<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=richard.s@allied-callaway.com
href="mailto:richard.s@allied-callaway.com">Richard Strickland</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:22 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: Glow Engine Vs. Electric Engine for 2 m' pattern
plane</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Guys,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'll jump back in here; Jim, your perceptions are
correct. My decision to go to Electric was based on some fairly bad luck
with engines last year--It was time to up-date power-plants as I was driving my
old stuff to pieces trying to get all the power I could out of them.
I purchased what I thought was going to be the hot ticket engine and had a
series of unfortunate events with it. By the end of the season, I hadn't
done a lot of flying--but had had a load of problems. It was time to
re-evaluate what I was doing. My business doesn't allow for scads of
practice time, so when I get the chance--I like for it to count. Since I try to
do things as right as I can, I generally end up with three sets of everything
eventually--you know; the Primary, the Back-up, and the One you're
building--never seems to quite work out that way--but at least it's the
plan. I was flying Temptations, but had crashed one and hurried to get the
second done and while pretty good airplanes, I was beginning to think there
might be a change to a wider body style in my future. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So basically I was looking at a clean slate.
AND I had 15 years of accumulated stuff to sell since the last time I
sold off my stuff to start over. I heard and read about some of the guys
having success with electric and was intrigued, fooled around with the smaller
park and indoor stuff and got to know a little about it--decided with proper
care, all parts of the systems are pretty reliable and reasonably safe. I
talked to a couple of the old hands and a couple of fairly young guys and they
were all enthusiastic about the larger stuff and so I thought--"Hey, I've got to
get to know some new power-plants anyway--why not get up to speed with
electric?! " I got hooked-up with FMA through the small stuff because
they treated me fairly on some of the issues I was having and were designing
some battery protection features, cell balancing chargers and some new batteries
for the larger stuff.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Initially, I thought about--actually, I had made up
my mind--to do a Plettenberg outrunner so I wouldn't be dealing with
gear-sets. Eventually, It became clear that between what was available a
few months ago and the Hacker--that the Hacker set-up was going to give better
performance. One person likened the Plettenberg to a good 110 system and
the Hacker to a good 160 system. That may have changed by now--but you
still have to look at weight vs. performance. I ordered an Impact--but had
the brand new IC powered, reasonably light Temptation that wasn't selling and
decided to convert it. That turned out to be fairly easy. First I
started with a conversion mm kit from Esprit out of Florida--but we saved 5 oz.
by going to a solid CF nose plate and end grain reinforced balsa in the rear
opened up and then the whole front of the airplane is open for
cooling. The batteries mounted exactly where the tank was--I beefed the
mounting up a bit. I put on a set of Matt's gear. I'm making
weight by all of .5 oz. I may be a smidge tail heavy and may run the rec.
batt to the front.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Flying. I'm fooling with the throttle curve a
little--experimenting with the feel. I'm guilty of probably not
experimenting enough sometimes when something already works pretty well.
It's probably not a whole lot different than the difference between two and four
cycle--but my experience is limited there also.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>There may be some interaction between what the FMA
discharge protection modules(DPMs) and the controller is doing in regard to
throttle response and how the motor surges to signal you're running low on
electrons--but so far, everything is working reliably. We also know we're
driving the hell out of the 3200s--but I can't stand any more weight--so I'm
sorta stuck for now. They've got some experimental 4000 10s2ps that Orland
is going to try--but they weigh a few oz. more--but he's got lighter airplanes
and can stand it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I mentioned time--45 CONSECUTIVE flights with a
complete pattern in each. 12 or so trips to the field and power-plant
related problems have not ruined a flight. I haven't had to 'tune' for the
first couple in a session--first is identical to the last. I'm working on
throttle management--it's different. I'm looking at this as a transitional
year--to learn, to see what works best for me, to figure out the logistics of
charging at home and the field--or on the way, to make it safe--all that good
stuff. So far I'm satisfied with the results.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Got windy again, I see..........</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Richard</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original <FONT face=sans-serif
size=2> </FONT><BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Having flown Tony's
Partner only once (but watched it fly quite a bit), and having seen just a few
other electric pattern planes (Jason's, and Billy Meadows'), the flying
advantage of the electric was enough to make me want to get one going,
regardless of the learning curve. From my perception, the pilot does
feel the difference between the glow and electric setups regarding less
vibration. The plane is going to be easier to setup for a constant speed
envelope, where there is less of a "gap" between slow and full-throttle
horizontal velocity. With the narrowed speed envelope, it MUST be a tad
easier to setup the plane as the "one" setup has a smaller velocity range to
work and be consistent in.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>I'm
just trying to stir up another side of the discussion. I hope that some
of the folks who have more of the "flying" experience with the electric 2M
setup will relay their experience, and describe to us the piloting
differences, trim differences, etc.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=2>Thanks All,</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Jim W.</FONT>
<BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=2><BR></FONT><BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>