[NSRCA-discussion] E Stuff
Chad Northeast
chad at f3acanada.org
Sat Jan 21 16:22:18 AKST 2006
Hey Nat
My buddy here bought my Enigma and did the same thing on 5300's, but
down to 14.7V open voltage each pack :) They still work, hold balance
and provide same power as his other set. Will be interesting how long
they survive after such abuse :) Will let the list know when they fail!
Chad
Nat Penton wrote:
> Good post. And here I was trying to keep all this good stuff secret !!
>
> FYI, I inadvertently flew an uncharged pack to below 16v without
> apparent damage. Halleleuya ? Nat
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* George Miller <mailto:glmiller3 at cox.net>
> *To:* patternrules at earthlink.net
> <mailto:patternrules at earthlink.net> ; NSRCA Mailing List
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2006 1:20 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] E Stuff
>
> I, too, am relatively new to the E-learning curve. I've learned a
> lot in the last few months, though. There is a huge difference
> between a 2 or 3 cell foamy or micro-heli set-up and the 10s4p
> set-ups most are flying the "big stuff" with. The most important
> thing I've learned is that you can't just "eyeball" these
> set-ups....the dynamics of airplane weight, wing area, voltage,
> prop size and motor are much more complex and demanding than a
> typical 2 or 4 cycle set-up.
>
> I fried an ESC trying to "home brew" a set up based on general
> specifications from a web-site. It turns out I was pulling about
> 180 amps when the ESC turned into a torch!<G> The good news is
> that there are plenty of reliable sources of information out
> there- it just takes some time to figure out where and who they are.
>
> I've been playing around with foamies and micro heli electrics for
> the past year or so, then I saw Nat Penton fly his Voodoo as an
> electric, and after talking to him about it, I decided to try a
> "big sized" pattern project.I had a Focus II kit sitting on the
> shelf, so I built it and "bashed" it into an electric --powered
> with a standard package-- Plettenberg 30-10, future 33.55 ESC and
> 22X10 APC-E; 2X 5s4p TP5300 packs in series. One flight with
> that baby, and I was SOLD! No noise but the wind on the wings and
> prop, unlimited vertical power and no vibration at all. I don't
> have to mess with headers, engine tuning, fuel, oil, carburetors,
> valves, etc.
>
> I'm so convinced that e-power is the wave of the future, that I'm
> converting everything I have to electric- so that I won't have to
> carry two complete sets of support equipment to the field for a
> day of flying. I've converted my Raptor 50 to the Xero-G electric,
> I'm replacing my Vigor/Vibe with an Ion electric, and I've
> converted my Showtime and Funtana to electric. My old YS 140
> powered FocusII is also being transformed into an electric backup
> for the E-FocusII .
>
> Icare-rc.com and hobby-lobby.com are both excellent resources in
> my experience...as a french canadian company, Icare seems a little
> more expensive and I have a little bit of a language barrier when
> talking to Etienne there. Hobby Lobby is based near Nashville, TN
> and has been around forever (at least since I was a kid growing up
> in Memphis). I have been pleased with their recommendations so far.
>
> Something that I've tried to do is limit the number of cell types
> that I need for different models. I have 3s1p packs for small
> stuff like foamies and micro-helis-- then I have 5s4p packs which
> can be used as singles for mid sized (traditional 40 to 60 )
> planes and as series pairs for 2 meter and large helicopter
> applications.
>
> I hope that the TP1010 chargers are great - I use them with the
> TP balancers.....though I am not sure what all is going on as they
> charge. The balancers come with sketchy instructions at best and
> when used with the chargers there are occasional errors on the
> 1010 when used with the balancer --like "wrong number of cells"
> even though the cell count entered is correct and the balancer
> alone says the cells are balanced; and (especially toward the end
> of the charge cycles) the balancers start beeping and chiming and
> flashing lights. I hope that they are doing what they are
> supposed to do, but the documentation is scant. I have not used
> them to charge packs in series! I have enough noise charging them
> as singles!<G>
>
> The old Astro 109's are simple and seem adequate for the job, but
> don't make a lot of noise<G>.
>
> A wattmeter of some type also seems to be essential ...whether it
> is a watt's up type inline meter or a clamp on wattmeter. As I
> found out by taosting an ESC- you have to test the current drain
> of each set-up-- you can't just "see how it flies" like you can
> with a combustion engine.
>
> Sorry If I've gotten too long winded...I've been a little
> frustrated by the lack of condensed, easily accessible information
> so I think that this thread may be the beginning of a much needed
> resource!
>
> George
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Steven Maxwell <mailto:patternrules at earthlink.net>
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2006 11:45 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] E Stuff
>
> Good post Earl. I hope other's will contribute. Just to add a
> little to the mix there hasn't been much in the K-factor
> either on the electrics.
> I have started a make over to a plane that was setup for glow
> and done a lot of cutting to change to electric, one because
> it wasn't finished so it never had fuel in it, so it was still
> a clean place for epoxing.
> One of the big differences that I'm trying is use of less
> battery packs than others only 2 sets as opposed to most
> pattern guys seem to like 4 sets, as time isn't an issue with
> me. I'm fortunate to be retired so I can spend 6 to 8 hours at
> the field in good flying weather so if I get 4 to 6 flight in
> that time I'm happy.
> There are some cost cutting's that can be done but until I
> finish and get flying I'll reserve any conclusions.
> The one thing I will say right now is do your research, and
> don't make any hasty choices there are lots of options. Best
> to go with a proven setup.
> Steve Maxwell
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Earl Haury <mailto:ehaury at houston.rr.com>
> *To: *Discussion List, NSRCA
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* 1/21/2006 12:06:00 PM
> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] E Stuff
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date:
> 1/12/2006
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: 1/12/2006
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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