RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Hey Tony,
No, I haven't taken a rental vehicle to the Drag Strip in some time now!

I thought a little more about the UBEC reliabilty issue ... is the only concern that a cell (actually 3 or 4 in parallel) could go "open"?
The much lighter solution (compared to a backup battery) is a Schottky diode across each series cell. The cathode goes to the positive terminal so the diodes do not normally conduct. If a cell dies, open, then you loose 3.7V + 0.4V for the diode. You should notice the power drop and land, but landing is still an option. The diodes need to carry the motor current, in case of a failure, so they are sized for 65 Amps. That's really not a big part (or two in parallel). By the way, what is a Ubec? I know what a BEC is, but what's the U stand for? Who makes the item you're using?

Actually I am positively excited about the prospect of electrics. The whole right-thrust discussion a few mails ago was telling. To begin with, I agree with you, and at worst, you adjust the right-thrust until you find yourself pushing left rudder in the outsides, as often and as far as right rudder in the insides. It's airspeed sensitive, not throttle position. The plane without this compromise will not have a big ugly chin to house a four-stroke: it will look like a big Banshee, or Shoestring. I have already been drawing, aimed at the 2005 season. Do you have weights for the major components? Since you were so close to the weight target, out-of-the-box, your finished wing,fuse, and stab weights would be interesting.

I'll try to find out which TV program it was ... you need a copy, compadre!
Regards,
Dean

RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Well, here's an update.

First to Dean. The U stands for Ultimate, just the manufacturer's name for it. Your diode discussion sounds good, but I may have had the ultimate reason not to go the BEC route. I was flying yesterday with some new packs, and I forgot to put on the velcro self adhesive strips that keep the battery from moving fore and aft. Got away with it for one flight, but on the last flight, I did a hard outside 1/2 loop after a manuever and ejected the entire motor battery pack from the plane. It knocked off the canopy enroute. The plane was upright and fairly high, going downwind, still flying well, so I kind of took my eye off it to follow the canopy down. I thought at first that just the canopy had come off. It wasn't until I turned base to land that I realized I had no power. The model was still controllable right to the landing, which sort of pancaked in a bit. I found the canopy fairly quickly, and there was minimal damage, but it took till the next day to find the cells. They're a bit mushed and I'm hoping that they can be repaired. Anyway, I found a way to get the "Ultimate" open in the motor batteries.

But on a high note. I just finished the first day of a pattern contest here in Lancaster. I have to say the more I fly this thing the more impressed I get. Today was awful, 20 to 30 mph winds, cold as heck. This model handled it with ease. The knock on the electric from the World Champs was that it had problems in wind. Not this model. Best I've ever had. I'm more fired up about pattern now then I've been in years.

Oh, BTW, another somewhat telling bit of info. Gauging the R/C battery voltage drop from flight to flight, I estimate the consumption is about 1/2. Without the vibration those digital servos are working a whole lot less. And I am beginning to believe that is translating into better control of the model. All positives.

This has really been a lot of fun!

RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Tony
Great meeting you and watching you fly the Partner. It is very impressive and every bit as powerful as Jason Shulman's plane. Also, thanks for all your help at my first Pattern event. Special thanks to Jerry for encouraging to fly. It's pretty neat to see 3 good performing electrics at one pattern meet.

Here are some photos --

== Kyle

RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Here's Tony's Partner in the foreground and my Efactor in the background. My plane looks like a tooth pick.

-- Kyle

RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

How about some results?

RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Tony: Now that you've had a change to fly the Partner for a bit, would you still soft mount the Hacker? I'm using a C50 12XL in a 90 size aerobatic model and there's virtually no vibration in the airframe and the model is as quiet as can be in the air.

Mike M

RE: Electrified Partner
 

Hi Tony. First off, great to see you back in pattern and fired up about it. You may not remember me as I am a novice flyer compared to you, but I am Jevan's brother. I wanted to know where do you come up with the information for all of the electrics? I would love to go electric and don't really know where to start with a 2m ship. Actually, I just bought a ys140L from Vic down in your area and I think it used to be yours!!! Boy I hope I never have to run it and can change to the electric at least for pattern. Anyway, hope the wind dies down for ya. Beautiful plane!!! Will be seeing you at the contests this year hopefully. Take care, good luck. Krishlan

RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Tony - How did day two go ?

Any results to share with us ?

RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Hi Tony,
THanks for taking the time to write up your experiences with electric pattern. I think you may get a new revolution started ( I know I'm VERY interested). Glad to hear your Partner escaped your battery ejection mishap mostly unscathed. Many years ago a friend of mine built an MK Curare, but modified the canopy area into a hatch. Unfortunately, his hatch latch mechanism failed and it popped off; releasing his Rx battery into the wild blue yonder as well. You know the result.
Happy Flying,
Will B.

RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Hey Tony, glad you got the ship back!

Imagine if the pack had wedged itself in the tail? Hoowee!
So I take it the pack with the BEC was still in the ship.
I had wondered about the "G" loads on 54 ounces of battery ... so real battery boxes are in order, eh?
I was actually wondering about the effect of putting that percentage of the plane's weight far from the vertical CG: I have an old Prettner Supra-Star that I'm contemplating electrifying, and the batteries would be outside where the external pipe would hang.
So the Partner suits you? How's the spin/snap?
My guess is that a single LiPo cell and a properly done switching "boost" regulator will be the lightest devoted flight-pack battery system.
No one does this now, but a switching supply will work nicely, provided that the receiver (at least) is fed by a linear regulator that isolates it from the switching noise.
Too many ideas for projects!
write me some time <[email protected]>
Dino

RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Kyle,

Thanks for the kind comments. It was great meeting you and getting to talk "electric". The weather was much better on Sunday and we got in 3 more rounds. Here are some of the results that I can remember,

F3A - 1st -Troy Newman, 2nd - Greg Frohreich, 3rd - Jim Woodward
Masters - 1st - Tony Frackowiak, 2nd - Jerry Budd, 3rd - Rusty Fried
Sorry, I can't remember Advanced and Intermediate.
Sportsman - 1st - Terry Hemmis (our local lady pilot!), 2nd - Kyle Mashima(I'll bring your plaque to MWE!)

Troy was having engine problems with his Smaragd and needed a complete score for the last flight, so he flew the Partner. He got one quick flight on it practicing Friday, so it was still pretty new to him when he flew it that last round. He put in a great flight and proved the effectiveness of the model in the F3A pattern. Maybe he will add some comments here later.

Mike M.

I'm not sure I would change anything in this model, it seems to be working very well. We did a sound measurement on it Friday using Troy's meter, and it measured 89 db, well within the limit. It may be an interesting experiment to hard mount the motor and see if anything changes, but certainly a little vibration isolation isn't hurting anything.

Krishlan,

Glad to hear from you. If you want to get together to fly just come on up sometime.

Will B.,

I did the R/C battery ejection years ago with an 1/2A Ace Pacer. Just turned off the TX and watched it hit. Oh well! I am absolutely convinced electric will take over pattern, there are just too many advantages.

Dean,

I wasn't using the UBEC in the Partner yet, luckily, as I ejected both 5s4p's in my little stunt. That's removing 3.1 lb all forward of the CG and the thing was still controllable. Since the new TP cells about to come out will pull another 10 ounces off the battery system, I don't think I'm going to bother to use the UBEC. Frankly, I want this model just a touch under the limit. I really think we can get these things too light.

BTW, the UBEC is a switching regulator. I have installed one in my H9 Funtana, no problems so far. But I think I'm going to stay with a separate R/C battery, at least for now.

The stall/snap characteristics are excellent. In the spin, I enter with high rate elevator, and I have to reduce that elevator after the entry, or it will go into a sort of weird flat spin. With the reduced elevator after entry it is a very stable, slow spin that stops instantly. The snaps couldn't be better. There's a vertical climbing inside snap in the P-05 F3A pattern, and when I've played with them, they are great. When Troy flew it on the last round, he absolutely nailed it.

Concerning the vertical placement of the batteries. That is the only real trimming, other then control gains, that I've done. With the original mounting of the motor batteries, as in the posted pics, the model had a slight pull to the canopy in the vertical lines. I lowered the batteries 1", and instead of stacking them side by side vertically, I laid them down horizontally. This lowered the vertical CG and now the uplines are perfect. I think if you mount them very low with that Supra-Star you may have a pull to the LG.

Now to get an Excellence framed up for Jerry so I can start on my next one!

RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Well in a word the Electric models in F3A are awesome. I had not actually seen the setup that Jason flew until last Friday. I was impressed. Number one the weather was good and the model performed really well. In looking at the performance you have to realize the way things are working.....The model never goes into the Afterburner mode that the glow motors with a 140 or 160 motor fly with.

So the Speed of the model is really controlled by the 22" prop. This means the model is flying slower but its more like a tractor. It has vertical as good as any of the top glow setups. So I don't think power is an issue in the comparison. They both are about the same.

The Speed range on the glow model is larger. You can fly faster and almost as slow as the Electric. SO this is where I see an advantage to glow or is it?.... I'm undecided... The other thing I do see is that the electric is easier to make constant speed...because its window is less the pilot can be all over the throttle and not make huge changes in the speed category. Don't get me wrong I feel the speed of the Electric model is not too slow....it is just very different both in watching it fly and flying the pattern with it. Greg an I had discussed the results of the model in the wind as a questionable thing...Well Saturday didn't disappoint us...it was 20mph easy almost all day. The model seemed to fly well and not different than the glow models. I think at times I wanted more speed...but this could be props, or changes in setup....Then again it didn't need the speed it had plenty of power for everything. P-05 and Although I didn't F-05 with it....for sure the model can do it on the Hacker power plant.

I have no doubt the electric models can perform equally precise sequences and also compete on an equal footing with glow models. The Electric model has a different presentation that looks different from the glow models. I have not decided if it is better...but it is different. I can say this......It will cause your mouth to drop open when you see it perform the sequence. For sure its not any worse off....maybe not better...for sure not worse.

Its very much like a Ballet type of thing to use a phrase from another contest pilot this past weekend.

Things to get used to:

The sound. We become very dependent on the sounds of our models. We listen for the motor to speed up on a top box horizontal line.....this is a slight clue its descending. Also the stall turns are different...the slow throttle back to the pivot point....the sound of the motor helps this out or at least for me. When the model first starts up and takes off...the motor sounds like a park flyer....and you are not impressed. Once you enter the box and start to perform the sequence the noise blends into the pattern and it acts to clue you on the speed of the model.....Just like the glow models. The problem is the cue from the electric is different in the ear.

I can see where the speed and sound of the model can really be an asset to a pilot that is well prepared. It is elegant and sophisticated. A glow motor is more throaty and powerful. At for glance the electric is not the most ballsy setup...but once you watch it pull a vertical line snap and continue to pull the line without speed decrease or hesitation you gasp.

Next is the model's locked on feel. I have spent lots of time with the Smaragd. Since the Partner is basically an extension of the Smaragd and some improvements.....I was able to step right into a model that I know flies very much like my model. So this was an advantage.

Overall the only downside of the Electric deal I see....and this is after a 6hr drive to think about it......

The technology is new. Where will batteries take us? Where will the motors? Gear boxes and prop experiments? And How long will the batteries last?

The only disadvantage I see to the system is its cost today. Now the words we all use is that the prices will come down...and they might very well drop a bit. But just like a PC the price may stay the same and the performance increases giving you more bang for the same buck.

Who knows....but I'm sure Hacker and Thunderpower are indeed planning strategy to both be profitable and serve modelers interests. I think its only a matter of time before Electrics migrate into all aspects of modeling.

Will they overtake glow in 5 years? I don't know....Will they replace glow? I don't think so. But I do think they will attract a very loyal following and rightly so.

Its a very good thing for modeling. I think its a very good thing for F3A....

Troy Newman
Team JR

RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Tony,

Have you done any current/voltage measurements to get an idea of what your input power is? I am curious to know whether you are getting close to a wet model's 230-260 watts/lb power to weight ratio or is the big prop just so much more efficient than the typical glow sizes?

Regards

Malcolm Harris

RE: RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

I have yet to actually measure my model, but the same set-up in the Rhapsody produces 2,300 to 2,400 watts. At 11 pounds that's 209 to 218 watts/pound. Slightly less, but the 22-12 prop turning at 5,800 is much more efficient.

I think Troy's comments are pretty much right on. For absolute pure pattern performance, it is really a toss up right now. But for ease of operation, low vibration hence low maintenance, and some possible advantages in speed control in the pattern, the nod goes to the electric.

Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Tony,

Sounds like you're having fun and the plane looks great. I can't wait to see it at either MWE or Phx. I received my Rev-Pro, but have to finish an Angels Shadow for a friend first. I may let Sean work on the Pro so I can have an electric at Phx. I liked the install of your plane. If you have any close-ups you could shoot over here, I'd like to "borrow" some of those ideas for the Pro. I'm particularly interested in the battery and gear mounts.

I too forgot the "safety straps" around the battery pack once during practice at the Worlds before the finals. Thankfully they did not depart from the plane, or even the mount (small pieces of Velcro under the pack held it).

RE: RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Hi All,
I've seen Tony's electric fly about 10 times now and also judged 2 of the rounds this weekend. I'm starting to view this as tool that could help you score better. I view most my purchases that way asking this, "will it help me score/fly better?" From the judges perspective, the electric is very pleasent. You absolutely don't need the audio "drama" of the powering on of the glow (2 or 4 cycle), and the abscence of the smoke trail definately helps by not showing every little deviance of either the plane or separate wind turbulation. Without the rush of glow audio noise, the plane never really gives the "impression" of being rushed, in trouble, or loud, to the judge. We'll see what happens in the long run...

From the pilots perspective, eliminating 97% of any engine performance variance from day-to-day, location-to-location, fuel-to-fuel, plug-to-plug changes (or weather) could do nothing but help you score better. A tool that would allow you to hold engine/motor performance relatively constant throughout the whole season could be priceless to the hard-core competitor.

Planes: For a national/world competitive model you need to start with a dedicated electric platform which may disuade some. For the local contests, maybe you could convert a glow model if it is already light to begin with. However, if you have a 10.5 lb glow model with 20 oz of fuel, an 11 lb electric model is actual lighter for probable time you are flying the sequence????

I'm more than impressed with the concept and now reality of it. The more I think about it, the more I think that by removing the glow style engine day-to-day variances, the higher your scores are going to go. Good job Tony, & Jason.
Jim W.

Electrified Pattern planes
 

The way things are going as far as making weight with current "glow" pattern planes seems to be similar between the already converted. Other than Kyle's E-Factor electric pattern plane, the "glow" planes that end up at 10lbs RTF as glow set-ups seem able to be converted to electric and make weight. But in order to make weight one would run a 10S3P pack though. In the next couple of months you can run a 10S3P with the characteristics of the current 10S4P packs without trying to be careful about loading the packs hard. This will make most any plane able to be converted to electric. Tony's plane being only 6 ounces over 11lbs. is the same that the Rhapsody's were over with the 10S4P packs.
I am going to try to keep track of the weights of the Rev-Pro as I go...if I get a scale first to do so. We had done this with the Rhaps, but we lost the paperwork.

RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Tony,
I was thinking that I might have a vertical CG issue.
Later,
Dean

RE: RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Jason thanks for putting this technology where we're heading, iwas a little spectical before the Worlds, but in reading this it seems that the electric fits the way I like to fly to a tea, granted I'm not at your level and will never get there(well at age 55).
Tony thanks for following this up by putting on rcu wish you had some of the info on the NSRCA discussion list also would get alot more people involved, but the RCU is great for the pics.
Ok now for a dumb question as I remember right in Poland Jasons plane got like 30 minute flights, and yes I did read Jasons last post, so if we only fly at 8 to 10 minute contest flight what would be the minimal Batt's for that time frame, and charging time for them.

Thank both of you and keep it up.
Steve Maxwell

RE: RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Steve,

In one Master's routine, when I recharge it puts in an average of 4,000 mah into each of the two 5s4p's. At an 8 amp charge rate, that's about 30 minutes. In reality, about 20 minutes and the packs could fly another contest flight.

When practicing I usually fly 2 complete Masters patterns, about a 13 minute flight. In 40 minutes I the pack would be charged enough to do that again.

Hope that helps!

RE: RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Thanks Tony that's interesting, so with a little break in between flights, with 2 packs you could fly forever.
Steve

Flying time
 

Steve: I only flew 10 minute flights in Poland. I did fly a flight for 12 minutes once there while doing some of the unknown maneuvers. I believe flying 2 patterns is not a problem, and very little concern in the near future.

How about conversion to electric
 

Maybe Jason, Troy or Tony can answer this. It may have already been asked, but forgive me if it has...

I have Sean M's backup Angel Shadow that came in around 10lbs rtf. It has a DZ with Hatori and JR Digital's throughout. Can this plane be CONVERTED to the new electric Hacker motors/batteries or should I start from scratch. (Maybe the batteries can hide in the pipe tunnel?) As you know, the AS is quite expensive and I'd hate to give up this great flying plane just to convert to electric. However, I'm fascinated with the new technology and would really like to try electric pattern.

PS I'm not much of a builder, but can "assemble" much!:D

John Johnson, Lubbock, TX

RE: How about conversion to electric
 

Its EASIER to convert from glow to electric if you do it durring initial construction. It also turns out lighter.

You can convert a model that has ben previously flown with a glow engine installed... You'll have a bit of trouble getting the cutting tools in to do the lightening work. the batteries don't necessarilly have to be bunched in one pack... you can series wire multiple packs of the same rated cells with heavy guage wire.

The pipe tunnel location for the pack may be an excelent idea... as it should be relatively easy to direct cooling air over the batteries. (there's air inlet holes in the cowl... and an outlet hole where the pipe exited already ;) ) Just be sure the batteries themselves don't block off the airflow...

RE: RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

I'm really not familiar with the Angel's Shadow construction, but my opinion is that it is harder to do a light conversion with a model that has a belly pan. With an electric, there is no need for that, and in fact it makes it a requirement to install the batteries by removing the pan, sort of a nuisance. It's much easier to simply remove the canopy hatch and install them through that. In fact, in the Partner my canopy hatch is held down with a BVM hatch latch, making it really easy.

I have a PL Lazulite kit, and if I build it for electric I will glue the pan on and cut out the divider. Have to come up with some neat arrangement to lower the LG mount, also. With the AS conversion, you will need much longer LG legs to clear that 22" prop.

I'm sure some will do conversions of existing glow models, but IMO you won't see the real benefits until you build an electric specific model. If I were you I'd enjoy that nice Angel's Shadow as it is, and maybe think about a new model for electric. I'm hoping the coming Piedmont Splendor will be suitable.

RE: RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

I've heard the Splendor will be an open pipe tunnel design similar to the Focus.. I hope not.

RE: RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

As far as weight goes.. it's too bad the weight limit isn't setup for a fueled aircraft at maybe 12 pounds. The electric clearly has the advantage here as there is no weight change through the flight, no lean runs, blown plugs, etc.

I believe YS and OS should be very nervous by these developments. When an electric system comes in UNDER the price of a YS 1.60DZ, lookout. It's not too far off I think.

Electrified Angels Shadow
 

I too have an AS (OS) and am finishing one up for a friend (YS). I don't think it will be easy to convert, mostly because there is hardly any room to work on the firewall to convert it. Also, the batteries in the bottom of the fuse will be a BIG pain to get to through the chin, and I don't think there is any room to get them in through the canopy. If you've got one that light on glow, I'd leave it....

RE: RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Just an update,

I now have 45 flights on the model. The power system has been flawless. I am still learning about support equipment, mainly the size of the source battery for charging at the field. It takes a BIG one. I bought a 130 amp/hour deep cycle 12 volt lead/acid battery, and in 3 charges of the model's packs it's down. So then I go fishing for cars in the parking lot that have strong batteries! Got to be careful, easy to drain them to where you can't start the car. But this is just small points to learn.

My Orbit chargers seem to be working great. I really like the rugged construction, and while they may be a little slow to fully charge the pack, in 40 minutes or so the pack is charged enough to fly. I will get another Orbit Pro, so I'll have two capable of 8 amp charge rate.

The motor/controller have been perfect. It's hard to describe just how easy flying this is. Just install the charged pack, point the model down the taxiway, turn it on, move the throttle trim up to where the controller starts the motor, and your off. Need to delay the take-off? Just move the trim down to shut-off the motor. Turn it back on when you can go. After the flight, taxi back, turn off the radio, remove the batteries to charge and your done. No kneeling in front to start. No mixture adjustment. No cleaning the model. Etc., etc. I don't know how it gets any simpler.

I could not be happier with the flight performance to date. I really think for a 2 meter pattern model it is as nearly perfect as I have ever seen. Smooth, predictable power all the time. No flame-outs, no poor mixture settings, just consistent power output. Only time will tell just what issues the batteries may have, but so far it has been great.

The Partner is an exceptional design. My hat's off to Quique for the design, and to PL for an outstanding product. It is as good a pattern model as I have ever been hooked up with. In fact, it's really better. It's hard for me to distinguish between what the power system is adding to this and what is the model's design, but this package is exceptional.

Now one of the best points. I know many may say I have always been too picky about my servos. But for every glow model I have had since I quit using .60's, in 30-40 flights the aileron servo pots will have worn enough for me to feel. I've seen it too many times. So far, with 45 flights on the Partner, the servos are still good as new. OK, maybe that will sound more impressive when I have 200, 300, or 400 flights on it, but the trend so far is positive.

So far this has been nothing but a glowing report. What is the downside? So far, the only one I can see is cost. Getting everything you need to fly this size electric is not cheap. Set aside the motor/controller, as it is about the same as a top pattern motor/pipe/mount combo. But you're going to spend some real dollars on batteries, chargers, source batteries, the chargers for them, temperature sensors, IOW, electric infrastructure. Now if you really look at all the infrastructure you may own to fly glow models, it's not really a whole lot different. But it is a big bite all at once.

I really don't think that the electric will be the same cost as glow. I just think in the long run, it will be more expensive. Not a lot more expensive, but I don't think it will be equal for quite some time. I look at it as the cost of what I perceive as all the advantages. Just another thing to absorb to play the game.

All in all, I am very satisfied. It has really been a lot of fun. Can't wait to get started on the Lazulite.

RE: RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Hi, TonyF

Congratulation for the success of your E-Partner.
Can you share with us your experience on the field charging such as appropriate size of batteries, charging sequences and any routine that you have developed to save time.

Thanks in advance

LoTOM

RE: RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Tony: Are you still considering trying different props to perhaps increase speed, or are you now used to and satisfied with the high thrust performance and lower speed using the 22" prop?

Mike M

RE: RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

LoTom,

I have two Orbit chargers, one a Luxury which has a 6 amp max charging current. The other is a Pro, which can charge at 8 amps. After a flight, I hook the two packs up to the Orbits set at 6 amp charge current. I'm using a 130 amp 12 volt deep-cycle marine battery for the source power. I really need a second one of those.

In about 30-40 minutes the packs are charged enough to fly again. I cuurently have two packs, so I'm flying while the other is charging.

Mike M,

I tried a 21-14 yesterday. It flew OK, a little faster in level flight. But the vertical, while still very good, was not as solid feeling as with the 22-12. Also, the downline braking was not as good. Right now I'm happier with the 22-12. I flew in some decent crosswind yesterday and the 22-12 set-up still worked very well.

RE: RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Hi Tony,

This is a great thread. I've really enjoyed reading it. I am interested in your throttle usage when flying your electric plane through your sequence. More specifically how much throttle for horizontal lines, up lines and down lines.

See the picture below for my new electric powered 2 meter plane. I have about 30 flights on it now. I am using the same Hacker / Thunderpower setup your are using. While it's not a true pattern plane, I want to used it to fly some contests this year at the basic level.

Thanks in advance.

Matt

RE: RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Hi All,
This last weekend Tony graciously let me fly his E-Partner. I wanted make a short post regarding my experience with it because probably not a lot of people have exposure to this type of plane yet. The plane is silky smooth. Within a few maneuvers, I was getting used to it. The plane just seemed locked-on during pushes, pulls, and level flight. A couple phrases or analgies started to come to mind: 1. flying it felt like "waterskiing on perfectly smooth, glass water". 2. a few more minutes into the flight and the phrase, "its almost like cheating" came to mind. Very nice Tony, Thanks.
Jim W.

RE: RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

I now have 62 flights on the model, and have had a chance to try some different props.

I tried an APC 24-12E prop. I didn't measure the current draw, but it is definitely quite a bit more. The temps on the controller and motor went up a bit. Performance was pretty good, with what I think is a bit better vertical, and ungodly downline braking. In fact, the downline braking is really a bit too much. I found myself adding power to increase the downline speed. It may be a good set-up if you want to fly a very slow, close pattern in calm conditions.

I then tried cutting this prop down some by clipping 3/4" off the tips and reshaping. The temps went down a bit, but while flying today in some very windy conditions, where I'm really using a lot more power, the controller over-temped and shut down. No damage, it has a temperature protection system in that shuts off the power. After gliding in, I turned off the R/C, turned it back on, and the motor worked perfectly.

If I'm going to run this sort of prop I'll need to do some re-arranging and ducting to get better cooling flow over the motor and controller. But quite honestly, the original 22-12E really flies the model well. Those watching the plane have a hard time telling what prop I have on it, the differences are really small. And the 22-12E runs the system at good, easy temps.

I've had more of a chance to fly in some windy, turbulent conditions, and I have to say the electric is giving up nothing in that situation. In fact, it may have an advantage, with really good speed control.

Another test I ran was current use on the R/C system. Using Hangar 9's current meter plugged between the battery and RX, we measured the draw on the Partner and a few glow models. Troy Newman's YS 1.60/Hyde mount Smaragd, measured 80 mah with the engine off, around 250 mah with the engine at idle, and 550-600 with the engine at full power. Troy, if you're reading this, please correct me if I got those numbers off. My Partner measured 80 mah motor off, 90 mah at idle, and 220-260 mah at full throttle. This is a real sign of the lower vibration. I think the load with the electric is more from the slipstream of the prop then vibration.

I'm going to make a prediction. In 5 years there will be more electrics flown at the Nats then glow. It is just too nice.

RE: RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

For source batteries for your chargers you might consider 2ea 6v golf cart batteries. Motorhomes went to these a long time ago because they give better duration than equivilant 12v batteries. I purchased 2 golf cart batteries that each weigh about 77 lbs. so lifting them individually is not a problem. I also purchased a nice marine battery box that houses both batteries together. I just leave these in the back of my Van most of the time, but have transferred them to other vehicles at times.

I haven't got lipoly's yet, but have been charging 32x2600 NiMH packs on my Schulze charger off the above batteries. Haven't run out of power yet, but probably haven't recharged more than 4 or 5 times at the field on any given day. Planning to get some of the next generation TP packs when they're released.

Norm

RE: RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

How much do the golf cart batterries cost?

What about a small generator? I saw one of these the size of a small beer cooler and it was very quiet.

These can be pricey too........

cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2467251780

Add e b a y.c o m where the asterisks are in the link above and it will work (remove the spaces).

RE: RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Another source for golf cart batteries is Costco. I was there a few days ago and noticed they are carrying them along with regular car batteries.

Sam

RE: RE: RE: RE: Electrified Partner ...plus
 

Actuals were 250ma at engine idle and 440ma at full power. Hyde AR mount.

The Jerry Budd's was the 550-600ma on the 2 stroke.

So much for the 2 strokes being softer on the plane. If current draw is any sign of vibration being transmitted. Definitely the frequencies are different...but regardless the servos in my YS 160DZ powered plane were working less. Not as little as the electric but still in a good range....

No motor running current draw on my model was 110-120ma....I'm carrying and extra servo for the throttle.

Guess thats the difference.


TN

RE: Golf cart batteries
 

Do a Google search on deep cycle batteries and look at comparison graphs and data on the different types. As to using small generators, I have one but wouldn't want to hear it run in the background all the time. I use mine at weekend fly-ins to recharge my batteries in the evening after a day of flying.

Norm