Page 15 of 21
Re: Helicopters C
Posted: February 10th, 2017, 4:15 am
by Bluejet1179
_deltaV wrote:Just to give some perspective, teams were breaking 2:30 at Cornell. At MIT, one team in the time block before me broke something like 2:30 and another team seemed really excited about that. My time of :58 didn't break the top 30 and 1:17 from our B team didn't break the top 20. I think at Nationals this year we're going to see at least one or two teams breaking 3:45. IMHO, at this point 2:00 is the minimum time needed to stay competitive when teams are breaking 2:30 this early in the season
Did you have logs at MIT? I competed at MIT and got 8th with a time of 1:05 and completed logs. Is there really a 20 place gap for 7 seconds?
Re: Helicopters C
Posted: February 10th, 2017, 5:49 am
by Bazinga+
Bluejet1179 wrote:_deltaV wrote:Just to give some perspective, teams were breaking 2:30 at Cornell. At MIT, one team in the time block before me broke something like 2:30 and another team seemed really excited about that. My time of :58 didn't break the top 30 and 1:17 from our B team didn't break the top 20. I think at Nationals this year we're going to see at least one or two teams breaking 3:45. IMHO, at this point 2:00 is the minimum time needed to stay competitive when teams are breaking 2:30 this early in the season
Did you have logs at MIT? I competed at MIT and got 8th with a time of 1:05 and completed logs. Is there really a 20 place gap for 7 seconds?
Weird, we got 9th with around 1:35 with logs no bonus.
Re: Helicopters C
Posted: February 10th, 2017, 7:45 am
by RJohnson
Was at a competition this past weekend. First place was recorded as 230 seconds, second place as 142. Not sure if first was a mistake or an incredible flight. Don't know about bonus on either one.
Re: Helicopters C
Posted: February 10th, 2017, 9:05 pm
by P2P
Are you sure it's not 2:30?
3 minutes 50 seconds is a really long time...
Re: Helicopters C
Posted: February 12th, 2017, 12:04 pm
by dhdarren
RJohnson wrote:Was at a competition this past weekend. First place was recorded as 230 seconds, second place as 142. Not sure if first was a mistake or an incredible flight. Don't know about bonus on either one.
Could I ask which competition this was? And I agree with P2P, 2:30 seems much more likely than 230 seconds.
Re: Helicopters C
Posted: February 12th, 2017, 1:48 pm
by daydreamer0023
Bazinga+ wrote:Bluejet1179 wrote:_deltaV wrote:Just to give some perspective, teams were breaking 2:30 at Cornell. At MIT, one team in the time block before me broke something like 2:30 and another team seemed really excited about that. My time of :58 didn't break the top 30 and 1:17 from our B team didn't break the top 20. I think at Nationals this year we're going to see at least one or two teams breaking 3:45. IMHO, at this point 2:00 is the minimum time needed to stay competitive when teams are breaking 2:30 this early in the season
Did you have logs at MIT? I competed at MIT and got 8th with a time of 1:05 and completed logs. Is there really a 20 place gap for 7 seconds?
Weird, we got 9th with around 1:35 with logs no bonus.
What models were used by the winning teams at MIT and Cornell? Freedom Flight without modification? Modified FFM? Or the conventional X rotor design? Just curious.
Re: Helicopters C
Posted: February 12th, 2017, 3:55 pm
by AznPr0d1gy
If there is a time of 230, theres gotta be some dude breaking the bank to hire a team of engineers. And even then, I'm not sure they can achieve that due to limitations of the rubber itself.
Re: Helicopters C
Posted: February 12th, 2017, 4:38 pm
by BuildingFriend
Cornell isn't a good metric for winning times now- we achieved fourth place with a 4 am build session off a partial kit using wooden rotors. Most teams are using a modified FFM kit or traditional FFM kit. I believe 2:30 is a reasonable time- if anything some teams are shooting for 2:45 (after bonus calculation). However I think that is impossible and 2:30-2:35 will be a national winning/placing time. I only know of one team not using FFM kit and achieving sub 2 minute times.
Re: Helicopters C
Posted: February 12th, 2017, 5:30 pm
by Bazinga+
AznPr0d1gy wrote:If there is a time of 230, theres gotta be some dude breaking the bank to hire a team of engineers. And even then, I'm not sure they can achieve that due to limitations of the rubber itself.
I have achieved sub-2:30 times, and think we can still do better. I will try to post a video as soon as I get another chance to test on a high ceiling. I honestly think nationals times could surpass 3 minutes.
Re: Helicopters C
Posted: February 12th, 2017, 7:06 pm
by AznPr0d1gy
I was the one that won Berkeley with a 2 min 28s time. The ceiling was around 5 meters tall. I can definitely see myself breaking 3 minutes once I get things up and running.