[NSRCA-discussion] E Stuff
Chad Northeast
chad at f3acanada.org
Sat Jan 21 16:27:21 AKST 2006
Hi Vincente
I think its always important to keep in mind that there is really never
a guarantee of cycles, yes you can likely get 100 cycles out of a
pack....but you can also just as likely get 20. It all boils down to
the end user! I have seen guys destroy their YS's in a few flights
because of improper running, while other guys get 100's. The difference
is it costs $100 to fix an engine and $600 to replace batteries!
Mistakes will always be much more costly with electric, which is
something that should always be taken into consideration.
I dont think electric will be for everyone :)
Chad
vicenterc at comcast.net wrote:
> 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 excel lent 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 ti me 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, 200 6 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 li ght 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 supp liers 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 < BR>> > 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
>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list