RCU Forums - Turbine or EDF

RCU Forums (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/)

- RC Jets (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-jets-120/)

- - Turbine or EDF (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-jets-120/9155141-turbine-edf.html)

RE: Turbine or EDF

Bob

I think you can go either way, both the P-80 and the Elcetra have great performance envelopes. If you have flown any heavy wing loaded aircraft and are comfortable doing so you will be fine. The P-80 surprised me by its ability to land soft and predictable even without flaps.

RE: Turbine or EDF

Jack

You cant be working on the power system if you are typing on here :eek:

RE: Turbine or EDF

thats true.. we cant be working on anything if we are here working our fingers lol

RE: Turbine or EDF

Here is my very serious and well thought through decision:

TURBINES!!!

:D:D Tor

RE: Turbine or EDF

Tor, let me see. Norway.. Cold, land of ice and snow.. hmm Ya turbines for the HEAT! :)

RE: Turbine or EDF

The Turbine Vs EDf?
well i must say, to give you some good advise in your decision you kinda need to have flown both to give a true reflection of what is better.

And the truth be told, the one is not better than the other because they are both entirely two different things. they both have different pros and different cons, you should just go for the one that that has the most pros to suite your needs the best. ill try list them for you as i fly both and if i leave a few out then hopefully some1 can fill me in.

Turbine Pros
Sound is great, not quite scale but not far off
you can pore and fly, flight after flight within a short period (not that i see this very often as most jet guys take the whole day to have 3 flights anyway)
performance is pretty good
installations are very easy, not to have to worry about ducting and efficiencies
flight times are a bit longer

Turbine Cons
engine is expensive including the running cost
Dead stick can be a problem, and may result in a damaged plane
engine spool up is not that fast
a crash could result in an entire loss of aircraft and all its parts due to a fire
residule thrust
plane is generaly heavier auw compared to EDF
there are more plane options out there designed for turbine

EDF Pros
Instant throttle responce
very good static thrust,
lighter plane = better wingloading = nicer plane to fly
very little chance of a dead stick and running out of battery power is the same as using up all your fuel
the ease of use, plug and fly
if you fly in a high risk of fire zone, you can still fly with your edf :)
up to 6kg thrust the fan is cheaper than a good quality turbine
no service intervals, if bearings are good and cooling isnt a problem it should last forever

EDF Cons
Battery price is expensive, not bad if you are sharing batteries over many different planes inc prop planes
less choice of planes out there that are dedicated for edf and even less that are easy to convert
have to charge at the field to fly more, not that long of a wait with the right equipment you should be able to fly every 30-45 min if you only have one set of batts
the sound isnt that great(except for the new stumax) and its not as loud as a turbine, good for some however but i like to hear my jet when some noisy prop plane is flying
flights are a bit shorter

For now, my advise is, if its up to the 6kg thrust range go edf its more practical and if its bigger then go turbine, because at this stage the cost gets astronomical for edf after the 6kg thrust range for real jetlike performance. ( but in saying that, im about to start a Skymaster F-15 for twin fans but this is because i want the pros of what edf can offer in this plane )

Goodluck

Simon

RE: Turbine or EDF

Simon, thank you. I pretty much agree with your list of pros and cons. I think the F-80 is about 7kg or close. So that puts it on the edge. I like some of both systems but I think I'm going EDF on this first jet. Nothing to say this has to be my last jet. :D

RE: Turbine or EDF

Yes, Rob. The weight difference between the 5000mAh and 6500mAh packs is 2.2 pounds.

RE: Turbine or EDF

Quote:

ORIGINAL: jfetter

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?

With the exception of the battery failing due to having no cooling (definitely my fault for not wanting to cut holes in my pretty plane), everything went perfectly for us at the event. We set the fastest pass, we flew the heavist plane (41 pounds) at 134 MPH, met a lot of great people... heck, we even had dinner with you. :) We were completely pleased at how the event turned out, and the amount of publicity (thanks in part to you and others that keep these threads going) that we are still getting.

Quote:

ORIGINAL: jfetter

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).

Jack, you missed the entire point of our marketing strategy (which obviously many people have picked up as we have already sold out our first batch of fan systems). The idea was to take a plane that is sitting in someone's basement, for say 20 years (like our Starfire), pull the stock glow fan out, and install our fan system, controller and batteries.

Quote:

ORIGINAL: jfetter

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?

You are a fool if you believe that there were not 14S/16S setups there. They were pointed out to us, along with the neat controllers that play music instead of beeping the cell count. :) This was a speed contest, right? We took our 18 1/2 pound turbine converted plane and used 15S. Whoopie. We were also 4+ pounds heavier than anyone else, but you don't hear us crying about everyone being lighter. :)

Quote:

ORIGINAL: jfetter

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?!

For someone who was actually there, you didn't pay attention to any details. We don't use 4500mAh packs We use 5000mAh packs. We didn't drain the packs completely. One cell went open circuit. ALL of the remaining cells were still good and showed 3.6x per cell when tested. As far as telemetry goes, it wouldn't have mattered if we CAT-5 networking cable hooked directly to the plane to give us data - one cell went open circuit, meaning zero power was available to the motor. There is no warning of any kind when something fails like that.

Quote:

ORIGINAL: jfetter

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...

Your quotes are very wrong. I never said anything related to 220MPH, so I am not sure where that came from. I did state prior to the competition, and before qualifying that if we went 200 MPH or more that we would land and not compete in the competition at all. That is a fact. I knew that there was no other plane there that was going to go faster than 200 MPH. We did not know ourselves how fast our plane would go. We never checked the speed, not even with any of the flights prior to qualifying. We wanted to be surprised ourselves. One thing for sure that everyone there agreed with... my 199MPH pass was way away from the runway, and climbing, so there is no doubt that the plane was capable of well over 200MPH. Now, imagine using our fan system in a plane that was a light weight and sleek sport jet....

RE: Turbine or EDF

Quote:

ORIGINAL: JimDrew

Yes, Rob. The weight difference between the 5000mAh and 6500mAh packs is 2.2 pounds.

Jim, the BVM Thunder Power Pro Power 40C 6500 mAh 12S packs weigh 4.6 lbs for a set (2 x 5S saddle cells and 1 x 2S Booster Pack). Your packs on your own web site (6S 5000 mAh) are listed @ 26.2 oz. That means 2 of them (for a 12S set) weight 52.4 oz (or 3.275 lbs), no where near the 2.4 lbs that you claim here (BVM packs @ 4.6 lbs minus the 2.2 lbs you say they are heavier than leaves 2.4 lbs). As usual, your numbers are off (in this case by 14 oz or 26.7%), you really need to stop just taking guesses...

Jack

RE: Turbine or EDF

Quote:

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.

Absolutely for XPS. We run (as well as others) two of our 5S 5000mAh packs in series per NAMBA rules in the Unlimited class boat racing. During the race straight away amperage varies between 135A and 180A. Corners will drop into the 90A range and increase to 180A at the exit. The hulls are fully sealed (taped up to prevent water entry). We ran 140A sustained in the twin black bunny F-4 at E-Jets (no cooling in that jet at all). Look at RCGroups for people's wattmeter results, there are a lot of people running 120A+ setups using our batteries. Our 30C batteries are under-rated. The replacement 44C batteries are also under-rated. :)

RE: Turbine or EDF

Quote:

ORIGINAL: jfetter

Quote:

ORIGINAL: JimDrew

Yes, Rob. The weight difference between the 5000mAh and 6500mAh packs is 2.2 pounds.

"As usual", you are wrong. We weighed the battery packs on the scale with Pablo. In fact, we spent a great deal of time measuring and weighing packs while at E-Jets so that we could come up with our JetPacks(tm) that fit the BVM aircraft. :)

RE: Turbine or EDF

Quote:

ORIGINAL: JimDrew

''As usual'', you are wrong. We weighed the battery packs on the scale with Pablo. In fact, we spent a great deal of time measuring and weighing packs while at E-Jets so that we could come up with our JetPacks(tm) that fit the BVM aircraft. :)

Well then I can only assume you can't work a scale then Jim, this making up numbers and lying to suit really must stop. Aren't you the slightest bit embarrased when you make these false statements that will be recorded for years? People expect a vendor to only drop real, dead-on accurate information, you have proven again that "data" to you is whatever approximation you have at the time.

I'll assume you can add well enough to combine 2 of the saddle packs and 1 booster pack using the numbers shown and divide by ounces...

Jack

RE: Turbine or EDF

Bob

IMO.. where your located on the east coast, I would go Electric EDF.( I have a BVM twin edf F4 5000mah batteries & a Electric 6400mah) Here in the desert unless the temps are in the low 70/80s the batteries take a beating. My morning flights air temp 78 degrees are nothing but a Blast battery temps (after flight) are usually in the high 120's to low130's with flights of 5 minutes.. when the air temps are in the 100's short flights are MANDATORY . NO way to get around it ,as the static temps of the batteries are in the 120's. I start to exceed the safe operating temps after the flight (plus 140 degrees)
Have a few buddies who fly the electra/F 86/F16 on BVM EDF units and with flights of more than 6 minutes & their batteriey temps are in the 120 range.
Semper Fi
Joe

RE: Turbine or EDF

Well Jack, chat with Pablo. He and others were weighing our packs against all kinds of brands and setups while there. Sorry you don't like the facts.

RE: Turbine or EDF

Hi Uncle Joe,

It sounds like your using the Flight Power EVO 30 packs. I think if you tried the new Thunder Power 40C packs BVM sells you will see a big difference in the pack tempertures. At least I did when I switched from the EVO 30's to the TP 40C. After a 5 minute flight they come out at few degrees above ambient temperture whereas the EVO 30 packs would be 120 to 130 degrees after a 5 minute flight. If you do try the TP 40C packs, you'll have to drop the timing to low on the 5212 EVF because the TP 40C packs make the amps bump up and cause the fan to produce more power or you could replace the CC110 with the CC140 and not have to change the timing. As the 5612 is running in the 120A range you would have about 20A head room with the CC140.

Kirk

RE: Turbine or EDF

Quote:

ORIGINAL: k_sonn

Hi Uncle Joe,

It sounds like your using the Flight Power EVO 30 packs. I think if you tried the new Thunder Power 40C packs BVM sells you will see a big difference in the pack tempertures. At least I did when I switched from the EVO 30's to the TP 40C. After a 5 minute flight they come out at few degrees above ambient temperture whereas the EVO 30 packs would be 120 to 130 degrees after a 5 minute flight. If you do try the TP 40C packs, you'll have to drop the timing to low on the 5212 EVF because the TP 40C packs make the amps bump up and cause the fan to produce more power or you could replace the CC110 with the CC140 and not have to change the timing. As the 5612 is running in the 120A range you would have about 20A head room with the CC140.

Kirk

Hi Kirk
I will after I hit the Lottery:D I really Like the way EDF preform but with my requirement (F4 & Electra) & the heat in the afternoon ,I gotta go with a turbine.
Semper Fi

RE: Turbine or EDF

Quote:

ORIGINAL: JimDrew

Well Jack, chat with Pablo. He and others were weighing our packs against all kinds of brands and setups while there. Sorry you don't like the facts.

Jim,

Do you not see with your own eyes a set of Thunder Power Pro Power 40C saddle and booster packs ON A SCALE several posts up from this one? Are you saying I am lying or are you admitting that you were wrong, which is it? Sounds like you're passing the buck and blaming Pablo and "others"? What a piece of work you are Jim, you make up this stuff as you go and when fully proven using incorrect data, you hang others out to dry rather than owning up...

Quote from you, post 112;

"We weighed the battery packs on the scale with Pablo. In fact, we spent a great deal of time measuring and weighing packs while at E-Jets so that we could come up with our JetPacks(tm) that fit the BVM aircraft."

Quote from you from post 115;

"Well Jack, chat with Pablo. He and others were weighing our packs against all kinds of brands and setups while there. Sorry you don't like the facts."

Jack

RE: Turbine or EDF

Quote:

ORIGINAL: uncljoe

Quote:

Hi Kirk
I will after I hit the Lottery:D I really Like the way EDF preform but with my requirement (F4 & Electra) & the heat in the afternoon ,I gotta go with a turbine.
Semper Fi

I hear you and totally understand. I really like your F-4. I just aquired the BVM 80 inch wingspan F-86 (I'll have in it my hands at the end of the week). If the intake opening is larger enough I will convert it using the Aeronaut TF-8000 fan. If not, I'll throw a P-120 in it and call it good.

RE: Turbine or EDF

Thank you joe.. :) thats good advice. Kirk have you moved east yet? Should be soon huh? I'll echo the 40C battery temps. I held BobV's batteries right after a flight and they were just a bit warmer than ambient.. I was impressed.

RE: Turbine or EDF

Bob,

We leaving on Sunday. We're planning on taking 5 days to drive cross country. I'll send you mail once I get there.

Kirk

RE: Turbine or EDF

Quote:

ORIGINAL: jfetter

Quote:

ORIGINAL: JimDrew

Well Jack, chat with Pablo. He and others were weighing our packs against all kinds of brands and setups while there. Sorry you don't like the facts.

LOL! I see a picture of batteries and a scale, certainly not the same batteries or scale that were used at E-JETS. There is no "blame" here. I was giving you a way to check facts about what happened at E-JETS because no matter what I say, it is clear that you are not going to believe it.
:)

RE: Turbine or EDF

Kirk, have a safe trip.

RE: Turbine or EDF

Quote:

ORIGINAL: JimDrew

LOL! I see a picture of batteries and a scale, certainly not the same batteries or scale that were used at E-JETS. There is no ''blame'' here. I was giving you a way to check facts about what happened at E-JETS because no matter what I say, it is clear that you are not going to believe it.
:)

Wow Jim, you are in total denial man, you think you say something and it's fact, you really have slipped off the deep end into your own marketing fairytale. I challenge you here and now, in front of those reading this thread to the following; I will pay for a ticket and fly out to Arizona and we will weigh them together, if they are more than 1 oz over the 4.6 lbs (73.6 oz) I say they are, I will purchase your most expensive XPS radio and one of your EDF fan units and be on my way. However, if the weight is what I say it is, you will pay the cost of my airline ticket and then come on here and both admit you were wrong and then appologize for accusing me of fixing the scale. Do we have a deal, I have a free day next week?

As for not believing what you say, this isn't an unknown or hard to prove, you said they do not weigh 4.6 lbs, I say they do, really not rocket science to get to the bottom of it nor anything that needs interpreting when done, a simple scale will suffice...

Jack

RE: Turbine or EDF

Quote:

ORIGINAL: jfetter

Wow Jim, you are in total denial man, you think you say something and it's fact, you really have slipped off the deep end into your own marketing fairytale. I challenge you here and now, in front of those reading this thread to the following; I will pay for a ticket and fly out to Arizona and we will weigh them together, if they are more than 1 oz over the 4.6 lbs (73.6 oz) I say they are, I will purchase your most expensive XPS radio and one of your EDF fan units and be on my way. However, if the weight is what I say it is, you will pay the cost of my airline ticket and then come on here and both admit you were wrong and then appologize for accusing me of fixing the scale. Do we have a deal, I have a free day next week?

As for not believing what you say, this isn't an unknown or hard to prove, you said they do not weigh 4.6 lbs, I say they do, really not rocket science to get to the bottom of it nor anything that needs interpreting when done, a simple scale will suffice...

Jack

Now there's the gauntlet being thrown down. You guys should video tape the event, stream it over the internet, and let us all know when the "Great 2009 Battery Weighing Challenge" goes to air. I'll shout the popcorn for everyone. Compulsory viewing.

Tim

By the way, isn't there a disinterested 3rd party out there with a set of these batteries that could impartially (now that could be the hard bit) weigh their set?