<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><DEFANGED_META
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"><DEFANGED_META
content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802"
name="GENERATOR"><!-- <DEFANGED_STYLE> --></DEFANGED_STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>After Orland and I went through a steep learning
curve at the beginning last year, the whole set-up became VERY reliable.
Hacker geared motors, Hacker controllers, 22/12 props and Kokam 3200 20c
batteries. As it turned out, the airplanes were pulling around 65 amps at
full throttle and the batteries were not happy for longevity much over
10c. I sort of re-grouped when all three sets of batteries
called it a day after about 25 cycles ea. set--decided that I'd wait until the
technology caught up. The old Jag('68 2+2)(2m will just fit) we've
been madly restoring is about under control and I'm about to get back
in the fray--so I'll be casting around for a battery set-up. Castle
Creations(local) sent me a controller to try and I may whip something up for
that. Unfortunately, both the airplanes I've got are a little heavy that
anything over the 3200s will put 'em over the limit. I may not sweat that
for now as I'm probably not going to hit any big-time contests this year.
As I've said before--everything seems pretty reliable at this point--except
battery life. Weight certainly affects amp draw which affects battery
life--so if we have to live with existing technology--then that is the first
place to look. I could be wrong, but I have the feeling some folks have
about 5 sets(or more) and one or two are in transit to and from the
manufacturers supporting them during the heavy contest season. If you've
got deep pockets(or are sponsored)--that's cool--for the rest of us; either the
batteries have got to come along, or we build lighter, change our flying
approach--or all of the above to extend battery life. I am NOT bashing
Kokam--they are great folks and they were learning right along with
us. I'll be talking to them first. I may chat with Tanic since they
are local. We'll see.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Richard</FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=ehaury@houston.rr.com href="mailto:ehaury@houston.rr.com">Earl
Haury</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">Discussion List, NSRCA</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, January 21, 2006 11:02
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [NSRCA-discussion] E Stuff</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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. </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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 motor
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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Earl</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>