<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=4>Vicente,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff size=4>You also have to look at
replacing bearing, changing batteries in the support equipment (glow driver/
electric starter) and servos after a time from vibration, this will increase
your glow cost per flight .. Dan Landis and I are using Tanic packs and he flies
FAI and has a set of sticks ( Battery) with over 170 flight and you can't tell
the diffrence from that pack and on with less time on it.. I have just started
using Tanic and the results are very good, Just follow there "breakin" for the
packs.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=4>I made the jump to electric in 05 and
after the first flight I was hooked and sold all glow fuel and glow planes.. If
you look around you still make the conversion without breaking the
bank.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=4>Just my 2 cents</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=4>Scott Anderson</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=4>D3 AVP nsrca 529</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=4>Team Tanicpacks.com</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=4>Team PMA</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=vicenterc@comcast.net
href="mailto:vicenterc@comcast.net">vicenterc@comcast.net</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> ; <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 1:35
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] E
Stuff</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Unfurtunetely, I have to estimate the cost. I did an estimate how
much is the cost to run my 2c motor per flight. At $15/gallon using 14
oz of fuel per fly the cost is $1.75 per flight. This number is correct
since I usually flight between 200-300 flights per year. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The question is: what is the life of the batteries? Base of the
feedback I got at the Nats. the life flying F3A is around 60 flights.
Therefore, if I am correct the cost per fly is $11. Assuming that I do
250 flights per year the cost of electric is $2,750/yr. The equivalent
cost of glow (2C) is $440/year. With two kids in college my option is
clear. I am assuming that the cost of batteries is $640 but not sure
now. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Probably I am wrong in these numbers. Clearly the cost of the
batteries has to come down or the cycles have to go up to around 400
cycles to get equivalent cost to glow. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Any information on this regard is welcome,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Vicente Bortone</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">--------------
Original message -------------- <BR>From: "Earl Haury"
<ehaury@houston.rr.com> <BR>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<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></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>