<div>Yeah, that too.</div> <div> </div> <div>There is no such thing as gravity -- the earth sucks! :-)</div> <div> </div> <div>Bob R.</div> <div><BR><BR><B><I>John Pavlick <jpavlick@idseng.com></I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>More vertical speed can also be achieved with less weight. <VBG></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>John Pavlick<BR><A href="http://www.idseng.com/">http://www.idseng.com</A></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=bob@toprudder.com href="mailto:bob@toprudder.com">Bob Richards</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> Wednesday, March 05, 2008 4:32 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric Pattern</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV>The big difference that I see between electric 2m pattern planes and the smaller planes is the vertical speed that is needed. Would not the larger plane require more vertical speed to present the same? More vertical velocity requires more power. JMHO.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bob R.</DIV> <DIV><BR><BR><B><I>Ron Van Putte <<A href="mailto:vanputte@cox.net">vanputte@cox.net</A>></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">I must disagree with Mike
here. The "rules of thumb" on the required <BR>electric motor power versus weight are: Sport models with virtually <BR>no aerobatic capability = 50 to 75 watts per pound. For models with <BR>some aerobatic capability = 100 to 125 watts per pound. For models <BR>with aggressive aerobatic capability = 175 to 200 watts per pound. <BR>HOWEVER, these "rules of thumb" are for models weighing less than <BR>about 5 pounds. There is a scaling factor which most be applied for <BR>heavier models. For example, an 11 pound airplane would appear to <BR>require no more than 2200 watts to be aggressively aerobatic, but the <BR>actual wattage requirement seems to be about 2400 to 2500 watts.<BR><BR>One of these days I will sit down and develop the scaling factor, but <BR>for the time being be aware that the "rules of thumb" come up a bit <BR>short for airplanes weighing about 11 pounds.<BR><BR>Ron Van Putte<BR><BR>On Mar 5, 2008, at 12:09 PM, Mike Hester wrote:<BR><BR>> For pattern a
good rule of thumb is 150 watts per pound. A better <BR>> rule of thumb is closer to 200 watts per pound.<BR>><BR>> It takes a lot of experimentation to find the right combination, <BR>> sometimes what looks great on paper doesn't work all that well in <BR>> application.<BR>><BR>> What you're looking for is more than you "need". this way when you <BR>> push it in bad conditions, you don't burn it all up.<BR>><BR>> I have found some very cheap chinese motors that work as good or <BR>> better than what we can get over here from the more established <BR>> companies. Some combinations are really cool, especially in the 110 <BR>> range. You're looking for around 1600-2000 watts, motor weight <BR>> about 500 grams or less, about 250-300kv, and using 8s packs. <BR>> Lethal =) And fairly inexpensive.<BR>><BR>> Then you just have to figure out whether you want to turn a large <BR>> prop slow or a small prop fast. Somewhere in
there, you hit the <BR>> magic for the particular plane.<BR>><BR>> But if you want "established", the E flight power 110 is ok, and <BR>> the Axi 4130-20 works. Don't get the -16 turn axi as it won't <BR>> handle 8 cells and won't deliver quite enough power.<BR>><BR>> -Mike<BR>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> From: John Ferrell<BR>> To: NSRCA Mailing List<BR>> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:51 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric Pattern<BR>><BR>> I am not picking on Incheon here, the questions are to all:<BR>><BR>> I too, am struggling to understand how to select appropriate power <BR>> for a given airplane.<BR>><BR>> The specs for the ElectriFly 110 call for up to a 15 pound <BR>> airplane, It sounds like a lot of Watts for an 8 pounder.<BR>> A Phoenix 80 controller also sounds like a lot of over kill. Can I <BR>> assume that the electrics can just be run at a lower power setting
<BR>> and less batteries without overburdening the airframe?<BR>><BR>> Which AXI would be interchangeable with the Electrifly 110?<BR>><BR>> Would the Dualsky XM5060CA be an equivalent? The advertising <BR>> indicates 1:1 correspondence to a YS 110.<BR>><BR>> Is the following comment True or False?<BR>> It seems that an over spec motor and speed control are only a <BR>> financial mistake. Flying at reduced power levels is not a <BR>> technical flaw and in fact may provide a more reliable power setup.<BR>><BR>> John Ferrell W8CCW<BR>><BR>> "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to <BR>> do nothing." -- Edmund Burke<BR>> http://DixieNC.US<BR>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> From: Ihncheol Park<BR>> To: NSRCA Mailing List<BR>> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 8:57 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric Pattern<BR>><BR>> Jay,<BR>><BR>> Lots of power setups available.
It all depends on how much you <BR>> want to put in.<BR>><BR>> Hacker A50, E-Flite 110, Axi, BPHobbies, Welgard, Dualsky, Neu, <BR>> Hyperion, etc.<BR>><BR>> For a reasonable price, E-Flite seems to be a good choice with <BR>> Castle Phx 80 or E-Flite 60 may also work. I went with E-Flite 110 <BR>> for Inspire 90 because I couldn't install the YS110 on it.<BR>> Hacker, Axi are very good, but I was told these make a little noise <BR>> during the run. Not sure what that noise is.<BR>> Hyperion runs really good too.<BR>> I can look up if I have spec on Focus 110.<BR>><BR>> Ihncheol<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (5.5.0.178)<BR>> Database version: 5.09350<BR>> http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/<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>> E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (5.5.0.178)<BR>> Database version: 5.09350<BR>> http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (5.5.0.178)<BR>> Database version: 5.09350<BR>> http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/<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<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <div> <HR> <div></div>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>