Glow Engine Vs. Electric Engine for 2 m' pattern plane
Grow Pattern
pattern4u at comcast.net
Wed Jun 1 04:06:44 AKDT 2005
Jerry,
I must admit that my current thinking is/was based much on where
we were as opposed to where we are now! People, like you Jerry, who are
having success, usually don't write to me talking about well their stuff is
working :-)
You took a lot of time to put the "other" side of the electric case. It made
for very good reading. I tend to be a lightening-rod for the bad news
scenarios and I must say that I really enjoyed all of the info that you
provided. If you don't mind me saying so you definitely should put together
a tech article for the KF with all of your knowledge. (The deadline is the
15th :-))
It reads well when you put the Myth vs. the Facts together like you did
below.
Thanks and regards,
Eric.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Budd" <jerry at buddengineering.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 3:35 AM
Subject: Re: Glow Engine Vs. Electric Engine for 2 m' pattern plane
> >John,
>> I think that you might agree that what appears to be working
>> for "sponsored" pilots may not yet be that realistic for those who spend
>> their own hard earned dollars on the hobby.
>
> I don't think that I agree with your assessment above and I would suggest
> that I'm as qualified as anyone to comment on this since I was the highest
> placing non-sponsored electric pilot at last years Nats. :-)
>
> As we've seen the past few days it all depends on how you do the math. If
> you're starting out from scratch with no existing support equipment it's
> nearly a push. If you're converting over from glow it can appear to be a
> bit pricey at first (watching your cherished tools and accessories become
> obsolete can be difficult to accept), but there's still an economic "break
> even" point to be realized at some point in time.
>
>>I really don't feel that electric is that viable yet. Not from a
>>technology point of view, but much more of a durability and reliability
>>point of view. I note that the pioneers are starting to use less
>>amps/volts in the motors to get more longevity out of not just the motors
>>but also the controllers and the battery packs. (A few months ago you did
>>not hear this type of statement.)
>
> I think you're missing the mark here. The reliability of the motors (at
> least with the Hacker setups) hasn't been much of an issue for most of the
> last year. And the problem with the controllers has been zero since
> switching to the Acro 90. The only real issue is battery longevity and
> from what I have seen lately (meaning witnessed with my own eyes, not
> anecdotal evidence, not "someone claims", but my own personal firsthand
> observations of the equipment in use over an extended period of time), is
> that we're really close to having the battery problems licked. The
> impedance of the newest Thunder Power batteries is now low enough that the
> batteries come out of the airplane after a flight no warmer than when you
> put them in prior to the flight. Let me repeat that - there's no
> noticeable increase in battery temperature over the course of a (F3A)
> flight. This is significant because it means that the battery is now
> being operated with some margin and isn't being pushed to it's limit,
> which means a likely increase in battery life expectancy. This is huge.
>
> As far as the reliability of electric vs glow is concerned it really isn't
> even a debatable point anymore. A properly configured electric setup is
> (IMHO) probably an order of magnitude more reliable than the best glow
> setup. Maybe even better than that, time will tell.
>
>>I also note that it feels like and may well be true, that you have to know
>>a lot more about the limits of electric motors and the associated
>>equipment to be successful and safe. I contact many of the "electric"
>>suppliers and find it very hard to get definitive answers on what I should
>>and should not do as regards the set-ups and the limits.
>
> The equipment suppliers can't help much because (for the most part) they
> don't know as much about this as we do. Most of them don't fly pattern
> and they are relying on us, those who chose to give electric a go, to tell
> them what works and what doesn't. For the last 20 years or so pattern has
> fallen behind wrt pushing the technology, compared to R/C cars and
> helicopters. Prior to that pattern was where all the latest "whiz bang"
> developments could be found. For the first time in a long time pattern is
> now pushing a technology (electric power) harder and farther than anything
> else in use. Some of the other areas that push electric technology such
> as the electric FAI events are impressive in their own right, but they
> pale in comparison to what we now expect out of our equipment to fly
> pattern with an electric plane.
>
>>Where this leads me is that I am currently on the side of caution with
>>this stuff because you can use up a very large amount of money before you
>>realize that you have not gone the right route. With glow most of us can
>>sort out the enthusiast vs. the zealot vs. the professional user of the
>>equipment. With electric I can't.
>
> That's only because you have some experience with glow setups to balance
> against the BS that someone may try to feed you (and there's a lot of that
> out there with glow motors to contend with). I would submit that the
> electric is much easier to setup since there's fewer variables to contend
> with. In essence, it's a far simpler setup to install, support, and
> troubleshoot. As far as the professional user is concerned, there's only
> three fully sponsored pilots in the US flying electric: Jason, QuiQue, and
> Chip (Frackowiak isn't fully sponsored, he buys most of his electric
> equipment, some of it at a discount, some of it at street prices like many
> of us). Of those four Jason is active in this forum and has been very
> open about the setups he's used the past couple of years. QuiQue isn't
> active here, and he's played around with the electric 3D stuff for a
> while, but the electric pattern setup is still relatively new to him.
> Chip just flew his first contest with an electric Genesis at Vegas a week
> and a half ago, to be honest he's the newbie among the group and likely
> knows the least about the ins and outs of it all. Frackowiak has been
> flying, and competing, with his ePartner in F3A since January 2004, and he
> now has something like 700 flights on the airplane (I only flew it for 3
> weeks last summer, including at the Nats, and some people consider me an
> expert on it!). Tony is far and away the most experienced electric
> pattern competitor out there and he's been pretty open about sharing what
> he's doing with anyone who (legitimately) wants to know. Also, there's
> loads of info on RCU on what Frack has experienced with his "conversion"
> to electric, all you have to do is Google it.
>
>>I read about the rave reviews of how well a certain system performs and
>>then I get the flow of private e-mails with more factual and less glowing
>>(No joke intended) realities of the set-up. In most cases I can't print
>>what I am sent but it does concern me that when I tried to emulate the top
>>system of the day it was both expensive beyond my expectations and did not
>>perform all that well.
>
> I have no idea what setups you've been looking at but I can say this with
> absolute certainty. The setup that Frack's been using in the ePartner for
> the last 16 months (Hacker C50-14XL6.7-1, Hacker Acro 90 controller,
> APC22x12e prop) with the Thunder Power Pro Lite 10s3p 6000 cells has
> significantly more vertical performance than ANY other 2M plane I have
> seen to date, my Webra 160 powered E=MC3 on Magnum #1 included. And
> that's saying a lot, my E=MC3 on Magnum #1 is pretty spectacular but the
> ePartner is better. And the new 5300's that TP has are lower impedance
> yet which means even better flight performance (not that it matters
> anymore). I will likely be flying a pair of electric powered Abbra's at
> the Nats this year in Masters. They'll be electric because my experience
> suggests that electric is better than glow, and well, see my last comment
> below.
>
> BTW - In case anyone is wondering, I'm not sponsored by anyone, in any way
> (other than my wife, Rosana, and our two dogs, Buster & Millie). I pay
> for all my stuff, including fuel, so you can take what I write for what
> it's worth (although Horizon did tell me to keep the Webra 160 I borrowed
> from them for the 2003 Nats).
>
>>It was not enough to put me off pattern, but I had been a beginner it
>>might easily have sent me away.
>
> Interestingly, what we've seen out here at some meets in California is
> somewhat the opposite. There's been an interest in flying pattern being
> shown by pilots who've never flown a glow airplane before. They're
> interested in flying precision aerobatics, but not if they have to mess
> with a glow or ignition motor to do so.
>
> One last point. Outside of the Abbra's I don't even own any other
> electric planes, not even a "foamie". So it's not like I'm anti-glow or
> anything like that. I just like winning. ;-)
>
> Thx, Jerry
> --
> ___________
> Jerry Budd
> Budd Engineering
> (661) 722-5669 Voice/Fax
> (661) 435-0358 Cell Phone
> mailto:jerry at buddengineering.com
> http://www.buddengineering.com
> =================================================
> To access the email archives for this list, go to
> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
>
> List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the
> list.
>
=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.
List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list