RE: Turbine or EDF
 

I have had good results from your packs Jim. I am looking forward to trying the new high-C packs.

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

Jim, thank you for the update. Hopefully you'll add those packs to your web site soon.

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

Stumax manual:

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

Thank You "Lucky".

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

XPS cells are great! I use them, great value for money, good voltage under load and seem to be lasting very well. I use them for testing every fan I manufature, and really hammer them with long continuous running. Sure, they don't show the same voltage under load as the latest technology cells from TP, Hyperion and Neu (not far off, though, better than some expensive 30C cells) and they are a generation older, don't forget, but I'm sure they will have the the latest nano technology electrolyte soon which will put them right up there. Still, at the price they are very hard to beat. You don't have to spend a fortune on brand name products in the big EDF world to have a great flying jet.

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

Yeah Jim. I guess if a guy wanted to be in the losers circle, they'd fly your stuff because none of your stuff made it to the winners circle at EJets. Let's see, the 5 finalists were all flying Electras; four of them with the EVF and one with a DS-94 and all were using the Thunder Power 40C batteries. None of them had cooling and none of them destroyed their batteries. Of the vendors you mentioned above only you and one other tried to compete in the speed contest. We all know what happened to your plane and the other one was knocked out of the competition on the first day of qualifying, never to try and qualify again because his speed was too slow.

You said "Since batteries, fan systems, and associated components is not our actual "business" (we manufacture radio systems), these are items that we do not need to make money with, so we offer everything at basically our cost. We know that this creates sales for our radio business by bringing more and more attention to our company."

Well, it's easy to see why you think you have to sell stuff at cost in order to generate business. This thread shows how realiable your radio system really is: [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_9175315/tm.htm]http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_9175315/tm.htm[/link]. The you tube video puts the nail in the coffin on your 2.4 system. It makes one wonder if all of the stuff you sell is this reliable, especially in light of you being the only one at EJets to lose a jet due to your XPS LiPo battery failure.

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

At Ejets Pablo was using the same thunderpower 40c batts that everyone using the EVF had.

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

Glad to hear you are abusing the batteries, Stu! Our new generation of batteries are being manufactured right now, and they will be litterally just a few dollars more for 44C ratings.

Kirk, I saw the thread you started. Ironically, we debuted our system's capabilities at a jet event (CA Jets), where our pilot captured top gun. Over 100,000 systems and 4 years later, we are still producing radio systems. Just like you have discovered with your two documented Spektrum crashes, power is a critical aspect of any radio system. If you don't have power, you crash. We have jet pilots all of the world using our system, and those people understand that gimicks like power expanders and regulators lead to potential problems. Looking back now, it is clear that our low voltage warning indicator should have been included in the first version of our firmware! We get emails from customers all of the time reporting how the low voltage warning potentially saved their aircraft because they are improperly powering their system.

Pablo was running our batteries in many of the flights. It saved 2.2 pounds over the Thunderpower packs he was using!

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

Our we talking about 5000 mah packs against 6500 mah packs with the 2.2lbs savings?

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

The sad part about the whole XPS debacle at e-Jets was they are supposed to be the ones that "know" this stuff. Don't get me wrong, we all have problems and bad days but when you look at who showed up to compete in this first speed competition, almost all showed up ready to fly, no mucking around with their setup. The majority had thought through their plan, their power system and executed pretty much as planned, 5 Electras in the competition withouth a single failure over multiple days and multiple runs. The guys from XPS showed up after literally 11 months of talking about their system and had pratically everything that could go bad, in fact go bad. So I ask is this poor planning, poor execution or stuff just not working as advertised?

First, they used a bad platform to demonstrate speed and agility (IMO), if it were me I'd have gone for a tried and trusted, sturdy, modern sport jet that folks already had a good idea of its flight characteristics (for comparison). Second, they fudged the Voltage! After talking about how efficient they were they went and dropped 15S in this plane when the rest of the pack was running 12S (the rest of the speed competition). Sure, no one said there was a limit but where was this efficiency that we had been reading about, how this fan unit put out more than anything else on the market? Third, they used their own packs but to make matters worse they down-sized to 4500 mAh packs in an event where you should have extra capacity for a fourth run and be able to get back to the runway with your 20% still in the can. Finally, they use a 2-way radio system WITH TELEMETRY, how can you drain your packs completely with a warning system in place?!

To make it all just too much to take they still claim victory! The audacity to say things like "we weren't going to compete anyway" and "we could have hit 220 if we could have managed another pass" are over the top. Yes, 199 MPH was fast and no one wanted to see anyone lose a plane but there was no humility, or "getting it" that there was some problem with planning or execution. Anyone can walk into an event like this that's willing to lose a plane and go fast, maybe even the fastest run of the day if they don't also consider getting their plane back and being able to use it again. Celebrate what might have been but do so conscious of the fact no real goals were achieved except keeping it in the air long enough to register 3 RADAR passes...

Jack

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

Ugh - didn't you boys sufficiently beat this horse to death on RCGroups already. Everybody just ended up looking silly. It not really relevant to the question asked, so let's not replay it here.

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

This is what Kirk said before his epiphany and conversion to EVF- which, by the way, was done because the Turbofan was hard to get; not because he thought the EVF was superior. Back then he had it in for BVM.
In speaking of his Turbofan 4000 powered electra in comparison to the EVF, at the time:
"It's pretty satisfying to be able to put a power system like this together with "off of the shelf" products that the average person can obtain and not having to rely on "specailty" items such as motors with ceramic bearings that are special made to keep a certain fan from smoking them. It's also cool not to have to setup a throttle curve to keep my "off of the shelf" components from smoking."
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...&highlight=evf
I have nothing personal against Kirk, but this petty B.S. is really irritating to read. Kirk has an axe to grind against Tam and against Jim Drew. I don't know who's in the right, and I don't care! I'm sick of reading Kirk slamming some manufacturer for what I believe are personal reasons; not an honest assement of the products.
Bob H, Listen to Ron101. There are a number of ways to get into EDF without breaking the bank. Hyperion makes good cells, and XPS packs have not had a lot of negative press. Heat is the enemy of electric power systems. Whatever stuff you chose, stay well within it's perfomance envelope. If you run everything at max rate, max duration, you're in for some heartache, head aches, and additional unnecessary expense.

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

Guys, thanks for the responses. I spent 40 years in engineering. Most of that time was spent in an engineering lab doing tests. I KNOW there are ways to determine the performance of an item.

Since there doesn't appear to be an ASTM or ANSI committee devoted to these types of products no standards have been developed that give performance/safety minimums. Without such an industry standard testing is pretty much left to individual mfg's with their own methods and equipment that may or may not be calibrated.

So what I'm saying is that to have REAL comparative tests you need REAL testing standards. Absent that we (the modeler) must infer from our own experience and that of other modelers what equipment works best. Unfortunately there are a lot of variables in that equation that can lead to all kinds of results.

Now lets play nice with the thread ok :)

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

If you want to quote me on something I said over two years ago, you should also look at more recent posts. This posts describes why I have chosen the EVF over other fans to power my BVM Fury: [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8092743]http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8092743[/link]. I also tested the TF4000 vs the EVF in my Starfire. Those threads are right here on RCU. Guess what, the 5612 EVF out performed the TF4000. The 5612 wasn't available 2 years ago. With the Thunder Power 40C batteries, the TF4000 was drawing more amps (140 amps) than the EVF but not producing more power.

Let me ask this question. Has anyone consistently run the XPS, Hyperion, or whatever cells at 120 amps or greater without destroying them, without needing special cooling over the batteries and can prove it? Unless these cells can do that, they are inferior to the Thunder Power 40C batteries because the Thunder Power 40 C batteries are doing this all day long when powering the EVF and getting 5 to 6 minute flight times.

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

Kirk, this is what set me off:
"Yeah Jim. I guess if a guy wanted to be in the losers circle"
You can either be a gentleman, sharing all your experiences and letting others make an informed decision, or you can sound like a jerk, saying "my way is the best way and all other ways are inferior". Of late you seem to be choosing to go the latter path and it's getting pretty sour.
By the way, your link above to the thread was cleaned up some. Had it not been, it would have been more proof of you getting into a p_ssing contest with Tam. I remember reading it.
Again, you can be a gentleman or a jerk. Although I'm picking on you, that really goes for anyone who thinks their way is the only way because they have too much ego and self-esteem wrapped up in their equipment choices.
I'm done writing...

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

Well those are BVM planes. I am not going to say the EVF is the best because then it just start a bunch of crap. But IMO you should install the EVF simply for the customer support from BVM. I cant tell you how much those guys have done for me. I would have missed Ejets all together if it wasent for them. Another day I was having problems with my ESC and I sent it to them and they fixed it and had it sent back to me all in the same week so I could show my dad my F16 flying back on fathers day. You are guaranteed success with BVM their is no guess work or gray area with BVM its all proven. Not to mention if you are flying scale all the fans perform very close to each other so does a few MPH really even matter? The biggest difference is the batteries. One other thing to mention about thunderpower is if you suffer crash dmg they will replace the batts at half the cost which is huge. Like I said before the only people that say other batteries perform like the 40C thunderpowers are the people that have never used the 40C thunderpowers.

One other thing about the speed contest at Ejets is BVM electras where totally stock no mods. They were all doing like 5 flights a day. The starfire was a purpose built plane for one purpose to win Ejets. They did have the single fastest pass and it was an amazing accomplishment. I would have loved to see a electra purpose built for speed only and see how fast it would go.

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

You recommended the Hyperion cells. Can you prove to us they can survive at 120A or greater without special cooling instead of personally attacking what I have to say, which by the way you don't have to read.

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

There's no need to prove it.. The F-86 is such a light sleek aircraft there's no need to use a fan that pulls such high AMPs, Go with a lighter fan that pulls less AMPs. My Hyperions are working great at 100 amps... I will soon use them in a large warbird and jet pulling 120+.
There fans that can give 4000 watts at 90 amps... and the F-86 doesn't even need that

but to each there own

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

But Ron, there is a need to prove it. To give a blanket statemnt that any brand of cells is good without discussing the environment the cells are being used in can be misleading. The EVF is one of the fans being considered here. It was designed to work in the BVM F-86 and it works better than any other that has been put in that airframe to date. So, recommending a brand of cells without proving those cells can survive is bad advice. I'd be interested in seeing your results once you have consistently run the Hyperion cells at 120A or more without special cooling over the cells. That is the condition Thunder Power 40C cells have been running in the BVM Electra and F-86 all season long without the loss of one single cell due to amp draw or over heating. If the Hyperion cells can survive after prolonged use (as the Thunder Power cells have proven), that's great and we will have more battery choices for the truely high-powered setups. But until it can be proven, the Thunder Power cells have no equal.

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

Gunradd

You did, my project speed was purpose built but did not have time to test the other system. So I went with old reliable.

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

Project Speed is just that, a project, and it was fun to build and get painted just before E-Jets but now comes the fun part, playing with the fast spinning thingy that makes noise to make it go faster.

To put it another way, 199 MPH probably won't even qualify next time ;-)

Jack

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

If I can add my 2c, while the speed event and ultimate competitive bragging rights aren't up my alley (scale is my preference), I recognize that it's of benefit to all of us. Whethere BVM is better or XPS is better, etc etc, doesn't really matter....what matters is the development and progress that's being made in this aspect of our hobby. There are guys, like Kirk, who continue to push the envelop and try new products...yes, sometimes with devastating consequences, but with out that R&D the equipment wouldn't get better. Having Electras sweep ejets was a good thing, because it's only going to make other manufactures work that much harder to improve on that 'bar' setting performance.

If you look back at the progression of our hobby with pylon racing pushing the .40 size engine development, and pattern pushing .60, then we got up into scale getting larger with gas engines and warbirds, then progressing to large 3D models pushing the limits of our radios and servos, etc etc...with out that competion by a few, we the masses would not have benefited from larger engines, more reliable radios, affordable airframes, etc.

As much as some people take these things too personally, let's watch the development and encourage the leading manufactures to push each other. In the end, we will all win. :D

Ok, so it was more than 2c... ;)

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

This is getting dumb. I think his choice of fan will dictate what battery to use. As you have said Kirk, the TF4000 is the better fan to about 4000-4500 watts - above that it losses it's edge and it seems the EVF is the fan of choice.

Now - if he uses the lower fan - he doesn't need to pull 120 amps and any of the other name brand cells will be just fine. If you go EVF - you will need the TP's

As for the batteries themselves - I don't think there is any great difference between them - some yes - but not a whole lot. As has been said before - the TP 6500 (from BVM) are a 2P battery. Remember when we had to run 2P years ago so the batteries would survive? That's why BV uses 2P so that the batteries will be reliable under 120 amps and not overheat or be damaged.

Run a 1P TP pack (on an EVF) and see what happenes, or run a 2P pack of any other brand name cell........20 bucks says they will be just as good as the TP. I believe the only difference is a slightly lower IR on the TP's.

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

Boom!!
SkyHawk... someone that gets it
very nice and well put

RE: Turbine or EDF
 

The Hyperions being used at 100A are 5000mAh capacity, which equates to a 20C discharge rate. The TP's are 6500mAh capacity, 120A results in an 18.5C discharge rate. Let's see the TP's doing 130A for a fair comparison. Really though, the chemistry being used in all the latest lipos is either identical or very close to it. I don't believe much of what the pack vendors say, but I do have insides on the material technology being used, courtesy of my strong connections with the materials science dept at University of Technology in Sydney, and I am informed that the latest jump in performance we are seeing is due to the use of carbon nanotubes in the electrolyte, and it will all be licensed from one source, ie the patent holder. Any variation we may see will be due to cell construction, or the vendor's method of rating cell capacity. On the other forum in the battery section there is a very long thread about the Hyperion G3 cells, people are running cycle tests with high charge (up to 5C) and discharge rates, and they seem to be holding up very well. An example of the difference in performance between them and other brand cells can be seen by the fact that on the SM110-52 EDF unit running 12S 5000's, the Hyperion G3's give so much voltage that the unit draws over 5kW (way past its safe maximum of 4.2kW), whereas all the other brands of cells I've tried give 4-4.2kW on 12S 5000's. I'm sure the TP40C's would give even more power, simply because they are 6500mAh vs the 5000's that most people use. Hyperion do make 6500mAh cells, and a 6S pack is $285.95, so a 12S setup will cost $571.90 vs $959.00 for the TP 6500's from BVM. Is it really worth paying $387 more for TP40C's? For another ~$185 you can get a second set of Hyperion G3's. I think I know what I'd prefer.

As for the current range of XPS cells, well, they are last year's technology, so comparing them to TP40C's is a bit like comparing TP Extreme V2's to TP40C's. I use them and I'm very happy with them. Great value for money.

BTW, I don't have any stakes in the lipos wars, just the fan wars, however, I do like to advise my customers about the various options available, as not everyone can afford a Ferrari, sometimes we have to settle for two Maseratis.....