MFLOOD3800

My Feedback: (51)

No but eliminating the rules guidelines did. A Q40 plane to me does not look scale. By just saying a B/O will control everything needed is false. Thats why I brought up the Q40 incident. Vague rules can become a problem. Keeping some sense of regualtions as to wing out line, wing sq inch and eng size DOES keep speeds in an enclosed arena. Though some airfoils can be changed to stretch that fenced in area, allowing non scale looking long skinny wings, ,would stretch that even further. These rules arent perfect, but they do keep some regualtion and make it clear what is allowed.

Build a scale outlined wing. Keep it in a sq in min per eng size and eng restrictions and come race. If you ever have a concern contact the CD before you build, drive to a race and enter it.

stang151

"A keeper, or collar, will be on all push rods that have a right angle bend that connects them to the servo output arms. Z-bends are acceptable" .
Marty, I read it wrong... My apology...
I still stand by my other statements. If a guy shows up with a plane and has no intention of running for points then ,I think, it would up to the persons running the event / other pilots to allow him to run or not . To me, going to a bracket race just to break out and not participate in the points/standings just does not make sense. That would be where an Unlimited class would come in, but a wing chart in an Unlimited class would be defeating the purpose of the class.

Tony Pacini

So this would help to explain, then, why the event with the most stringent regulations to govern airframe type and outline AND a wing area table (both said to "keep speeds in an enclosed arena") has the lowest Gold breakout time AND more pilots posting times below that breakout?

Likewise, how is it that the event guilty of "eliminating the rules guidelines", and with no wing area table, using a slower Gold breakout time, has fewer pilots breaking out, and no pilots going nearly as fast?

Please help me to understand what is being implied. Maybe pictures will help. I'm just not getting it!

MFLOOD3800

My Feedback: (51)

Glen,
I agree with you on if a guy has no intent on trying to win the race and only tries to go fast, may need a talking to.

How ever there are times when I am not in the running for place finish and myself and others have just raced head to head trying to beat each other.
Id hate to get kicked out for that.
I never make enough races a year to finish in the points.
This year I only made 3 of the 8 races.

Id love to have an "unlimited class" where there was no b/o time. But boy that could get pretty crazy w/o some sort of regulation. I agree that wing chart doesnt totally harness this, but it does help.
This class would probably have to become a spec class to keep speeds in check.... For safety reasons it cant be a "anything goes" class.
By that I would mean something like any plane with x amt of square inches and keeping scale outline. Only engine allowed would be a YS115, or a Nelson40 or Jett40 with a carb or an electric motor with x amt of voltage and a 125 amp ESC and 8000 mah of btty. You get the idea. It would need some regulating and limiting.

Iron Dog

Since I began drafting the paragraphs that follow, I have experienced some computer issues, had visitors, etc., that have delayed my ability to post these comments. Due to my eye surgery, I simply can’t stare at this screen any further so am posting it as-is, despite some follow-on posts that may have already addressed some of these thoughts. Taken as a whole, I believe it is still valid:


Well, it turns out my doctor oversold the pain and blindness aspect of my recovery from surgery. All is good, so far, and I can actually read half-way decently (although I'm really not supposed to). In fact, this is the second time I've seen someone mention that Z-bends are not allowed. I don't know how you guys are coming to this conclusion. Even half-blind I can clearly read that statement #6 under the Safety Inspection section of the rules states:


6. A keeper, or collar, will be on all push rods that have a right angle bend that connects them to the servo output arms. Z-bends are acceptable. If clevises are used at both ends of a push rod, one must be secured, so that the push rod will not turn. EZ connecter type fasteners are NOT permitted on servo arms and push rod ends that control flying surfaces such as ailerons, elevator(s), and rudder(s).


This begs the question about what else is being mis-read:


Rather than re-hash the same opinions over and over again, ad-nauseum, this entire discussion can be summarized as follows:


1. Electric RCPRO racers want a spot with their electric planes at the Championship event.


2. Marty, myself, and all other responders (except for one pilot) want to have electrics participate at the Championship event, as do we want EVERYONE, as much as is reasonably possible, to attend.


3. Everyone is entitled to their opinion . . . Everyone's opinion is valid, and it is deeply desired that you express it . . . But this does not give everyone the right to state it so repetitiously ad-nauseum, without offering new ideas and realistic solutions to that which they take issue with . . . Nor, does it give you the right to in any way degrade any one else's opinions or character, or those of other clubs. The scale racing forum is full of other threads where various members have debated their home-club's choice of rules format while attacking others. Can we please overcome this petty bickering and embrace that this event is intended to bring us together. (If I can overcome it, so can you. For example: At first, this event sounded as if it was going to exclude Silver and Bronze altogether, and simply be Gold and an Unlimited class. I would have been excluded completely, yet I still supported this event, even in those early stages.)

4. Marty is working very hard to find a venue that is as centrally located as possible to make sure this happens. This is far from an easy task as there are many factors that have to be considered.

1. It is centrally located between all participating clubs
2. It has an appropriate runway, with little obstacles
3. It is- or reasonably can be- set up for air racing, and has appropriate set-backs.
4. It has appropriate facilities for a large event (pit area, food service facilities, toilets, water, power, RV facilities available and overnight camping allowed, etc.)
5. It has a large enough club to support such a large event
6. The club leadership wants us there, committing to shutting down their field for a few days to their own membership, in favor of us
7. The club members are motivated to help set-up and work a large event
8. Wherever the event does end up being held, it is somewhere that key personnel in key positions will be able to make the drive, as some positions can not be trusted to those completely unfamiliar with this type of event
9. Probably other factors I can't even think of, beings I'm not the one having to plan all of this

5. Electrics would never have been excluded if not for some extremely serious safety concerns that likely pose an extremely significant danger to potential host clubs' sites.
You must remember that Central California is not desert. The desert may have sparse vegetation and therefore pose little fire risk, but the Central Valley is some of the most fertile soil and represents some of the very best growing conditions in the entire world. Therefore, many potential sites in this area are surrounded with with rich, thick grasslands that, at the time of year this event will occur, are at "Red Flag" warning stages for extreme fire danger. Knowingly ignoring these risks is inviting catastrophe, and is simply irresponsible behavior. Marty, nor most any potential host-club's board of directors is going to be that irresponsible.


6. The Wing Area/Engine chart: RCPRO wants it eliminated because they have already eliminated it in their series. Northern CA tends to prefer it because they have had safety issues in the past with completely over-engined, nearly un-flyable and therefore dangerous, out-of-control aircraft that created serious safety issues. Everyone understands “the brackets keep the speeds down”, already! That is not entirely correct, but close enough. We get it. No one needs to hear this anymore. Apparently some do need to hear, hopefully for the last time, why it is still in-place. This is not a rule imposed to put anyone at an advantage or at a disadvantage . . . it is only about adding an extra level of safety to an already risky sport. Agree or disagree, that is your right. State your opinion, that is also your right. If you have yet to encounter this situation, than you don't perceive the need for it, yet - count your blessings. But realize, whether you agree or not, it is here for a reason - safety.
Additionally, it was not designed to give preference to particular engines made at a particular time an advantage. Look closer at the number ranges in each category, the range of displacements increase rather consistently by a given increment. When it changes, it does so rather consistently. (Although Marty, you do have a typo in the .71 - .80 2-stroke category, stating ".79 - .80.") This chart was written before the YS115WS came out, so it is completely inappropriate to state that it was written in order to give this engine an advantage, or to put others at a disadvantage.


7. “The chart in and of itself does not in any way control airframe outline or scale fidelity.” It isn’t supposed to. Other sections of the rules that discuss scale outline and the intent of the race take care of that job.


Gentlemen,
History is full of examples of how hard it is to build, and how easy it is to destroy. Marty has asked the E-racers to propose solutions to overcome the issues they face, and help build this event for the future. Rather than do this, all they continue to do is try to find justification to nit-pick at any other detail and destroy his efforts before this event can get off the ground. If this is what you are shooting for -- good job. But if the event suffers, will there be one for electric to eventually be a part of?


Stop crying “foul” and come to terms with the REALITIES of the situation. Stop claiming to be a “victim” of the system and trying to convince everyone there is some vast conspiracy against you all. Instead, invest a fraction of this effort towards finding viable solutions to the issues Marty faces in trying to embrace this power system safely, and this whole situation melts away. Keep going on this path, and you risk turning those sympathetic to your cause (such as I) against you because you begin to look like you are trolling and simply want to cause controversy; and thereby damaging that which is in a position to become a high-profile event further promoting and expanding our facet of the sport for everyone else, too.

stang151

Tony , were just good enough . that's why we're not the "Rock Gods" others think they are.
In all fairness I think it has more to do with the altitude that most of our events are held at.
Most of RCPRO is held at 2000' to 3000' +. I think most of SAMS is held closer to sea level.

MFLOOD3800

My Feedback: (51)

Tony,
Perhaps the air density altitude has a lot to do with that. Not sure how to draw that in picture format.


And for the record, few break out up there, unless they get caught racing.

Take the So AZ guys flying nitro up there (from all classes) and they too will all see lower times.

Not sure why they lowered their b/o times, but I like it.

MFLOOD3800

My Feedback: (51)

Tony , were just good enough . that's why we're not the "Rock Gods" others think they are.


Glen this isnt a fiar statement to the good nature of these racers. They are every bit as friendly as racers i have met any where.

stang151

Your right ,Marty, ... it was just a good natured poke. Everyone I have met in ,almost any racing, with very few exceptions, are good people to be around. We tend to be a little passionate about our racing and it tends to show. I hope that this race can come together and we can prove it to each other.

stang151

The problem with these boards is that you can't see the other posters to get a firm sense of where they are coming from. easy to get a little hot.... That and the edit post button hasn't been working.

MFLOOD3800

My Feedback: (51)

I know who you are Glen, thats why I could question what was said. Others I wouldnt even try, especially public. I have always had respect for you and your professionalism. Its been too long since you raced with us.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I am going to assume that the you guys are flying at a location of higher altitude. Sacramento is pretty much sea level. Obviously this is going to give us more power. When going to an altitude of just 1,000 ft there is a noticeable drop off in power. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't see altitude being an issue with E power except that the high wing loadings being felt more. As I said as competitors you will soon figure out how to build lighter and select airfoils/wing planforms that work better at high loadings. I have to agree with Marty about breakouts not controlling speed. I am guilty of that myself, being out of the points so intentionally breaking out hoping to pull someone else with me so a buddy can pick up the points. I also agree with Marty that I would have much less of an issue welcoming the E airplanes if the motor dia, KV, amp rating of the speed control and voltage/capacity of the batteries. This is NOT to hold you guys back but it would be in effort to level the playing field across the board. We would need you guys to figure out what power package gets you into into the breakout time and then put forward the specs as what the maximums would be for each class. This would be for the protection of the E racers as much as the glow guys. Imagine you have a setup that gets the job done and the so one shows up with a new 1,200 Pletty that uses less current at lower voltage. We have to establish limits to keep things fairly level in order to maximize participation. How many guys are going to stick with racing if they have to update their equipment once or twice a year?

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I am going to assume that the you guys are flying at a location of higher altitude. Sacramento is pretty much sea level. Obviously this is going to give us more power. When going to an altitude of just 1,000 ft there is a noticeable drop off in power. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't see altitude being an issue with E power except that the high wing loadings being felt more. As I said as competitors you will soon figure out how to build lighter and select airfoils/wing planforms that work better at high loadings. I have to agree with Marty about breakouts not controlling speed. I am guilty of that myself, being out of the points so intentionally breaking out hoping to pull someone else with me so a buddy can pick up the points. I also agree with Marty that I would have much less of an issue welcoming the E airplanes if the motor dia, KV, amp rating of the speed control and voltage/capacity of the batteries. This is NOT to hold you guys back but it would be in effort to level the playing field across the board. We would need you guys to figure out what power package gets you into into the breakout time and then put forward the specs as what the maximums would be for each class. This would be for the protection of the E racers as much as the glow guys. Imagine you have a setup that gets the job done and the so one shows up with a new 1,200 Pletty that uses less current at lower voltage. We have to establish limits to keep things fairly level in order to maximize participation. How many guys are going to stick with racing if they have to update their equipment once or twice a year?

stang151

[QUOTE=MFLOOD3800;1194484 Its been too long since you raced with us.[/QUOTE]

Too long Marty. Hopefully this year. I plan on pulling the planes off the rafters and go through then in a couple weeks.

andyy

My Feedback: (4)

Marty

You keep saying we need rules for the electrics to follow ok then.

how about this.

Wing 550 sq in Minimum
45 volts battery max
motor size 65mm x 70mm max
160 amp esc max

What else do you need?

MFLOOD3800

My Feedback: (51)

Andy
Thx for this but me being electricly challenged I dont know what it means speed wise.
What class is this for bronze, silv or gold? Im assuming by the wing squares this is a gold set up.?

This cant be a one set up does all classes as that would be an advantage.
I need a set up for all three classes with what you think the speeds will be. I trust you and will look at the numbers to see how they compare with the current averages in the classes by the limits already in place.

MFLOOD3800

My Feedback: (51)

..

MFLOOD3800

My Feedback: (51)

This is new technology to me and it will be a hit and miss set until we get it right by both others opinions and actually flight testing
Say the bronze class at 440 min sq with smaller motor, and btty
silver class at 515 min sq with little bigger motor and btty
gold class at 550 min sq with little bigger motor , esc and btty

andyy

My Feedback: (4)

Marty the only thing that would need to change would be the motor size the rest of the setup doesn't really change. We use the same batteries speed control and airframe in all classes to save cost only the motor changes. You could lower the wing area to possibly let someone build a smaller plane for the silver and bronze classes. That might save them some cost when building for those classes. Since our planes are heavy I think it is better to use the larger wing areas to carry the load but if they wanted to use a smaller setup that might help them. My bronze plane actually has 650 sq in wing area.

MFLOOD3800

My Feedback: (51)

Yep I get that and am aware of the wing loading, but perhaps the bronze planes really dont need to be what you guys do. Lets leave this open for someone who wants to build a real bronze electric racer, one thats smaller yet can run at the right speed window and not a gold racer racing in bronze. Ive seen the bronze and silver, you guys fly and they could all run in gold with right prop. By having a lower min wing we open that up for them. Maybe a restriction on props is also a part of regualting these along side the correct motor?
I like where this is going. This what I have been afetr all along.. lets figure this out.
Thank you sir.

Jimmy Skids

My Feedback: (2)

All,
I have just spent an hour catching up on this thread. I have a few things to state and then I'll get back out.

1. Tony, give SAM a chance again, I'm sure you will experience a different venue. Heck I'll pay your entry fee if you feel like things are not better from your last appearance.

2. Marty, adding one more SAM voice. Stay strong brother, there are a lot of opinions here from all involved, don't lose sight of the main goal, to bring the groups closer together to enjoy racing.

3. SAM did not burn because of a lipo fire, but the rules were written to exclude lipos to limit the possibility since the field did burn from another source and was exteremly expensive to repair.

4. The SAM events are growing in popularity. We are seeing close to 40 pilots at the smaller races with over 60 at the larger events. In regards to the rules, I personally have been associated with any rules changes over the past 5+ years. My view is don't make a bunch of changes. Keep it simple and keep it safe. By not making any major changes I believe we have seen an increase in participation. Our Gold class continues to have 3 to 4 heats per round. What other venue can boast those numbers?

Personally I would love to fly against all of you and hope that you will attend and that I am able to attend as well.

Jim

Tony Pacini

Marty, I wish that it was that simple. If I thought there was a formula to propose for electrics that would work fairly (not hamper electrics, yet not provide an advantage over glow), I would certainly work as hard as I could to make it happen. I understand your position too, in that if we COULD propose something workable, then you might try to incorporate electrics into the event. Let me back up a bit and touch on our attempts years ago to fix the SWRA wing area table.

Back in the mid-to-late-90s, when I was on the SWRA board, we recognized that the table wasn't necessarily fair to all combinations/areas/displacements, and the table wasn't holding the speeds down to the point that most thought was reasonable. We thought about ways to fix it and couldn't come up with an effective solution short of starting over and making most combinations obsolete or at least not competitive. We were wrestling with the Gold breakout, too....it was initially a stop-gap solution to address the speed problem and it was one that could be utilized immediately without making equipment obsolete. The idea was to eventually tweak the table or devise another method of governing performance, but it never happened. Keep in mind, too, that Nelsons/Jetts/YSs were in use at the time, and were substantially faster than their standard counterparts, and this further complicated the task. That particular situation is even more complicated now, because the Nelsons/Jetts got faster and YS came out with the 1.10 then 1.15, also considerably faster. I repeatedly discussed this with minds far greater than mine in hopes of finding a solution, but it never happened. Any rule that was effective enough to manage performance and really slow things down (or prevent them from going faster) would have required a major overhaul, and the board did not feel that it would be a good option.

As for electrics, we're still trying to figure them out, and I believe we've only scratched the surface. For example, when we first tried it, the goal was to spin a YS prop as fast as a YS could. I figured that if we could pull that off, we'd be in the ballpark. I had nothing else to go on! My electric experience prior to that consisted of a Parkzone T-28. I was and still am quite "e-ignorant". Without the help of Chris and Andy, I'd have given up a long time ago.

Our first attempt was competitive on 8 cells, and we used sturdy enough motors and escs that the combination survived the high amperage. Stuff got hot, and it slowed down during the last few laps, but it worked.

Some talk about simply limiting the wattage, as the F5D event does. Here's why I believe that wouldn't work: watts = volts x amps. When we decreased the load by going to a smaller prop, all other things being equal, not only did the amperage and total watttage go down , the plane went faster and the batteries lasted longer.

Now wer'e using 10 cells, with even smaller props. We've been able to reduce the battery capacity from 6600mah to 5000 mah because increasing voltage also increases efficiency. Then, still using the same airframe and motor and again going to an even smaller prop, the plane was a little bit faster and used less battery, it cornered better, and didn't fall off during the last few laps. With 8S 6600mah, I was luckly to land with 20% left. With 10S 5000mah, same airframe, same motor, smaller prop, I generally land with 30-35% left. Limiting wattage even for one motor size and area isn't enough! Again, we've just scratched the surface, and even if we could take a snapshot in time of our present power systems and fairly set a limit, all it takes is a higher wattage motor or higher discharge battery to hit the market, or even just playing around with props, and we would easily render the table unfair to the the glow entries. I don't want to see that happen, and I'm certain that the glow racers don't want to see that happen.

We still haven't explored the biggest potential for inscreasing speed, either: a proper airframe with a wing that's suited to the higher weight of our power systems. There is tons of untapped potential, and we're still taking baby steps.

I couldn't figure out how to fix the wing area table back then, and I certainly am unable to propose any reasonable solution to fairly integrate electric power systems into the wing area table now.

MFLOOD3800

My Feedback: (51)

I feel I have set wing chart above a few posts ago. Now give me motor specs and enough btty to take off on the start clock with everyone else and land in order and still have a min of 20-30%. Remember these wing charts a Min only and fit with what you are already using. My concern is electrics will have an unfair advantage in bronze and silver the way you guys run curenlty. Slow thos down. Leave the gold planes alone, I feel they fit perfectly as is. Does that help?

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Guys with my limited E knowledge for the lower classes couldn't you just specify a prop size to run on your gold setup that would drop the airp lane down to silver of bronze speed? This would require some testing. One benifit would be that moving up in class simply requires a prop change. To the best of my knowledge running less prop pitch on the same setup would have the motor still turning the same rpm, less current draw thus longer flight times that the lower classes will need anyway. So the way I see it we would just need to establish motor dia, KV, cell count and capacity.

Iron Dog

Glen,

That statement is all the more reason to ensure that we are all constructive in trying to ensure this initial race comes together, in whatever format is ultimately able to be defined. Hopefully, everyone gets what they want, but that is an awfully tall order. Participate . . . let's all come together face-to-face , , , get a true sense of who we all are, and what we might be able to build with-, and for-, each other for the future. (I'll likely be there for these reasons, whether I actually still have a plane to race with by the end of the season, or not.) At least for the time being, we need to give each other the benefit of the doubt that each of our intentions is to do what is best towards the long-term building of this sport. Once you and the other modelers from other clubs meet me face-to-face, if you don't like what I represent, then I could understand getting resistance to posts on this thread and other threads on these forums. (Same with the other members of SAM, Redding's Ash Creek flyers, and the three Bay Area clubs.)

I'm very glad to see people responding towards offering solutions, now. This is momentum in the right direction, once again. Thank you!

Unfortunately, I have no experience with electric power, other than a FlyZone foamy Corsair, so I have nothing to add one way, or the other regarding viable configurations. But, I could see that some testing may be in order, rather than just throwing ideas out randomly. I would suggest a more systematic method: taking some of these suggested E-setups and testing them against their glow counterparts to validate their comparative strengths and weaknesses, then posting any viable results that get E-power in the ball-park and represent a relatively competitive "fair-shake" to both power systems.

Ollie