Ok first and formost I want to say this isn't for everyone but is doable as test continue.
DON'T TRY THIS IF YOUR NOT SURE OF WHAT YOUR DOING!!!!
First setup is very important and yes some will say it won't work. This test was done for my own reasons and to see if I can get the a setup at a more reasonable cost for persons new to electric.
Plane a Panacea that was going to be glow and before it was ever ran the electric thing really started to get into full swing. So first I tried the Standard Hacker setup most was using and it worked but!!!! So I changed to AXI starting with the 5330/F3A and Thunderpower 5300's worked great but weight was an issue 11lb 11 oz. I could find maybe 6 oz. but still couldn't make weight. Desided to try the 5320/28 as some had done in CA. lost some power but the 5330/F3A was over powered anyway, IMO. but it did lack speed as the Nat's last year showed the electric may need more of, and the 5320/28 gained 14 rpm per volt as per manufactures specs.
One of the first thing I had to do was limit the amps with throttle ATV because the 5320 would squeel at even 3/4 throttle, so I put my WATTSUP meter on it and set high atv to zero then brought up the ATV till I hear the squeel and back it off a few amps from that. I ended at 65% high end ( this limited the amps to 60 at full throttle) and 43% low end to get the throttle to be off at lowest stick position.
Now what happened really started to get my attention, with a 20X11 apc e prop, I was only using 2000-2600 mah per flight less than 1/2 the capacity of the 5300's, tried the 19X12 and felt it was to fast, and the 18x12 all APC e props, and it was way to fast, that was last fall. Well this spring changed my mind the 18X12 seemed right, much more of a glow feel. So my question was if I'm only using 1/2 the capacity of the 5300's what could I use closer to the mah I was using with still some to spare, I knew the guys in CA was using the 3700 flightpowers and was really interested in trying them and had all intentions of doing it but I would still only be using 60% of that pack, could I go even smaller? Well check different lipo manufactures I found that ThunderPower had a new 3300 10sx that weighted 29oz instead of the 40 oz of the 5300's (10S) and the 3300 was rated at 82 amps continuous, over 25% more than I was using, and even 2600 was 80 % of capacity which was about 25% more than I was using at the time, but it would loss 11 oz. over the 5300's. total difference from AXI 5330/F3A and 5300's and the 5320/28 with 3300 10sx a big 17 oz. Now I still haven't made some weight saving that I can when I redo paint and firewall and some other weight saving but my plane is still only 10lb. 6 oz and can easy loose 5-6 oz with more mods. A new plane could make 10 lb easy. Something else of note would be that charging at a contest without 120 power because of lower mah get more charges from deep cycle battery. Attached is a file from Micro logger first flight and 52nd flight.
I'll add that I'm flying masters this year and plenty for the flight but thats it land 8 minutes tops if you fly to far out and I'm talking way out your going to run into 3000 mah but at 150 you have plenty. I've been flying in 20-25 MPH winds at 720 ft msl and I'm using 2600-2700 mah.or 80% of capacity.
Set up as follows.
Axi 5320/28 (set to max 60 amps)
CC 85 HV (readyheli.com) best price I have found ( AND USE FIXED END POINTS)
TP 3300 10sx ( Don Shulman at shulman avaiation.com)
Thunderpower 1010 Charger and 210 balancer
deep cycle battery
cost about $1200 with 2 flight packs

DO NOT FLY LONGER THAN 8 MINUTES TAKE OFF TO LANDING. If you want to try this approach do short flights till you get a feel for it, it is plenty for the sportsman, intermediate, and advanced, and I'm doing master with it.

Steve Maxwell

Wow not a word from anyone thats real surprising. Well I'll add that I also testing a 3850 10's and yes of course it has better ending voltage than the 3300 but not much, I do fell that I can feel the extra 5 1/2 oz in the flying, but for many it will be a better choice, a little extra cushion. Here's the graph of the 3850.

Steve,

Great stuff!!! It is amazing how rapidly some things are developing in the battery area.

We have been able to dramatically reduce the total mah usage to less than 3000 mah for a full P07 flight by reducing the total amp draw as you have as well as increasing the pitch.

Keep up the good work, keep us posted on your results. Hopefully this will result in an economical, viable electric package that will make it easier for people to transition.

Don A

I understand that a poor electric throttle setup can create the illusion of more power with more stick but in actual fact you are only increasing the amps drawn which only creates heat, and poor efficiency.

Steve, how did you determine where to limit your motor? During flight data or by setting it on the ground?

I am about to try the new Dualsky GT series 3800 packs that are rated at 22C continuous and 50C burst. Weight of the packs going into the plane (2 5s) is 1025grams. They are soon to be releasing the 4500 packs for those who want a little more cusion or flight time.

I will be flying the motor that Don tested, the Duasky XM6350-16T. I am waiting on props to try, 18X10, 19x10, and 19X12.

The plane weighs right in at 10 lbs and 1 oz, i imagine it will gain a couple just sitting there and will weigh it after maiden to make it official.

This setup should be fairly affordable as well and I think might attract a couple of people who want to give electric a shot without much more cost than premium glow setups.

Thanks

Chuck

Don yes this is getting to be fun to see how far we can take theses things. One of my personal problems is I have always been told I make manuvers to big, I'm trying to break that habit and should get even better results. I feel that some of the top flyers could really make this kind of system really work better than me. One of the things that drew me to electric was the slower speed but I think that the Nats last year showed that may not be best for all conditions, it's fine in light winds but get 25 or more MPH and you get bumped around way to much, many have played with small diameter higher pitch props and the results show. I'm going to try the Daulsky next and am really thinking maybe the 6350 12 turn may do even better if it has enough torque, at 310 KV could even be better than the 249 for the AXI 5320/28, 60 X 37 volts 2220 rpm increase not taking into account of the efficency, should be able to use less throttle and even less amps. Another thing I think could have a big difference is props whats available today is lets call them standard props, look what they have done for glow 18.1X10.1 or something like that, all will be very interesting, who knows maybe we need a 17.6X 13.4 e prop., may just have to try some prop twisting, which would make the lastest issue in Model Aviation about the pitch gauge real relivant.
Steve Maxwell

Chuck at first I just limited to setup on the ground, but what happened was I had been playing with different firmware for the CC 85 HV and I flew once with the 1.23 and when I changed back to the 1.55 version of the firmware and forgot to reset the amps to my surprise it just didn't feel like it had enough power and it didn't, checking my amps after the flight I found that my amps was only 44 on the ground instead of the 60 and I only put back in 1700 mah so I reset to 60 and guess what my power was back. I think the best thing would and I haven't done it is to play with it in the air keep lowering the amps till you don't feel you have enough power then increase a little at a time, till you get the best of both worlds.
I could be wrong but I don't think the 10 pitch will be enough for all conditions, in a 20 or higher wind you'll need more speed to keep the plane stable. Keep us posted theres still much beta testing to do LOL.
I do feel that the 3700-3900 pack will be best for most to have a safety margin built in the 3300 was just a gut feeling to try and max out a system and loose the most weight I could.
Get a micro logger they show much that you'll never find with just ground testing and there cheap. and they hold enough info you don't need a laptop at the field.
Steve Maxwell

Steve, thanks so much for the info, i believe you and i will be chatting a lot on here in the next few weeks...

Here is my challenge err, question. The Dualsky speed control i am using self sets itself. I leave it at idle on the transmitter, then I turn everything on, then arm the motor.
The speed controller self initializes setting high and low points. If the transmitter is already preprogrammed to limit the ATV, to say 60%.. will it truely be limited or just lower the point at which i reach TRUE full power(max amps etc)?

Thanks for the help...

Don, have you tried the Dualsky HV controllers yet?

Chuck Hochhalter

Don't know about the daulsky but thats whyIi went to the CC 85 HV because it has a fixed end points and the Jeti I had didn't have that feature, the other thing is what TX are you using because that can also make a difference. In this forum someplace is how I setup when I had the 9C which worked great.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_47...tm.htm#4737896
Steve

No it will still go to 100% throttle even with 60% ATV. The only way to do it is with fixed endpoint controller.

Fixed endpoint is ultimately a better setup in the long run anyways as it is more consistent and allows more options for adjustment.

Umm, i am still in the Dark Ages of the 8UAF.. hahaha.. steppe dup from the attack 4 (jk)

Chuck

Chuck the 8 has the throttle/ needle mix that does the same thing I done on the 9C you have to use channel 8 for the esc. and it works great for your throttle curve.
Steve

Chuck page 51 of the 8 channel manual I just downloaded it.
Steve

Maybe I should download the manual, hahaha.. second season and i barely know ow to use the mixes... my plane flew great and the old owner of the radio set my mixes up!

hmm, i know what i will be doing tonight....

Steve, THANKS... cant tell you how much i appreciate the guidance.

Chuck Hochhalter
Team lost in the dark.. haha j/k

Cant wait to share info with everyone... later

I like to say I only tried this because of Tom Messer testing the Flightpower 3700's wish he was still around.
Steve

A small word of caution about using the ESC endpoint to limit current. Most ESC part throttle efficiency is much lower than at full throttle and in marginal power handling setups there is much documented evidence of people burning out controllers indulging in this. While most 10S pattern setups have considerable safety margin in this respect there is no doubt that from an efficiency point of view a better way to limit the energy drawn from the pack is to reduce the load on the motor. A wider selection of E props, especially higher pitch ones would help in this respect.

Malcolm

Hello.
I don't really understand the purpose of this whole thing.
What competitive benefits does it give you to run a small motor at a reduced power setting, using small batteries compared to the "full power" set-ups?

Just wondering.
Magne

Malcolm, thanks for your input as well. i am initially going to be trying 3 props for my setup. 18X12, 19X10, 19x12. I am ordering a data logger to help track what is really going on and am looking to minimize additional radio setup.

The first props i blindly chose would cause the motor to go out of time at about 50 amps and only 3/4 throttle. i determined that i had tooo much load n the motor and so having run out of e-props decided to test a glow prop. i was able to spin a 17X12 at 6800 RPM on the ground. Have not flown the plane as yet, waiting on the e props.

I am anxious to try the 18 and 19X12, i feel these will probably work best, but the 19X10 could be awesome in the calmer air. time will tell.

Thanks everyone fo their input.

Chuck

Primarily cost. I have been studying lots of E stuff and the pilots keep saying "I never go to full power" so why have so much?
With the FAI rules for next year limiting flight time to 8 minutes they have done the same thing. A back door weight reduction for E power.

Malcomb: Yes I have heard this and thats why I don't try and downsize the ESC, I've been doing this for over a year and never had a problem with Jeti or CC controller.
Magne : simple less weight = less power needed

Anthony,

I think you will find most will use the same setup as today with the 8 minute limit.....what that will do is allow you to fly balls to the wall in bad conditions without running out of capacity.

Absolutely!

Malcolm

Hello.
I may be wrong, but this is how I look at this approach:
Think about the glow engines, YS four strokes for arguments sake, all related to full 2 meter models.
First there was the 120, then the 140, then the 160 and now the 170 coming.
All the time people have been buying the biggest, most powerful engine available.
You can still buy the YS 120, but nobody is seriously considering this for pattern, because they would have less power than the competitors, and thereby have a disadvantage.

Or you take the biggest available YS engine, put it in the plane, and limit the throttle ATV to 50%.
Nobody is doing that either.

Or, you could install the YS 63, which is an excellent engine for it's intended purpose.
Then you can really save a lot of weight, because not only is the engine lighter, but you only need half the fuel tank size.
But would you want to do that?

I think Chad i right.
People wil still fly the most powerful set-ups, even with shorter flight times, because these set-ups are simply more competitive.

Just my thoughts.
Magne

Magne: But they do limit YS to make noise limits, so they do have more power than they can use. One thing you have to consider is the AXI will if let alone will sqeech like crasy if not limited whether you just don't use X amount of throttle or do like I do and limit with ATV, all because of that is why I started to experiment. Like it says it's not for everyone but is cost effective for many.
Steve

Just out of curiousity, what RPM's are the E props running. Are they more efficient so we run slower rpms.

For instance... while i wait for props, i can swing my 17X12 glow apc at 6800 RPM. This is slower than on the os 160 at say 7900 rpm. When i put th E prop on the motor, equivalent size, 17X12... what rpm should i expect? more or less or the same, if it is the same, am i not down on power? confused ...


Chuck

Dave Lockhart is best to answer this but if I remember right, the glow props are heavier and stiffer which will do different things, more effectant and also more amp draw. probably better braking.
Steve