Redundant RX packs are they overkill?
08-08-2012, 07:41 AM
#51
RE: Redundant RX packs are they overkill?
The Fromeco packs state 4 amps. I've seen a few 40%ers go in that were using dual 2600 mah ions, so I've stayed away from them. Obviously there is no hard and fast rule and generally speaking, jets use far less power than a 40% 3D plane. My point was simply that 2600 mah ions have a discharge rate much lower than NIHM, NICAD, A123, LIPO, and LIFE batteries.
08-08-2012, 08:08 AM
#52
RE: Redundant RX packs are they overkill?
I have ran 5200 and 2600 ions with the standard futaba style plug on hard 3D 100-150cc planes for years. A jet as you stated doesnt even come close to the large 3D planes which is why I went with two 2600s instead of 5200s. I charge my jet after every flight day, I charge my 46% twice a month 
I ment to say 2600s
I ment to say 2600s
ORIGINAL: dubd
Discharge rate on 2200 ions is pretty low. 5200 or bust for me.
ORIGINAL: FenderBean
I run two 2200 ions in my F-16 plenty of flights.
I run two 2200 ions in my F-16 plenty of flights.
08-08-2012, 09:33 AM
#53
RE: Redundant RX packs are they overkill?
ORIGINAL: dubd
The Fromeco packs state 4 amps. I've seen a few 40%ers go in that were using dual 2600 mah ions, so I've stayed away from them. Obviously there is no hard and fast rule and generally speaking, jets use far less power than a 40% 3D plane. My point was simply that 2600 mah ions have a discharge rate much lower than NIHM, NICAD, A123, LIPO, and LIFE batteries.
The Fromeco packs state 4 amps. I've seen a few 40%ers go in that were using dual 2600 mah ions, so I've stayed away from them. Obviously there is no hard and fast rule and generally speaking, jets use far less power than a 40% 3D plane. My point was simply that 2600 mah ions have a discharge rate much lower than NIHM, NICAD, A123, LIPO, and LIFE batteries.
08-08-2012, 10:19 AM
#54
RE: Redundant RX packs are they overkill?
[/quote]
Wrong. Real data, derived from my Weatronics equipment which records, amongst other parameters, voltage and currents of both batteries at .1 second intervals, , normal and standby, might surprise you.
Flying a heavy, fast and powerful gas turbine powered model without battery redundancy is, in my view, grossly irresponsible and I am prepared to justify this statement to anyone. (keyboard warriors without experience or data, excepted)
Regards,
David.
08-08-2012, 11:24 AM
#56
RE: Redundant RX packs are they overkill?
ORIGINAL: David Gladwin
Wrong. Real data, derived from my Weatronics equipment which records, amongst other parameters, voltage and currents of both batteries at .1 second intervals, , normal and standby, might surprise you.
Flying a heavy, fast and powerful gas turbine powered model without battery redundancy is, in my view, grossly irresponsible and I am prepared to justify this statement to anyone. (keyboard warriors without experience or data, excepted)
Regards,
David.
[/quote]
And I am afraid of pilots who think they need to have redundancy to justify being safe.
I have seen more high end double everything models go down than the simple ones.
It is always the nice ones being lost.
Every time you add components to your system, you add at least one more single point failure (we call this analysis DFMEA/FMECA) in Aerospace.
Not against redundancy at all, I think it is a good thing, just against your typically arrogant coment.
Regards,
David
08-08-2012, 12:13 PM
#57
My Feedback: (52)
RE: Redundant RX packs are they overkill?
Smartfly makes some great dual battery units. Different styles and capacities. The second battery can help.
By the way, am I the only one that checks batteries with a load between each flight? A simple load tester can also save an airplane. It is even a good entry into the flight log that I am sure everyone is keeping.
Paul S
By the way, am I the only one that checks batteries with a load between each flight? A simple load tester can also save an airplane. It is even a good entry into the flight log that I am sure everyone is keeping.
Paul S
08-08-2012, 12:29 PM
#58
RE: Redundant RX packs are they overkill?
Arrogance, no sir, professional knowledge gained over many years of how it IS done in the real world of aerospace, which I find infinitely preferrable to posters on RCU. Please explain how adding another totally independent power source adds a single point failure. On that basis you would need to redesign the electrical system of every fullsize jet. Perhaps you think know better than the rest of the aerospace business, (I have some experience there) I don't but I AM prepared to follow their proven engineering principles. Compare the consequences of the failure of a single battery system with that which has a second or backup battery.
Ask yourself why Boeing installs no less than SIX independent electrical power sources to the vital captain' s instruments on, for example, an ETOPS 767. (2 generators, APU, RAT, HMG, and battery powered inverter). The real areospace world protects itself from single point failures by adding systems which are independent and will compensate for failure of a primary system and get you home. A backup or second battery on an RC jet does exactly that, as Powerbox systems, Weatronic to name two, make standard in their systems.
You are confusing arrogance with absolute technical knowledge of how things ARE done in the real world. I am afraid of pilots who don't take safety seriously and think redundancy of electrical powers supplies as superfluous.
regards,
David.
Lifer, thank you for your support, I was making my comment in the jet context but I do so agree with you.
Regards,
David.
Ask yourself why Boeing installs no less than SIX independent electrical power sources to the vital captain' s instruments on, for example, an ETOPS 767. (2 generators, APU, RAT, HMG, and battery powered inverter). The real areospace world protects itself from single point failures by adding systems which are independent and will compensate for failure of a primary system and get you home. A backup or second battery on an RC jet does exactly that, as Powerbox systems, Weatronic to name two, make standard in their systems.
You are confusing arrogance with absolute technical knowledge of how things ARE done in the real world. I am afraid of pilots who don't take safety seriously and think redundancy of electrical powers supplies as superfluous.
regards,
David.
Lifer, thank you for your support, I was making my comment in the jet context but I do so agree with you.
Regards,
David.
08-08-2012, 01:46 PM
#61
RE: Redundant RX packs are they overkill?
ORIGINAL: Luchnia
This stuff is hilarious...all the redundancy in the world and they are still flying with ONE single radio battery, a single antenna on the radio, and for all that one radio, etc....cracks me up!
This stuff is hilarious...all the redundancy in the world and they are still flying with ONE single radio battery, a single antenna on the radio, and for all that one radio, etc....cracks me up!
But hey, don´t do it. it is a very personal choice. It is almost like religion
08-08-2012, 03:15 PM
#62
RE: Redundant RX packs are they overkill?
ORIGINAL: JackD
very different to power a radio than powering servos. ONe is a very constant power demand, the other is completely different. Also, you radio is in your hands, very steady. Your plane batteries are been subjected to a lot of abuse...
But hey, don´t do it. it is a very personal choice. It is almost like religion
ORIGINAL: Luchnia
This stuff is hilarious...all the redundancy in the world and they are still flying with ONE single radio battery, a single antenna on the radio, and for all that one radio, etc....cracks me up!
This stuff is hilarious...all the redundancy in the world and they are still flying with ONE single radio battery, a single antenna on the radio, and for all that one radio, etc....cracks me up!
But hey, don´t do it. it is a very personal choice. It is almost like religion
I suppose the argument being made by Luchnia is that unless everything is redundant then nothing should be? Uhhhh, what? THAT, in my opinion, is hilarious.
08-08-2012, 03:29 PM
#63
Senior Member
My Feedback: (32)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Pasadena, MD
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Redundant RX packs are they overkill?
... Ask yourself why Boeing installs no less than SIX independent electrical power sources to the vital captain' s instruments on, for example, an ETOPS 767. (2 generators, APU, RAT, HMG, and battery powered inverter). ...
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Kirk
08-08-2012, 05:36 PM
#65
RE: Redundant RX packs are they overkill?
ORIGINAL: k_sonn
Because they're made in China [img][/img]
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Kirk
... Ask yourself why Boeing installs no less than SIX independent electrical power sources to the vital captain' s instruments on, for example, an ETOPS 767. (2 generators, APU, RAT, HMG, and battery powered inverter). ...
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Kirk
Good one!
08-09-2012, 01:58 AM
#66
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Co. Donegal, IRELAND
Posts: 2,760
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Redundant RX packs are they overkill?
ORIGINAL: David Gladwin
Arrogance, no sir, professional knowledge gained over many years of how it IS done in the real world of aerospace, which I find infinitely preferrable to posters on RCU. Please explain how adding another totally independent power source adds a single point failure. On that basis you would need to redesign the electrical system of every fullsize jet. Perhaps you think know better than the rest of the aerospace business, (I have some experience there) I don't but I AM prepared to follow their proven engineering principles. Compare the consequences of the failure of a single battery system with that which has a second or backup battery.
Ask yourself why Boeing installs no less than SIX independent electrical power sources to the vital captain' s instruments on, for example, an ETOPS 767. (2 generators, APU, RAT, HMG, and battery powered inverter). The real areospace world protects itself from single point failures by adding systems which are independent and will compensate for failure of a primary system and get you home. A backup or second battery on an RC jet does exactly that, as Powerbox systems, Weatronic to name two, make standard in their systems.
You are confusing arrogance with absolute technical knowledge of how things ARE done in the real world. I am afraid of pilots who don't take safety seriously and think redundancy of electrical powers supplies as superfluous.
regards,
David.
Lifer, thank you for your support, I was making my comment in the jet context but I do so agree with you.
Regards,
David.
Arrogance, no sir, professional knowledge gained over many years of how it IS done in the real world of aerospace, which I find infinitely preferrable to posters on RCU. Please explain how adding another totally independent power source adds a single point failure. On that basis you would need to redesign the electrical system of every fullsize jet. Perhaps you think know better than the rest of the aerospace business, (I have some experience there) I don't but I AM prepared to follow their proven engineering principles. Compare the consequences of the failure of a single battery system with that which has a second or backup battery.
Ask yourself why Boeing installs no less than SIX independent electrical power sources to the vital captain' s instruments on, for example, an ETOPS 767. (2 generators, APU, RAT, HMG, and battery powered inverter). The real areospace world protects itself from single point failures by adding systems which are independent and will compensate for failure of a primary system and get you home. A backup or second battery on an RC jet does exactly that, as Powerbox systems, Weatronic to name two, make standard in their systems.
You are confusing arrogance with absolute technical knowledge of how things ARE done in the real world. I am afraid of pilots who don't take safety seriously and think redundancy of electrical powers supplies as superfluous.
regards,
David.
Lifer, thank you for your support, I was making my comment in the jet context but I do so agree with you.
Regards,
David.
08-09-2012, 03:21 AM
#67
RE: Redundant RX packs are they overkill?
ORIGINAL: highhorse
+1
I suppose the argument being made by Luchnia is that unless everything is redundant then nothing should be? Uhhhh, what? THAT, in my opinion, is hilarious.
ORIGINAL: JackD
But hey, don´t do it. it is a very personal choice. It is almost like religion
ORIGINAL: Luchnia
This stuff is hilarious...all the redundancy in the world and they are still flying with ONE single radio battery, a single antenna on the radio, and for all that one radio, etc....cracks me up!
This stuff is hilarious...all the redundancy in the world and they are still flying with ONE single radio battery, a single antenna on the radio, and for all that one radio, etc....cracks me up!
I suppose the argument being made by Luchnia is that unless everything is redundant then nothing should be? Uhhhh, what? THAT, in my opinion, is hilarious.
Sometimes a single connector brings an aircraft down even with dual everything
It is a personal choice and I go with how much is tied up in the aircraft. If it is a cheap beater who cares, but if you have a lot of coin then don't scrimp where electronics are concerned. Put dual setups in as it may save if a failure were to occur in the battery/switch area. Some cases are certainly overkill though.
08-09-2012, 08:48 AM
#69
RE: Redundant RX packs are they overkill?
ORIGINAL: gsmarino2000
You do need to have something, because just tying two packs together gives the opportunity for a dead or shorted pack to bring down the plane. I use JR PowerSafe recievers in my gas planes. They are built to handle redundant batteries and have a diode "or" function to keep a dead or shorted pack from killing the good pack. There are a number of other options - Fromeco, Powerbox, Smart Fly PowerExpander, etc.
You do need to have something, because just tying two packs together gives the opportunity for a dead or shorted pack to bring down the plane. I use JR PowerSafe recievers in my gas planes. They are built to handle redundant batteries and have a diode "or" function to keep a dead or shorted pack from killing the good pack. There are a number of other options - Fromeco, Powerbox, Smart Fly PowerExpander, etc.
