Battery question?
10-12-2010, 09:04 AM
#1
Battery question?
Has anyone had any (good or bad) experiences with using 1 battery for both reciever and ignition power. There's a guy at our field running a single battery with one deans connector going to his reciever and a JR connecter going to his ignition. It's on a 30cc size plane running a DLE30 for power. He is using a 2.4 radio system. I thought this would be a good setup for this size plane, but still a little nervious about tying the the two systems together. Thanks
10-13-2010, 08:17 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Flower Mound (near Dallas),
TX
Posts: 6,189
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: Battery question?
ORIGINAL: rcplanenut
Thanks Tom
I am going to try that set up in the Yak 55 I just ordered from you.
Thanks Tom
I am going to try that set up in the Yak 55 I just ordered from you.
TF
10-13-2010, 01:37 PM
#7
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: , MI
Posts: 872
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Battery question?
Bad, Bad, Bad, stupid idea. whats the sense? I see absolutly no advantage to that. That must mean your still using 4.8 nicads or NMH's. or putting a reg in line with ignition, another silly idea
10-13-2010, 03:40 PM
#8
Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: East Rockaway, NY
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Battery question?
Not worth it in my opinion. If your battery fails (which can happen), you lose everything. If you run seperate packs, and your ignition pack fails you can still land.
I also run 2 packs which you could do on a 30CC w/o worrying about weight. I would run 3 1100 A123's. 2 r/x and 1 ignition. boom done easy finished
I also run 2 packs which you could do on a 30CC w/o worrying about weight. I would run 3 1100 A123's. 2 r/x and 1 ignition. boom done easy finished
10-13-2010, 06:11 PM
#9
RE: Battery question?
ORIGINAL: hanko
Bad, Bad, Bad, stupid idea. whats the sense? I see absolutly no advantage to that. That must mean your still using 4.8 nicads or NMH's. or putting a reg in line with ignition, another silly idea
Bad, Bad, Bad, stupid idea. whats the sense? I see absolutly no advantage to that. That must mean your still using 4.8 nicads or NMH's. or putting a reg in line with ignition, another silly idea
10-14-2010, 07:27 AM
#10
RE: Battery question?
I have one season's experience using this setup. An IBEF system with a single 2 amp., 5-cell battery feeding the ignition and the radio. It's a 65 inch warbird arf with a 20 cc gasser. Every flight I recharge with a quality fast-field charger. A typical 10 minute flight uses 200 ma from the battery. Will incorporate this setup on all my 10 pound or less gassers. Larger planes get a dual battery setup.
This is done in the interests of saving weight, not costs or the avoidance of complexity. Try it if you want to...I like it for several reasons. I would hesitate to take the advice of anyone without first-hand experience. It's a good system but I recommend close scrutiny.
This is done in the interests of saving weight, not costs or the avoidance of complexity. Try it if you want to...I like it for several reasons. I would hesitate to take the advice of anyone without first-hand experience. It's a good system but I recommend close scrutiny.
10-14-2010, 09:42 AM
#11
Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: East Rockaway, NY
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Battery question?
ORIGINAL: rcplanenut
Why do you see this as a bad idea, have you tried it? I can think of a couple of advantages like a simple set up, lighter and only 1 battery to charge. This is a small plane so I don't see the need for redundancy.
ORIGINAL: hanko
Bad, Bad, Bad, stupid idea. whats the sense? I see absolutly no advantage to that. That must mean your still using 4.8 nicads or NMH's. or putting a reg in line with ignition, another silly idea
Bad, Bad, Bad, stupid idea. whats the sense? I see absolutly no advantage to that. That must mean your still using 4.8 nicads or NMH's. or putting a reg in line with ignition, another silly idea
To be on the even safer side, you could run a seperate ignition pack and receiver pack. The weight difference would be negligible and the complexity wouldn't change.
10-14-2010, 12:28 PM
#12
RE: Battery question?
ORIGINAL: House2twist
Just because it is a smaller plane doesn't mean there isn't a need for redundancy.
To be on the even safer side, you could run a seperate ignition pack and receiver pack. The weight difference would be negligible and the complexity wouldn't change.
ORIGINAL: rcplanenut
Why do you see this as a bad idea, have you tried it? I can think of a couple of advantages like a simple set up, lighter and only 1 battery to charge. This is a small plane so I don't see the need for redundancy.
ORIGINAL: hanko
Bad, Bad, Bad, stupid idea. whats the sense? I see absolutly no advantage to that. That must mean your still using 4.8 nicads or NMH's. or putting a reg in line with ignition, another silly idea
Bad, Bad, Bad, stupid idea. whats the sense? I see absolutly no advantage to that. That must mean your still using 4.8 nicads or NMH's. or putting a reg in line with ignition, another silly idea
To be on the even safer side, you could run a seperate ignition pack and receiver pack. The weight difference would be negligible and the complexity wouldn't change.
Where do you draw the line? I use 2 batteries when I need the capacity along with the redundancy(for comfort, not need). In a larger plane the weight difference is negligible, but in these new 30cc planes I believe the weight will make a difference. You are entitled to your opinion, but I started this thread to try to get real life experiences(good and/or bad). I already knew there will be people that will never try this setup because they are afraid to try something new.
10-14-2010, 05:24 PM
#15
RE: Battery question?
ORIGINAL: Lifer
It seems that the Nay sayers have never used this system, and those who say Yea have used them and liked it.
It seems that the Nay sayers have never used this system, and those who say Yea have used them and liked it.
10-14-2010, 08:10 PM
#16
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: , MI
Posts: 872
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Battery question?
ORIGINAL: rcplanenut
Does this mean we should start using 2 batteries in 40 size trainers? Where do you draw the line? I use 2 batteries when I need the capacity along with the redundancy(for comfort, not need). In a larger plane the weight difference is negligible, but in these new 30cc planes I believe the weight will make a difference. You are entitled to your opinion, but I started this thread to try to get real life experiences(good and/or bad). I already knew there will be people that will never try this setup because they are afraid to try something new.
ORIGINAL: House2twist
Just because it is a smaller plane doesn't mean there isn't a need for redundancy.
To be on the even safer side, you could run a seperate ignition pack and receiver pack. The weight difference would be negligible and the complexity wouldn't change.
ORIGINAL: rcplanenut
Why do you see this as a bad idea, have you tried it? I can think of a couple of advantages like a simple set up, lighter and only 1 battery to charge. This is a small plane so I don't see the need for redundancy.
ORIGINAL: hanko
Bad, Bad, Bad, stupid idea. whats the sense? I see absolutly no advantage to that. That must mean your still using 4.8 nicads or NMH's. or putting a reg in line with ignition, another silly idea
Bad, Bad, Bad, stupid idea. whats the sense? I see absolutly no advantage to that. That must mean your still using 4.8 nicads or NMH's. or putting a reg in line with ignition, another silly idea
To be on the even safer side, you could run a seperate ignition pack and receiver pack. The weight difference would be negligible and the complexity wouldn't change.
Where do you draw the line? I use 2 batteries when I need the capacity along with the redundancy(for comfort, not need). In a larger plane the weight difference is negligible, but in these new 30cc planes I believe the weight will make a difference. You are entitled to your opinion, but I started this thread to try to get real life experiences(good and/or bad). I already knew there will be people that will never try this setup because they are afraid to try something new.
First, 40 size trainers dont have gas engines with a need for a battery. No i have never done it, as I have never stood on the railroad tracks in front of a train. With as much money we have invested why take a chance. I just doesnt make any sense. were talking a what, $40 dollar 4..8 volt Nmh 4 cell battery and a $20 dollar switch. I run dual recievers, dual switches, and dual batteries on my gas planes, plus a seperate ignition switch and battery. Give me a legitimate reason for that set up. Its all a personal choice as to set up, so if you want to do it, have fun.
10-15-2010, 12:51 PM
#18
Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: East Rockaway, NY
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Battery question?
ORIGINAL: Lifer
It seems that the Nay sayers have never used this system, and those who say Yea have used them and liked it.
It seems that the Nay sayers have never used this system, and those who say Yea have used them and liked it.
10-15-2010, 05:05 PM
#20
RE: Battery question?
ORIGINAL: House2twist
Only being a ''nay sayer'' because i've seen the system fail, and it's not pretty. For the little extra money and weight penatly, which i HIGHLY doubt the average flyer would notice, i think it's worth the piece of mind.
ORIGINAL: Lifer
It seems that the Nay sayers have never used this system, and those who say Yea have used them and liked it.
It seems that the Nay sayers have never used this system, and those who say Yea have used them and liked it.
