[NSRCA-discussion] E Stuff
Nat Penton
natpenton at centurytel.net
Sat Jan 21 17:18:06 AKST 2006
Damn, I meant to send that message private, misspelling and all <G>. nat
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chad Northeast" <chad at f3acanada.org>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] E Stuff
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list