Motor Costs Comparison

[Koenig, Tom]

Andre'

Very very good points and I have thoughts along the same lines. I am still sitting on the fence with electrics, leaning heavily towards them however.

I wished I could fly as much as you however...and flying FAI vs being competitive in FAI is another story. I fully believe you in that to be competitive one MUST fly every second day as a minimum. This is something I need to do to get back to form and hence I haven't jumped to electrics ...yet.

best regards

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Andre Bouchard
Sent: Friday, 17 September 2004 12:33 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Motor Costs Comparison


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.



************************************************************************
*PLEASE NOTE*  This email and any attachments may
be confidential. If received in error, please delete all
copies and advise the sender. The reproduction or
dissemination of this email or its attachments is
prohibited without the consent of the sender.

WARNING RE VIRUSES:  Our computer systems sweep
outgoing email to guard against viruses, but no warranty
is given that this email or its attachments are virus free.
Before opening or using attachments, please check for
viruses.  Our liability is limited to the re-supply of any
affected attachments.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views of the
organisation.
************************************************************************
==================# To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.