RE: new battery questions
On the Cellpro charger (at least the 10XP), they will only discharge at 1.0 Amp, not 1C (which would be 4-5 Amps). Not positive about the PL8 as Glen suggests. I agree with most...fly the packs 4-6 flights not exceeding 1/2 throttle down to about 50%. I usually set the timer for 4:30 minutes and land at the timer. I'm usually around 50-56%. Repeat for the breakin flights and everything will be fine.
Posted on: 5/23/2013 10:11 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "Electric Pattern Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11520321

RE: BJCraft Episode
[quote]ORIGINAL: g_mkoch Will you have yours by the next competition in San Antonio? [/quote] Unfortunately, no but not because of F3A Unlimited or BJ. It's just a responsible choice being made for a father of 4 who has 3 kids in 7th grade right now and 2 playing football.
Posted on: 9/12/2012 9:42 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "Electric Pattern Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11226193

RE: BJCraft Episode
[quote]ORIGINAL: g_mkoch Is nice to know they do custom schemes, Is there a surcharge for it? [/quote] I was quoted a reasonable price for it. My scheme is certainly not as complex as the Episode's. BJ answers emails immediately (within 1 day due to time difference). He's willing to do what you ask, at least he treated me that way. If I remember correctly, he told me $300 ?? for the same scheme and different colors. The price quote I received was based on a completely different scheme.
Posted on: 9/12/2012 9:21 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "Electric Pattern Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11226172

RE: BJCraft Episode
That's the new DTFS design pattern wing. It was designed to better handle the FAI sequences. Supposedly, he's also releasing (or has released) this wing for the Nuance. There's supposed to be a video of this wing on the Nuance flying but, I can't seem to find the right link to make it work. In the meantime, here's some more information on it..... http://rcone.kr/board/index.html?id=bjair1&no=87
Posted on: 9/11/2012 12:19 PM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "Electric Pattern Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11225256

RE: BJCraft Episode
[quote]ORIGINAL: woodie That's a beautiful airplane, bet it looks great on the ground. Not trying to sound disrespectful, but I would hope an alternate (simpler, bolder) paint scheme might be available for those of us with aging eyes that can't see pastels and busy paint schemes at a distance. Unfortunately, I have become one of 'those guys'. Like I said before, I am not criticizing the artist, only admitting my diminished eyesight.... Woodie [/quote] Don, I have been talking to BJ Park about that exact thing. There are several options including just different colors but the same scheme or your own "scheme". I have been speaking to him about doing the same scheme that is on my DeJaVu and he was willing to do it. You can still process everything through F3A Unlimited. Scott
Posted on: 9/11/2012 11:58 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "Electric Pattern Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11225238

RE: New TP Battery for F3A
Guys, Chris does have 5S 35C 4500 packs that are 1/2 the price of Thunder Power packs. The weight is 560g per 5S pack. Additionally, his 4900MAH 25C 5S packs are still very good and much cheaper still than Thunder Power. I have owned 5 sets of these packs and on the last one, got the weight down to 1160g for a 10S with Deans connector. Not to mention, the support after the sale is top notch. While I agree that there is a gap in the market around 4700mah, I feel the choices out there are adequate and certainly affordable in comparison. I have no issues with Thunder Power at all except their prices compared to everyone else. They can make some light batteries for sure.
Posted on: 8/16/2012 7:08 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "Electric Pattern Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11195639

RE: 2102 FAI/F3A EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP
That interview was amazing. I picked up a few points that I find very interesting regarding his "style" He intentionally flies at approx. 170 meters and definitely doesn't fly "on the poles". He equates this to not flying electric as he must fly a little faster therefore, he needs a little more room His prop choice 20.5 x 10 is to provide additional breaking for the YS 175CDI He doesn't practice near as much as I thought he did (but hey, he's CPLR) He's going to start "testing" electric with a new Axiome and Hacker motor The stab is smaller to help the plane fly better in heavier wind The evolution of the wing and stab has progressed to help with wind, snaps, and spins I'm impressed with how open CPLR is about his techniques and his willingness to share information. The canalizer evolution was also interesting to me. Start with version 1 then increase span then find the chord helps more than the span and finally, version 3 with a shorter span (equivalent to version 1) with a wider chord. Chris, thanks for posting this.
Posted on: 8/14/2012 11:41 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11193247

RE: F3A Results - SPOILER
[quote]ORIGINAL: Doug Cronkhite I'm still puzzled why FAI hasn't developed an Aresti catalog specifically for F3A. All these K-factors are so completely arbitrary and don't really give proper weighting to the really difficult or complex maneuvers. [/quote] A complete catalog is located at http://fai-f3abackstage.blogspot.com/p/fai-sporting-code.html beginning on page 41. It's not the Aresti but it is a complete list for FAI (unknowns).
Posted on: 8/13/2012 11:10 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11191763

RE: F3A Results - SPOILER
None of the finalist on this thread used more than 80% capacity on their packs in that wind. I was standing right with Chip when he finished his last flight and went back to the van. Chip said "Well, we learned something here. The contra is great for P and any other class at any given time. When you get to this level and have F and the unknowns in conditions such as this, it becomes tough". I don't believe anyone smoked a pack at the finals at all. Chip may have had other elements in play here as well which we do not know. There are obviously pros and cons to each. IC provides great power, cool sound, longer flight times and, quite honestly, the ability to have a little heavier air frame because you don't have to weigh with fuel. Electric provides (with the right motor) all the torque in the world at whatever RPM, less vibration, longevity, good braking (if applied properly). By AC, Chad and Jason giving their mah, it's obvious that capacity should not be in the equation. Those conditions were extreme but obviously, doable. It still....after all this time...boils down to choice and which "devil" you decide to live with. Bryan Hebert, one of the most gracious pattern fliers you'll ever meet, likes his YS. Andrew, AC and others love their electrics. Chip "may" be switching because Chip is an innovator. He flies and tries it all. He's always searching for the best setup for him. He hasn't been in this game as long as he has "just because". He used to fly the bipe (remember the Scandalous) and he's tried just about everything else. This is important and just like the rest of the top fliers. I'm not sure it's fair to rest the weight of the pattern world on his shoulders however. We don't hear any other of the finalist saying "that's it, I'm switching!". If Chip does switch, Chip is switching because that's what's good for him and his career. At the Worlds next year, you will see Brett, the French team and many others flying IC. You will also see plenty of electric doing quite well. The choice should be what you, as a pattern flier, are comfortable with and what helps you fly the best you can.
Posted on: 8/8/2012 7:38 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11185411

RE: Sebart's new pattern ship MYTHOS
[quote]ORIGINAL: F3A Unlimited From the firewall to the face of the cowling is 3" so there should be several motor options that will also work. I need to measure again but I think a 10S setup might be tight in the battery compartment but I'm sure an 8S setup with the Hacker A50-16L would fit nicely. [/quote] Chris, any ETA on the 2M Mytho - S Pro?
Posted on: 8/2/2012 9:02 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "Electric Pattern Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11178451

RE: 2013 & 2014 Advanced and Masters Sequences
[quote]ORIGINAL: ab5yy Will there also be changes to the lower levels next year, sportsman and intermediate? [/quote] There is some discussion amoungst the NSRCA board to make changes, especially to Sportsman. That, however, is two years away but it has been mentioned. Scott
Posted on: 8/2/2012 6:51 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11178312

2013 & 2014 Advanced and Masters Sequences
Good afternoon all, The NSRCA Board of Directors approved the proposed Advanced and Masters sequences for the 2013-2014 cycle today. These sequences may be found on the NSRCA website. They have not been altered since the first part of June and will stand as such. Many thanks go to Dale Olstinske, Larry Kauffman, Verne Koester, Derek Koopowitz, Dave Lockhart, Jon Lowe and John Gayer for providing two great sequences for the next cycle. We would also like to thank all those who took the time to provide input and give feedback as the sequences progressed to their current and final versions. Thanks also to Joe Lachowski for beginning this journey. We hope you all enjoy their endeavors. Warmest Regards, Scott McHarg NSRCA Secretary
Posted on: 7/31/2012 3:06 PM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11176336

RE: Wanted to buy Cell Pro 10s charger
[quote]ORIGINAL: snir2001 Same one from Turnigy: http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__21826__Turnigy_10XC_10S_400W_10A_Dual_Channel_Balance_Charger.html [/quote] Yet cheaper from Mike and Chris!
Posted on: 7/17/2012 8:12 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "Electric Pattern Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11158571

RE: Not finished but I could not wait
Chip, Very cool video dude. I love how you brought all types of different disciplines to that contest. What a great turnout. Congrats!! Scott
Posted on: 7/13/2012 8:12 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11153734

RE: Designed by Gerhard Mayr: YS-Toxiris
My guess is he's using it as a "brake" of some sort.
Posted on: 7/11/2012 9:45 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11151410

RE: field charging lipos
Hi guys, I'm just curious why you say don't buy the 2-stroke cheapo generators. I have had one of the 800W generators for 2 years now powering a 50Amp power supply driving a Cellpro 10s and an XP at the same time and haven't had any issues. I agree 100% that Honda and Yamaha make great generators but when you walk in to Harbor Freight and see 800W for $89.95, it's hard to pass up. Is there an issue with these types i.e. dirty power or something? The thing gets awesome mileage and the worst part about the whole thing is having to mix the oil and gas but really, that's not a huge deal. Thanks, Scott
Posted on: 7/6/2012 7:46 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "Electric Pattern Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11145213

RE: F6A
This is identical to the old TOC Freestyle routines that they used to fly back in the 80's and 90's in Las Vegas. Mr. Bennett put on one heck of a show back then.
Posted on: 7/3/2012 6:53 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11141103

RE: F3a The Future
[quote]ORIGINAL: MTK You haven't seen a well set-up gas plane [/quote] I was reading Brian's post and thought, you better hope Matt doesn't read this.
Posted on: 6/28/2012 6:49 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11134970

RE: Wing and fuse cover for Genesis
CA Models is advertising they still have a set of Genesis covers if you're interested. http://camodel.com.ar/shop/product_info.php?cPath=21_28&products_id=43
Posted on: 6/20/2012 12:14 PM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "Electric Pattern Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11125483

RE: Georgetown Event is NOT being moved!!!
[quote]ORIGINAL: RC_Pattern_Flyer Here are some ideas i am considering for the contest. 1) Takeoffs are scored accordingly... landings are given 10's regardless of position etc. Safety first. 2) In some cases, if a pilot is unsure or would prefer that a more experienced pilot land their plane, then that will be allowed. Safety first. Just thinking out loud. Chuck Hochhalter [/quote] How about everyone just fly's your plane or Brett's?
Posted on: 6/18/2012 2:22 PM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11122741

RE: TALON EXTREME by Randy Hicks Designs
Would probably fly REALLY well with a NEU in the nose huh Chuck...AND I see retracts! Randy, bring on the E-Talon
Posted on: 6/18/2012 1:43 PM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11122685

RE: Georgetown Event is NOT being moved!!!
New Berlin
Posted on: 6/18/2012 10:27 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11122489

RE: BJCraft Episode
According to his site on the bottom of the page, the price point appears to be $2200 USD....and I was just about to buy a Nuance.
Posted on: 6/12/2012 2:56 PM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "Electric Pattern Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11115958

RE: Proposed 2013/2014 Sequences
[quote]ORIGINAL: protectedpilot [quote]ORIGINAL: CLRD2LAND Let the pilots that are flying Advanced or just leaving that class and going to Masters have some input into whether it should be changed or not. [/quote] Do you mean pilots like Matt Fredericks? He has posted here on this subject, look back in the thread. I've checked with several others in my district, with a slim majority favoring change, but most agree the loops are tough for Advanced. The Avalanche is integrated, because rudder is applied. But it is easier than an integrated loop, most guys just corner the sticks. There is no such simple way to do the loops. Brian [/quote] You mean like the email you sent me asking my opinion? I gave you the same message and you thought it was excellent input. I like the pattern that is proposed for Advanced to some extent. Could it be made better? I think it could. Does it need this or that? Sure. My point is not the individual maneuvers Brian, but the fact that this pattern does not prepare you for Masters. We discussed that as well and you agreed. You just moved up. You know the difficulties.
Posted on: 5/22/2012 7:34 PM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11091164

RE: Proposed 2013/2014 Sequences
This is my personal opinion. I fly Advanced and am in transition to Masters. This is going to be a little bit off an "off year" for me as school, work and family with 4 children take precedence I feel that I did fairly well last year winning D6 Advanced Champion losing only 1 competition and a total of 6 rounds over 6 contests as well as finishing second at the Nats in 2011. I am not saying these things to impress anyone and certainly not trying to honk my own horn but to give a little background of me and my ability. During the off-season and even a little last year, I began flying the current Masters routine. It was absolutely daunting! Each individual maneuver is not that difficult but stringing them together is a different story. Flying the current Advanced sequence only gives you the slightest insight into what it takes to fly and be competitive in Masters. In my opinion, one of the hardest maneuvers in Advanced to do well and score well is the Cuban 8. There are many facets to this maneuver, any of which done wrong can blow the entire maneuver. The next hardest is probably the inverted entry Triangle Loop with 2/4 on top. It's hard because of the setup from the maneuver prior which is a full roll on top /half outside loop. If you misjudge wings level, you're either coming in our out unless you correct it. The 4-point and the slow roll should be your money shot. Moving from these maneuvers to doing an inverted entry 4 of 8 pt roll / slow roll reversed, negative snap, triangle with snaps and a maneuver that, even at the NATS , few people do well...the 3 rolls in opposite directions is asking a lot from a guy...even one who does fairly well. I'm not saying it's impossible but it is a giant leap. Now, the Masters fliers are saying their pattern is too easy but we should leave Advanced alone. I couldn't disagree more. The purpose for the classes is to develop the skills to continue to move up the ranks. The current Advanced sequence doesn't come close to preparing a pilot for Masters. I've seen some incredible pilots comment on this thread that fly FAI and Masters with respect to feeling we should leave Advanced alone. I think we should ask some more Advanced pilots that are currently flying it, just moved into it and just moved to Masters. I do understand that these pilots that have said leave Advanced alone are seriously looking out for the interest of all patterns and how to follow the Sequence Development Guide that is the Bible for building sequences. I understand that they have much more knowledge than I do but I do fly the pattern and honestly feel Advanced is not a good preparation for Masters. As far as the loops with 1/2 rolls are concerned, I think this is a GREAT maneuver and quite fun to fly. If this is an "integrated rolling maneuver", then the Avalanche is the same. A downwind Avalanche will be difficult but it is also not that hard. You must have control of your aircraft to perform it but if this is too much to ask from an Advanced pilot, stepping in to Masters is out of the question. An Advanced pilot should have the skills to perform a downwind loop with an upwind snap. Maybe this isn't the right maneuver and I won't argue that but the elements of this maneuver should not be asking too much. I don't deny that Masters should be tough. It is, after all, the top AMA class. To continue making Masters more difficult and challenging for the seasoned veterans but not changing the class(es) that lead up to it is a mistake. Let the pilots that are flying Advanced or just leaving that class and going to Masters have some input into whether it should be changed or not from cycle to cycle. Jon Lowe is correct, the pattern will be changed for 2013/2014 as voted on by the NSRCA BoD. Now, it's a matter of all our input as to how much it will change.
Posted on: 5/22/2012 7:18 PM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11091143

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
[quote]ORIGINAL: klhoard . Maybe I'll just stop by during the Nats . . . . It is right on the way to Site 4. . . . [/quote] It's also on your way to Site 3. Move up!
Posted on: 5/22/2012 2:49 PM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11090830

RE: Proposed 2013/2014 Sequences
Gentlemen, Over the weekend, the NSRCA BoD voted to change the Advanced Sequence for 2013/2014. This makes it official. Please understand this does not mean we have accepted any of the proposed sequences; it merely means we have voted to change it. Although Masters is scheduled to be changed every two years, the NSRCA BoD must vote whether to change any of the other sequences, and that is what has taken place for Advanced. Please use this time to fly and comment on the proposed sequence from the Sequence Committee for not only Masters, but Advanced as well. Please see post #36 of this thread for contact information of the Sequence Committee. Warmest Regards, Scott
Posted on: 5/22/2012 6:23 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11090204

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
[quote]ORIGINAL: jonlowe A cross proposal to increase the weight limit would not be considered according to the rules change procedures. Here is what the rule book says about cross proposals: "Cross Proposals Cross proposals may be filed by any open class AMA member (as outlined above). Cross proposals are alternate means of accomplishing the objectives of a basic proposal which has passed the initial ballot (see Contest Board Voting section). While there is latitude in allowing alternative proposals, the original objective shall be retained. Cross proposals will not be used to introduce new rules changes or to reintroduce proposals that were defeated in the Initial Ballot. The cross proposal phase takes place in accordance with the schedule shown in exhibit C. The validity of a cross proposal shall be determined by the Chairperson and/or the Contest Board." Since no proposal to increase weight passed the Initial Ballot, there can't be a cross proposal to do that. Dave Lockhart's proposal only defines penalties for not making weight, not increasing weight. And I'd like to remind jgg215 that the contest board DID entertain raising the weight limit for Sportsman thru Advanced in the last rules cycle, and did just that. They simply declined to FURTHER raise the weight limit during this cycle. [/quote] The weight penalty was proposed by Ron Lockhart who sits on the CB. My belief is that is why there are only 10 votes compared to all the others as he should not be able to vote on his own proposal. As his proposal reads however, this would eliminate the modest 115g allowance for the lower classes and defeats why they added it in the first place. (Edited for correctness) My other concern is that I think some of y'all are misunderstanding what has happened here. The NSRCA listened to you and removed the arming plug requirement from its rule proposal to fall inline with FAI which the CB tends to follow very closely i.e. 5000g. The proposal that was accepted was a copy/paste of the original NSRCA proposal which y'all not only disliked but were pretty upset about. Now, the CB has gone against popular opinion (which, after talking to some folks, they are not required to uphold popular opinion) but have also gone above and beyond by eliminating a proposal which stays exactly inline with FAI and gone to something that will increase the weight in the model with no allowance and introduced a Safety Requirement which, by all rights, should be in the AMA Safety Code if at all. The point here is that we are not arguing that we should have an arming plug but that the CB has decided for us that is a better idea than staying inline with current FAI standards. As far as the weight issue goes, that's done with in my opinion, it was turned down. I hope the CB recognizes that Mr. Lockhart's proposal eliminates the weight allowance in the lower classes. (Edited for correctness) I do think that it's interesting however that the 5500g proposal lost by one vote. Obviously, there was some sort of interest in it.
Posted on: 5/21/2012 7:12 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11088635

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
Jon, You're right. My apologies. I did not see in the "logic" where it was defined that the "weight limit" was what was currently enforced i.e. the 115g would be good. As far as voting goes, I did not abstain but please understand I was NOT asking Mr. Lockhart to do so but I am under the impression that's what happened because there is one less vote on that proposal vs. the others. None of the 3 BoD members that were on the Rules Proposal Committee was asked to do so and in retrospect, that was probably the right thing to do. It wouldn't have affected the outcome however so I do fall back on that to sleep at night. [:)]
Posted on: 5/21/2012 7:02 AM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11088688

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
If anyone is interested, here is the initial vote. Speaking for myself, I am blown away, honestly, after all the stuff we went through that the CB voted initially to accept RC 13-7 vs. RC 13-9. I 100% understand that the CB is not necessarily there to give us what we want but to preserve pattern as appropriate but I'm still rather shocked. It is only the initial vote and we have a long ways to go. I'm confident that our CB will do what is in the best interest of pattern as a whole. Proposal Number YES NO PASS/FAIL RCA 13-1 Lachowski 3 8 FAIL RCA 13-2 McHarg 8 3 PASS RCA 13-4 McHarg 9 2 PASS RCA 13-5 McHarg 5 6 FAIL RCA 13-6 Lockhart 9 1 PASS RCA 13-7 Plummer 9 2 PASS RCA 13-8 McHarg 10 1 PASS RCA 13-9 McHarg 3 8 FAIL
Posted on: 5/18/2012 2:45 PM by Author "smcharg" in the forum "RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11086080