[NSRCA-discussion] E Stuff

vicenterc at comcast.net vicenterc at comcast.net
Sat Jan 21 14:54:27 AKST 2006 

Chad,

Looks like the average is 100 cycles for F3A and Master level.  Could be a lot more for lower classes.  I am planing to wait until the cost goes down to more reasonable levels.  I think it would be competitive with glow when a set of packs goes down around $300-400.  For now I just need to wait.

Thanks,

Vicente

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Chad Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org> 

> Vincente 
> 
> The only guarantee is you will get 1 cycle :) I have the TP 5300's 
> which have 70 ish cycles on them with my Plett 30-10 (62A peak 
> static)...some guys in France (Matt's for sure) had over 100 on those 
> packs. With my wattmeter I cannot distinguish a difference in voltage 
> under load now compared to new, but they would have some degredation (I 
> dont have a CBA to check). Adam was running 6000 prolites and measured 
> about a 3.5% decrease in capacity over 50 flights or so (he can correct 
> me if my memory has failed)....so you can approximate a life of them 
> from that. Another fellow (cant remember his name) posted his capacity 
> degredation values on RCU in the electric pattern forum...I seem to 
> recall that he had better life than Adam for the same amount of flights. 
> 
> I think 250 cycles is out of the question for todays stuff, at least 
> still retaining enough performance. Charlie has posted on RCG that 
> 70-75 cycles can be expected when ran to the max (so 90ish % discharge 
> and max C rating)....our applications are not that tough on batteries 
> but we are not soft enough on them to get 250! Ultimately the cycle 
> life depends on how you treat the packs....abuse them and they will fail 
> very quickly. 
> 
> This is all still very experimental, its getting better with more and 
> more people flying the e setups and finding what works and what 
> doesnt.....but dont get into it thinking you are guaranteed a certain 
> number of flights from a pack. You could just as easily get 10 flights 
> as 100 :) My advice to anyone is if money is of remote concern tread 
> lightly.....as this can get very expensive in a very short period of 
> time! Its no different than starting out in the hobby from scratch. 
> Beyond that if you do get into it, take a setup that is very proven with 
> a lot of flight time on it....let those with deep pockets and good 
> backing from companies do the experimenting for you :) Doing R&D on 
> your own dime can leave a bad taste in your mouth!!! 
> 
> Anyways, I plan on continuing to run my 5300's this year until they 
> fail. I am also going to buy another set so I can compare old ones 
> directly to new ones in flight. This way I will have a good idea of 
> what can normally be expected. Since they have a shelf life and we dont 
> fly much over the winter I want to know how big of an impact that is 
> going to have....or if I should try to sell them after each season. 
> 
> I think Earl's post hit some excellent points on the flying. 
> 
> Chad 
> 
> vicenterc at comcast.net wrote: 
> 
> > Jerry, 
> > 
> > Today we got two e-mails. One with 30 cycles the other over 170. At 
> > the Nats. a very well know pilot told me 60 average. As we can see, 
> > it is all over the map. I would like to go electric and the 
> > advantages of electric power in pattern are evident. However, I am 
> > not ready until battery companies give us some minimum expectation in 
> > regard battery life. Clearly time will tell. I believe that when we 
> > start to see the power tools manufacturers installing LiPo in their 
> > equipment we would be able to expect a decent life of this packs under 
> > high current draw conditions. 
> > 
> > Vicente Bortone 
> > 
> > 
> > -------------- Original message -------------- 
> > From: "Jerry Stebbins" 
> > Vicente, I hope that is "tongue in cheek", because any battery 
> > manufacturer to warranty to that, or almost any extent would be 
> > killed by his/her lawyers. They would have so many "exceptions" 
> > that they would "never be at fault". 
> > If that is anyone's criteria it wll be a long time before they switch. 
> > Jerry 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > *From:* vicenterc at comcast.net 
> > *To:* NSRCA Mailing List 
> > ; NSRCA Mailing List 
> > 
> > *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2006 2:51 PM 
> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] E Stuff 
> > 
> > Scott, 
> > 
> > I am waiting for my second Abbra. If Tanic gives me a written 
> > warranty that the battery is going to last around 250 cycles 
> > of Master rounds I will make the switch. Is that possible? I 
> > will follow charging and break in instructions. 
> > 
> > Thanks 
> > 
> > Vicente Bortone 
> > 
> > 
> > -------------- Original message -------------- 
> > From: "Scott Anderson" > > > 
> > Vicente, 
> > 
> > You also have to look at replacing bearing, changing 
> > batteries in the support equipment (glow driver/ electric 
> > starter) and servos after a time from vibration, this will 
> > increase your glow cost per flight .. Dan Landis and I are 
> > using Tanic packs and he flies FAI and has a set of sticks 
> > ( Battery) with over 170 flight and you can't tell the 
> > diffrence from that pack and on with less time on it.. I 
> > have just started using Tanic and the results are very 
> > good, Just follow there "breakin" for the packs. 
> > I made the jump to electric in 05 and after the first 
> > flight I was hooked and sold all glow fuel and glow 
> > planes.. If you look around you still make the conversion 
> > without breaking the bank. 
> > 
> > Just my 2 cents 
> > 
> > Scott Anderson 
> > D3 AVP nsrca 529 
> > Team Tanicpacks.com 
> > Team PMA 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > 
> > *From:* vicenterc at comcast.net 
> > 
> > *To:* NSRCA Mailing List 
> > ; Discussion 
> > List, NSRCA 
> > *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2006 1:35 PM 
> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] E Stuff 
> > 
> > Unfurtunetely, I have to estimate the cost. I did an 
> > estimate how much is the cost to run my 2c motor per 
> > flight. At $15/gallon using 14 oz of fuel per fly the 
> > cost is $1.75 per flight. This number is correct 
> > since I usually flight between 200-300 flights per year. 
> > 
> > The question is: what is the life of the batteries? 
> > Base of the feedback I got at the Nats. the life 
> > flying F3A is around 60 flights. Therefore, if I am 
> > correct the cost per fly is $11. Assuming that I do 
> > 250 flights per year the cost of electric is 
> > $2,750/yr. The equivalent cost of glow (2C) is 
> > $440/year. With two kids in college my option is 
> > clear. I am assuming that the cost of batteries is 
> > $640 but not sure now. 
> > 
> > Probably I am wrong in these numbers. Clearly the 
> > cost of the batteries has to come down or the cycles 
> > have to go up to around 400 cycles to get equivalent 
> > cost to glow. 
> > 
> > Any information on this regard is welcome, 
> > 
> > Vicente Bortone 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -------------- Original message -------------- 
> > From: "Earl Haury" 
> > The E info on the list has been scant. Probably 
> > some are reluctant to hype / criticize products 
> > because of their involvement with suppliers. Some 
> > of us are just blindly exploring options, 
> > gathering data / information, and forming opinions 
> > without experience to back up our conclusions. 
> > Certainly information offered by those with 
> > experience is very welcome and appreciated. Those 
> > who are qualified experts in the various fields 
> > that can correct / clarify information gained 
> > through the school of hard knocks are not only 
> > welcome, but I suspect somewhat obligated to 
> > protect the rest of us. As this entire topic 
> > expands there will be conflicting opinions which 
> > in themselves provide info - that's what this list 
> > is for and no one should take offense that some 
> > prefer other views. 
> > 
> > After teasing the E guys at the Nats I recognized 
> > that the E powered airplanes flew better (I'll 
> > admit to being obstinate - but not totally dumb). 
> > There were also differences that seemed related 
> > more to E equipment choices than differences in 
> > pilot skills. The info published by Jason, Frack, 
> > Adam, Chad, and others (in RCU forums) provided an 
> > insight to the various equipment choices (and 
> > passionate defense of same in some cases). 
> > Interestingly, a lot of the discussions revolve 
> > around equipment type rather than the effect on 
> > flight characteristics. 
> > 
> > So - I set about trying to determine if E flies 
> > better and why. So far the answer is yes and I'm 
> > not sure. While differences in dynamics can be 
> > identified, it's hard to quantify the effects. For 
> > example, the lighter / slower rotating E prop 
> > generates a lower gyroscopic precession force 
> > during looping maneuvers than glow - this also 
> > suggests the lower rotating mass of a geared motor 
> > might be better. The lighter motor (compared to 
> > glow engine) up front can result in a lower pitch 
> > moment of inertia if the tail is light enough to 
> > allow the battery mass to be close to the CG. 
> > Airplane smoothness in rough air is markedly 
> > better with E. (I did most of my comparisons with 
> > twin Partners - one glow and one E - at about the 
> > same flight weight.) This may be an effect of the 
> > large diameter prop or lack of vibration effect on 
> > the servos. As others have noted, thrust 
> > application is very good with E as the slower prop 
> > is efficient and the mo! ! ! tor is instantly 
> > responsive and very linear. E can be flown slower 
> > than or as fast as glow, the airplane is more 
> > stable with E when slow - again probably the 
> > large prop effect. Overall, it's easier to fly 
> > well with E but E won't fix sloppy flying. 
> > 
> > As with most things in model aviation - there are 
> > learning curves. Some suppliers are better than 
> > others, some equipment is better than others, some 
> > choices will be revisited after experience is 
> > gained. The hardest thing to get used to is the 
> > metrification of cost - kilo dollars. Not that E 
> > is that much more expensive than glow - just that 
> > very little from glow is useable with E. That 
> > means one must acquire motors, controllers, 
> > batteries, chargers, power supplies, meters, 
> > connectors, wire, props, etc. pretty much from 
> > scratch. 
> > 
> > If there's interest in this becoming a thread I'll 
> > discuss the reasons for some of my choices of 
> > equipment and the data I've generated / will 
> > generate with the full understanding that I might 
> > be operating under false assumptions and some of 
> > this stuff will change - I'm still learning. 
> > 
> > Earl 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > 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 
> > 
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> > 
> > Subject: 
> > Re: [NSRCA-discussion] E Stuff 
> > From: 
> > "Jerry Stebbins" 
> > Date: 
> > Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:30:46 +0000 
> > To: 
> > "NSRCA Mailing List" 
> > 
> > To: 
> > "NSRCA Mailing List" 
> > 
> > 
> >_______________________________________________ 
> >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 
> > 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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/20060121/62ad083e/attachment-0001.html

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list