus help meet the 2m rule;
4. Other than being lighter, carbon fiber props are much more rigid and durable than those made with traditional material. There is actually a cost saving using a carbon fiber prop over long run for extra benefits;
5. Techniques/tricks exist to trim off extra weight to meet the current weight rule, from existing planes WITHOUT $$$, as documented in this and other threads.
Seems that the reasons to have a weight increase, at least from E-power perspective, are not adequate?
02-02-2012 | 06:24 AM
#247
Senior Member
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: protectedpilot
Not picking on you, Matt, it's just a good place to weigh in.... I've heard people say, C'mon, I'd love to fly against you with your 13 pound airplane. Tell ya what folks, anybody wants to make it a bet, and I'm game. Within reason; I'm not gonna beat Arch, Frack or Chip. BUT, I'll build up a 1250sqin wing for the Shinden and away we go. You need about 90 squares per pound, give or take, and just jacking up the weight limit will not affect performance by itself appreciably. I'd need to keep the power on a bit more a la' ballistic pattern of the 80's. Might use a gas engine, even. Raise it to 15 lb, and I'll build a 1450sqin wing and use a DA. All within 2m X 2m. A full 15 lb limit will probably put the EP's at a disadvantage again, though.
Brian
Not picking on you, Matt, it's just a good place to weigh in.... I've heard people say, C'mon, I'd love to fly against you with your 13 pound airplane. Tell ya what folks, anybody wants to make it a bet, and I'm game. Within reason; I'm not gonna beat Arch, Frack or Chip. BUT, I'll build up a 1250sqin wing for the Shinden and away we go. You need about 90 squares per pound, give or take, and just jacking up the weight limit will not affect performance by itself appreciably. I'd need to keep the power on a bit more a la' ballistic pattern of the 80's. Might use a gas engine, even. Raise it to 15 lb, and I'll build a 1450sqin wing and use a DA. All within 2m X 2m. A full 15 lb limit will probably put the EP's at a disadvantage again, though.
Brian
Even with the DLE55 up front, putting EVERYTHINg on the scale, I come up with 10 lbs flat. Paint will add another few ounces and I just have to paint wings and stabs. I ABHOR plastic film.
02-02-2012 | 08:22 AM
#248
My Feedback: (46)
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bridgewater,
NJ
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: nonstoprc
From Lachowski's weight change petition posted on AMA Site:
''here is currently a very limited number of choices of internal combustion motors available for pattern use. Increasing the weight limit by 200 grams will allow for the inclusion of various gasoline motors with the added impact of reduced operational costs that gasoline affords over methanol based fuels. In addition, the increased weight allowance will give electric flyers increased choices in available battery technology and motors. The trend in battery technology is a higher “C” rating with heavier weight. There is a very limited number of choices available in lighter battery technology that meets current needs. Increasing the weight limit will allow for the use of the heavier higher “C” rated batteries. This too will have the added impact of reduced operational costs. The weight restriction for Sportsman should be removed since it is a provisional class where most Contest Directors opt to eliminate or modify the weight requirement to encourage participation. These changes will allow flyers the ability to have a broader choice of airframes if they choose. With these changes, airframe choices will no longer be limited to pattern specific designs at all levels except F3A. In addition, the need for expensive carbon fiber spinners and props will be at the pilots option instead of being an expensive requirement with airframes that are marginal in making weight under the current rules. Gasoline engines have been proven to be a viable option by some people already ,but it requires some creativity(machining, etc,) to get the weight under the current rules.''
My understanding is that
1. 20c 5s 5000mah packs have been on market at least for 5 years and the pricing trend is steady and even downward. The choice and availabilitybof of such batteries are plenty;
2. Carbon fiber spinners at knock-off price are available on the market;
3. Expensive F3A spinners, whether carbon fiber or aluminum, are built with extra features, such as cutouts for forced ventilations, or short in height thus help meet the 2m rule;
4. Other than being lighter, carbon fiber props are much more rigid and durable than those made with traditional material. There is actually a cost saving using a carbon fiber prop over long run for extra benefits;
5. Techniques/tricks exist to trim off extra weight to meet the current weight rule, from existing planes WITHOUT $$$, as documented in this and other threads.
Seems that the reasons to have a weight increase, at least from E-power perspective, are not adequate?
From Lachowski's weight change petition posted on AMA Site:
''here is currently a very limited number of choices of internal combustion motors available for pattern use. Increasing the weight limit by 200 grams will allow for the inclusion of various gasoline motors with the added impact of reduced operational costs that gasoline affords over methanol based fuels. In addition, the increased weight allowance will give electric flyers increased choices in available battery technology and motors. The trend in battery technology is a higher “C” rating with heavier weight. There is a very limited number of choices available in lighter battery technology that meets current needs. Increasing the weight limit will allow for the use of the heavier higher “C” rated batteries. This too will have the added impact of reduced operational costs. The weight restriction for Sportsman should be removed since it is a provisional class where most Contest Directors opt to eliminate or modify the weight requirement to encourage participation. These changes will allow flyers the ability to have a broader choice of airframes if they choose. With these changes, airframe choices will no longer be limited to pattern specific designs at all levels except F3A. In addition, the need for expensive carbon fiber spinners and props will be at the pilots option instead of being an expensive requirement with airframes that are marginal in making weight under the current rules. Gasoline engines have been proven to be a viable option by some people already ,but it requires some creativity(machining, etc,) to get the weight under the current rules.''
My understanding is that
1. 20c 5s 5000mah packs have been on market at least for 5 years and the pricing trend is steady and even downward. The choice and availabilitybof of such batteries are plenty;
2. Carbon fiber spinners at knock-off price are available on the market;
3. Expensive F3A spinners, whether carbon fiber or aluminum, are built with extra features, such as cutouts for forced ventilations, or short in height thus help meet the 2m rule;
4. Other than being lighter, carbon fiber props are much more rigid and durable than those made with traditional material. There is actually a cost saving using a carbon fiber prop over long run for extra benefits;
5. Techniques/tricks exist to trim off extra weight to meet the current weight rule, from existing planes WITHOUT $$$, as documented in this and other threads.
Seems that the reasons to have a weight increase, at least from E-power perspective, are not adequate?
In my book, 20C packs are marginal for our use and are only really good for about 75 flights tops before they degrade. I'll bet you in time there will not be any 20C packs out there. It is obvious that most manufacturers are not as much concerned as they have been in the past to make lighter packs. Thre are maybe a couple 20C packs out there that I consider light enough to meet the current rules with ease. All the rest are heavier.
Yep, techniques and tricks are there but many do not have the time or resources to make use of them.
Cost savings with carbon props. It just takes one strike of the ground and that blows that out of the water.
Let people have the flexibility to do what they want. If they want to fly a heavy plane let them. There is no significant advantage to the extra weight in my book. My justification may not be as strong as it could be, but so be it.
Everyone has an opinion. Mine is let more people play and lower the resistance to getting there. I have nothing to gain from the proposal I put up. I will still continue to fly a plane under 5kg and do whatever it takes to get there.
02-02-2012 | 08:24 AM
#249
My Feedback: (46)
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bridgewater,
NJ
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
ORIGINAL: nonstoprc
From Lachowski's weight change petition posted on AMA Site:
''here is currently a very limited number of choices of internal combustion motors available for pattern use. Increasing the weight limit by 200 grams will allow for the inclusion of various gasoline motors with the added impact of reduced operational costs that gasoline affords over methanol based fuels. In addition, the increased weight allowance will give electric flyers increased choices in available battery technology and motors. The trend in battery technology is a higher “C” rating with heavier weight. There is a very limited number of choices available in lighter battery technology that meets current needs. Increasing the weight limit will allow for the use of the heavier higher “C” rated batteries. This too will have the added impact of reduced operational costs. The weight restriction for Sportsman should be removed since it is a provisional class where most Contest Directors opt to eliminate or modify the weight requirement to encourage participation. These changes will allow flyers the ability to have a broader choice of airframes if they choose. With these changes, airframe choices will no longer be limited to pattern specific designs at all levels except F3A. In addition, the need for expensive carbon fiber spinners and props will be at the pilots option instead of being an expensive requirement with airframes that are marginal in making weight under the current rules. Gasoline engines have been proven to be a viable option by some people already ,but it requires some creativity(machining, etc,) to get the weight under the current rules.''
My understanding is that
1. 20c 5s 5000mah packs have been on market at least for 5 years and the pricing trend is steady and even downward. The choice and availabilitybof of such batteries are plenty;
2. Carbon fiber spinners at knock-off price are available on the market;
3. Expensive F3A spinners, whether carbon fiber or aluminum, are built with extra features, such as cutouts for forced ventilations, or short in height thus help meet the 2m rule;
4. Other than being lighter, carbon fiber props are much more rigid and durable than those made with traditional material. There is actually a cost saving using a carbon fiber prop over long run for extra benefits;
5. Techniques/tricks exist to trim off extra weight to meet the current weight rule, from existing planes WITHOUT $$$, as documented in this and other threads.
Seems that the reasons to have a weight increase, at least from E-power perspective, are not adequate?
From Lachowski's weight change petition posted on AMA Site:
''here is currently a very limited number of choices of internal combustion motors available for pattern use. Increasing the weight limit by 200 grams will allow for the inclusion of various gasoline motors with the added impact of reduced operational costs that gasoline affords over methanol based fuels. In addition, the increased weight allowance will give electric flyers increased choices in available battery technology and motors. The trend in battery technology is a higher “C” rating with heavier weight. There is a very limited number of choices available in lighter battery technology that meets current needs. Increasing the weight limit will allow for the use of the heavier higher “C” rated batteries. This too will have the added impact of reduced operational costs. The weight restriction for Sportsman should be removed since it is a provisional class where most Contest Directors opt to eliminate or modify the weight requirement to encourage participation. These changes will allow flyers the ability to have a broader choice of airframes if they choose. With these changes, airframe choices will no longer be limited to pattern specific designs at all levels except F3A. In addition, the need for expensive carbon fiber spinners and props will be at the pilots option instead of being an expensive requirement with airframes that are marginal in making weight under the current rules. Gasoline engines have been proven to be a viable option by some people already ,but it requires some creativity(machining, etc,) to get the weight under the current rules.''
My understanding is that
1. 20c 5s 5000mah packs have been on market at least for 5 years and the pricing trend is steady and even downward. The choice and availabilitybof of such batteries are plenty;
2. Carbon fiber spinners at knock-off price are available on the market;
3. Expensive F3A spinners, whether carbon fiber or aluminum, are built with extra features, such as cutouts for forced ventilations, or short in height thus help meet the 2m rule;
4. Other than being lighter, carbon fiber props are much more rigid and durable than those made with traditional material. There is actually a cost saving using a carbon fiber prop over long run for extra benefits;
5. Techniques/tricks exist to trim off extra weight to meet the current weight rule, from existing planes WITHOUT $$$, as documented in this and other threads.
Seems that the reasons to have a weight increase, at least from E-power perspective, are not adequate?
In my book, 20C packs are marginal for our use and are only really good for about 75 flights tops before they degrade. I'll bet you in time there will not be any 20C packs out there. It is obvious that most manufacturers are not as much concerned as they have been in the past to make lighter packs. Thre are maybe a couple 20C packs out there that I consider light enough to meet the current rules with ease. All the rest are heavier.
Yep, techniques and tricks are there but many do not have the time or resources to make use of them.
Cost savings with carbon props. It just takes one strike of the ground and that blows that out of the water.
Let people have the flexibility to do what they want. If they want to fly a heavy plane let them. There is no significant advantage to the extra weight in my book. My justification may not be as strong as it could be, but so be it.
Everyone has an opinion. Mine is let more people play and lower the resistance to getting there. I have nothing to gain from the proposal I put up. I will still continue to fly a plane under 5kg and do whatever it takes to get there.
02-02-2012 | 10:03 AM
#250
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Pattern Rules Proposals
Cost savings with carbon props. It just takes one strike of the ground and that blows that out of the water.
Joe
The above statement for me is totally wrong. The Carbon fiber props are much more repairable than any other type of props other than wood. It takes an experienced, learned technique that costs almost nothing in exspense, just a little time.
I do agree with doing away with the weight rule but I don't think it will happen for FAI.[
]
Dick
Joe
The above statement for me is totally wrong. The Carbon fiber props are much more repairable than any other type of props other than wood. It takes an experienced, learned technique that costs almost nothing in exspense, just a little time.
I do agree with doing away with the weight rule but I don't think it will happen for FAI.[
]Dick
