<html><body>
<DIV>Chad,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Looks like the average is 100 cycles for F3A and Master level. Could be a lot more for lower classes. I am planing to wait until the cost goes down to more reasonable levels. I think it would be competitive with glow when a set of packs goes down around $300-400. For now I just need to wait.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Vicente</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: Chad Northeast <chad@f3acanada.org> <BR><BR>> Vincente <BR>> <BR>> The only guarantee is you will get 1 cycle :) I have the TP 5300's <BR>> which have 70 ish cycles on them with my Plett 30-10 (62A peak <BR>> static)...some guys in France (Matt's for sure) had over 100 on those <BR>> packs. With my wattmeter I cannot distinguish a difference in voltage <BR>> under load now compared to new, but they would have some degredation (I <BR>> dont have a CBA to check). Adam was running 6000 prolites and measured <BR>> about a 3.5% decrease in capacity over 50 flights or so (he can correct <BR>> me if my memory has failed)....so you can approximate a life of them <BR>> from that. Another fellow (cant remember his name) posted his capacity <BR>> degredation values on RCU in the electric pattern forum...I seem to <BR>> recall that he had better life than Adam for the same amount of flights. <BR>> <BR>> I think 250 cycles is out of the question for todays stuff, at least <BR>> still retaining enough performance. Charlie has posted on RCG that <BR>> 70-75 cycles can be expected when ran to the max (so 90ish % discharge <BR>> and max C rating)....our applications are not that tough on batteries <BR>> but we are not soft enough on them to get 250! Ultimately the cycle <BR>> life depends on how you treat the packs....abuse them and they will fail <BR>> very quickly. <BR>> <BR>> This is all still very experimental, its getting better with more and <BR>> more people flying the e setups and finding what works and what <BR>> doesnt.....but dont get into it thinking you are guaranteed a certain <BR>> number of flights from a pack. You could just as easily get 10 flights <BR>> as 100 :) My advice to anyone is if money is of remote concern tread <BR>> lightly.....as this can get very expensive in a very
short period of <BR>> time! Its no different than starting out in the hobby from scratch. <BR>> Beyond that if you do get into it, take a setup that is very proven with <BR>> a lot of flight time on it....let those with deep pockets and good <BR>> backing from companies do the experimenting for you :) Doing R&D on <BR>> your own dime can leave a bad taste in your mouth!!! <BR>> <BR>> Anyways, I plan on continuing to run my 5300's this year until they <BR>> fail. I am also going to buy another set so I can compare old ones <BR>> directly to new ones in flight. This way I will have a good idea of <BR>> what can normally be expected. Since they have a shelf life and we dont <BR>> fly much over the winter I want to know how big of an impact that is <BR>> going to have....or if I should try to sell them after each season. <BR>> <BR>> I think Earl's post hit some excellent points on the flying. <BR>> <BR>> Chad <BR>> <BR>> vicenterc@comcast.net wrote: <BR>> <BR>> > Jerry, <BR>> > <BR>> > Today we got two e-mails. One with 30 cycles the other over 170. At <BR>> > the Nats. a very well know pilot told me 60 average. As we can see, <BR>> > it is all over the map. I would like to go electric and the <BR>> > advantages of electric power in pattern are evident. However, I am <BR>> > not ready until battery companies give us some minimum expectation in <BR>> > regard battery life. Clearly time will tell. I believe that when we <BR>> > start to see the power tools manufacturers installing LiPo in their <BR>> > equipment we would be able to expect a decent life of this packs under <BR>> > high current draw conditions. <BR>> > <BR>> > Vicente Bortone <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > -------------- Original message -------------- <BR>> > From: "Jerry Stebbins" <JASTEBBINS@WORLDNET.ATT.NET><BR>> > Vicente, I hope that is "tongue in cheek", because any battery <BR>> >
manufacturer to warranty to that, or almost any extent would be <BR>> > killed by his/her lawyers. They would have so many "exceptions" <BR>> > that they would "never be at fault". <BR>> > If that is anyone's criteria it wll be a long time before they switch. <BR>> > Jerry <BR>> > <BR>> > ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> > *From:* vicenterc@comcast.net <mailto:vicenterc@comcast.net><BR>> > *To:* NSRCA Mailing List <BR>> > <mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>; NSRCA Mailing List <BR>> > <mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> > *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2006 2:51 PM <BR>> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] E Stuff <BR>> > <BR>> > Scott, <BR>> > <BR>> > I am waiting for my second Abbra. If Tanic gives me a written <BR>> > warranty that the battery is going to last around 250 cycles <BR>> > of Master rounds I will make the switch. Is that possible? I <BR>> > will follow charging and break in instructions. <BR>> > <BR>> > Thanks <BR>> > <BR>> > Vicente Bortone <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > -------------- Original message -------------- <BR>> > From: "Scott Anderson" <SCOTT@RCFOAMY.COM <BR>> > <mailto:scott@rcfoamy.com>> <BR>> > Vicente, <BR>> > <BR>> > You also have to look at replacing bearing, changing <BR>> > batteries in the support equipment (glow driver/ electric <BR>> > starter) and servos after a time from vibration, this will <BR>> > increase your glow cost per flight .. Dan Landis and I are <BR>> > using Tanic packs and he flies FAI and has a set of sticks <BR>> > ( Battery) with over 170 flight and you can't tell the <BR>> > diffrence from that pack and on with less time on it.. I <BR>> > have just started using Tanic and the results are very <BR>> > good, Just follow there "breakin" for the packs. <BR>> > I made the jump to electric in 05 and after the
first <BR>> > flight I was hooked and sold all glow fuel and glow <BR>> > planes.. If you look around you still make the conversion <BR>> > without breaking the bank. <BR>> > <BR>> > Just my 2 cents <BR>> > <BR>> > Scott Anderson <BR>> > D3 AVP nsrca 529 <BR>> > Team Tanicpacks.com <BR>> > Team PMA <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> > <BR>> > *From:* vicenterc@comcast.net <BR>> > <mailto:vicenterc@comcast.net><BR>> > *To:* NSRCA Mailing List <BR>> > <mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>; Discussion <BR>> > List, NSRCA <mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> > *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2006 1:35 PM <BR>> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] E Stuff <BR>> > <BR>> > Unfurtunetely, I have to estimate the cost. I did an <BR>> > estimate how much is the cost to run my 2c motor per <BR>> > flight. At $15/gallon using 14 oz of fuel per fly the <BR>> > cost is $1.75 per flight. This number is correct <BR>> > since I usually flight between 200-300 flights per year. <BR>> > <BR>> > The question is: what is the life of the batteries? <BR>> > Base of the feedback I got at the Nats. the life <BR>> > flying F3A is around 60 flights. Therefore, if I am <BR>> > correct the cost per fly is $11. Assuming that I do <BR>> > 250 flights per year the cost of electric is <BR>> > $2,750/yr. The equivalent cost of glow (2C) is <BR>> > $440/year. With two kids in college my option is <BR>> > clear. I am assuming that the cost of batteries is <BR>> > $640 but not sure now. <BR>> > <BR>> > Probably I am wrong in these numbers. Clearly the <BR>> > cost of the batteries has to come down or the cycles <BR>> > have to go up to around 400 cycles to get equivalent <BR>> > cost to glow. <BR>> > <BR>> > Any information on t
his regard is welcome, <BR>> > <BR>> > Vicente Bortone <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > -------------- Original message -------------- <BR>> > From: "Earl Haury" <EHAURY@HOUSTON.RR.COM><BR>> > The E info on the list has been scant. Probably <BR>> > some are reluctant to hype / criticize products <BR>> > because of their involvement with suppliers. Some <BR>> > of us are just blindly exploring options, <BR>> > gathering data / information, and forming opinions <BR>> > without experience to back up our conclusions. <BR>> > Certainly information offered by those with <BR>> > experience is very welcome and appreciated. Those <BR>> > who are qualified experts in the various fields <BR>> > that can correct / clarify information gained <BR>> > through the school of hard knocks are not only <BR>> > welcome, but I suspect somewhat obligated to <BR>> > protect the rest of us. As this entire topic <BR>> > expands there will be conflicting opinions which <BR>> > in themselves provide info - that's what this list <BR>> > is for and no one should take offense that some <BR>> > prefer other views. <BR>> > <BR>> > After teasing the E guys at the Nats I recognized <BR>> > that the E powered airplanes flew better (I'll <BR>> > admit to being obstinate - but not totally dumb). <BR>> > There were also differences that seemed related <BR>> > more to E equipment choices than differences in <BR>> > pilot skills. The info published by Jason, Frack, <BR>> > Adam, Chad, and others (in RCU forums) provided an <BR>> > insight to the various equipment choices (and <BR>> > passionate defense of same in some cases). <BR>> > Interestingly, a lot of the discussions revolve <BR>> > around equipment type rather than the effect on <BR>> > flight characteristics. <BR>> > <BR>> > So - I set ab
out trying to determine if E flies <BR>> > better and why. So far the answer is yes and I'm <BR>> > not sure. While differences in dynamics can be <BR>> > identified, it's hard to quantify the effects. For <BR>> > example, the lighter / slower rotating E prop <BR>> > generates a lower gyroscopic precession force <BR>> > during looping maneuvers than glow - this also <BR>> > suggests the lower rotating mass of a geared motor <BR>> > might be better. The lighter motor (compared to <BR>> > glow engine) up front can result in a lower pitch <BR>> > moment of inertia if the tail is light enough to <BR>> > allow the battery mass to be close to the CG. <BR>> > Airplane smoothness in rough air is markedly <BR>> > better with E. (I did most of my comparisons with <BR>> > twin Partners - one glow and one E - at about the <BR>> > same flight weight.) This may be an effect of the <BR>> > large diameter prop or lack of vibration effect on <BR>> > the servos. As others have noted, thrust <BR>> > application is very good with E as the slower prop <BR>> > is efficient and the mo! ! ! tor is instantly <BR>> > responsive and very linear. E can be flown slower <BR>> > than or as fast as glow, the airplane is more <BR>> > stable with E when slow - again probably the <BR>> > large prop effect. Overall, it's easier to fly <BR>> > well with E but E won't fix sloppy flying. <BR>> > <BR>> > As with most things in model aviation - there are <BR>> > learning curves. Some suppliers are better than <BR>> > others, some equipment is better than others, some <BR>> > choices will be revisited after experience is <BR>> > gained. The hardest thing to get used to is the <BR>> > metrification of cost - kilo dollars. Not that E <BR>> > is that much more expensive than glow - just that <BR>> > very little from glow is useable with E. That <BR>> > mea
ns one must acquire motors, controllers, <BR>> > batteries, chargers, power supplies, meters, <BR>> > connectors, wire, props, etc. pretty much from <BR>> > scratch. <BR>> > <BR>> > If there's interest in this becoming a thread I'll <BR>> > discuss the reasons for some of my choices of <BR>> > equipment and the data I've generated / will <BR>> > generate with the full understanding that I might <BR>> > be operating under false assumptions and some of <BR>> > this stuff will change - I'm still learning. <BR>> > <BR>> > Earl <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ <BR>> > _______________________________________________ <BR>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ <BR>> > _______________________________________________ <BR>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ <BR>> > <BR>> > Subject: <BR>> > Re: [NSRCA-discussion] E Stuff <BR>> > From: <BR>> > "Jerry Stebbins" <JASTEBBINS@WORLDNET.ATT.NET><BR>> > Date: <BR>> > Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:30:46 +0000 <BR>> > To: <BR>> > "NSRCA Mailing List" <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>> > <BR>> > To: <BR>> > "NSRCA Mailing List" <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >_______________________________________________ <BR>> >NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> >NSRC
A-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> >http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>> > <BR>> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ <BR>> > <BR>> >_______________________________________________ <BR>> >NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> >NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> >http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>> > <BR>> _______________________________________________ <BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion </BLOCKQUOTE></mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></mailto:vicenterc@comcast.net></mailto:scott@rcfoamy.com></mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></mailto:vicenterc@comcast.net></body></html>