Personally? Hurt pride?

No I in no way consider you to be the, or an authority.

You are however effectively splitting hairs and taking my original post out of context ( strange that is what you've accused me of... ). You seem to have purposely overlooked that I mentioned backing off from whatever is the measured time interval on the ground.

In the grand scheme, even an in flight reading is not going to be accurate. This includes your own "advice" with the "three flight rule".

We could go into how each flight varies and what one reading produces may not be applicable on subsequent conditions.

It is after all a ROUGH estimate.

Sitting the plane on the ground and playing with the servos then backing off a safe percentage is going to be no more accurate or inaccurate than your own technique, when it is applied to further flights or even other days and conditions at the field... which I may add will be just as bad as the "bad advice that could result in crashes and injuries". Gawd what a specious comment.

"Nobody should ever get close to "empty" on a battery. "

Hence the analogy, with fuel to which the same applies. You may time your engine to determine the flight time, but is it ever going to be "accurate", no.

No matter what you use, no one is "safe" running out the battery energy period.

The best you can do is an educated guess, and in lieu or in addition to other techniques, nothing I've given is any "worst" than what you've espoused thus far. Yet you've appointed yourself judge of what I had to say by deeming it "bad advice".

Maybe you may want to assess the ingrained desire you seem to have to attempt bad mouth others simply because you don't agree with them.

Do the servos draw more while in the air, sure, but is it going to greatly impact an attempt to determine a flight pack's run time through an estimate? No it is not going to make much difference.


So yes you CAN do a ground test and back off from what is measured for safety's sake and still be in the ball park.