Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
10-30-2010, 04:58 PM
#79
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
Some years back I had a small interest in gas engines, but had some engine issues with a "commercial" product. Ralph let me come by his home for some business consultations. While there he took me under his wing. I ended up turning a small interest into a pretty darn good career. All because of the way he teaches in person.
Thanks Ralph!
Thanks Ralph!
10-30-2010, 06:35 PM
#80
My Feedback: (243)
RE: Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
In all of my posts I never said Ralph wasn't the best engine fixer around. To borrow your tag line, "Never lie, and never minimize or gloss. Tell it like it is and let the pieces fall where they may. The truth always wins" is the basis of my messages.
Truth is there was no need for Ralph publically chastise his supplier online. It was rude ad inconsiderate.
In Post #44 you bring up how long time old guys should communicate better but feel you have earned the right to tell it like it is. As a getting old guy too I don't disagree, however crossing a line of disrespect is inexcusable and needs to be challenged.
A number of my responses have been deleted, for reasons unknown, but none of them were rude or inappropriate. They merely challenged the necessity of continued public airing when the source was the cause of their own problem. It was not the fault of RCXel.
Ralph has satisfied customers and some not so. But turning a blind eye to inappropriate behavior, no matter the excuses for it, is wrong.
To some the loss of respect may have no bearing now, but it may in the future.
Truth is there was no need for Ralph publically chastise his supplier online. It was rude ad inconsiderate.
In Post #44 you bring up how long time old guys should communicate better but feel you have earned the right to tell it like it is. As a getting old guy too I don't disagree, however crossing a line of disrespect is inexcusable and needs to be challenged.
A number of my responses have been deleted, for reasons unknown, but none of them were rude or inappropriate. They merely challenged the necessity of continued public airing when the source was the cause of their own problem. It was not the fault of RCXel.
Ralph has satisfied customers and some not so. But turning a blind eye to inappropriate behavior, no matter the excuses for it, is wrong.
To some the loss of respect may have no bearing now, but it may in the future.
10-30-2010, 07:00 PM
#81
RE: Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
I personally think this could have worked it-self out without anyone jumping in and mouthing off- to your elders. Sure Ralph did say some not real hospitable things. But for people to just jump in....that is just as bad or worse. Kinda like stirring a pot.
What all of need to do is learn patients, but MOST of all...learn to PM somebody if you want to help....instead of jumping people on a public forum. No need for that. You are not and I mean NOT helping at all. Bottom line is...if you have been offened...turn your cheek & learn to help in the right ways. I myself did have a misunderstanding with Antique....but I still respect him very much and always will. He has done so much for the Guys that want good engines & help with them. Nuff Said Capt,n
What all of need to do is learn patients, but MOST of all...learn to PM somebody if you want to help....instead of jumping people on a public forum. No need for that. You are not and I mean NOT helping at all. Bottom line is...if you have been offened...turn your cheek & learn to help in the right ways. I myself did have a misunderstanding with Antique....but I still respect him very much and always will. He has done so much for the Guys that want good engines & help with them. Nuff Said Capt,n
10-30-2010, 07:42 PM
#83
RE: Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
ORIGINAL: Tired Old Man
I can appreciate the state of the RC Exl website. Software things work a little differently in China so I would be the last one to be overly concerned about a software version sequence.
About ''downsizing'' the size of our ignition modules. I work in a state of the art industry that uses RC ''style'' ignitions. They started out CH (we crossed the Atlantic with them several times) but as demand increased waaay beyond what CH could produce we made our own. Using the best of everything, and going far beyond what any RC modeler could ever hope for in electrical delivery and relibility, the best we've been able to do is increase the size of the module slightly. If you want good or better, the size is not going to change. At least not for smaller.
For those that appear new to this hobby, and I'm using post counts for that determination, you should learn a little back ground before pouncing on Ralph. Like me, he speaks directly. Perhaps quite a bit more directly, and at times a bit gruff. As you children get older you'll find yourselves doing the same because you've already had a lifetime of trying to please everyone all the time and found out it didn't work. So you say what you mean and let the weaklings lay where they fell. There's a lot of puss, er people, that can't handle that, having grown up in a PC world where everything is spoken in soft innuendos and avoiding any possibility of offense. I've known and worked with Ralph for a good many years and to this date I cannot figure out how he makes any money on his work. All the stuff I've had him do has cost him more in postage to return to me than I paid on the bill. Yes, sometimes he makes a mistake, just like everyone else does. He has always taken care of a problem once that problem was effectively established.
What I've read in this thread appears to be a lot of ''new'' people to gas engines making judgment calls based upon a zero knowledge background and using vernacular to establish points of attack. There are also a few that were (or are) commercial distributors of gas engines, people that have been known to tell a lie when the truth would damage their ability to sell a product. Proof of that is found in their decisions to abandon sales of a product because of severe reliability issues with products previously stated to be among the ''best''. The addition of so many new people to gas engines, that already know everything there is to know about gas engines and the people that pioneered this end of the hobby, makes me pretty happy about my decisions to frequent the ''beginner'' RC forums much less in order to spend time with people that really know what they are doing.
So it's my opinion a lot of people need to shut up and back out of the conversation while they take a little time to learn something about which they speak. I don't need a flame suit because I don't care what people say or think. I won't lose a sale because I don't sell, and there's nobody in this forum, except Ralph, that has a thing they could teach me about gas engines or RC. Take this a step farther a great many of you use, everyday, knowlege you obtained, either directly or indirectly, from me.
I can appreciate the state of the RC Exl website. Software things work a little differently in China so I would be the last one to be overly concerned about a software version sequence.
About ''downsizing'' the size of our ignition modules. I work in a state of the art industry that uses RC ''style'' ignitions. They started out CH (we crossed the Atlantic with them several times) but as demand increased waaay beyond what CH could produce we made our own. Using the best of everything, and going far beyond what any RC modeler could ever hope for in electrical delivery and relibility, the best we've been able to do is increase the size of the module slightly. If you want good or better, the size is not going to change. At least not for smaller.
For those that appear new to this hobby, and I'm using post counts for that determination, you should learn a little back ground before pouncing on Ralph. Like me, he speaks directly. Perhaps quite a bit more directly, and at times a bit gruff. As you children get older you'll find yourselves doing the same because you've already had a lifetime of trying to please everyone all the time and found out it didn't work. So you say what you mean and let the weaklings lay where they fell. There's a lot of puss, er people, that can't handle that, having grown up in a PC world where everything is spoken in soft innuendos and avoiding any possibility of offense. I've known and worked with Ralph for a good many years and to this date I cannot figure out how he makes any money on his work. All the stuff I've had him do has cost him more in postage to return to me than I paid on the bill. Yes, sometimes he makes a mistake, just like everyone else does. He has always taken care of a problem once that problem was effectively established.
What I've read in this thread appears to be a lot of ''new'' people to gas engines making judgment calls based upon a zero knowledge background and using vernacular to establish points of attack. There are also a few that were (or are) commercial distributors of gas engines, people that have been known to tell a lie when the truth would damage their ability to sell a product. Proof of that is found in their decisions to abandon sales of a product because of severe reliability issues with products previously stated to be among the ''best''. The addition of so many new people to gas engines, that already know everything there is to know about gas engines and the people that pioneered this end of the hobby, makes me pretty happy about my decisions to frequent the ''beginner'' RC forums much less in order to spend time with people that really know what they are doing.
So it's my opinion a lot of people need to shut up and back out of the conversation while they take a little time to learn something about which they speak. I don't need a flame suit because I don't care what people say or think. I won't lose a sale because I don't sell, and there's nobody in this forum, except Ralph, that has a thing they could teach me about gas engines or RC. Take this a step farther a great many of you use, everyday, knowlege you obtained, either directly or indirectly, from me.
It's been awhile since I read a post that I really considered worth rating, so thanks for telling it like it is T.O.M, and also for giving me the opportunity of rating a post [sm=thumbs_up.gif]
Karol
10-30-2010, 10:52 PM
#84
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Alexander City,
AL
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
ORIGINAL: 52jaws
Get a life. This is a hobby not an under grund game-rooster fight. Puff your chest elsewhere.
Get a life. This is a hobby not an under grund game-rooster fight. Puff your chest elsewhere.
10-31-2010, 12:22 PM
#85
My Feedback: (65)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tulare,
CA
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
$14000 worth for your own use....
Seems the average price on the net for a twin ignition is around $70
$14000/$70 = 200 ignitions!
And as a dealer your getting a much better price which equates to even more ignitions/engines...
Thats a lot of ignitions for your own use.
Hey. Do whatever you wish with your money...just seems youd want to spend time flying too.
Seems the average price on the net for a twin ignition is around $70
$14000/$70 = 200 ignitions!
And as a dealer your getting a much better price which equates to even more ignitions/engines...
Thats a lot of ignitions for your own use.
Hey. Do whatever you wish with your money...just seems youd want to spend time flying too.
10-31-2010, 12:30 PM
#86
My Feedback: (65)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tulare,
CA
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
ORIGINAL: Antique
Thank you, Mr Xu Liang...
I have been trying to retire for most of the year....I was buying RC EXL ignitions so as long as ignitions were available I just kept buying more...In the last six or seven weeks I have tried to order a small quantity of igintions just to keep my hand in the business, but since you chose not to reply to my E mails I am now officially out of RC EXL ignitions, and will not try to buy any more....
I have just enough here to finish off the 10 or 12 engines in the queue, then it's SAYONARA forever..
Thanks again, it took your refusal to get me over the hump.....
Thank you, Mr Xu Liang...
I have been trying to retire for most of the year....I was buying RC EXL ignitions so as long as ignitions were available I just kept buying more...In the last six or seven weeks I have tried to order a small quantity of igintions just to keep my hand in the business, but since you chose not to reply to my E mails I am now officially out of RC EXL ignitions, and will not try to buy any more....
I have just enough here to finish off the 10 or 12 engines in the queue, then it's SAYONARA forever..
Thanks again, it took your refusal to get me over the hump.....
The original post was a try to communicate with Xu Liang, no more, no less, no bashing...Which, by the way, has been accomplished....
Sayanora?? You were trying to to communicate with Xu Liang like this? No more ,no less, no bashing???
Your right..... you were a perfect gentleman.
10-31-2010, 12:39 PM
#87
RE: Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
ORIGINAL: 52jaws
$14000 worth for your own use....
Seems the average price on the net for a twin ignition is around $70
$14000/$70 = 200 ignitions!
And as a dealer your getting a much better price which equates to even more ignitions/engines...
Thats a lot of ignitions for your own use.
Hey. Do whatever you wish with your money...just seems youd want to spend time flying too.
$14000 worth for your own use....
Seems the average price on the net for a twin ignition is around $70
$14000/$70 = 200 ignitions!
And as a dealer your getting a much better price which equates to even more ignitions/engines...
Thats a lot of ignitions for your own use.
Hey. Do whatever you wish with your money...just seems youd want to spend time flying too.
John
10-31-2010, 12:47 PM
#88
RE: Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
Gentlemen, keep in mind that his has been a volatile thread and there have been many posts removed and others edited.
Please be polite, nice, and generalized when adding your two cents.
I come along and read all this and then re-read it again later.
Keep in mind that what you say may be more or less censored mainly because of what has been said in the past?
Jim
Please be polite, nice, and generalized when adding your two cents.
I come along and read all this and then re-read it again later.
Keep in mind that what you say may be more or less censored mainly because of what has been said in the past?
Jim
10-31-2010, 01:04 PM
#89
Senior Member
RE: Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
WOW! This certainly has been an entertaining read this fine Sunday morning......Better than the Sunday Comics, thanks guys
10-31-2010, 01:34 PM
#90
My Feedback: (149)
RE: Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
Hey all, Back to a somehow related subject, understand TOM's great reply, but as I'm not trying to cross the Atlantic or anything, still wondering if any miniaturization of RC EXL EI units is in the foreseeable future.
10-31-2010, 01:44 PM
#91
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
ORIGINAL: 52jaws
$14000 worth for your own use....
Seems the average price on the net for a twin ignition is around $70
$14000/$70 = 200 ignitions!
And as a dealer your getting a much better price which equates to even more ignitions/engines...
Thats a lot of ignitions for your own use.
Hey. Do whatever you wish with your money...just seems youd want to spend time flying too.
$14000 worth for your own use....
Seems the average price on the net for a twin ignition is around $70
$14000/$70 = 200 ignitions!
And as a dealer your getting a much better price which equates to even more ignitions/engines...
Thats a lot of ignitions for your own use.
Hey. Do whatever you wish with your money...just seems youd want to spend time flying too.
Some of us have been involved in numerous aspects of gas engine use for a very long time. Ralph probably one of those the longest, initiating in the early 1980's or so. Since you appear to be unaware of his previous and current work in the development of gas RC and gas/alcohol racing engines, or the fact he's been converting magneto equipped engines to CDI for everyone that desired it for a good many years, you can't seem to understand the scope of what he does, or has done.
You converse using an advanced level of intelligence but you speak without any knowledge of which you speak. Yes, I'm being a little more than direct, but there are times you need to do that with a person. You might wet yourself if you knew how much I've spent, in the last three years alone, on gas engines and other radio equipment that wasn't for personal use and wasn't for re-sale. Far more than Ralph has spent on ignitions. If you buy enough equipment and spend more than a dealer you tend to be treated like a dealer, or better, by manufacturers. Especially if you are one of those that "prove" the validity of new equipment before it hits the common market. But you seem to be too naive' to recognize that.
10-31-2010, 01:59 PM
#93
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
ORIGINAL: triumphman49
Hey all, Back to a somehow related subject, understand TOM's great reply, but as I'm not trying to cross the Atlantic or anything, still wondering if any miniaturization of RC EXL EI units is in the foreseeable future.
Hey all, Back to a somehow related subject, understand TOM's great reply, but as I'm not trying to cross the Atlantic or anything, still wondering if any miniaturization of RC EXL EI units is in the foreseeable future.
It could be done but you would sacrifice reliability and life cycle. Some of the components can only become so small before they begin to fail early from heat. You could separate the components in order to relocate them inside tiny airplanes but you then run into issues with connectivity and voltage line loss. So you compensate with a larger battery, generating more bulk, weight, and potential heat.
I fully understand the desire for a smaller ignition module, especially for planes sized to function with .60 and 1.20 size glow engines, but the conversion to gas always carries some baggage in bulk and weight that is unavoidable. Some things end up costing a lot more in the long run when miniaturized further. There's not much in the way of wasted space inside an ignition module. Removing the case or reducing the size of the case increases the damage potential during mounting, and removes some of the safety margin where heat is concerned. You don't ever want a hot ingition.
How often are you comfortable with replacing an ignition? Smaller coils could be used (not reliably), but spark output will suffer for it. Plus they might fail a couple times a year and there would not be any price reduction associated with any size reduction. Perhaps fly a larger plane, one that will better accept the current size of an ignition module more readily? One company has already attempted making a smaller ignition, and the results do not appear to have worked out all that well. They cost more too....
10-31-2010, 02:15 PM
#94
My Feedback: (149)
RE: Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
TOM, Thanx so much for that response. My curiosity stems from the smaller displacement engines now coming on the market. Your in depth response certainly explains the many limitations involved. Guess the biggest weight savings for these smaller engines are the IBEC's now being used. Again, appreciate your time & response. Have a great day! T-man49
10-31-2010, 03:19 PM
#95
RE: Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
ORIGINAL: rcexl
I receiver you (Ralph Cunningham)EMAIL reply yesterday,But did not receive the before missing EMIAL.I am sorry,I respect you Mr Ralph Cunningham.and Mr Bill Carpenter,I usually use EMAIL sent a read receipt has been received EMIAL ensure understanding,I have a serious reply to any EMAIL, although my English is very bad, but can understand my the Chinese English
, and I thankall very much
I receiver you (Ralph Cunningham)EMAIL reply yesterday,But did not receive the before missing EMIAL.I am sorry,I respect you Mr Ralph Cunningham.and Mr Bill Carpenter,I usually use EMAIL sent a read receipt has been received EMIAL ensure understanding,I have a serious reply to any EMAIL, although my English is very bad, but can understand my the Chinese English
, and I thankall very much
10-31-2010, 03:23 PM
#96
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
triumphman,
You too!. You had a good question and it deserved a good answer. I wish I had a solution for weight reductions in smaller planes. I've experienced similar issues in a plane fit with a DLE 30. The size and weights of some components make installations, balancing, and keeping the weight down a formiddable task.
The first area I would address is batteries. I'm not fond of the concept of using one battery to handle flight and ignition but I can see where this is desirable. As long as interfences isues are eliminated it's not a bad idea. As things stand, if you use a separate ignition battery you might have to put the thing well aft of a flight battery to get the plane to balance. A problem comes in the use of 6 and more volt batteries. The voltage needs to be reduced for ignition longevity unless the latest versions of some ignitions are used that accept a wider voltage range. However, I'm not yet convinced those wider voltage range ignitions will provide the same or greater life cycle as the fixed voltage units currently do. I get to play with some neat stuff and maintaining a 5v circuit lets some ignitions keep on functioning for a few thousand operational hours. Perhaps the use of smaller batteries, ones that because of their size and capacity will require field charging, will help out. Inconvenient but functional.
Next we move on to airframes, which are all pretty much made with the same layout they always have. If the kit manufacturers executed a little forward thinking they would recognize that customers are using larger, heavier gas engines and a need exists for re-visiting the layout of the radio components inside a plane. Move the trays for all the radio stuff aft. Installing a flight battery aft of the canopy hatch does nice things for weight distribution. Provide the ability to mount all the empennage servos in the tail. Putting all the rudder and elevator servos in the tail goes a long way towards resolving balance issues, and direct linkage is as good or better than a pull-pull system.
If you add a structural areas to relocate items you either have to live with the added weight of the new structure or remove equal or greater mass from someplace in the plane. If you remove mass the issue of structural integrity arises. Were the parts removed critical to the strength of the plane? Most people would not be able to accurately answer the question so they would leave everything in and have to live with more weight because of their additions. It's not an easy thing for a lot of people to deal with, especially those that have never experienced the "joys" of building aircraft from scratch or kits.
The above might just provide the room and weight flexibility needed for installing an ignition.
You too!. You had a good question and it deserved a good answer. I wish I had a solution for weight reductions in smaller planes. I've experienced similar issues in a plane fit with a DLE 30. The size and weights of some components make installations, balancing, and keeping the weight down a formiddable task.
The first area I would address is batteries. I'm not fond of the concept of using one battery to handle flight and ignition but I can see where this is desirable. As long as interfences isues are eliminated it's not a bad idea. As things stand, if you use a separate ignition battery you might have to put the thing well aft of a flight battery to get the plane to balance. A problem comes in the use of 6 and more volt batteries. The voltage needs to be reduced for ignition longevity unless the latest versions of some ignitions are used that accept a wider voltage range. However, I'm not yet convinced those wider voltage range ignitions will provide the same or greater life cycle as the fixed voltage units currently do. I get to play with some neat stuff and maintaining a 5v circuit lets some ignitions keep on functioning for a few thousand operational hours. Perhaps the use of smaller batteries, ones that because of their size and capacity will require field charging, will help out. Inconvenient but functional.
Next we move on to airframes, which are all pretty much made with the same layout they always have. If the kit manufacturers executed a little forward thinking they would recognize that customers are using larger, heavier gas engines and a need exists for re-visiting the layout of the radio components inside a plane. Move the trays for all the radio stuff aft. Installing a flight battery aft of the canopy hatch does nice things for weight distribution. Provide the ability to mount all the empennage servos in the tail. Putting all the rudder and elevator servos in the tail goes a long way towards resolving balance issues, and direct linkage is as good or better than a pull-pull system.
If you add a structural areas to relocate items you either have to live with the added weight of the new structure or remove equal or greater mass from someplace in the plane. If you remove mass the issue of structural integrity arises. Were the parts removed critical to the strength of the plane? Most people would not be able to accurately answer the question so they would leave everything in and have to live with more weight because of their additions. It's not an easy thing for a lot of people to deal with, especially those that have never experienced the "joys" of building aircraft from scratch or kits.
The above might just provide the room and weight flexibility needed for installing an ignition.
10-31-2010, 04:57 PM
#98
RE: Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
TOM
Which is why I like building kits - it gives you the skills to modify ARFs. Moving radio trays around is a fairly simple task, as is modifying servo positions. Now we are really off topic.
John
Next we move on to airframes, which are all pretty much made with the same layout they always have. If the kit manufacturers executed a little forward thinking they would recognize that customers are using larger, heavier gas engines and a need exists for re-visiting the layout of the radio components inside a plane.
John
10-31-2010, 05:01 PM
#99
My Feedback: (14)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: St. Joseph,
MO
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
The Kingspark ( http://www.kingtekchina.com/products ) unit is relatively small but filling the case with potting compound really causes an unnecessary weight penalty.
I don't know anything about the reliability or availability but the size is good.
I don't know anything about the reliability or availability but the size is good.
10-31-2010, 06:05 PM
#100
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Open letter to Xu Liang (RC EXL) ignitions
ORIGINAL: JNorton
Which is why I like building kits - it gives you the skills to modify ARFs. Moving radio trays around is a fairly simple task, as is modifying servo positions. Now we are really off topic.
John
Which is why I like building kits - it gives you the skills to modify ARFs. Moving radio trays around is a fairly simple task, as is modifying servo positions. Now we are really off topic.
John