[NSRCA-discussion] Electric vs. Glow

Fri Feb 17 13:32:47 AKST 2006

I'll throw something else in the mix which you can't put a price on. Loss of 
hearing due to exposure time to noise generated from internal combustion 
motors and the risk of cancer associated with the exposure to the fuel which 
we come in contact with.

Of course on the electric side, you have risk of fire.

Let's throw in one more benefit in the electric direction, a big one, 
keeping flying sites. Not to start a war here, but I've heard of a number of 
fields over the last 5 yrs being lost or restricted in one way or another 
because of loud IMAC style airplanes. Ask Dave Lockhart, because of some 
IMAC planes he has had to by necessity to resort to flying electric in order 
to take advantage of using a field local to him in the weekday evening 
hours.

Del, glow fuel manufacturers don't guarantee their fuel why should the 
battery mfg. Like the glow setup it is all up to the individual to 
operate/maintain his equipment within the parameters they are designed to 
operate. I've read enough on the web and magazines to now feel confident 
that in most cases if you properly use and maintain your electric equipment 
you should be able to get several hundred flights out of a pack. 
Unfortunately, in our application we are on the bleeding edge and the jury 
is still out. There are some who have over a hundred flights on a flight 
pack already. Only time will tell and the technology still keeps improving. 
On the downside, for some, if you don't fly several hundred flights a year 
on your pattern rig, it is not worth it to fly electric due to battery shelf 
life.

yada yada yada<g>

>From: vicenterc at comcast.net
>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>,        NSRCA 
>Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>CC: DaveL322 at comcast.net
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric vs. Glow
>Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:54:52 +0000
>
>Hi Dave,
>
>Yes, it is evident that electric systems maintenance cost is less than 
>internal combustion engines.  Let's put a number to maintenance.  I know 
>for 2C.  I usually fly 300 flights per year.  I will say that I spend the 
>following in a year.  Of course, this is a rough approximation (my starter 
>is 15 years old and still running well):
>
>Glow drivers: replace one battery per year + glow clips = ~$40/yr
>Engine parts (Pump+rings or other parts) = ~$100/yr
>Additional labor (could be a bigger number for some) for me in the hobby 
>around = $160/yr
>
>Total is:  about $ $300/yr.  This add around $1 per flight.  The electric 
>would have some maintenance less say 20% of the glow maintenance cost.  
>Therefore, the new number including maintenance cost is for glow 
>$2.64/flight.  For electric would be around $7.60/flight.  Including 
>operational and maintenance costs the electric is about 2.87 more expensive 
>than glow assuming that the life of the battery is 100 cycles.  Clearly the 
>life of the battery or the initial cost is driven the electric cost.  I 
>would say that when the batteries gives around 150-200 cycles it would be 
>the right time in my  case to switch.  Base on the little information 
>floating around the life of the batteries could be lower than 100 cycles.  
>Of course if the battery manufacturers are willing to give warranty that is 
>close to the one we get for car batteries this economic analysis will 
>change.  This is pure economic analysis, it is clear to me that for high 
>level pilots electric is definitive strong adva!
>  ntage and could be one or two spot difference in final contest results.  
>For sponsored pilots there is no way to put dollar value since they are 
>getting free equipment.
>
>VB
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>From: DaveL322 at comcast.net
>
>And the cost of support equipment - glow drivers, electric starters.  
>Support equipment for the electrics is less prone to wear/tear and need to 
>be repaired/replaced.
>
>And then the cost of maintaining the powerplants themselves - Properly 
>setup and maintained electrics need little or no maintenance.  And then 
>there is the time savings (different people will put a different value on 
>their time) of not having to do the additional maintenance for the glow.
>
>Dave
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>From: "Rick Kent" <knowhow3 at bellsouth.net>
>That may be true if you're considering fuel costs only. I would think it's 
>fair to factor in the savings realized by not having to frequently 
>repair/replace your airframe and radio equipment from vibration induced 
>wear and damage as well.
>
>Rick
>
>-------Original Message-------
>
>From: vicenterc at comcast.net
>Date: 02/17/06 15:22:08
>To: NSRCA Mailing List; 'NSRCA Mailing List'
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fuel Weight
>
>I spend around $15 per gallon (20% nitro, 2C).  That means that the cost 
>per oz is about $0.12/oz.  I spend about 14 oz to fly the Master schedule 
>with normal winds.  In Muncie we should use around 16 oz (2C engines).  
>This means that the glow fuel cost is about $1.64/flight.  For electric, 
>the question is how many cycles is the average life of the batteries?  
>Let's make it easier and assume that the average life is 100 cycles.  This 
>means that the cost per fly would be $7.40/flight.  Clearly, electric is 
>4.5 times more expensive assuming that 100 cycles is correct compared with 
>2C engines.  My personal conclusion is: I will wait until the battery 
>manufactures give us at least equal guaranty that we get when we buy 
>batteries for cars.
>
>Regards,
>
>Vince
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>From: "Michael Laggis" <fishgod at pobox.mtaonline.net>
>
>It may be cheaper in the end, but laying out the $$$ to get started is the 
>hard thing.(4 sets of batteries, chargers, power supplies/generator).
>
>Michael Laggis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl Haury
>Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 9:56 AM
>To: NSRCA Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fuel Weight
>
>
>
>Nat
>
>Electricity is a whole lot cheaper than glow fuel - it's just the darn 
>tanks that are expensive (and heavy)!
>
>Earl
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Nat Penton
>To: NSRCA Mailing List
>Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 12:12 PM
>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fuel Weight
>
>
>24oz is .1875 gallons. Nitro fuel weighs about 7.5# / gal. The fuel weight 
>would be 22.5oz, but, a pound and a half is close enough for government 
>work.
>
>I didn't look up the weight of electrons, but one of my battery packs 
>weighs 2.5lb and cost $740 and I still think electric is cheaper ------- 
>and, it doesen't take creative accounting.                         Nat
>
>
>
>
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.6/257 - Release Date: 2/10/2006
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>

>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion