News:


Advertise Here

  • January 17, 2022, 12:05:36 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: electric carrier rules  (Read 347 times)

Offline Melvin Schuette

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 26
electric carrier rules
« on: December 08, 2021, 02:30:29 PM »
Okay I will open the conversation regarding how to determine the class of a plane used in all of the electric Navy Carrier events is determined by the weight of the airplane including the battery.  To me this rule is a joke.  If weight of the airplane is the only determining factor then why don't you all any internal combustion engine to be used in any class of carrier as long as it meets the weight requirement.  To me the limiting factor should be the weight of the battery.  This would limit the about of power you would have available.  You would have to choose between higher voltage, but lower mah or lower voltage and more mah.

Online Mark wood

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 688
  • I'm here purely for the fun of it.
Re: electric carrier rules
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2021, 04:09:13 PM »
Okay I will open the conversation regarding how to determine the class of a plane used in all of the electric Navy Carrier events is determined by the weight of the airplane including the battery.  To me this rule is a joke.  If weight of the airplane is the only determining factor then why don't you all any internal combustion engine to be used in any class of carrier as long as it meets the weight requirement.  To me the limiting factor should be the weight of the battery.  This would limit the about of power you would have available.  You would have to choose between higher voltage, but lower mah or lower voltage and more mah.

I'm not a carrier guy but 90 percent of the guys I grew up in control line with were so I spent a lot of time around them and I get it. It's just not my thing. So the IC rules state Class I max engine size .4028 max and weight 4 pounds and Class II max engine size .6500 and 4 pounds. The airplane could very well be the same exact airplane with two different power plants. Translate this to electric. Class I is maximum weight 3.5 pounds and Class II 4.5 pounds. With the same exact airplane that would allow an additional 1 pound for motor, battery and ESC. On the face of it, the appearance to me is this is within the same guise of IC except that the electric has more potential differential in power between the classes. The premise of the objection, as I interpret it, is that shouldn't the rules state specifically the battery limitations? My assessment is that how the current rules are written pretty much do exactly that.

The lighter weight of Class I is a defacto limit on the battery and power system when compared to Class II. Class II by this definition will always be able to have more powerful powerplant systems. It leaves the combinations open to the builder pilot. A specific really good Class II power plant could, for instance be put inside of a good performing Class I airplane that was made a pound lighter and kick booty. For a little while. Then someone would take that airplane and put a new bigger powerplant in that new littler Class I airplane and kick booty in Class II. Eventually this cycle would reach limits and the two classes would reach separate but distinct stasis.

The regulatory options lets say restart with the two E classes being the same as the IC classes. Each airplane can be 4 pounds. Then how does the CD confirm the power plant? How would the definition be done? In free flight it is done by governing the total energy expended. That technology doesn't exist for Carrier at this time to my knowledge. Do it by battery voltage and storage? Using the propeller as the constraint would be a very good way of limiting the power. That could be done but it is highly restrictive. Especially when compared to the traditional carrier events which basically say bring it with a forty or a sixty. In E class if it's under 3.5 run in Class I over Class II. As a CD I'd prefer to keep it simple.
Life is good AMA 1488
Why do we fly? We are practicing, you might say, what it means to be alive...  -Richard Bach
“Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that’s not why we do it.” – Richard P. Feynman

Online Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12194
Re: electric carrier rules
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2021, 10:32:54 PM »
I mostly agree with you, except that the 'lectric thing is still new enough that we're absolutely guaranteed to need some fumbling around with the rules before we figure out the best way to get reasonably-priced competition machinery that doesn't need a PhD to make or operate (which is, in my mind, the whole point of a rule book in any motor sport).

It's a start, and after a couple of years folks can refine the rules.

(For 'lectric speed I suspect you _do_ want to limit the battery weight, or the weight of battery, ESC, and motor taken as a group -- but all the rules that I've pondered for 'lectric speed just point to it being an event where you use up one battery per flight, just like top fuel dragsters need an engine rebuild after one run).
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Online Mark wood

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 688
  • I'm here purely for the fun of it.
Re: electric carrier rules
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2021, 07:19:21 AM »
I mostly agree with you, except that the 'lectric thing is still new enough that we're absolutely guaranteed to need some fumbling around with the rules before we figure out the best way to get reasonably-priced competition machinery that doesn't need a PhD to make or operate (which is, in my mind, the whole point of a rule book in any motor sport).

It's a start, and after a couple of years folks can refine the rules.

(For 'lectric speed I suspect you _do_ want to limit the battery weight, or the weight of battery, ESC, and motor taken as a group -- but all the rules that I've pondered for 'lectric speed just point to it being an event where you use up one battery per flight, just like top fuel dragsters need an engine rebuild after one run).

Yeah_Lectric Speed_ almost as cool as jet speed. I don't wish to tread too deeply into the rule debates although I could likely be caught easily in the speed vortex. However a maximum weight limit is a defacto limitation on the batteries. Well, the reality is that the airframes will self limit in a spectacular way themselves. Given a overall limiting weight, the weight bias will reach a structural minimum while that bias pushes towards the powperplant and eventually reach a practical limit once exceeded catastrophic failure will occur. Both Carier and Speed are performance oriented events relying heavily on the powerplant, speed being  Top Fuel and Carrier being Funny car  or the Reno Unlimited class analogs. IMO both should be regulated with the minimal amount of rules as necessary and the primary focus of regulation be safety oriented.  Placing too many rules early in the development of the event would restrict the progress. Eventually a profile class and sport classes will evolve. Let those take on the limitations and restrictions.

Lectric is The Way...

Life is good AMA 1488
Why do we fly? We are practicing, you might say, what it means to be alive...  -Richard Bach
“Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that’s not why we do it.” – Richard P. Feynman

Offline bill bischoff

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1512
Re: electric carrier rules
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2021, 07:51:00 AM »
 I think the point is this: In IC classes, you are limited by displacement: in electric classes, you are limited by weight. You can use as powerful a system as the weight will allow. This is not the case in IC. Following the logic in electric, if I can build 60 powered plane that's under 3.5 lbs ready to fly, I should be able to fly it in class I.

How you define classes in electric is somewhat arbitrary. I think the simplest way would be by battery voltage (cell count). It's really only an issue if you try to combine IC and electric in the same event, so don't! Use record-ratio scoring if you aren't going to provide separate awards.


Bill Bischoff

Offline john vlna

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1306
Re: electric carrier rules
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2021, 08:13:24 AM »
sorry Melvin, but the rule does work. The power you get from an electric system depends on the size of battery, bigger battery,more weight, more power.. I have flown electric carrier for about 6 years now and I believe it works and is comparable to the glow classes. They have an overall weight limit, and in electric it is the same thing. I don't see a problem.

John

Online Mark wood

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 688
  • I'm here purely for the fun of it.
Re: electric carrier rules
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2021, 09:35:35 AM »
I think the point is this: In IC classes, you are limited by displacement: in electric classes, you are limited by weight. You can use as powerful a system as the weight will allow. This is not the case in IC. Following the logic in electric, if I can build 60 powered plane that's under 3.5 lbs ready to fly, I should be able to fly it in class I.

How you define classes in electric is somewhat arbitrary. I think the simplest way would be by battery voltage (cell count). It's really only an issue if you try to combine IC and electric in the same event, so don't! Use record-ratio scoring if you aren't going to provide separate awards.


Bill Bischoff

The events aren't combined within the rulebook. The logic of using a .60 in Class I as an example isn't truly valid as the classes limit the power by displacement. In electric that could also be done but would be hugely difficult to enforce. So, for electric this is done by weight. In reality the weight method for electric is no different than displacement in IC. In IC the limits are weight of the airplane and displacement, no limit is placed on how much fuel can be used , however over the run a .60 will consume more fuel than a .40.  Weighing the airplane at the beginning of the run the Class II airplane will weigh more than the Class I due to the amount of fuel onboard. The amount of energy contained within that fuel is will determine the outcome of the run. Less fuel, less available energy, less work can be performed therefore less performance.  The displacement and it's conversion efficiency limits how much of that energy can be used. So, in essence, the displacement limit in turn limits the amount of fuel and the result is a defacto maximum weight limit.  Putting more fuel onboard wouldn't result in any better performance. The weight of the fuel divided by the energy content is the energy density.

So take that concept to Electric and figure out two things. One how much energy (power) would be allowed and two how to enforce it. Cell count alone does not do that and then we transition to cell plus storage capacity (MAH). So we have a "good rule" max 4 cells and 220MAH storage. The question, how do I as CD enforce these? The TP 4s 220MAH battery is a different package the a HS 4s 2200MAH which is different than an HRB 4s 220MAH battery. Me and my helpers will need a long ever changing list of approved batteries. Enter energy density. The LiPo chemistry has a specific energy density of 50-70 Wh (Watt Hour)/Kg or 180-252 WS (Watt Second)/gram , therefore I could weigh the battery. It's at this point the relevance of voltage becomes somewhat mute. 

Remember the above IC regulation vs performance. A really good nitro/methanol fueled glow engine produces about 7 Hp per cubic inch or 7 x 745.7 = 5,219.9 watts per cubic inch. A .60 sized engine then has .6 x 5,219.9 = 3,131.9 Watts output. I'm not in touch with the current speeds and time for the completion of the course but assume it takes 15 seconds to complete the high speed course. This would result in the engine producing 3,131.9 W x 15 S = 46,979 Watt Seconds (joules) over the run. We could translate this to a battery but we'd have to account for some efficiency losses and the engine efficiency is in the 40% zone converting fuel energy in to thrust energy so to complete this part of the run would need 46,979 Ws / 0.4 = 117,447.5 Ws seconds of fuel.

This could be translated in to a battery definition and this is would be how it reads - The Class II battery is limited to an energy capacity of 120,000 Ws. Okay so this definition is now nearly identical to the IC Class II definition as it is derived from the IC performance over the run. We could go further and say the empty weigh of the Class II airplane is 3.5 pounds minus fuel or battery. So I now have two rules to define the electric version of Class II and one definitions of the IC Class II airplane. Seems unfair to me, but wait..   

We are still left without a good method of enforcing the rules. How do I limit the battery? I could use the list method or I could use the energy density method. Using this I can take the range of battery performance and specify the lower performing battery as my standard 180 Watt Seconds per gram. Take the 120,000 Ws seconds required for the course  and divide by the energy density and I get the weight of the battery. That, as a CD, I can measure and enforce. So, 120,000 WS /180 WS/g = 667 grams. Just over a pound..!! This result causes me to ask why would I need to weigh the battery separately form the airplane and just add it to the maximum airplane weight.  There ya go, the Class II electric derived from the IC Class II event. The 4.5 pound wieght limit on the E Class II makes perfect sense. 
Life is good AMA 1488
Why do we fly? We are practicing, you might say, what it means to be alive...  -Richard Bach
“Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that’s not why we do it.” – Richard P. Feynman

Online Peter Mazur

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 131
Re: electric carrier rules
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2021, 11:23:31 AM »
The electric navy carrier events have been official AMA events for nine years and unofficial events under nearly identical rules for about five years before that. So the events aren’t exactly “new.”  As John Vlna has pointed out, the events work well under the present rules. The rules are easy for the CD to enforce and for the contestants to understand and work with. There are no “tricks” that will allow someone to leap ahead in performance. Performance comes from selecting hardware (motors, speed controllers, batteries, props, etc.) and from building and flying skills. The scores for electric events are pretty similar to those for gas events, although the scores for the gas events at the highest levels of competition are higher than for electric because they are not usually limited by the amount of fuel carried. Competition in combined events can, if desired, use record ratio. In short, the rules for the electric events, like those for the gas events, meet the needs of competition very well. I don’t think that changes to the rules are needed, and any major changes that obsolete existing equipment would be harmful to the events.

Pete

Offline john e. holliday

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 21937
Re: electric carrier rules
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2021, 03:52:09 PM »
The best thing to help an event is to see what is being used.  What helps the most is getting out and practicing after you do get the equipment.  Back when I was winning locally no one wanted or could afford the McCoy Red Head 60 with Bill Johnson throttle set up.  The Sterling Gaurdian was kit of choice.   Also hanging a plane was not mastered yet.   I still remember Jim Finley checking watches after I posted a score low speed of 25 mph on one of the windy days at Wichita.  If I had got out and practiced more especially after getting a Rossi 60 I may have done better.  Not too many people want to hang onto a screaming 60 to launch for a person.   Still have my McCoy 60 but it needs a lot of work from sitting too long.  My excuse is I need more practice, not rule changes. R%%%%
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530  Have fun as I have and I am still breaking a record.

Online Mark wood

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 688
  • I'm here purely for the fun of it.
Re: electric carrier rules
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2021, 03:56:41 PM »
The best thing to help an event is to see what is being used.  What helps the most is getting out and practicing after you do get the equipment.  Back when I was winning locally no one wanted or could afford the McCoy Red Head 60 with Bill Johnson throttle set up.  The Sterling Gaurdian was kit of choice.   Also hanging a plane was not mastered yet.   I still remember Jim Finley checking watches after I posted a score low speed of 25 mph on one of the windy days at Wichita.  If I had got out and practiced more especially after getting a Rossi 60 I may have done better.  Not too many people want to hang onto a screaming 60 to launch for a person.   Still have my McCoy 60 but it needs a lot of work from sitting too long.  My excuse is I need more practice, not rule changes. R%%%%

Like I said, I was never really a carrier guy but that never stopped me from leaving the speed or racing circle to help. I'd hang on to either the McCoy or the Rossi. I remember that McCoy setup.
Life is good AMA 1488
Why do we fly? We are practicing, you might say, what it means to be alive...  -Richard Bach
“Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that’s not why we do it.” – Richard P. Feynman

Offline john vlna

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1306
Re: electric carrier rules
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2021, 08:45:04 PM »
I think when it comes down to the electric rules, look at it this way. The AMA glow classes have weight limits, and so do the electric events. The glow events have a displacement restriction. The determining factor with electric is the size ( weight) of the battery. In electric the weight of the battery is just included in the overall planes weight,So what's the problem? Carrier has always had weight as factor in the event. Electric only has weight, no displacement. But in glow the weight of the motor is not the determining factor, the displacement is, so both must be included, but since battery weight is the determining factor for electrics it is included in the overall weight.


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here