<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML style="FONT-SIZE: x-small; FONT-FAMILY: MS Sans Serif"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I, too, am relatively new to the E-learning curve.
I've learned a lot in the last few months, though. There is a huge
difference between a 2 or 3 cell foamy or micro-heli set-up and the 10s4p
set-ups most are flying the "big stuff" with. The most important thing
I've learned is that you can't just "eyeball" these set-ups....the dynamics of
airplane weight, wing area, voltage, prop size and motor are much more complex
and demanding than a typical 2 or 4 cycle set-up. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I fried an ESC trying to "home brew" a set up based on
general specifications from a web-site. It turns out I was pulling about
180 amps when the ESC turned into a torch!<G> The good news is that
there are plenty of reliable sources of information out there- it just takes
some time to figure out where and who they are. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I've been playing around with foamies and micro heli
electrics for the past year or so, then I saw Nat Penton fly his Voodoo as an
electric, and after talking to him about it, I decided to try a "big sized"
pattern project.I had a Focus II kit sitting on the shelf, so I built it and
"bashed" it into an electric --powered with a standard package-- Plettenberg
30-10, future 33.55 ESC and 22X10 APC-E; 2X 5s4p TP5300 packs in
series. One flight with that baby, and I was SOLD! No noise but the
wind on the wings and prop, unlimited vertical power and no vibration at
all. I don't have to mess with headers, engine tuning, fuel, oil,
carburetors, valves, etc. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I'm so convinced that e-power is the wave of the future,
that I'm converting everything I have to electric- so that I won't
have to carry two complete sets of support equipment to the field for a day of
flying. I've converted my Raptor 50 to the Xero-G electric, I'm replacing my
Vigor/Vibe with an Ion electric, and I've converted my Showtime and Funtana
to electric. My old YS 140 powered FocusII is also
being transformed into an electric backup for the
E-FocusII .</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Icare-rc.com and hobby-lobby.com are both
excellent resources in my experience...as a french canadian company,
Icare seems a little more expensive and I have a little bit of a language
barrier when talking to Etienne there. Hobby Lobby is based near
Nashville, TN and has been around forever (at least since I was a kid growing up
in Memphis). I have been pleased with their recommendations so far.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Something that I've tried to do is limit the number of
cell types that I need for different models. I have 3s1p packs for small
stuff like foamies and micro-helis-- then I have 5s4p packs which can be used as
singles for mid sized (traditional 40 to 60 ) planes and as series
pairs for 2 meter and large helicopter applications.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I hope that the TP1010 chargers are great -
I use them with the TP balancers.....though I am not sure what all is
going on as they charge. The balancers come with sketchy instructions at
best and when used with the chargers there are occasional errors on the 1010
when used with the balancer --like "wrong number of cells" even though the
cell count entered is correct and the balancer alone says the cells are
balanced; and (especially toward the end of the charge cycles) the
balancers start beeping and chiming and flashing lights. I hope that they
are doing what they are supposed to do, but the documentation is scant. I
have not used them to charge packs in series! I have enough noise charging
them as singles!<G></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>The old Astro 109's are simple and seem adequate for the
job, but don't make a lot of noise<G>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>A wattmeter of some type also seems to be essential
...whether it is a watt's up type inline meter or a clamp on wattmeter. As
I found out by taosting an ESC- you have to test the current drain of each
set-up-- you can't just "see how it flies" like you can with a combustion
engine. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Sorry If I've gotten too long winded...I've been a little
frustrated by the lack of condensed, easily accessible information so I think
that this thread may be the beginning of a much needed resource!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>George</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></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=patternrules@earthlink.net
href="mailto:patternrules@earthlink.net">Steven Maxwell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, January 21, 2006 11:45
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] E
Stuff</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> Good post Earl. I hope other's will contribute. Just to add a
little to the mix there hasn't been much in the K-factor either on the
electrics.</DIV>
<DIV> I have started a make over to a plane that was setup for glow and
done a lot of cutting to change to electric, one because it wasn't finished so
it never had fuel in it, so it was still a clean place for epoxing.</DIV>
<DIV> One of the big differences that I'm trying is use of less battery
packs than others only 2 sets as opposed to most pattern guys seem to like 4
sets, as time isn't an issue with me. I'm fortunate to be retired so I can
spend 6 to 8 hours at the field in good flying weather so if I get 4 to 6
flight in that time I'm happy.</DIV>
<DIV> There are some cost cutting's that can be done but until I finish
and get flying I'll reserve any conclusions.</DIV>
<DIV> The one thing I will say right now is do your research, and don't
make any hasty choices there are lots of options. Best to go with a proven
setup.</DIV>
<DIV> Steve Maxwell</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid">
<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> 1/21/2006 12:06:00 PM </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [NSRCA-discussion] E
Stuff</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT size=2>
<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 mo! tor 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></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<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>