Motor Costs Comparison

[Andre Bouchard]

I think electrics have a lot of potential, but one thing I have not heard
anyone address is the practicality of flying as much as one typically does
using an IC engine.  During the summer months I typically fly 4-6
flights/day (about 1.5 patterns each), 5 days/week--at least that is what it
takes for this 47 year-old to keep up in FAI.  Since like most folks I work,
my time at the flying field is limited.  My time investment is usually 1-1/2
to 3 hours.  From what I have seen written one ~6000 mAh Lipo is good for
about one P-pattern plus some, and since all current Lipo's take at least 1
hour to charge (more like 1.5-2.0), it appears I would nearly as many $700
battery packs as flights I wanted to fly (assuming some field charging).

Upshot: One's flying habits need to be factored into the operational cost
estimate.  You would also have to factor in the need for multiple chargers
to avoid baby-sitting batteries all night, each night.

Does anyone have another perspective on this (other than if I had more
talent I would not need to fly as much!)?

Regards,

Andre Bouchard


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jerry Budd" <jbudd at QNET.COM>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: Motor Costs Comparison


> Vince,
>
> I don't think that's a good assumption at all right now.  In the
> month prior to the Nats this year I went through three battery packs
> (fortunately they were all covered under warranty and Thunder Power
> quickly replaced them with new).  Once at the Nats I made a few
> changes to the cooling, changed out the motor and speed controller
> with new zero time spares, and had no further problems.  In fact, I
> flew all but one of my contest flights at the Nats with the same new
> battery pack (in round 3 of the finals I had to use another pack
> because of the short turn time between flights).
>
> I do think we'll get there with respect to battery reliability and
> longevity, but by no means are we there now.  Maybe by the end of the
> year or sometime next.
>
> I've had no failures during charging IMO because I'm so anal about
> tracking battery temps and voltages post-flight (most of which I
> learned from Tony Frackowiak).  If something looks out of place I set
> it aside in favor of another pack and send in the questionable pack
> (most of the time it's pretty obvious when something's gone wrong).
> Also, even though all of my failures occurred in flight, I've never
> "lost" a flight akin to a deadstick landing or a flameout with a glow
> setup.  I noticed a drop in power, but never a complete system
> failure.  While typically I immediately landed, in most cases I could
> have continued the flight by managing the reduction in power with
> smaller more compact maneuvers than I might have otherwise chosen to
> fly.  I think most people who saw me fly at the Nats would tell you
> that I made NO attempt to fly small, so downsizing maneuver geometry
> a bit to finish a flight isn't at all unrealistic.  FWIW - I don't
> recommend continuing to fly with a failed battery (really a damaged
> cell) as a matter of practice due to the possibility (albet low) of
> the cell catching fire in flight.
>
> The above experiences were gained over 49 flights with Tony F.'s
> ePartner during the month immediately prior to, and including the
> week of the Nats.  Tony has well over 300 flights on the ePartner
> since first flight in January, and he's had more problems that I did
> (he's failed at least one controller and one motor in flight), but
> understand he's been pushing the technology harder than anyone.
> Jason did it first and vividly demonstrated the potential.  Tony's
> been demonstrating the viability.  There are completely different
> issues associated with the later that take time (meaning a whole
> lotta flights) to fully "flush out".
>
> BTW - Thunder Power and Hacker Brushless USA have both been great at
> supporting us in this endeavor, not charging for repairs or
> replacement, even when it's unclear what caused the failure, the
> electronics or the batteries (sometimes it's hard to separate the
> cause from the effect, or even which is which).  And FWIW, I'm not
> sponsored by either.
>
> Note to Robert Gainey:  In the above paragraph, substitute "chicken"
> for "cause" and "egg" for "effect".  That'll make it easier for you
> to follow.   : )
>
> Thx, Jerry
>
>
> >Bob:
> >
> >Good job.  It will be very nice to get the the electric option in
> >your spreadsheet.  I think is fare to assume that the battery will
> >last about a year.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Vince
> >
> >-------------- Original message --------------
> >
> >Had some questions from the last contest, so decided to do a little
> >spreadsheet. Just comparing operation of the YS 1.40 DZ to the OS
> >1.60 (performance being roughly equal, according to feedback I've
> >received from observers of my setup).
> >Not starting some battle; just providing some information that some
> >may find helpful.
>
><http://www.rcaerobats.net/MotorCostComparison.htm>http://www.rcaerobats.ne
t/MotorCostComparison.htm
> >
> >Bob Pastorello
> ><mailto:rcaerobob at cox.net>rcaerobob at cox.net
> ><http://www.rcaerobats.net/>www.rcaerobats.net
>
>
> -- 
> ___________
> Jerry Budd
> mailto:jbudd at qnet.com
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
>
>


=====================================
# To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.