[NSRCA-discussion] Electric vs. Glow
jivey61 at bellsouth.net
jivey61 at bellsouth.net
Fri Feb 17 13:44:55 AKST 2006
Yeah
I think we glow people should have a handicap flying against electrics.
Jim Ivey
(it is clear to me that for high level pilots electric is definitive strong advantage and could be one or two spot difference in final contest results. )
----- Original Message -----
From: vicenterc at comcast.net
To: NSRCA Mailing List ; NSRCA Mailing List
Cc: DaveL322 at comcast.net
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric vs. Glow
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 eco! nomic analysis, it is clear to me that for high level pilots electric is definitive strong advantage 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060217/f43718e0/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list