[NSRCA-discussion] Main battery redundant lead for receiver

Wed Jan 25 16:00:51 AKST 2012

Ya fossil burner!  :-)

R

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

----- Reply message -----
From: "astropuppy" <astropuppy at gmail.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Main battery redundant lead for receiver
Date: Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:47 pm
You know you want to go E Jim. As they say in Oregon: "Just do it".
Mike

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:47 AM, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

Having
judged these sequences I absolutely agree that they have become more demanding.
Do you think you could fly the current schedules with 2006 battery technology?

Not in a
hurry to go E-Power but interested.

Jim

-----Original
Message-----

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Del

Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012
6:55 AM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Main battery redundant lead for receiver

Dave..
Love how you win your discussions.. lol .. ;+}  

Del

-----
Original Message ----- 

From: Dave Lockhart

To: 'General pattern discussion' 

Sent: Tuesday, January 24,
2012 7:07 PM

Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Main battery redundant lead for receiver

2006

9411sa x2 for ailerons

8417sa x1 for elevator

8411sa x1 for rudder

2009

Changed to 3517 x2 for elevator (in the same plane)….no change
in mah per flight

2010

Changed to 8611A on rudder (in the same plane)….no change in mah
per flight

Flight times are about 45 seconds shorter now.

I still have the Prestige I flew in 2006, so no change to
control surface size or throw.

I’m pretty sure it is the changes in maneuvers flown and higher
average watts used by the motor in the course of the flight.  J

Regards,

Dave

From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Peter Vogel

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012
6:59 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Main battery redundant lead for receiver

Digital
servos *definitely* draw more power than non-digitals, but they are much more
precise and hold their position better, it's worth the higher draw for pattern.

Peter+

On
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Doug Cronkhite <seefo at san.rr.com> wrote:

I
suspect the servos also draw more power than they did years ago.

Doug 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 24, 2012, at 3:40 PM, "Dave Lockhart" <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
wrote:

When
I first started flying electric pattern…..mah per flight was noticeably lower
than now, going from 40-60 per flight to 60-80 per flight…..flying whatever was
the current P/F sequences.  I suspect the increase is due to higher
average flight speeds (much more watts at the motor now) and more demanding
maneuvers (snaps and KE).

Regards,

Dave

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Keith Hoard

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012
11:02 AM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Main
battery redundant lead for receiver

Anthony,

   On a typical flight, I'm guessing the radio only uses around
100-150Mah of power, while the motor is using 4000Mah, so that's about 4% more
draw on those two cells.  In practice, I haven't been able to see any
difference in the radio cells when I hook them up to my charger at the end of a
flight.  Sometimes cells #1 & #2 are the high cells after a flight, so
I think the power draw of the radio is negligible to our motor packs.

The problem with two regulators plugged into the same 10S (or 5S) pack is that
you are creating a dead short between the cells thru the ground wires
(typically a straight wire thru the regulator).  

Say you plug Regulator #1 into cells #1&2, and Regulator #2 into cells
#6&7.  The regulator's ground wires now have 5 cells of voltage potential (5 X
4.2V = 21Volts) between them since they are plugged into cells # 1 and
#6.  When those two ground wires are then plugged into your receiver
either thru a switch or direct connection the magic smoke will escape and your
retailer will rejoice.

Also, if you have both of your regulators plugged into your motor pack and the
packs eject like Goose in Top Gun, you've lost both of your redundant power
sources.  However, if you use a tiny 2S LiPo that is physically separated
and secured inside your plane, you have both electrical and physical
redundancy.  

Hmmm, just thought of something . . . maybe we should tie down the receiver so
the main regulator can't take the receiver out with it. . . so many
contingencies, so little weight . . .

Keith Hoard

Collierville, TN

khoard at gmail.com

On Tue, Jan
24, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com> wrote:

Seems like a
great idea but I have two questions. Do the packs come down out of balance
since two cells are serving extra load? Is there a problem
with parallel operation of two regulators?

Thanks,

Anthony

From: joddino at socal.rr.com

Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:25:00 -0800

To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Main battery redundant lead for receiver

I've been using this setup for sometime and it is working great.  I have
my two cell LiPo charged to 7.5 volts and it is connected to a 6.0 volt
regulator into the receiver.  The cable connected to the balance connector
on the "bottom" 5S is connected to a 6.3 volt regulator so it
supplies all the current to the system and the 2S pack never needs charging..
 I'm using an 800 mAh pack but it could be even smaller.   

Jim O

On Jan 23,
2012, at 2:09 PM, Scott McHarg wrote:

Guys,

   Chris Moon just e-mailed me about some leads that were done at the
factory.  These leads run off your balance leads to a voltage regulator
and allow your main battery pack to be utilized as a redundant receiver
battery.  It is NOT meant to be a primary but it will save 20+ grams if
you're running 2 rx batteries.  You still have to run the 2nd regulator
for true redundancy but you eliminate the 2nd battery.  These leads are
factory made and eliminate the need to make them yourself with the concern
about plugging in to the wrong cell.  I know in my article, I was pretty
much against doing this as a backup but, with Chris having this made at the
factory, he has all but eliminated making a mistake by tying to the wrong
cell.  I have the link that I'll e-mail you off-list or you can just go to
his website.  I don't want to break the NSRCA list rules by advertising
for him even though he advertises with the NSRCA.  The leads are only
$3.99 each and are found under the Connectors/Adapters listing.

Thank,

Scott

-- 

Scott A. McHarg

_______________________________________________

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

--

Director,
Fixed Wing Flight Training

Santa
Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark

_______________________________________________

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/20120126/e28fefb6/attachment.html>