I've installed the system in my first Episode and I have 5 flights on it to date. I'm using the Brenner Contra with a Neu motor on an Ice 80HV ESC. So far I'm happy with the results. I haven't really seen any reduction in the mAh's used yet. But so far, I'm pleased with the consistency of the power. I have to say it is not "earth shattering" as before I never saw this as a problem. But I can see where having the same power feel from beginning to end might make the flying easier. It may be really nice if you're running some of the systems that have a ton of power. I've seen some of these and they seem a little "jumpy" at times. Maybe the Throttle-Tech might smooth some of those out.

What I think is a nice side benefit is the warning lights that if used properly would possibly indicate a low R/C or Motor battery. I have to make some adjustments to how I normally do things to get the real benefit, but it's there to use if you want. BTW, I have made zero adjustments to the system, just plugged it in and flew. One thing I did was to solder a JST plug on to the motor leads so that I could unplug the voltage sensor if needed.

Can anyone tell me what the 5-pin jumper is supposed to go? Unless I missed it there wasn't any mention of it in the manual.

Tony, glad you like the results. The 5 pin loopback plug is used when upgrading the firmware. No updates are available right now, you've got the latest release, but when new features come out you just remove the plug from the controller that connects to the LiPo tap board and substitute with the loopback plug. It enables the firmware update mode, and gets removed when that procedure is done.

I got in 8 more flights today. I'm pretty well convinced that this is a nice addition to the model. I've run through all my battery packs and like most I have a few newer, stronger packs and a few older weaker ones. I'm not going to say that with this they all feel the same, but it does give a little more consistency to the power.

I think when we fly patterns over and over we probably get used to the slight difference in power from the beginning to the end. I think the Throttle-Tech will help when flying unknowns as it makes the entire flight feel the same. For now, I'm hooked!

I'm a rookie in pattern flying compared to the presence on this thread, and have come over from the "dark side" as my friends call IMAC to fly pattern, and jumped into electric after years of development by many, including contributors on this thread.

I found out real fast Electric power is different, and it was pointed out to me that I was all over the place, overpowering the plane when it wasn't necessary. Ed's unit has helped me smooth out that issue and helped battery consumption to a degree by helping me be more consistent in stick placement / power for the entire flight

Hi Ad,

Here are the results of some tests I made with the Throttle-Tech:

Without the Throttle-Tech –
6,150 RPM before the flight, 5,910 RPM after the flight, the difference is 240 RPM.

With the Throttle-Tech, with the default Throttle Leveling Configuration: Minimum Volts/Sell: 3.40, Low Throttle Setpoint: 1300 –
6,060 RPM before the flight, 5,940 RPM after the flight, the difference is 120 RPM.

With the Throttle-Tech, with the Throttle Leveling Configuration: Minimum Volts/Sell: 3.20 (the lowest), Low Throttle Setpoint: 1300 –
6,060 RPM before the flight, 5,940 RPM after the flight, the difference is 120 RPM.


Is it possible to attain about a zero RPM difference before and after the flight?

Maybe a more aggressiveness of the voltage compensation function is needed?

Best regards,

Isaac Najary

Isaac, are you sure that the changes were saved to the controller? Can you check that first and get back to me, because it sounds as if they may not have been.

Yes Ad I had double check that the changes were saved to the controller by reading the controller config.

Isaac, can you send me the rest of your configuration info please? The pulse width at WOT and at idle would be useful to know.

What is WOT?

Max power – 2.000 ms.

Idle – 1.108 ms.

Motor Brake – 1.019 ms.

Motor arming – 0.908 ms.

Wide Open Throttle.

Cheers,
Jason.

Hi Ad,

As to Jason Arnold advice, I changed the pulse width as below:

Max power – 1.900 ms.
Idle – 1.108 ms.
Motor Brake – 1.019 ms.
Motor arming – 0.908 ms.
Throttle-Tech Leveling Configuration: Minimum Volts/Sell: 3.20 (the lowest), Low Throttle Setpoint: 1300

The results remained the same:

6,060 RPM before the flight, 5,940 RPM after the flight, the difference is 120 RPM.

Please advise me what to do.

Best regards,

Isaac Najary

Hi Isaac,
A few thoughts ;

' Without the Throttle-Tech –
6,150 RPM before the flight, 5,910 RPM after the flight, the difference is 240 RPM '
- In the air this RPM will go even higher as the prop unloads - with Throttle Tech it won't
- it will stay at 6060 RPM.

120 RPM is only 2% of 6000 RPM .
The battery at the start is 41V and at the end is 37V.
4V in 40V is a 10% drop - therefore if without Throttle Tech (in the air) the RPM would drop 10% by the end of the flight.

Brian

But Brian, the battery under load when fully charged is not 41V :) Maybe 37 before the flight, and 35 after.

Chad,
Thanks I realise that - was just keeping it simple.

However I find that as the pack empties it's ability to hold voltage under load drops off and when really empty it just cannot hold voltage at all.
Thus the under load RPM % drop is likely a little greater that my 10% example - in normal use and greater still if using smaller packs for eg.

Brian

Hi Chad,
I perhaps should be talking about power at the prop , not RPM as the power drop off is not nearly as linear as the RPM drop.
However if the TT keeps the start to finish variance inside 2% I would be very happy with it.

Brian

Isaac,

Keep in mind Throttle Tech is not an RPM governor or regulator. There are a lot of variables and 1st order / 2nd order effects going on with electric power systems. The numbers you are citing appear to be static before / after flight? I'd be curious to know what numbers you are seeing in the air before / after the sequence. If I am specifically testing, I go full power vertical on the turnaround before entering the sequence, and then full power vertical after finishing the sequence. I find the readings in air to be much more consistent than static readings, and I believe it is because the operating temperatures have stabilized to an extent.

Regards,

Hi Dave,

Yes, the numbers I am citing are static before / after flight.

I don't have the ability to see the numbers in the air.

If somebody had reached the same RPM before and after flight with the Throttle Tech, please let me know.

Why can't we have Ad comment on this? It will be very helpful.

I still think that maybe a more aggressiveness of the voltage compensation function is needed.

Best regard,

Isaac Najary

Hi Dave / Isaac,
I expect that Isaac's full batt,, reading of 6060 RPM (with TT) is fixed (held/regulated) at 6060 by the TT whether it is static loaded or 'unloaded' in the air.
Then the low batt,, reading of 5910 (also taken statically) would be higher if in the air when in an 'unloaded' condition - maybe as high as the 6060 level - let's just say 6000+ RPM.
(Note; The 5910 reading is not at 5910 because of the TT , it is at 5910 due to the batt,, charge state and the static loading.)
Then ,I'm guessing, the TT gives a 'linear' response both from the 6060 (full throttle/full batt,, ) and from the 6000+ (full throttle/empty batt ) situations.
Then the 2% variance would be even less or nearly non existent.

The subtly in this is difficult to explain/ get ones head around.
Dave is correct in that the readings must be taken in the air - 'unloaded', as I'm guessing the guys did the fine tuning based on flight testing.
Ground testing with static loads would be pointless.

Brian

Some thoughts that might help some better understand the Throttle Tech. The function is to modify the RX throttle pulse relative to the motor battery volts. This occurs at a varying level throughout the upper end of the throttle curve. The level of authority can be adjusted by changing the min v/cell setting. (I suppose the actual pulse width authority could be measured using a regulated voltage input over the expected operating range and observing the pulse width output.) The net result is a reduction in throttle input to the ESC early in flight when volts are high and an increase (up to TX max) later in flight when battery volts are lower, providing more consistent flight power. Note that there will never be more motor output in flight than is available at take-off.

It's worth considering the system settings downstream of the TT, as these will affect results. For example, if the ESC settings are 1.0 - 2.0ms which is common for Jeti controllers - then the total pulse width is 1000us. If the TT max authority is, say 100us, then the pulse width reduction is 10%. OTOH, if the ESC setting are 1.0 - 1.6ms which may be the case w Castle controllers, then 100us reduction is 17%. So, in this example, setting a Jeti ESC end points to 1.0 - 1.7 (what I use) would maximizes the TT authority @ 14% with this ESC (in this example). A non-linear response setting in the ESC, being downstream of the TT, will also have an effect on results.

On the point of measuring motor performance, as has been mentioned, static rpm doesn't provide very useful data - really the proper measure of motor power is watts (W/hr) in flight. Or just fly with the TT and enjoy more consistent power throughout the flight.

Hi Isaac. You must not have received my PM to you. I tried twice, but I'm starting to think there is something a bit broken or delayed with the RCU PMs lately. I know you said that you successfully changed the min volts/cell setting, but I wanted to really be sure that there wasn't a mistake. I wrote in the PM:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I thought I sent you a private message on Saturday, but its not showing up in my sent items. I know you said that you read the controller config back after making changes with FlexLink, but I want to review that procedure just in case. It doesn't make sense that reducing the minimum volts/cell to 3.2 would not lower the full throttle RPMs as compared to the default of 3.4. You need to assure that you click on the Save Config button after making changes to the settings. Then, to be totally sure that you really did save it to the controller memory, read it back with the Read Config button. It's possible that you didn't successfully save it before and when you restarted the FlexLink software to check, that it was showing you the last setting that was in the saved configuration of the FlexLink software on the PC.

Can you please try this and get back to me?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So that was the PM. If you did follow this exactly and are certain of the setting, then I think the cause of not getting an RPM reduction at full throttle with a lower min volts/cell setting is that you have your ESC set to auto calibrate for full throttle. If that is the case, full throttle RPM will always be the same between those different min volts/cell settings. The algorithm will still take care of things as the battery discharges, but you must turn off auto calibration to get the results you want. Sorry for the delay posting here, but please check this and you should be able to clear this up.

Hi Ed,

Only today I saw your PM to me, I am sorry for that, that is because I am not familiar with the new RCUniverce software (I also missed some others PM).

As to our subject:

As you asked, I rechecked the controller config according to your explanation and it was 3.2 volts/cell.

About the ESC setting (I use Jeti 99 Spin):
Initial Point – Fix
Fix Intial Point – 1.00 ms
End Point – 1.90 ms
Autoinc. End Point – Off (fix) 1.90 ms
Throttle Curve – Linear
Timing Monitor – Off
Setting th. R/C – On

Maybe the problem is that the Setting th. R/C should be - Off?

Best regards,

Isaac Najary

Now available:
http://www.f3aunlimited.com/webstore...roducts_id=868

Hi Ed,

I would like to thank you in public for your help with the Throttle-Tech controller.

I made two tests one without the Throttle-Tech controller and one with the Throttle-Tech controller.

In the two tests I made a full throttle vertical climb at the beginning of the flight then I flew a full P-15 sequence and after that another full throttle vertical climb.

My setup is: Hacker Q80-14XS motor, Jeti Spin 99 speed control, Dualsky XP46005HED battery and Ulsamer 21X13W prop.

Here are the results:

Without the Throttle-Tech controller – Maximum power at the beginning of the flight 3,100 watt, Maximum power at the end of the flight 2,335 watt, the difference between the beginning and the end of the flight is 765 watt.

With the Throttle-Tech controller – Maximum power at the beginning of the flight 2,572 watt, Maximum power at the end of the flight 2,384 watt, the difference between the beginning and the end of the flight is 188 watt.

The current consumption with the Throttle-Tech controller is a lot better.

The Throttle-Tech controller is definitely a big help for constant speed.

It is a real benefit for our sport!!!

Best Regards,

Isaac Najary


[ATTACH]1987177[/IMG]

[ATTACH]1987178[/IMG]

That's great Isaac, I'm glad that you're getting the results that you wanted. I will be making the updated FlexLink config utility available soon, which will primarily be of benefit to flyers using Jeti controllers to allow them to set for the extra amount of compensation that is required to achieve similar results.