Electric Pattern

[gwright]

I've intentionally stayed out of this even though I have quite a bit of info
on what's went on in this endeavour. I saw all the negative comments which I
don't understand. Jason's found something that gives him an advantage in his
opinion (and When Chip flew Jason's planes a couple weekends ago he strongly
agreed), so why does everyone knock something they don't understand??

I've been flying the C50's in stuff now for almost a year (no I don't fly
pattern, at least not yet <G>). They're far more reliable than glow, and
with the lithium packs, flights are longer, and power to weight of the power
system is as good or can actually be far better,..  depending on prop and
gearing. More initial expense, yes,... but anything that comes along that
surpasses the old technology is usually more expensive for a while.

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Don Livermore
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:55 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Electric Pattern


Gary,
That is great information and a lot of it..Thanks, Don Livermore
----- Original Message -----
From: "gwright" <gwright at cfl.rr.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 8:52 PM
Subject: RE: Electric Pattern


> Its a hacker C50 acro motor, I think they finalized on the 13 turn motor.
> It's geared 6.7 to one, and he's using 10 series, 3 parallel thunder power
> lithium polymer batteries. That comes to 42 volts unloaded, the fai max I
> believe, and at 68 amps at full throttle it's about 34 volts, or
equivalent
> to 35 or so nicad/nimh at that level. Total capacity is 6150mah and flight
> time is about 20 minutes. At first, 4-parallel were being used, but since
> close to 1/2 hour flights weren't really needed <G>, they went down to 3
> parallel and tested to see that the packs could handle the loading, which
> they can. full throttle is 2300 watts, which equates to a bit over 3
> horsepower, but with the larg prop, thrust is far better than you get with
a
> lot more horsepower with a "little" 18 inch prop.  Lots of research went
> into this, and a couple of us have been testing the C50 motors for almost
a
> year (I flew one of the originals in my funtana at the TOC demos). I'm
using
> the thunder powers in most everything, so 20 to 30 minute flight times
with
> my 3D planes is common (some are 48" span, "40 size", and some are 80~88
> inch span, so they're not little parkflyers).
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Henderson,Eric
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:23 PM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Electric Pattern
>
>
> I would be most interested in which  cells being used and which Hacker. I
> have a fairly capable electric pattern but it only lasts 5 minutes on 20
> cells..
>
> Also charging of the li-poly's? is not known to me etc..
>
> Eric.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Zapata, Lisandro
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 5:40 PM
> To: 'discussion at nsrca.org'
> Subject: RE: Poland - electrics
>
>
> Who said that electric technology is not proven:
> check Jason 'fliying silent'
> http://www.rccraze.com/newpattern.mpg
>
> What I see is more than enough power. which is what mater for power plant.
> Arturo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juhler at bellsouth.net [mailto:juhler at bellsouth.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 3:49 PM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: re: Poland - electrics
>
>
> Dave,
>
> Yes.  They are there cause how well they flew.  What I am saying is, I
think
> it is wrong for them to use proven method's to get to the show, then
switch
> out equipment to highlight a new technology or to meet sponsor needs after
> getting there.
>
> I guess basically what I am saying, is; it is not fair to the guys they
beat
> out by using their normal equipment, then risking a poor showing at the
> world to display new technology.  If the new technology is such a good
idea,
> and will not hurt them performance wise, then use it to get to the worlds,
> not just at the worlds.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
>
> ============# To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
>
>
>
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
>
>


=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#



=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#