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

Mon Feb 9 17:33:14 AKST 2009

Glow is good, Electric is good!!! Those of us that choose to stick with Electric have our reasons. As stated before, don't forget, we used to fly glow.. This is a silly conversation really. Everyone has their own individual needs and likes out of their plane. 
And as far as I can tell, E power is having little trouble for the most part making weight. I haven't had a problem yet. Now, if when I was weighed, if I had an allowance to fly heavier than 11lbs would I? At the nats, heck yes. IMO, in the wind it is an advantage to be a little heavier. 

Chris          

--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Budd Engineering <jerry at buddengineering.com> wrote:
From: Budd Engineering <jerry at buddengineering.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric/IC ...was Arming Plug/ReceptacleProblem
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 6:22 PM

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
_______________________________________________
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/20090210/37d4cf74/attachment.html>