[NSRCA-discussion] Electric/IC ...was ArmingPlug/ReceptacleProblem

Tue Feb 10 14:20:48 AKST 2009

I'm afraid I must take issue with two of your statements:
1) I'm not afraid of electric, I just don't like it. Part of what I like 
about the hobby is the engines, I love the smell of burning nitro in the 
morning, smells like victory
2) There's no such thing as too many YS engines to those who like them

Matt
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Ferrell" <johnferrell at earthlink.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric/IC ...was 
ArmingPlug/ReceptacleProblem

> It is an interesting question for sure...
> Can you think of any other form of aviation where empty weight is more 
> important that Gross or take off weight?
> Of course one cannot blame the IC fans for being afraid of electric 
> technology.
>
> Personally, the bad news is that the new knee joints I had installed last 
> year are not permitting me to squat or kneel. It is tough to deal with 
> tending an IC powered airplane with that limitation.
> The good news is that electrics do not appear to require the operator to 
> squat/kneel.
>
> Unfortunately there remains the problem of recovering the investment of 
> too many YS engines and the accompanying airplanes...
>
> John Ferrell  W8CCW
>
> "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do 
> nothing." -- Edmund Burke
> http://DixieNC.US
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ron Van Putte" <vanputte at cox.net>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 5:03 PM
> 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 