[NSRCA-discussion] Electric/IC ...was Arming Plug/ReceptacleProblem

Mon Feb 9 17:22:52 AKST 2009

Really?  Your fuel tank weighs 42 oz when full of fuel?!!  Wow!

Jerry

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 9, 2009, at 6:08 PM, "Dennis Cone" <patternpilot at verizon.net>  
wrote:

> If your fuel tanks weighed more with fuel Ron, then there is a point  
> here.
> An IC tank weighs more when full of fuel. Sooooo there is no  
> argument. IC
> wins as it should. :-)
>
> Aloha,
> Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron  
> Van Putte
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 12:03 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric/IC ...was Arming
> Plug/ReceptacleProblem
>
>
> I beg to differ.  The rules are already slanted to favor IC: the way
> the airplanes are weighed.  IC airplanes are weighed without fuel;
> electric airplanes are weighed with fuel (batteries) and both may no
> more than 5 kilograms.  OMG, here we go again!
>
> Ron
>
> On Feb 9, 2009, at 3:54 PM, James Oddino wrote:
>
>> I've been at this longer than most and have known from the
>> beginning that the propulsion system is the key to winning in
>> Pattern competition.  It can also be the most frustrating due to
>> constantly changing conditions.  I found that the gas engines with
>> spark ignition were a lot more consistent than glow and that
>> reduced the frustration.  I have more recently convinced myself
>> that electric is the least frustrating.  A few folks have gone back
>> to glow after playing with electric to get more power for windy
>> conditions.  We are now getting close to getting more than enough
>> out of electric systems (3 to 4 HP?) and when that happens we won't
>> have these discussions anymore.  However, before that happens, the
>> rules will probably be changed to favor IC.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Jerry Voth wrote:
>>
>>> I've been lurking for a long time and after reading all the things
>>> that one needs to do to successfully fly electric, it makes one
>>> wonder how things would be if electrics were the norm from the
>>> beginning of powered R/C models. It might go like this;
>>>
>>> Hey guys, I just bought this little IC engine and I tried it on
>>> one of my Pattern models and it works really well. "Look what it
>>> will do;
>>> 1. It has just as much power as our electric motors.
>>> 2. The only batteries you need are for the flight pack, glow
>>> igniter and the electric starter if you don't like to flip by hand.
>>> 3. All you have to do is pump fuel into the tank, spin the engine
>>> with the starter and fly.The tail gets a little oily, but what the
>>> heck, it's fairly easy to clean up.(Switching the radio on first
>>> is a given.)
>>> 4. You don't have to haul a generator or an extra car battery
>>> around to charge motor batteries."
>>>
>>> Please don't take this the wrong way. It is tongue in cheek and
>>> just an observation. I also have too much time on my hands these
>>> days.
>>>
>>> JJV
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jay Marshall"
>>> <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
>>> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca- 
>>> discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 1:50 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming Plug/Receptacle Problem
>>>
>>>
>>>> A 100 ohm resistor may be enough to charge the caps and make the  
>>>> ESC
>>>> "active". Bad idea...
>>>>
>>>> Jay Marshall
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> Ron Van Putte
>>>> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 1:14 PM
>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming Plug/Receptacle Problem
>>>>
>>>> Good.  I will try it.  What wattage 100 ohm resistor?  Let's see,
>>>> doesn't sustained power equal voltage squared, divided by the
>>>> resistance?  If so, 42 squared, divided by 100 is 17.64 watts.
>>>> That's probably overkill, since the current surge is transitory.
>>>> How
>>>> about a 100 ohm, 10 watt resistor?
>>>>
>>>> Just thought of something:  With the 100 ohm resistor across the
>>>> arming plug receptacle, won't the ESC be on whenever the batteries
>>>> are plugged into the circuit?
>>>>
>>>> BTW, what about Castle Creation's statement that the "spark is your
>>>> friend'?
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 9, 2009, at 11:55 AM, James Oddino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Put a 100 ohm resistor across the arming plug receptacle.  Then  
>>>>> the
>>>>> capacitors in the ESC will charge without a spark as you connect
>>>>> the batteries.  When you connect the arming plug, no spark.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 9, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a problem which I am sure many other E-powered airplane
>>>>>> owners have that I'd like to solve.  I use an arming plug to
>>>>>> connect the two 5S Lipo packs to the ESC.  On initial contact of
>>>>>> the arming plug with the receptacle, there's a big spark thrown.
>>>>>> Eventually the contacts on the arming plug and receptacle get
>>>>>> burned to the point where the electrical contact is very bad.
>>>>>> Yesterday I had to land my airplane deadstick because (I think)
>>>>>> the ESC saw what it thought was low voltage out of the battery
>>>>>> that was actually due to the burned arming plug/receptacle
>>>>>> contacts.  BTW, I am using high-amp Anderson Power Pole
>>>>>> connectors, which are probably more susceptible to having the
>>>>>> contacts burned than would Deans Ultra connectors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have thought about putting a BIG capacitor in parallel with the
>>>>>> arming plug, that would damp the initial current surge which
>>>>>> causes the spark.  The capacitor could be removed before flight.
>>>>>> However, I'm wondering if there's a more elegant solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron Van Putte
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -----------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.19/1941 - Release Date:
>>> 02/08/09 17:57:00
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion