[NSRCA-discussion] Electric vs. Glow
Chad Northeast
chad at f3acanada.org
Fri Feb 17 17:18:03 AKST 2006
I just recently capacity tested my 5300's....these packs I have flown
since June...have not been too kind to them. Some have seen 90-93%
discharges on occasion....have been left fully charged for extended
periods, series charged without any ability to balance the packs
together during a charge, they have sat most of the winter without much
use (not good for lipos apparently)....etc etc.
Draw has been between 60-67A peak static depending on the setup I was
using over time.
At 60-70 cycles I am seeing a 3-5% drop in capacity and a 0.1V drop in
voltage in the useful range at 1C discharge compared to a fresh off the
shelf TP 5300 pack. So I wont give any life predictions....I will let
those with more imgination than I come to their own conclusions for what
life I should expect :)
The ironic thing is the packs I know I heavily discharged were the
oldest most abused and also the ones with the lowest degredation :)
Anyways, may post the data later....for now I am back off building my
new ZN Twisters :)
Chad
David Lockhart wrote:
> Vicente,
>
> I think electric may be closer for you than you think!!!! For F3A,
> the lightest lipos than can provide the power are being used
> (TP5300s), and the relatively high discharge rate is not the best for
> longevity - but it is not uncommon to see 75 - 100 flights with good
> charging/discharging practices. My Abbra is light at 10 lbs 4 oz, and
> with some effort I could get it 2 oz lighter. There is plenty of
> weight available to increase the size of the lipos to reduce load on
> them and still stay under 11 lbs.
>
> Dave
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* vicenterc at comcast.net <mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net>
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> ; NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Cc:* DaveL322 at comcast.net <mailto: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 <mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net>
> /*Date:*/ 02/17/06 15:22:08
> /*To:*/ NSRCA Mailing List
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; 'NSRCA Mailing
> List' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> /*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 <mailto:natpenton at centurytel.net>
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *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
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=409&lang=9>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list